PDA

View Full Version : How did Jesus and the Holy Spirit "proceed", and how were each sent?



PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 06:10 AM
Specifically...

1 - How did "the 2nd Godhead person" (Jesus) and "the 3rd Godhead person" (Holy Spirit) proceed from whence they came?

2 - Where did they proceed from?

3 - Did they proceed from the same place?

4 - Did they proceed at the same time?

5 - Did they each proceed the same way from whence they came?

6 - Where were they before they proceeded from there?

7 - Why did they have to proceed from somewhere if they were each equally pre-existent?

8 - Where are each of them now, and where is the Father?

9 - Where will they be in eternity, and where will the Father be?

10 - Were all three pre-existent in the same way?

11 - Did any of the persons exist before any of the others; and if not, why did any of the others have to proceed from one?

12 - Did/do/will all three converse with each other in eternity?

(I'll follow up with scripture later, but would like others to provide their own for now.)

ProDeo
Feb 21st 2011, 10:09 AM
Much of these questions are time related. Please define time. Mission impossible to me :)

Rev says it 3 times: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

I give up here :cool:

WSGAC
Feb 21st 2011, 12:09 PM
The Son's life is eternally generated by the Father's life. The Spirit proceeds from both and is received by both in that dynamic (dunamis) love each has for the other.

Br. Barnabas
Feb 21st 2011, 12:40 PM
A lot of what I am going to say comes from the teachings of the Early Church Fathers since the Bible does not give specifics on all the questions you ask. Many of the things I say will be taken from Origen and edited into my own words and taking out anything that might have been considered less orthodox in Origen. One note on Origen before I proceed, Origen himself was never thought to be heretical, it was only when people in later generations pushed the writings and ideas of Origen further than Origen did that Origen was declared a heretic.

1. The Word and the Spirit proceeded from the Father when the Triune God (note from here on out when ever I say God with out specifing a person of the Godhead I will mean Triune God) first spoke creation into being. When God spoke the Word burst forth from his lips and was a "seperate" person of the Godhead. The Spirit also proceeded from God when the Word did because a word cannot be spoken without breath, and the Holy Spirit is the breath or wind of God. At this time the Spirit also became a "seperate" person of the Godhead. However, the three persons of God are not really "seperate" they are always connected and in communion with each other, I say seperate to show they are not just one but three in one.

2. They proceeded from the Triune God.

3. Yes and no/we don't really know. Origen and some of the ECFs believed that the Word was in the mind of God before he was spoken, but in the mind as a complete fully formed person, not just some thought yet to be made reality. He was always there waiting for the time to take on a "physical" or "verbal" form. The say could be said of the Spirit he was always a distinct person but not "seperate" from the Godhead before the breath went forth.

4. See above, I believe they did. I take the more Orthodox and orignal view of the Nicene Creed which says the Spirit proceeded from the Father, not the Father and the Son. I believe the two can be reconciled but that is for another time.

5. The both proceeded from the mouth of the Godhead, does not mean that they proceeded in the same way, just from the same place but in different ways, as a word and a breath come from different places.

6. They were all in the Godhead before they proceeded and they were yet still all in the Godhead after they proceeded. This is the beauty of omnipresence, they were always everywhere and will always be everywhere. Now they are just in a different "form," if we can use that word.

7. They were equally pre-existant and they proceeded from the Godhead to create the universe. God could have created with universe without the Word or Spirit proceeding from the Godhead, yet his ways are above are ways and we may never know why he did it this way.

8. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are in heaven and yet everywhere (again omnipresence).

9. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit will be in heaven and yet everywhere in eternity.

10. I do not know, it is enough for me to know that they were all pre-existant, John 1 tells us the Word was with God and was God before the beginning. Before he was spoken he was with God, I have paraphrased Origen and I believe he was on to something.

11. No none existed before any other one or else they would not be God, they would be a creature which leads us into Arianism. They did not proceed from one they proceeded from each other or as I have been saying from the Godhead. The Godhead is not the Father, yet the Father is part of the Godhead.

12. Yes, all three converse with each other all the time, ie in the past, present, and future they have been, are, and will be conversing and communing with each other.

Let me also share a story from St Augustine, which I have shared before, but it fits in well here. St Augustine is walking along the beach contemplating the Most Holy Trinity and sees a boy with a bucket. The boy is running back and forth between the ocean and a hole he has dug in the ground. St Augustine asks him what he is doing, he says he is trying to fit the ocean into the hole he has dug. St Augustine says it cannot be done. The boy says an neither can you understand the Most Holy Trinity and vanishes. Let us take this to heart, we cannot understand the Trinity, it is just too big and God has not given full revelation of it. Our minds were not meant to understand the Trinity. It is an impossiblity, three yet one is impossible, yet this is how God has revealed himself to us and said it to be.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 01:53 PM
Much of these questions are time related. Please define time. Mission impossible to me :)

Rev says it 3 times: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

I give up here :cool:

Time is one of the governing constructs of creation for the temporal realm. Without addressing dimensions and other theoretical science-based formulations, the over-simplied truth would include three basic parameters for the created universe: Time, Space, Matter (When, Where, What).

In the sense of the natural universe, Time is a measurement of the location and movement (Where) of celestial bodies (Whats) relative to each other. In general, Time is a sequential duration and elapsation of When.

In the eternal realm, there aren't any of the same defining elements or parameters as in the temporal realm. In a way, we can only surmise; but Time, Space, Matter don't have the same manner of existence or functionality in eternity.

Your plight is part of my direction with this thread; God must be perceived and understood beyond the sequential processes of Time-Space-Matter, which all have God as their source. Time-Space-Matter also proceeded from God as their singular Prime Source of origin.

Eternity is not everlasting time in either "direction"; eternity is "timelessness".

How did Jesus and the Holy Spirit proceed relative to creation itself? Was is "prior" to Time or subsequent to Time? If prior, in what manner and of what substance?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 02:13 PM
The Son's life is eternally generated by the Father's life.

Will you define and elaborate on "life" pertaining to both Son and Father; and the same for "generated". Does the "life" of the Son derive from the "life" of the Father. Any scripture? (This is not a challenge demand, just a request as we go along.)


The Spirit proceeds from both and is received by both in that dynamic (dunamis) love each has for the other.

Ahhhh, the Filioque Clause procession from both Father and Son. "How" does the HS proceed? In what manner and by "whose" initiative or dispatch? If the Spirit proceeds from both and received by both in dynamic mutual love; don't the Spirit and the Son also have this same dynamic mutual love to be able to "spirate" yet a fourth Godhead person? Then the Father with the Fourth for a Fifth? Then the Son with the Fourth for a Sixth? Then the HS with the Fourth for a Seventh? Ad Infinitum...

How can the HS have spirated from the love between the Father and Son and be eternally pre-existent? And... doesn't that subordinate the existence and function of the HS to both Father and Son, making them "less" equal in origin and/or existence?

How does this all relate to scripture?

divaD
Feb 21st 2011, 02:25 PM
Eternity is not everlasting time in either "direction"; eternity is "timelessness".






I'm not certain I would agree. Take numbers for instance. If one starts at zero, then starts counting to the left, one could do this forever and never come to an end result. No matter what number one comes to, all you have to do is add a 1, and this makes the prev number less in value, thus, there's no end The same from the right. Not even God could find the end in numbers. It's impossible, since there would be no end. Since eternity actually represnts something, why couldn't it be represnted by the zero, then go forever in both directions? Take us for instance. We can only exist to the right of the zero, which represents eternity present/future. God on the other hand, He can exist both directions. To further clarify, we could say the zero represents in the beginning, in Genesis ch 1. We exist to the right of the zero. God exists both directions, and just like to the left of zero, where there is no end number, this would also mean there is no beginning, in God's case, thus God having no beginning. I don't expect a single person in here to follow my logic, but even so, these kinds of things run thru my mind on occasion. Don't know why tho, but they do. But if one would really ponders what I'm saying here, one might see I make more sense that what one first thought. But I won't hold my breath tho. Very few ever understand my logic it seems.

WSGAC
Feb 21st 2011, 02:42 PM
How did Jesus and the Holy Spirit proceed relative to creation itself? Was is "prior" to Time or subsequent to Time? If prior, in what manner and of what substance?


If you interpret Genesis 1 as a dependent clause, as some interpreters do, it would read like this:

In the beginning *when* God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters; AND GOD SAID, "Let there be light, and there was light..."

As a dependent clause, this would change the subject of the sentence from *the beginning* (as found in most translations/versions) to *AND GOD SAID*.

This rendering of Genesis 1 is consistent with John's account of creation in the opening lines of his gospel, where *beginning* is not the subject, but God's *Word* is the subject, ie., "In the beginning was the Word." This same Word (Logos) is the Son himself. This same Word is the one who is the firstborn (ie. pre-eminent over all) of creation. He is the Alpha, the beginning of the Father's creative initiative (beginning in the sense of being the reason *logos* for all that comes forth, and not as Arians would say it, "the first thing created"). It is through the Son, and for the Son that the Father creates. Indeed, "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:15-17)


The Spirit is also involved in this creation, *brooding over* the waters (Genesis 1:1), waiting for the Word to be spoken, anticipating that Word with brooding expectation. When the Word is spoken, the Spirit moves and brings to fulfillment what God says (Word) via dynamic (dunamis) action. To be sure, this same dynamic action is also seen in the incarnate Logos' earthly ministry. Jesus spoke, and the Spirit accomplished what was spoken, be it a demon cast out, a blind man receiving his sight, a lame man walking, bringing forth a kind of first fruit of a restored and new creation. The incarnate Word speaks, and the Spirit accomplishes what is spoken. That Word proceeds from the Father, in the person of the Son, and is accomplished by the Spirit.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 04:24 PM
A lot of what I am going to say comes from the teachings of the Early Church Fathers since the Bible does not give specifics on all the questions you ask.

Are there any Greek usages, definitions, or etymologies that clarify any of this?


Many of the things I say will be taken from Origen and edited into my own words and taking out anything that might have been considered less orthodox in Origen. One note on Origen before I proceed, Origen himself was never thought to be heretical, it was only when people in later generations pushed the writings and ideas of Origen further than Origen did that Origen was declared a heretic.

Agreed and understood. Origen isn't a personal favorite, but he gets a bad rap from many for his formulations of thought. There was no orthodox position yet on much of what he postulated, and he was cautiously orthodox to current teachings as agreed by the church. His self-castration and the politics around his move from Alexandria were mistaken or perceived by many as an expulsion based on his widely-misunderstood dichotomy of orthodox belief and contemplative thought.


1. The Word and the Spirit proceeded from the Father when the Triune God (note from here on out when ever I say God with out specifing a person of the Godhead I will mean Triune God) first spoke creation into being.

So God was already triune when the three distinct persons spoke? Which mind and will thought and chose to speak? Were all three in agreement about what to speak? Did only one person speak the Word or did multiple persons speak the Word? Or did only the Word speak itself?

What was spoken? There is no Logos (Intelligent Reason and Expression) without Rhema (Substantial Subject Matter). To speak, there must be something of which to speak; if not, it is lego or laleo, not logos.

Bolded: The Word and the Spirit proceeded from the Father... when God first spoke creation into existence.

So when the triune God spoke to create, the Son and the Spirit proceeded from the Father.

John 8:42 specifically says Jesus proceeded*forth AND came from God (Theos) and was sent by Him, not the Father. John 15:26 specifically says the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, sent by Jesus. John 14:26 adds that the Holy Spirit was also sent by the Father in Jesus' name.

There's no scripture that the Word proceeded from the Father; the Son was begotten of the Father. The Word proceeded*forth AND came from God, sent by God. The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, sent by the Father and the Son. And... those are two different words for procession.


When God spoke the Word burst forth from his lips and was a "seperate" person of the Godhead.

But if the triune God spoke, there were already three separate persons. How did speaking "burst forth" a separate person that was already there speaking or agreeing with two others to have one of them speak?

The immaterial triune God has lips? Wouldn't there be three sets of lips of three persons speaking as the Word burst forth? Did only one speak? Did two or three speak in unison of agreement? Wasn't the Word that which was spoken? Did the three persons all speak the Word or did the Word speak the Word? But how could the Word be the Word until the Word was spoken?

So God spoke a separate person from His own person? Wouldn't the triune God have to speak multiple persons as the Word(s)?


The Spirit also proceeded from God when the Word did because a word cannot be spoken without breath, and the Holy Spirit is the breath or wind of God.

But you originally said the Spirit proceeded from the Father; now you're saying the Spirit proceeded from the triune God. Which? John 15:26 says the Father.

YES. The Holy Spirit is the breath or wind of God, and the Word requires the breath to be spoken. Wouldn't that mean that the Word proceeded from the Spirit? Or by the Spirit? But John 8:42 says Jesus proceeded*forth AND came from God (which would be the triune God for you, not the Father or the Spirit specifically).


At this time the Spirit also became a "seperate" person of the Godhead. However, the three persons of God are not really "seperate" they are always connected and in communion with each other, I say seperate to show they are not just one but three in one.

Distinct not discrete... Understood. So the breath of God, by which the Word was spoken as a distinct person, ALSO became another distinct person? And both the Word and the Spirit became distinct persons when creation was spoken into existence by the triune God? Wouldn't they already have been distinct if it was the triune God speaking?

There are many inconsistencies and incongruities here; also an interchange of the triune God with the individual distinct persons and their pre-existence and functionality.


2. They proceeded from the Triune God.

John 8:42 says Jesus proceeded*forth AND came and was sent by God (triune to you). John 15:26 says the HS proceedeth from the Father (specifically), sent by Jesus and (John 14:26) the Father.

Different processions... Different sendings.


3. Yes and no/we don't really know. Origen and some of the ECFs believed that the Word was in the mind of God before he was spoken, but in the mind as a complete fully formed person, not just some thought yet to be made reality. He was always there waiting for the time to take on a "physical" or "verbal" form. The same could be said of the Spirit he was always a distinct person but not "seperate" from the Godhead before the breath went forth.

The Word was in the mind(s) of a triune God? With separate minds-wills, the persons of the triune God didn't have just one mind, even if they were in agreement. Unity doesn't negate quantity. There is a distinct "they/them" in the triune Godhead. Or... did the one God bring forth two others? That would, of course, be polytheistic. How can there be a difference between the Holy Spirit being distinct and then separate when the breath went forth?


4. See above, I believe they did. I take the more Orthodox and orignal view of the Nicene Creed which says the Spirit proceeded from the Father, not the Father and the Son. I believe the two can be reconciled but that is for another time.

The Filioque Clause is unscriptural. The West was simply wrong.


5. They both proceeded from the mouth of the Godhead, does not mean that they proceeded in the same way, just from the same place but in different ways, as a word and a breath come from different places.

THIS is incredibly profound, and holds one the essential keys to the truth.


6. They were all in the Godhead before they proceeded and they were yet still all in the Godhead after they proceeded. This is the beauty of omnipresence, they were always everywhere and will always be everywhere. Now they are just in a different "form," if we can use that word.

But none of the three are each other. Are they omnipresent within each other? Are the multiple minds-wills omnipresently functioning separately AND within each other? Trinity makes them more discrete than that. Can you elaborate on this pre-procession Godhead-internal and post-procession Godhead-external distinction?

We would first need to reconcile the place of procession for each the Word and the Spirit, correct? From God or from the Father?


7. They were equally pre-existant and they proceeded from the Godhead to create the universe.

Again, we need to reconcile to scripture (John 8:42, John 15:26, John 14:26). And... Are you saying the Spirit also proceeded and created along with the Word? There are multiple creator persons in the triune Godhead?


God could have created with universe without the Word or Spirit proceeding from the Godhead, yet his ways are above are ways and we may never know why he did it this way.

What if we CAN know, because passages like 1Cor. 2:1-16 show He hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit. His OWN Spirit. :-)


8. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are in heaven and yet everywhere (again omnipresence).

ALL of them are in the spirits of those who are lost without faith? In their souls? Their bodies? In Hades? In Geenna? Does omnipresence include Time and Matter, or just Space? Are all three God-persons "every-when"? Is God IN all Matter? (Pantheism) Is all Matter IN God? (Panentheism) Does omnipresence include a total permeation of all Whens-Wheres-Whats? Is omnipresence for the temporal created realm or the eternal uncreated realm? Or both? What would be the difference(s)?


9. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit will be in heaven and yet everywhere in eternity.

Will there be a composition of Time-Space-Matter in eternity? So there will be three omnipresences everywhere with no focal-local specific presence? What about Jesus' glorified body? Is it omnipresent? Will any part of God be localized to a "place"?


10. I do not know, it is enough for me to know that they were all pre-existant, John 1 tells us the Word was with God and was God before the beginning. Before he was spoken he was with God, I have paraphrased Origen and I believe he was on to something.

Something, maybe... Everything, not even close. God didn't speak His own substance of Himself (Rhema-Word content subject matter) in the Logos (His own Reason of Intelligence and its Expression) as "other separate distinct person(s)". God spoke His OWN (Rhema-Logos) Word by His OWN (Pneuma) Breath to personify Himself in the creation that also was by that Word.

God spoke Himself... NOT other selves. If God were triune, there would be "selves" as the Word, not a "Self" as Jesus.


11. No none existed before any other one or else they would not be God, they would be a creature which leads us into Arianism. They did not proceed from one they proceeded from each other or as I have been saying from the Godhead. The Godhead is not the Father, yet the Father is part of the Godhead.

I'll get back to this with more detail. BUT the Holy Spirit specifically proceedeth from the Father, not God (the Godhead, as you say).


12. Yes, all three converse with each other all the time, ie in the past, present, and future they have been, are, and will be conversing and communing with each other.

Other than during the Incarnation and in Psalmaic or Prophetic messianic prophecies OF the Incarnation; is there any scriptural support for this inter-communion?


Let me also share a story from St Augustine, which I have shared before, but it fits in well here. St Augustine is walking along the beach contemplating the Most Holy Trinity and sees a boy with a bucket. The boy is running back and forth between the ocean and a hole he has dug in the ground. St Augustine asks him what he is doing, he says he is trying to fit the ocean into the hole he has dug. St Augustine says it cannot be done. The boy says an neither can you understand the Most Holy Trinity and vanishes. Let us take this to heart, we cannot understand the Trinity, it is just too big and God has not given full revelation of it. Our minds were not meant to understand the Trinity. It is an impossiblity, three yet one is impossible, yet this is how God has revealed himself to us and said it to be.

Yes, I've read of this many times. Augustine is possibly the least credible of all, though certainly influential. He placed attribute ahead of personage in the trinity, confounding the persons. I'm amazed at his influence on Christendom.

Thank you for your extensive response. I look forward to your further postings. :-)

Br. Barnabas
Feb 21st 2011, 05:19 PM
Yes sorry I did mistype in the first part it should be Triune God not Father.

One thing that we should be sure of before we get too far into this, the Father is not greater than or above the Spirit or the Son, they are all God and all equal.

Some responses as I cannot answer all the questions in fact most are unanswerable at least from my understanding of God. Before creation the Trinity was, searching for a word to describe the indescribale here, I will call it "self-contained" God was three and yet a self-contained one, unlike what we experience or see now with the seperated persons of the Trinity (hope that makes sense). When God spoke the Word burst forth (I like that language, so not changing it) from the lips (understand figurative language here, like when the Psalmist says God has wings) and was a "seperate" person of God. So too did the Spirit proceed from God at this point, unlike what Jesus is describing in John 14 because the Spirit was hovering over the waters of creation. He was "seperate" too after the speaking of the Word. I believe that each person of the Trinity had a part in creation, the Father spoke, the Word/Son created, the Spirit hovers, orders/subdues, calms (maybe some more stuff we don't know about). In the Christian sense and going off John 14 and the Nicene Creed, the Spirit proceeds form the Father and is sent by the Son, to the believer when they accept Christ, but he was at work and had proceeded before this, see Gen 1 with the creation and he was the inspiration for the prophets in the OT.

Before I go on to the parts of the omnipresence of God, I believe I need to say that you seem to be focusing too much on the threeness of God, which takes away from the Oneness of God. We have to hold those two natures equally in our mind. So it is not so much to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each omnipresent, but that they share omnipresence by virtue of being God. So I would say that the God, possibly by virtue of the Holy Spirit, is moving everywhere in the universe, he is not in everything, but moves through everything, and works in those of us who are Christians. It is a little different than pantheism, because God is not active in all matter, but is there because of his omnipresence.

I believe above I answered you response to 11.

Here is a response to 12, by virtue of being God and being three and one the persons of God are always conversing and communing with each other. If they were not connected then they would not be one, they would be three and we would have the problem of polytheism. So again, refocus on to the oneness of God and I think a lot of your questions will be answered or my answers will make more sense.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 05:20 PM
I'm not certain I would agree. Take numbers for instance. If one starts at zero, then starts counting to the left, one could do this forever and never come to an end result. No matter what number one comes to, all you have to do is add a 1, and this makes the prev number less in value, thus, there's no end The same from the right. Not even God could find the end in numbers. It's impossible, since there would be no end. Since eternity actually represnts something, why couldn't it be represnted by the zero, then go forever in both directions? Take us for instance. We can only exist to the right of the zero, which represents eternity present/future. God on the other hand, He can exist both directions. To further clarify, we could say the zero represents in the beginning, in Genesis ch 1. We exist to the right of the zero. God exists both directions, and just like to the left of zero, where there is no end number, this would also mean there is no beginning, in God's case, thus God having no beginning. I don't expect a single person in here to follow my logic, but even so, these kinds of things run thru my mind on occasion. Don't know why tho, but they do. But if one would really ponders what I'm saying here, one might see I make more sense that what one first thought. But I won't hold my breath tho. Very few ever understand my logic it seems.

On the contrary, I clearly understand what you're saying. I was contrasting something different, though.

Time is a temporal construct relative to Matter moving through Space. Whatever sequential duration and/or elapsation exists in the eternal compared with the temporal, it/they will be at least founded on and governed by different non-corporeal insubstantial properties or whatever. Passage and dispensation of units and measure of existence will be far removed from laws of Physics, etc.

Your 0 is in a different realm than any numbers of procession in either direction. It would seem to be more of an intangible realm thing than an expanded understanding of this tangible realm.

On a related topic to numbers and trinity...

If the number 1 is divided by 3, the decimalic representation is .3333333333333333333... In an attempt to restore to the whole, muliplying 3x.3333333333333333333... can only ever yield .9999999999999999999...

Once divided into 3, 1 can never be whole again. Hmmmmmmm. :-)

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2011, 05:22 PM
Why are relying on Roman decimals when fractions can do the back and forth nicely?

:D

1 divided by 3 = 1/3 times 3 = 1

WSGAC
Feb 21st 2011, 05:49 PM
Before creation the Trinity was, searching for a word to describe the indescribale here, I will call it "self-contained" God was three and yet a self-contained one, unlike what we experience or see now with the seperated persons of the Trinity (hope that makes sense). When God spoke the Word burst forth (I like that language, so not changing it) from the lips (understand figurative language here, like when the Psalmist says God has wings) and was a "seperate" person of God. So too did the Spirit proceed from God at this point, unlike what Jesus is describing in John 14 because the Spirit was hovering over the waters of creation. He was "seperate" too after the speaking of the Word.

This would then indicate that God is in some sense *becoming* via his own creative activity. God, originally constituted, was something different (ie. "self contained" as you say). But after the Word "burst forth" (as you say), separate persons are then the result. Is this consistent with trinitarian belief, as well as the idea of the *immutability* of God?

Br. Barnabas
Feb 21st 2011, 06:04 PM
This would then indicate that God is in some sense *becoming* via his own creative activity. God, originally constituted, was something different (ie. "self contained" as you say). But after the Word "burst forth" (as you say), separate persons are then the result. Is this consistent with trinitarian belief, as well as the idea of the *immutability* of God?

See my first post, I explain it in more detail there. The Word does not change when it is spoken, it is simply no longer self-contained, it is at that point in some respects a free-agent, yet not really free because he is still connected to the Trinity as is the Spirit. If we follow the idea of becoming to it's conclusion we would have to say when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, he became something different.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 06:15 PM
Yes sorry I did mistype in the first part it should be Triune God not Father.

Yes. Jesus (the Word) proceeded*forth (and came, being sent) from God. The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father (sent by Jesus and the Father).


One thing that we should be sure of before we get too far into this, the Father is not greater than or above the Spirit or the Son, they are all God and all equal.

Agreed; substantially but not functionally. Though Jesus declared the Father to be greater in John 14:28; any clarification on that?


Some responses as I cannot answer all the questions in fact most are unanswerable at least from my understanding of God. Before creation the Trinity was, searching for a word to describe the indescribale here, I will call it "self-contained" God was three and yet a self-contained one, unlike what we experience or see now with the seperated persons of the Trinity (hope that makes sense). When God spoke the Word burst forth (I like that language, so not changing it) from the lips (understand figurative language here, like when the Psalmist says God has wings) and was a "seperate" person of God. So too did the Spirit proceed from God at this point, unlike what Jesus is describing in John 14 because the Spirit was hovering over the waters of creation. He was "seperate" too after the speaking of the Word. I believe that each person of the Trinity had a part in creation, the Father spoke, the Word/Son created, the Spirit hovers, orders/subdues, calms (maybe some more stuff we don't know about). In the Christian sense and going off John 14 and the Nicene Creed, the Spirit proceeds form the Father and is sent by the Son, to the believer when they accept Christ, but he was at work and had proceeded before this, see Gen 1 with the creation and he was the inspiration for the prophets in the OT.

Before I go on to the parts of the omnipresence of God, I believe I need to say that you seem to be focusing too much on the threeness of God, which takes away from the Oneness of God.

In actuality, I'm trying to establish the Oneness of God by demonstrating the divisive Threeness of trinity in attempting to express God. Three minds, three wills, three persons is NOT Oneness, it's Threeness.

The distinct means of procession of Jesus and the Holy Spirit is vital to comprehend God. I'll break down the difference in a succeeding post from the Greek.


We have to hold those two natures equally in our mind. So it is not so much to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each omnipresent, but that they share omnipresence by virtue of being God.

Then do they also share the glorified body of Jesus? There aren't three Theoanthropi. Omnipresence is a very nebulous "blanket" description that isn't very specific. Is there any eternally-tangible distinct awareness or representation of the Father and the Holy Spirit in eternity? Are they invisible or somehow distinctly perceptible from Jesus?


So I would say that the God, possibly by virtue of the Holy Spirit, is moving everywhere in the universe, he is not in everything, but moves through everything, and works in those of us who are Christians. It is a little different than pantheism, because God is not active in all matter, but is there because of his omnipresence.

Doesn't the Father make His abode in us? Why can He not do that in unbelievers if He's omnipresent? What restricts His omnipresence? Can omnipresence be restricted? Is omnipresence unable to exhibit punctiliar presence? If so, how is Jesus omnipresent? Has He divested His omnipresence to be in a glorified body?


I believe above I answered you response to 11.

Here is a response to 12, by virtue of being God and being three and one the persons of God are always conversing and communing with each other. If they were not connected then they would not be one, they would be three and we would have the problem of polytheism. So again, refocus on to the oneness of God and I think a lot of your questions will be answered or my answers will make more sense.

In regard to this paragraph and the subject as a whole...

It is much more plausible that this communion is INTRA-relational rather than INTER-relational. There are too many inequities inherent in God being a Threeness of distinct persons. A person-threeness is too discrete; the threeness must be internally discrete within one Divine "person". In mathematics, it equates to having a fraction that needs further reduction to a lowest common denominator. The Word pierces deeper than just the dividing asunder of Father-person and Spirit-person, Son-person and Father-person.

The One God has one mind and one will; and is One Divine "Person" with three intra-functional parts of Spirit-Soul-Body. The Word pierced to the dividing asunder of Soul (Father) and Spirit (Holy Spirit), joints (Body - Incarnation of the Son) and marrow (the Soul-life is in the blood produced within the marrow).

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 06:42 PM
Why are relying on Roman decimals when fractions can do the back and forth nicely?

:D

1 divided by 3 = 1/3 times 3 = 1

This is quite embarassing. I didn't think you'd be the one to take the bait.

That leaves Jesus as merely 1/3 of God... same for the other 2 God-people.

Coming or going, 3 isn't 1 and 1 isn't 3 if "they" are whole persons of one whatever (a benign description). :-)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 07:15 PM
If you interpret Genesis 1 as a dependent clause, as some interpreters do, it would read like this:

In the beginning *when* God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters; AND GOD SAID, "Let there be light, and there was light..."

As a dependent clause, this would change the subject of the sentence from *the beginning* (as found in most translations/versions) to *AND GOD SAID*.

This rendering of Genesis 1 is consistent with John's account of creation in the opening lines of his gospel, where *beginning* is not the subject, but God's *Word* is the subject, ie., "In the beginning was the Word." This same Word (Logos) is the Son himself. This same Word is the one who is the firstborn (ie. pre-eminent over all) of creation. He is the Alpha, the beginning of the Father's creative initiative (beginning in the sense of being the reason *logos* for all that comes forth, and not as Arians would say it, "the first thing created"). It is through the Son, and for the Son that the Father creates. Indeed, "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:15-17)


The Spirit is also involved in this creation, *brooding over* the waters (Genesis 1:1), waiting for the Word to be spoken, anticipating that Word with brooding expectation. When the Word is spoken, the Spirit moves and brings to fulfillment what God says (Word) via dynamic (dunamis) action. To be sure, this same dynamic action is also seen in the incarnate Logos' earthly ministry. Jesus spoke, and the Spirit accomplished what was spoken, be it a demon cast out, a blind man receiving his sight, a lame man walking, bringing forth a kind of first fruit of a restored and new creation. The incarnate Word speaks, and the Spirit accomplishes what is spoken. That Word proceeds from the Father, in the person of the Son, and is accomplished by the Spirit.

I get all that. That doesn't necessitate the three being separate whole persons, just because trinity perception has permeated everyone's thoughts as the default understanding every time the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit appear, though.

Bolded above: The Word proceeded*forth AND came from God, not the Father. Sent and proceeded*forth are not the same. The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father. Again, sent and proceedeth are not the same.

Word study time. :-)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 07:30 PM
See my first post, I explain it in more detail there. The Word does not change when it is spoken, it is simply no longer self-contained, it is at that point in some respects a free-agent, yet not really free because he is still connected to the Trinity as is the Spirit. If we follow the idea of becoming to it's conclusion we would have to say when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, he became something different.

Within the Rhema of the Logos, the substance of God was always imagined, intended, purposed, reasoned, and thought to become flesh when spoken. All of that is as immutable as anything else about God. Other persons coming forth rather than His One Self coming forth would violate immutability.

WSGAC
Feb 21st 2011, 07:52 PM
I get all that. That doesn't necessitate the three being separate whole persons, just because trinity perception has permeated everyone's thoughts as the default understanding every time the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit appear, though.

Well, persons relate in personal terms. My mind and spirit relate in ways that can only be explained conceptually...ie., not personally. It just seems your effort to maintain the oneness of God is all done at the conceptual level. This is why a *functional* 3 in 1 has a mathematical appeal, but when it comes to relating to us in ways *personal* it just seems so distant and, in ways, unsatisfying and empty.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 08:11 PM
Well, persons relate in personal terms. My mind and spirit relate in ways that can only be explained conceptually...ie., not personally. It just seems your effort to maintain the oneness of God is all done at the conceptual level. This is why a *functional* 3 in 1 has a mathematical appeal, but when it comes to relating to us in ways *personal* it just seems so distant and, in ways, unsatisfying and empty.

But that's my whole point. We as singular persons cannot relate to a God that is presented as three persons. We can only relate to one.

THAT's why the One Divine "Person" of the invisible God became the one person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the express image of His substance, being the fullness of the Divine-Personality (Godhead) bodily.

Trinity is the conceptual representation, not the literal one. Being one Spirit-Soul-Body that laid down His life (Soul - psuche) for us is imminently more personal than a celestial tag-team or relay race.

Jesus IS that (singular) person that is the complete manifestation of God's (singular) person.

Do you find it easier to relate to a multiple-person God than the one true God? He isn't both one AND three persons; and nobody can make much of a case for God being three whole separate persons.

I'll start exegeting a few scriptures and words in a bit.

WSGAC
Feb 21st 2011, 08:30 PM
But that's my whole point. We as singular persons cannot relate to a God that is presented as three persons. We can only relate to one.

THAT's why the One Divine "Person" of the invisible God became the one person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the express image of His substance, being the fullness of the Divine-Personality (Godhead) bodily.

Trinity is the conceptual representation, not the literal one. Being one Spirit-Soul-Body that laid down His life (Soul - psuche) for us is imminently more personal than a celestial tag-team or relay race.

Jesus IS that (singular) person that is the complete manifestation of God's (singular) person.

Do you find it easier to relate to a multiple-person God than the one true God? He isn't both one AND three persons; and nobody can make much of a case for God being three whole separate persons.

I'll start exegeting a few scriptures and words in a bit.

But it's clear in the New Testament that Jesus is relating to someone above. He prays to the Father, he thanks the Father, he makes petition for others to the Father, he calls that Father - Abba, a child's term for Daddy. He is obviously relating to something/someone in terms that are very endearing and personal. If not a person, then to what is Jesus relating? Himself? The Soul of God?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 21st 2011, 10:25 PM
But it's clear in the New Testament that Jesus is relating to someone above. He prays to the Father, he thanks the Father, he makes petition for others to the Father, he calls that Father - Abba, a child's term for Daddy. He is obviously relating to something/someone in terms that are very endearing and personal. If not a person, then to what is Jesus relating? Himself? The Soul of God?

In Gethsenane, was it Son-person's divine will struggling with obedience unto death? Was it Son-person's divine will being yielded to Father-person's divine will? How and why could Jesus have a separate divine will? Why would He have to sweat drops of blood to surrender one divine will to another that are supposed to be in unity of quantity?

Jesus was a man. His Soul was propagated by the joining of the Spirit (God) and body (mother). That Soul was emergently derived from the seed of God, which contained the blood. The life (nephesh - soul) is in the blood. The Father (Soul) breathed (Spirit) Himself into the virgin; and out of this Spirit-body joining, Jesus became a living soul. With no body or marrow-derived blood-borne soul of an earthly father, He didn't inherently receive the physical death that had come upon man and corrupts man's soul and taints man's spirit with filthiness that needs to be cleansed.

Jesus was a man with pre-Adamic incorruption in His constitution. Jesus was Deity because He was begotten of the Father. He wasn't predisposed to physical death from sin as we are. He laid down His life (soul and body) in physical death.

Jesus prayed as we would pray... as a man to God; just not in the Unitarian sense that the implantation in the virgin's womb was a creative act. It was a procreative act.

(Though the Merismos model will work either way, actually.)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 22nd 2011, 01:39 AM
"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." -John 6:29

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -John 17:3

"Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me." -John 12:44.

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." -1Corinthians 3:11


EXEGESIS:

"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded*forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." -John 8:42

proceeded*forth is exerchomai G1831

came and from are heko G2240 and ek G1537

came is erchomai G2046

sent is apostellos G649


"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." -John 15:26

is come is erchomai G2064

will send unto is pempo G3992

from is para G3844

proceedeth is ekporeuomai G1607

from is para G3844


The focus of all this is the contrast between the procession of the Word and the procession of the Holy Spirit. The key is in the above word ekporeuomai.

To summarize, ekporeuomai comes partly from a base word meaning to pierce through; the remaining etymology means to be discharged from one place of existence to another place.

Ekporeuomai literally means to be pierced through for separation and discharged to where it is sent. Sent literally means on a temporary errand.

The word (logos) pierces to the dividing asunder (separation for distribution) of soul and spirit, joints and marrow (body and soul). [Hebrews 4:12]

The Word (Logos) speaks the word (logos). [Rev. 1:16, 2:12, 19:15, 19:21]

The Word (Jesus) sent the Holy Spirit by piercing through for separation and discharge to be sent into the temporal from the eternal. The structure shows it is continuous and repeated action.


The Word pierces to the dividing asunder of God's Soul-Spirit, Joints-Marrow.

The word pierces to the dividing asunder of man's soul-spirit, joints-marrow.

WSGAC
Feb 22nd 2011, 01:53 AM
Jesus prayed as we would pray... as a man to God; just not in the Unitarian sense that the implantation in the virgin's womb was a creative act. It was a procreative act.

(Though the Merismos model will work either way, actually.)

But to whom is Jesus praying? You say he prayed "as a man to God." But Jesus, the man, is a person! If he's not a person, then neither am I a person, for he was a man as I am a man. He prayed to Abba-Father (his words), as I pray to the Father. He said, "When you pray, say 'Our Father who art in heaven...." Jesus is addressing someone, and using the term Father. This is personal!

The moment you begin saying that these are not persons, language becomes meaningless. Or, it becomes so conceptual as to be meaningless.

I ask you again...for clarification: To whom did the *Son* (the designation he gave to himself) pray when he prayed, *Abba Father*?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 22nd 2011, 02:34 AM
But to whom is Jesus praying? You say he prayed "as a man to God." But Jesus, the man, is a person! If he's not a person, then neither am I a person, for he was a man as I am a man. He prayed to Abba-Father (his words), as I pray to the Father. He said, "When you pray, say 'Our Father who art in heaven...." Jesus is addressing someone, and using the term Father. This is personal!

The moment you begin saying that these are not persons, language becomes meaningless. Or, it becomes so conceptual as to be meaningless.

I ask you again...for clarification: To whom did the *Son* (the designation he gave to himself) pray when he prayed, *Abba Father*?

I've adamantly and repeatedly affirmed that the Incarnation of the Word was a literal human flesh-and-blood person... the God-man, Jesus. Above, I briefly outlined the propagation of His rational human soul from Deity as a procreative act.

The Word was not eternally pre-existent as a separate God-person; nor was the Holy Spirit eternally pre-existent as a separate God-person. The singular Divine-personality (Theotes) of God (Theos) was internally the Logos (with Rhema) that proceeded*forth (exerchomai) to externally be the Son to become Incarnate. This Rhema-Logos substance-speaking was God's singular Divine "Person" speaking His own Self (Soul) AS a human person. That Logos was borne forth by His breath (Spirit).

While Incarnate, the person that was the God-man Jesus prayed to the Theotes. Why is perceiving a God-man praying to God so difficult? Yet it's so easy to swallow that God spoke forth the substance of His OWN singular "Person" as "another God-person who then spirated yet another God-person".

Jesus wasn't praying as deity to deity. Jesus was praying as man to God.

I'm not removing "person". I'm just not making three where there is only one. God has a singular Divine personality (Theotes); Jesus was the complete manifestation of that Theotes in a literal human person of actual flesh and bone. His constitution was untainted by Inherent death because He was of incorruptible seed during His procreation.

No God-model has God praying to God, except tritheism.

percho
Feb 22nd 2011, 03:06 AM
PPS

From your post 22
He wasn't predisposed to physical death from sin as we are. He laid down His life (soul and body) in physical death.

Why do we have to qualify death. The wages of sin is death. Is death here that physical death we are predisposed to? Laid down his life. What does life mean here relative to death? Is the reason we have to qualify death is because we do not believe life is to be and death is not to be? The Word (God) was made flesh for the purpose of death, what ever death means. To be paid the wages of sin. By your own words what had been eternal, timeless did this (ἐκένωσεν) what ever it means, he became just like the first man Adam yet without sin and was paid the wages for the first man Adam sin. He was no longer timeless. He died. It was him who was regenerated and it was him who was renewed with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit could not come and indwell in man until after this took place. So the Word proceeded from God first and then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 22nd 2011, 03:19 AM
PPS

From your post 22
He wasn't predisposed to physical death from sin as we are. He laid down His life (soul and body) in physical death.

Why do we have to qualify death. The wages of sin is death. Is death here that physical death we are predisposed to? Laid down his life. What does life mean here relative to death? Is the reason we have to qualify death is because we do not believe life is to be and death is not to be? The Word (God) was made flesh for the purpose of death, what ever death means. To be paid the wages of sin. By your own words what had been eternal, timeless did this (ἐκένωσεν) what ever it means, he became just like the first man Adam yet without sin and was paid the wages for the first man Adam sin. He was no longer timeless. He died. It was him who was regenerated and it was him who was renewed with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit could not come and indwell in man until after this took place. So the Word proceeded from God first and then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I was merely contrasting to the doctrine of Original Sin. I think I entirely agree with this post except the Filioque-based bolded. The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, sent by Jesus. There is no scripture that the HS ekporeuomai from the Son. You seem to cling to the Filioque. I'd be curious as to why, with scripture.

(Did you read the edit of my above post regarding ekporeuomai?)

WSGAC
Feb 22nd 2011, 03:45 AM
While Incarnate, the person that was the God-man Jesus prayed to the Theotes. Why is perceiving a God-man praying to God so difficult? Yet it's so easy to swallow that God spoke forth the substance of His OWN singular "Person" as "another God-person who then spirated yet another God-person".

Jesus wasn't praying as deity to deity. Jesus was praying as man to God.

I'm not removing "person". I'm just not making three where there is only one. God has a singular Divine personality (Theotes); Jesus was the complete manifestation of that Theotes in a literal human person of actual flesh and bone. His constitution was untainted by Inherent death because He was of incorruptible seed during His procreation.

No God-model has God praying to God, except tritheism.

You say the God-man Jesus prayed to the Theotes. Then you say Jesus wasn't praying as deity to deity.

So then am I correct to say that you believe the term God-man has nothing to do with deity?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 22nd 2011, 04:15 AM
You say the God-man Jesus prayed to the Theotes. Then you say Jesus wasn't praying as deity to deity.

So then am I correct to say that you believe the term God-man has nothing to do with deity?

No. If you'll read back through my post #22, you'll see what I'm saying. :-)

Jesus' Deity is in the propagation of His Soul from the Father. There's much typology here, like the rent veil of the virgin's hymen, etc. It would REALLY help to have a deep understanding of man's constitution; exactly what a soul is and how it functions.

WSGAC
Feb 22nd 2011, 12:39 PM
No. If you'll read back through my post #22, you'll see what I'm saying. :-)

Jesus' Deity is in the propagation of His Soul from the Father. There's much typology here, like the rent veil of the virgin's hymen, etc. It would REALLY help to have a deep understanding of man's constitution; exactly what a soul is and how it functions.

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4

This love John speaks of....the same which John uses to define what God is, how does this love express itself in the Theotes? Is it ultimately a self love? IOW is there any *I-Thou* relationship in Godself?

And unfortunately a REALLY deep understanding of of man's constitution is clouded by Greek thinking pasted onto scripture, as my post on spirit-soul-body underscored...concept built upon concept, out of which doctrine is formed. In the end, soul-spirit-body(should have been "mind") is an amalgam of each in the other to the point that distinctions are nebulous at best. Kinda like some of your own objections with the idea of three persons.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 22nd 2011, 03:00 PM
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4

This love John speaks of....the same which John uses to define what God is, how does this love express itself in the Theotes? Is it ultimately a self love? IOW is there any *I-Thou* relationship in Godself?

More Filioque error within trinity error.


And unfortunately a REALLY deep understanding of of man's constitution is clouded by Greek thinking pasted onto scripture, as my post on spirit-soul-body underscored...concept built upon concept, out of which doctrine is formed. In the end, soul-spirit-body(should have been "mind") is an amalgam of each in the other to the point that distinctions are nebulous at best. Kinda like some of your own objections with the idea of three persons.

You're certainly welcome to maintain your deep understanding of the constitution of both God and man. Enjoy. :-)

WSGAC
Feb 22nd 2011, 04:44 PM
More Filioque error within trinity error.



You're certainly welcome to maintain your deep understanding of the constitution of both God and man. Enjoy. :-)

So be it! I'll stand with the church.

RabbiKnife
Feb 22nd 2011, 05:57 PM
Actually, that would only be standing with part of the church, and many in that part don't have a clue about what they are standing on.

ProDeo
Feb 26th 2011, 12:28 PM
Time is one of the governing constructs of creation for the temporal realm. Without addressing dimensions and other theoretical science-based formulations, the over-simplied truth would include three basic parameters for the created universe: Time, Space, Matter (When, Where, What).

It's not unlikely dimensions do exist and they are the way God and the inhabitants of heaven watch our ways. I am referring to the story in 2 Kings 6:15-18

The spiritual realm is everywhere around us, it's just that we don't have a sense to experience it. Elisa had it. At least at that moment it was given to him and the boy. Paul in 1 Cor 4:9 gives a hint as well.


How did Jesus and the Holy Spirit proceed relative to creation itself? Was is "prior" to Time or subsequent to Time? If prior, in what manner and of what substance?

Definitely above my head :)

WSGAC
Feb 26th 2011, 03:39 PM
How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

Servant89
Feb 27th 2011, 02:11 AM
Forgive me the drive by ....

The Holy Trinity sent the Holy Spirit.

1. We see God the Father sending the Holy Spirit in John 14:26, and Gal 4:6.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

2. The Holy Spirit was sent by God the Son (Jesus) in Luke 24:49, John 20:22 and Mark 1:8.

Luke 24:49 And, behold, I (Jesus) send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Mark 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

3. The Holy Spirit is also sent by Himself in 1 Cor 12:8-11.

1 Cor 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

The Spirit sent the Son.
Lk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

The Father sent the Son (about 15 different verses repeat this statement)
Jn 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

The "HOW PART" about how they are sent, is resolved when we see the three parts of God as 3 different persons.

Shalom

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 27th 2011, 02:41 PM
Forgive me the drive by ....

The Holy Trinity sent the Holy Spirit.

1. We see God the Father sending the Holy Spirit in John 14:26, and Gal 4:6.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

2. The Holy Spirit was sent by God the Son (Jesus) in Luke 24:49, John 20:22 and Mark 1:8.

Luke 24:49 And, behold, I (Jesus) send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Mark 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

3. The Holy Spirit is also sent by Himself in 1 Cor 12:8-11.

1 Cor 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

The Spirit sent the Son.
Lk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

The Father sent the Son (about 15 different verses repeat this statement)
Jn 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

The "HOW PART" about how they are sent, is resolved when we see the three parts of God as 3 different persons.

Shalom

All very good stuff, as usual. But... this isn't about being sent (apostellos G649) or sent (pempo G3992) or came (heko G2240) or came (erchomai G2064).

This is regarding proceeded*forth (exerchomai G1831) and proceedeth (ekporeuomai G1607). Also from (heis G1520) and from (para G3844).

The sent/sent came/came is not the proceeded*forth and the proceedeth.

John 8:42 says proceeded*forth AND came AND from (God) AND came AND sent.

John 15:26 says is come AND will send unto AND from (the Father) AND proceedeth AND from (the Father).


Simple proof-texting, of which you have few peers, is not sufficient. There are significant distinctions in word meanings and usage; and the etymologies are important to understand.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 27th 2011, 03:00 PM
It's not unlikely dimensions do exist and they are the way God and the inhabitants of heaven watch our ways. I am referring to the story in 2 Kings 6:15-18

The spiritual realm is everywhere around us, it's just that we don't have a sense to experience it. Elisa had it. At least at that moment it was given to him and the boy. Paul in 1 Cor 4:9 gives a hint as well.

In a sense, we can only speculate while praying and searching in the Spirit; but it would seem that dimensions are more within the natural created realm, whereas the spiritual realm more permeates the lesser created realm. I sense the spiritual realm as dimensionless and the natural realm as multi-dimensional to whatever extent or degree. Total supposition on my part, but a perception from other things.


Definitely above my head :)

Understood.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 27th 2011, 03:07 PM
How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

Ahhhhh. The invocation of the unknowable mystery clause again... and with venomous sarcasm.

However many you and all other orthodox trinitarians have formulated, declared, and creedalized, I suppose.

God isn't equivalent to angel/pinhead comparisons.

WSGAC
Feb 27th 2011, 06:06 PM
Ahhhhh. The invocation of the unknowable mystery clause again... and with venomous sarcasm.

However many you and all other orthodox trinitarians have formulated, declared, and creedalized, I suppose.

God isn't equivalent to angel/pinhead comparisons.

Ahhhhh, the condescension...all born of an inordinate self love. Of course when you conceptualize God as the same, what else could we expect?

Servant89
Feb 27th 2011, 06:13 PM
All very good stuff, as usual. But... this isn't about being sent (apostellos G649) or sent (pempo G3992) or came (heko G2240) or came (erchomai G2064).

This is regarding proceeded*forth (exerchomai G1831) and proceedeth (ekporeuomai G1607). Also from (heis G1520) and from (para G3844).

The sent/sent came/came is not the proceeded*forth and the proceedeth.

John 8:42 says proceeded*forth AND came AND from (God) AND came AND sent.

John 15:26 says is come AND will send unto AND from (the Father) AND proceedeth AND from (the Father).


Simple proof-texting, of which you have few peers, is not sufficient. There are significant distinctions in word meanings and usage; and the etymologies are important to understand.

You are flying high above my head now. I can not help you on that. I have not studied that area before.

But peace man, peace !

Shalom

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 28th 2011, 08:40 AM
Ahhhhh, the condescension...all born of an inordinate self love. Of course when you conceptualize God as the same, what else could we expect?

Subject matter aside...

This is a brilliant come-back! I chuckled aloud and shook my head affirmatively at reading such coherent denegrating sarcasm. I love it! Kudos.

On subject...

Finally!! A trinitarian who depicts the schizophrenia of internal multiple God-people, especially Filioque Trinity. Did the Father-person and the Son-person not each equally love the Holy Spirit-person as they loved each other? If not, the whole internal agape of God is unbalanced between its people. If so, the same spiration of the Holy Ghost from Father-Son love means the F-HS love spirates a 4th God-person; and the S-HS love spirates a 5th. Then the F-S-HS-4 love each spirate 6-7-8-9; and the F-S-HS-5 love each spirate 10-11-12-13. Then F-S-HS-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13 each spirate more.

It becomes a self-perpetuating infinitely-continuous perpetual procession of God-people as a Pleroma of God-people. All of a sudden, Scientology's Xenu and Thetans are plausible and credible by comparison.

Trinity is error. Filioque is error upon/within error. John 15:26 is simple and straight-forward. Proceedeth is NOT sent. Proceedeth is also not proceeded*forth or came or from. And came/came, sent/sent, from/from differ between Son and Holy Spirit processions between John 8:42 and John 15:26. The Holy Spirit did NOT proceed from both Fathet AND Son, though sent by both.

In all your getting, get understanding.

God's One Self IS Love. God doesn't have mutiple selves, contrary to orthodox error.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 28th 2011, 08:58 AM
You are flying high above my head now. I can not help you on that. I have not studied that area before.

But peace man, peace !

Shalom

Your scripture posts are always a source of enlightenment. I don't always group things up from the same passages. I've already dug out 4 more word etymologies from these verses that further confirm the exegesis of God as Spirit-Soul-Body.

God had taught me much through your posts. I praise God for His faithfulness in you.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 02:06 PM
Subject matter aside...

This is a brilliant come-back! I chuckled aloud and shook my head affirmatively at reading such coherent denegrating sarcasm. I love it! Kudos.

On subject...

Finally!! A trinitarian who depicts the schizophrenia of internal multiple God-people, especially Filioque Trinity. Did the Father-person and the Son-person not each equally love the Holy Spirit-person as they loved each other? If not, the whole internal agape of God is unbalanced between its people. If so, the same spiration of the Holy Ghost from Father-Son love means the F-HS love spirates a 4th God-person; and the S-HS love spirates a 5th. Then the F-S-HS-4 love each spirate 6-7-8-9; and the F-S-HS-5 love each spirate 10-11-12-13. Then F-S-HS-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13 each spirate more.

It becomes a self-perpetuating infinitely-continuous perpetual procession of God-people as a Pleroma of God-people. All of a sudden, Scientology's Xenu and Thetans are plausible and credible by comparison.

Trinity is error. Filioque is error upon/within error. John 15:26 is simple and straight-forward. Proceedeth is NOT sent. Proceedeth is also not proceeded*forth or came or from. And came/came, sent/sent, from/from differ between Son and Holy Spirit processions between John 8:42 and John 15:26. The Holy Spirit did NOT proceed from both Fathet AND Son, though sent by both.

In all your getting, get understanding.

God's One Self IS Love. God doesn't have mutiple selves, contrary to orthodox error.

So God's soul (Father) loves God's Spirit (spirit) loves God's body (Son)? I guess this works if you've absolutely got to hold onto the "oneness/singularity" of God's self, but if mine is "schizophrenic", yours is narcissistic! But hey, to each his own!

Vhayes
Feb 28th 2011, 04:33 PM
KNOCK IT OFF.

Let's all play nice. And yes - that means everyone.

Thank you.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 28th 2011, 08:56 PM
KNOCK IT OFF.

Let's all play nice. And yes - that means everyone.

Thank you.

:hmm:.......?.......:hmm:

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 28th 2011, 09:07 PM
So God's soul (Father) loves God's Spirit (spirit) loves God's body (Son)? I guess this works if you've absolutely got to hold onto the "oneness/singularity" of God's self, but if mine is "schizophrenic", yours is narcissistic! But hey, to each his own!

There are 5 NT verses that reference the love of the Father for the Son; and 1 verse that reference the love of the Son for the Father... all in John's Gospel. There are no non-prophetic references to either one, and extremely few OT paasages that even mention the Father (I'm currently cataloging them.)

The only expression of love between Father and Son is during the Incarnation. There is no separate pre-existent Son-person for a Father-person to love. It is God's love expressed in the natural realm.

Please show scripture for three separate pre-existent "persons". Theotes (Divinity, Godhead) is specifically a singular personality. All the rest of this is conceptual conjecture based on inference.

The only person I recall ever hearing admit the trinity is inference is RabbiKnife.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 09:41 PM
There are 5 NT verses that reference the love of the Father for the Son; and 1 verse that reference the love of the Son for the Father... all in John's Gospel. There are no non-prophetic references to either one, and extremely few OT paasages that even mention the Father (I'm currently cataloging them.)

The only expression of love between Father and Son is during the Incarnation. There is no separate pre-existent Son-person for a Father-person to love. It is God's love expressed in the natural realm.

Please show scripture for three separate pre-existent "persons". Theotes (Divinity, Godhead) is specifically a singular personality. All the rest of this is conceptual conjecture based on inference.

The only person I recall ever hearing admit the trinity is inference is RabbiKnife.

And how about at Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:17), and the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5)? Who is speaking, and who is the beloved in both these texts?

So are you saying "There was a time when the Son was not!" ?

Vhayes
Feb 28th 2011, 09:44 PM
The only person I recall ever hearing admit the trinity is inference is RabbiKnife.

Anyone (which is most if not all Trinitarians) who says it is implied is saying that. Nowhere does scripture use the word Trinity. It MUST be by implication if not explicitly stated, right?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 1st 2011, 06:47 PM
And how about at Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:17), and the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5)? Who is speaking, and who is the beloved in both these texts?

Gosh. I suppose it just HAD to be the other two God-people. Check John 5:37.


So are you saying "There was a time when the Son was not!" ?

No. That would be Arianism.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 1st 2011, 06:52 PM
.

Anyone (which is most if not all Trinitarians) who says it is implied is saying that. Nowhere does scripture use the word Trinity. It MUST be by implication if not explicitly stated, right?

Yes, and most trinitarians don't admit it is inferred from implication. The general contention is that it's explicit. And I'm not referring just to the word trinity, but the doctrine built on the inferred concept of persons. Person(s) is inference of perceived implication.

Agreed? :-)

Vhayes
Mar 1st 2011, 06:56 PM
Yes, and most trinitarians don't admit it is inferred from implication. The general contention is that it's explicit. And I'm not referring just to the word trinity, but the doctrine built on the inferred concept of persons. Person(s) is inference of perceived implication.

Agreed? :-)

Not sure.

I would say that all three are "given" human characteristics or "personhood". maybe as a way for humans to relate?

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 06:58 PM
Gosh. I suppose it just HAD to be the other two God-people. Check John 5:37.

Just checked it, but my question still stands: Who is speaking, and who is the beloved in the texts I cited? Is this God's soul talking to God's body?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 1st 2011, 07:07 PM
Not sure.

I would say that all three are "given" human characteristics or "personhood". maybe as a way for humans to relate?

Which is inference. It is not so stated. God didn't express Himself as three persons in the Word. Person isn't in the Word. Distinct individual personhood is a conceptualized inference that isn't stated in the Word. Correct?

Vhayes
Mar 1st 2011, 07:09 PM
Yes - however, if a noun is referred to as "He", and that noun is given emotions, it's a fairly safe inference, right?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 1st 2011, 07:43 PM
Just checked it, but my question still stands: Who is speaking, and who is the beloved in the texts I cited? Is this God's soul talking to God's body?

Is the voice (phone G5456) speaking to the Son?

Correlate the Word for your answer:
Matthew 12:18 (Isaiah 42:1) and 2Peter 1:17

phone (G5456), to speak. That which brings light upon that which is thought of in the mind. The voice explains that which one has in his own mind for others. Phone can only speak of what is in one's own mind.

It would sure help if someone understood what Logos is. Phone contrasts to logos in a very specific manner.

Amazing that 5 billion trinity-challenge questions go unanswered, and this is the course it takes.

God is declaring that THIS is the Logos that was in His own mind to express to mankind in the flesh. One God-person couldn't phone of what was in another God-person, since phone speaks of what is in one's own mind. In trinity, each person has it's own mind, so one could not be speaking of another by a phone.

God's mind is being spoken by this phone. The mind is within the soul. God's Soul is the source for all thought and expression OF Logos. So yes, God is declaring to all that this is His Logos.

It's not possible for one God-person to have a phone for another God-person. Another God-person couldn't phone it was THEIR Logos being manifested in the flesh. If you understood this, you would be crying that trinity was outright heresy, and realize I'm going light on this.

You don't WANT to understand. Why don't you go back and answer all my questions in this thread? Why can't anybody?

Vhayes
Mar 1st 2011, 07:46 PM
Sorry. Didn't mean to upset you.

I'll leave the thread permantly now. My understanding is different than your understanding.

peace to you.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 1st 2011, 07:58 PM
Yes - however, if a noun is referred to as "He", and that noun is given emotions, it's a fairly safe inference, right?

No. Pronouns have been addressed. The neuter Holy Spirit is an it. That negates what you're saying. Is a person an it?

The spirit-soul are not at discrete as trinity persons have made them be. A spirit is conjoined to a soul, thereby experiencing emotion but not being the location of its origination. Can you distinguish between your own soul-spirit so intricately? Does your spirit experience the emotion of your soul, though it doesn't originate those emotions?

Such is the Father-Holy Spirit. There is no scripture that shows stand-alone soul functionality for the Holy Spirit.


Inference.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 1st 2011, 08:02 PM
Sorry. Didn't mean to upset you.

I'll leave the thread permantly now. My understanding is different than your understanding.

peace to you.

I'm not upset. That post was for WSGAC. I'm not upset at him, either.

No need to leave. I'm hardly on the forum any more. You won't have to deal with this very much. Everbody else is trinitarian.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 1st 2011, 09:08 PM
So... wrapping up...

Nobody has a clue how Jesus proceeded*forth (exerchomai) and came (heko) from (ek) God (Theos) [not the Father] and was sent (apostellos); OR how the Holy Spirit proceedeth (ekporeuomai) from (para) the Father (pater) and was sent (pempo) and came (erchomai). And no answers to the OP questions.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 09:47 PM
Is the voice (phone G5456) speaking to the Son?

Correlate the Word for your answer:
Matthew 12:18 (Isaiah 42:1) and 2Peter 1:17

phone (G5456), to speak. That which brings light upon that which is thought of in the mind. The voice explains that which one has in his own mind for others. Phone can only speak of what is in one's own mind.

It would sure help if someone understood what Logos is. Phone contrasts to logos in a very specific manner.

Amazing that 5 billion trinity-challenge questions go unanswered, and this is the course it takes.

God is declaring that THIS is the Logos that was in His own mind to express to mankind in the flesh. One God-person couldn't phone of what was in another God-person, since phone speaks of what is in one's own mind. In trinity, each person has it's own mind, so one could not be speaking of another by a phone.

God's mind is being spoken by this phone. The mind is within the soul. God's Soul is the source for all thought and expression OF Logos. So yes, God is declaring to all that this is His Logos.

It's not possible for one God-person to have a phone for another God-person. Another God-person couldn't phone it was THEIR Logos being manifested in the flesh. If you understood this, you would be crying that trinity was outright heresy, and realize I'm going light on this.

You don't WANT to understand. Why don't you go back and answer all my questions in this thread? Why can't anybody?

But the Matthew passages aren't talking about Logos. The same with Luke 3:22 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Is this God's soul or mind speaking to God's body?

It's not that I don't want to understand. It's that I won't engage in the mental gymnastics required to keep God a single self. To engage in this way, one has to suspend with language. When God says, "My Son" this means something. It means something about the One called Son, and it means something about the One calling him Son. A child understands the term "Abba". It's a personal term, an endearing term. Talk of soul, mind, body to get at what is lovingly personal is to lose the personal...as well as the language.

BroRog
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:09 AM
So... wrapping up...

Nobody has a clue how Jesus proceeded*forth (exerchomai) and came (heko) from (ek) God (Theos) [not the Father] and was sent (apostellos); OR how the Holy Spirit proceedeth (ekporeuomai) from (para) the Father (pater) and was sent (pempo) and came (erchomai). And no answers to the OP questions.

I guess everyone is wondering when the English service starts. Frankly, I never did understand the question. How did Jesus proceed? Didn't he walk?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:36 AM
But the Matthew passages aren't talking about Logos. The same with Luke 3:22 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Exactly my point.


Is this God's soul or mind speaking to God's body?

2Peter 1:17 says the Father; Matthew 12:18 says God's Soul. I'd go with those. You should go with something extra-biblical like "persons" to placate your need to circumvent the Word.


It's not that I don't want to understand. It's that I won't engage in the mental gymnastics required to keep God a single self.

This is possibly the most hilarious statement ever. Trinity, the unspeakable, unknowable mystery that no one can express or comprehend; which is three persons of one individual... doesn't require mental gymnastics?!?! Riotous!


To engage in this way, one has to suspend with language. When God says, "My Son" this means something. It means something about the One called Son, and it means something about the One calling him Son. A child understands the term "Abba". It's a personal term, an endearing term. Talk of soul, mind, body to get at what is lovingly personal is to lose the personal...as well as the language.

The person of Jesus is that personal loving relational understanding.


So... It's a no on having a clue about the procession of Jesus and the Holy Spirit? And no answers for the OP questions...

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:42 AM
I guess everyone is wondering when the English service starts. Frankly, I never did understand the question. How did Jesus proceed? Didn't he walk?

Though your post is very humorous, this is a sad endictment of trinitarians. Like when my son was 2 and answered every question "Just because."

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:29 PM
Exactly my point.



2Peter 1:17 says the Father; Matthew 12:18 says God's Soul. I'd go with those. You should go with something extra-biblical like "persons" to placate your need to circumvent the Word.



This is possibly the most hilarious statement ever. Trinity, the unspeakable, unknowable mystery that no one can express or comprehend; which is three persons of one individual... doesn't require mental gymnastics?!?! Riotous!



The person of Jesus is that personal loving relational understanding.


So... It's a no on having a clue about the procession of Jesus and the Holy Spirit? And no answers for the OP questions...


Is God a person? I'm talking about his singular self....is that *self* a person?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:57 PM
Is God a person? I'm talking about his singular self....is that *self* a person?

No. God is Spirit. God is Deity. The Divinity (Theotes) was embodied in Jesus, though, who WAS a person (2Cor. 2:10). The word person (prosopon G4383) is most often rendered face. In general, it is that part of anything which is turned or presented to the eye of another. Face, outward appearance, person, personal appearance, presence; in the presence of or sight of. Literally, the presence of one in the sight of another.

God manifested His Divinity in the person of Jesus. God spoke of Himself. That Word became flesh. The Spirit-Soul of God enbodied the Theoanthropos within His human soul-spirit. This was God becoming a person. That's pretty personal, IMHO. That person of Jesus laid down His life (soul G5590) and was obedient unto death. God offered His own Self for sin, including His body for the Adamic death in our body. In doing so, His Spirit was distributed to indwell us personally. That's also very personal, IMHO. He abides in us; His Spirit in our spirit, cleansing His temple.

The internal Word became the external Son, begotten of the will of the Father. Jesus was the Word born from the eternal realm into the temporal realm. Divinity begat humanity... a Son. The Father was God, and the part of God that thought and willed it was His Soul. When fully spoken, the Word divided asunder God's Soul-Spirit and distributed His Spirit to dwell in us. Him in us. Us in Him. That indwelling Spirit wholly sanctifies our spirit-soul-body, being the earnest of our inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.

God became a person. God gave us His OWN Spirit. God dwells in us. The Lord Jesus Christ was God speaking the substance of Himself into flesh to have intimate relationship with us for all of eternity. The uncreated becoming created. That's about as "person"-al as it gets... Divinity becoming humanity.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:34 PM
No. God is Spirit. God is Deity. The Divinity (Theotes) was embodied in Jesus, though, who WAS a person (2Cor. 2:10). The word person (prosopon G4383) is most often rendered face. In general, it is that part of anything which is turned or presented to the eye of another. Face, outward appearance, person, personal appearance, presence; in the presence of or sight of. Literally, the presence of one in the sight of another.

God manifested His Divinity in the person of Jesus. God spoke of Himself. That Word became flesh. The Spirit-Soul of God enbodied the Theoanthropos within His human soul-spirit. This was God becoming a person. That's pretty personal, IMHO. That person of Jesus laid down His life (soul G5590) and was obedient unto death. God offered His own Self for sin, including His body for the Adamic death in our body. In doing so, His Spirit was distributed to indwell us personally. That's also very personal, IMHO. He abides in us; His Spirit in our spirit, cleansing His temple.

The internal Word became the external Son, begotten of the will of the Father. Jesus was the Word born from the eternal realm into the temporal realm. Divinity begat humanity... a Son. The Father was God, and the part of God that thought and willed it was His Soul. When fully spoken, the Word divided asunder God's Soul-Spirit and distributed His Spirit to dwell in us. Him in us. Us in Him. That indwelling Spirit wholly sanctifies our spirit-soul-body, being the earnest of our inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.

God became a person. God gave us His OWN Spirit. God dwells in us. The Lord Jesus Christ was God speaking the substance of Himself into flesh to have intimate relationship with us for all of eternity. The uncreated becoming created. That's about as "person"-al as it gets... Divinity becoming humanity.

Thank you for the explanation. I'm chewing on it for a bit. But another question comes to mind: When standing before God one day, who is it we will we behold?