PDA

View Full Version : The Incarnation of Christ



VerticalReality
Jan 22nd 2012, 11:57 PM
Pretty straightforward question really. What does the incarnation of Jesus Christ mean to you? It's commonly stated that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. How do you define that? It's apparent from scripture that Jesus was divine. It's also clear that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. So, how could this "fully God and fully man" doctrine be clearly explained?

-SEEKING-
Jan 23rd 2012, 12:00 AM
I'll give my 2 cents here.

Jesus, being fully God, put on a "flesh" suit. He never stopped being fully God. But he restrained Himself to human limitations.

VerticalReality
Jan 23rd 2012, 12:05 AM
I'll give my 2 cents here.

Jesus, being fully God, put on a "flesh" suit. He never stopped being fully God. But he restrained Himself to human limitations.


Thanks for your input. So, when you say that Jesus was "fully God" yet also acknowledge that His flesh had limitations, would you say that the flesh part of Him wasn't divine or would you say that the statement "Jesus is fully God" isn't taking into consideration the flesh part of Him?

-SEEKING-
Jan 23rd 2012, 12:11 AM
I'd say He was definitely fully God. His flesh I'd have to say was not divine. The fact that He could bleed and ultimately die would lead me to believe that was due to His humanness. But I will say, I'm no theologian. Just giving my opinion.

quiet dove
Jan 23rd 2012, 12:19 AM
Yea, definitely difficult to put thoughts into words.

But in order for Him to die, He had to be fully human, human body.

But...to no longer be fully God, He would have been forced to stick it out, as opposed to sticking it out by choice, willingly giving Himself.

I think we just have to hold on to both truths, fully human, fully God...and go from there awaiting for God to reveal truth to us. Anything we come across that contradicts the truth He has already revealed, the Jesus was fully human and fully God, should be tossed out. Don't let our desire to comprehend get the best of us at the risk of loosing the truth we are presented in scripture, even if that truth is beyond our comprehension.


Hope that at least came out somewhat right... :confused

markedward
Jan 23rd 2012, 12:21 AM
'God' is not a substance, but an identity. To say that Jesus is 'God' and 'man' is not to say that Jesus is comprised simultaneously of 'divine substance' and 'human substance'.

'God' is an identity, and treated synonymously in the New Testament with referring to 'Yahweh'.

'Jesus is God' means Jesus is being identified as Yahweh. If we put it in terms of 'substance', then his identity is Yahweh while his substance is man. God as man. As man Jesus was not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., but his mind, his character, his whole person is Yahweh.

The Father is Yahweh transcendant: eternal, almighty, immortal, invisible, all-knowing, etc.
The Son of God is Yahweh immanent: mortal, finite, tangible, limited, etc.

Watchman
Jan 23rd 2012, 12:24 AM
Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily

jeffweeder
Jan 23rd 2012, 02:11 AM
Adam wasnt created in the likeness of sinful flesh, but the image of God.
Sinful flesh came later when he sinned and died.
Jesus being fully God,was born of the Holy Spirit, not sinful flesh. He led a perfect life as a man, was murdered, and death couldnt hold him because he never sinned.
The incarnation means eternal life for all who believe in Gods salvation.

Brother Mark
Jan 23rd 2012, 02:15 AM
Thanks for your input. So, when you say that Jesus was "fully God" yet also acknowledge that His flesh had limitations, would you say that the flesh part of Him wasn't divine or would you say that the statement "Jesus is fully God" isn't taking into consideration the flesh part of Him?

I think about how "I have a body but I am soul". Jesus had a body but his body wasn't who he was. He took on flesh. But he wasn't flesh.

Heb 10:5
5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

"SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,
BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
NASU

A body was prepared for Jesus. But it didn't define him. It's the same for us.

Heb 2:9

9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
NASU

IMO, he took on a body, and experienced everything man experiences with the same temptations, limitations, etc. that man has. In this way, he was a man. But he never ceased being God. Who he was never changed. The "form" he was in did change.

This doesn't do it justice, but it's a start.

Watchman
Jan 23rd 2012, 02:18 AM
I think about how "I have a body but I am soul". Jesus had a body but his body wasn't who he was. He took on flesh. But he wasn't flesh.

Heb 10:5
5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

"SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,
BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
NASU

A body was prepared for Jesus. But it didn't define him. It's the same for us.
I heard it said once that our body isn't who we are...it is where we are; however, we are also seated at our Father's right hand in Christ...while simultaneously walking the earth. It is a bit much for 'pots' to grasp, eh?!

W :)

ewq1938
Jan 23rd 2012, 02:47 AM
As man Jesus was not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., but his mind, his character, his whole person is Yahweh.

No, he was all those things. He wasn't just a man, he was all knowing and all powerful but didn't flaunt those things.

fewarechosen
Jan 23rd 2012, 03:13 AM
the Word made flesh.

markedward
Jan 23rd 2012, 04:25 AM
No, he was all those things. He wasn't just a man, he was all knowing and all powerful but didn't flaunt those things.
I didn't say he was 'just a man'. I said he is 'God as man'.

ewq1938
Jan 23rd 2012, 09:24 PM
I didn't say he was 'just a man'. I said he is 'God as man'.

This is what you said:


As man Jesus was not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.

This statement isn't correct.

divaD
Jan 23rd 2012, 09:48 PM
This statement isn't correct.


And why not? It sounds correct to me. Shouldn't you at least provide reasons why?

ewq1938
Jan 23rd 2012, 09:52 PM
And why not? It sounds correct to me. Shouldn't you at least provide reasons why?


I wasn't the one to state Jesus was not all knowing or all powerful.

ewq1938
Jan 23rd 2012, 09:53 PM
Did he grow in wisdom? If so, how?

Luke 2:40
40 The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.
NASU

As a child yes, but when he was in his ministry, he was a man and was not increasing in wisdom any longer.

divaD
Jan 23rd 2012, 11:27 PM
I wasn't the one to state Jesus was not all knowing or all powerful.

But you did state that it was an incorrect statement. Why don't you owe a reason why then?

Unless I misunderstood things, it seems that Mark said that about Jesus as a man, not about Jesus as God. Clearly as a man He was not all knowing. For one thing, everything He pretty much spoke, it was what He had heard the Father speak to Him. Then you have the passage where Jesus clearly indicated He did not know the hour or time, but only the Father. Then you have the following as well.

Luke 22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Why would an all knowing Jesus say what He said in verse 42?

ewq1938
Jan 23rd 2012, 11:33 PM
But you did state that it was an incorrect statement. Why don't you owe a reason why then?

Unless I misunderstood things, it seems that Mark said that about Jesus as a man, not about Jesus as God. Clearly as a man He was not all knowing. For one thing, everything He pretty much spoke, it was what He had heard the Father speak to Him.

And?


Then you have the passage where Jesus clearly indicated He did not know the hour or time, but only the Father. Then you have the following as well.

That's the only thing I know of that while man, Christ was not allowed to know something.


Luke 22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Why would an all knowing Jesus say what He said in verse 42?


Yes. It isn't a matter of not knowing something but asking for a change in plans.

Mat_28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Brother Mark
Jan 23rd 2012, 11:41 PM
As a child yes, but when he was in his ministry, he was a man and was not increasing in wisdom any longer.

How could he grow in wisdom if he was all knowing?

divaD
Jan 24th 2012, 12:25 AM
And?

And? ummm...you're the one who said his statement was incorrect. All I've been doing for the last cpl of posts is asking why? Who knows, maybe you're aware of something we might not be. But until you tell us why, then I guess I don't see your point for even saying it in the first place. Your response should have been...that is an incorrect statement, and here is why. But you left out the latter for some reason...maybe you think we can read minds perhaps.


That's the only thing I know of that while man, Christ was not allowed to know something.

What does all knowing mean to you then? How can someone be all knowing, yet not allowed to know something at the same time? How does that equal all knowing?




Yes. It isn't a matter of not knowing something but asking for a change in plans.

Mat_28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

But why ask for a change of plans if you already know the answer, as in all knowing?

ewq1938
Jan 24th 2012, 12:33 AM
How could he grow in wisdom if he was all knowing?

Child .

Brother Mark
Jan 24th 2012, 12:34 AM
Child .

So when he was a child, he was not all knowing?

ewq1938
Jan 24th 2012, 12:35 AM
What does all knowing mean to you then? How can someone be all knowing, yet not allowed to know something at the same time? How does that equal all knowing?

Because that is only one small thing that he would know later. Otherwise he was all knowing, and he was also all powerful...which was the other part of this.





Bu
t why ask for a change of plans if you already know the answer, as in all knowing?

All knowing doesn't mean one decides not to foresee the future.

ewq1938
Jan 24th 2012, 12:56 AM
So when he was a child, he was not all knowing?

Like it says, he grew in wisdom from childhood.

Brother Mark
Jan 24th 2012, 01:07 AM
Like it says, he grew in wisdom from childhood.

SO there was a time when he was not all knowing?

divaD
Jan 24th 2012, 01:35 AM
All knowing doesn't mean one decides not to foresee the future.


Now we're getting somewhere, lol. I actually agree with this I think.

ewq1938
Jan 24th 2012, 01:41 AM
Now we're getting somewhere, lol. I actually agree with this I think.

And then the all powerful issue is dealt with by this verse:

Mat_28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

BTW, I feel Christ choose not to know the hour of his return while he walked the earth, maybe for the simple reason that is wasn't important to Him when He was returning and he didn't want to disappoint anyone who hoped that he would return right away.

fewarechosen
Jan 24th 2012, 03:35 AM
remember Christ was baptized. that plays a part.

yes there was something he did not know and within is the relationship between Father and Son.

LookingUp
Jan 24th 2012, 07:08 AM
Pretty straightforward question really. What does the incarnation of Jesus Christ mean to you? It's commonly stated that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. How do you define that? It's apparent from scripture that Jesus was divine. It's also clear that He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. So, how could this "fully God and fully man" doctrine be clearly explained?I tend to think of it this way. Jesus Christ was the transcendent God existing as a man. The transcendent God was actually experiencing life with a human brain, feelings, will, etc.

ewq1938
Jan 24th 2012, 07:10 AM
I tend to think of it this way. Jesus Christ was the transcendent God existing as a man. The transcendent God was actually experiencing life with a human brain, feelings, will, etc.

Actually it was His Son that experienced "life with a human brain"....

percho
Jan 26th 2012, 07:59 AM
John 1:14 Greek interlinear scripture4all.org And the saying/word flesh became
1:1 In original/beginning was the saying/word and the saying/word was toward the God and God was the saying/word. 2 this was in original/beginning toward the God.

Now let me ask. Is this speaking of One Living God that speaks or two persons of one God bonded together yet independent of one another one called The God and the other called The Word?
Did The Word one of God by The Holy Spirit but himself in a virgin enclosing himself in flesh and cause her to give birth to himself who they called Jesus OR did The God The Word by the holy Spirit beget in the seed/egg of the virgin Mary and she gave birth to a man child they called Jesus and he was the only begotten of The God The Word that is The Living God that speaks.

Hebrews 7:9,10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Would those verses say anything about the man Jesus and his Father God the Word?

Was he in the Father before Abraham was?

I have not chiseled this in stone, I am just asking.

Did God beget in the virgin a man child or did God De-Metamorphosis or what ever the opposite of metamorphosis would be himself as a man from the seed/egg of the virgin.
Is this one begotten of God as a man through his mother like his Father God who beget him? Sinless yet subject to corruption and death because he is the last Adam.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 26th 2012, 06:32 PM
John 1:14 Greek interlinear scripture4all.org And the saying/word flesh became
1:1 In original/beginning was the saying/word and the saying/word was toward the God and God was the saying/word. 2 this was in original/beginning toward the God.

Now let me ask. Is this speaking of One Living God that speaks or two persons of one God bonded together yet independent of one another one called The God and the other called The Word?
Did The Word one of God by The Holy Spirit but himself in a virgin enclosing himself in flesh and cause her to give birth to himself who they called Jesus OR did The God The Word by the holy Spirit beget in the seed/egg of the virgin Mary and she gave birth to a man child they called Jesus and he was the only begotten of The God The Word that is The Living God that speaks.

Hebrews 7:9,10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Would those verses say anything about the man Jesus and his Father God the Word?

Was he in the Father before Abraham was?

I have not chiseled this in stone, I am just asking.

Did God beget in the virgin a man child or did God De-Metamorphosis or what ever the opposite of metamorphosis would be himself as a man from the seed/egg of the virgin.
Is this one begotten of God as a man through his mother like his Father God who beget him? Sinless yet subject to corruption and death because he is the last Adam.

Pot-stirrer. :-P

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 26th 2012, 06:36 PM
I tend to think of it this way. Jesus Christ was the transcendent God existing as a man. The transcendent God was actually experiencing life with a human brain, feelings, will, etc.

:pp:hug::pp::hug:
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

Affirmative!

Sojourner
Jan 26th 2012, 08:40 PM
I think Paul succinctly addressed Jesus being both fully God and fully man--and His restraint from exercising His divine powers, in his letter to the Philippians:

6 Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.
7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.
8 When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.
9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Eph 6:6-11 NLT)

Paul explains that though Jesus was God, and could have done anything, He divested Himself of those privileges, and lived His entire life as an ordinary man, in extraordinary circumstances. He did nothing as God, but emptied Himself of self, and fully submitted Himself as a vessel dedicated to the will and purpose of God--only speaking and acting as the Father within Him directed. And God rewarded Him as a man for that submission and humility by exalting Him to the heavenly glory He now shares with God. Yet, at the same time, as the Word made flesh, Jesus simply regained what had been His for all eternity (John 17:5).

Jesus is the fullness of God, robed in the fullness of humanity. He was supernaturally conceived in the human womb of a virgin, by the Spirit of God. He therefore inherited His divine nature from God as His Father, yet inherited His human nature from His mother. both God and man, He is the greatest paradox of all time: the Creator, Who dwells in light, and Whose presence permeates the universe, became a creature, confined in the darkness of a womb. That God incarnated Himself in human flesh is an unfathomable truth we cannot fully grasp--as is the unimaginable truth that the Judge Himself would pardon us, and suffer our punishment. We will never fully comprehend that, but will have all eternity to praise and worship Him for the love He demonstrated by that act, as we dwell in His glorious presence in the New Jerusalem.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 12:02 PM
'God' is not a substance, but an identity. To say that Jesus is 'God' and 'man' is not to say that Jesus is comprised simultaneously of 'divine substance' and 'human substance'.

'God' is an identity, and treated synonymously in the New Testament with referring to 'Yahweh'.

'Jesus is God' means Jesus is being identified as Yahweh. If we put it in terms of 'substance', then his identity is Yahweh while his substance is man. God as man. As man Jesus was not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., but his mind, his character, his whole person is Yahweh.

The Father is Yahweh transcendant: eternal, almighty, immortal, invisible, all-knowing, etc.
The Son of God is Yahweh immanent: mortal, finite, tangible, limited, etc.

How does your view of this parallel and/or differ from Bro Rog's Transcendentism?

Is there no ontological distinction to Deity? Distinguish "non"-substance from nothingness within your perview of semantics. If God "ISn't" a substance, then I can't use the word "what" to ask about your view. Can you give a couple paragraphs that more thoroughly characterize the "whatlessness" of Deity?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 12:11 PM
'God' is not a substance, but an identity. To say that Jesus is 'God' and 'man' is not to say that Jesus is comprised simultaneously of 'divine substance' and 'human substance'.

'God' is an identity, and treated synonymously in the New Testament with referring to 'Yahweh'.

'Jesus is God' means Jesus is being identified as Yahweh. If we put it in terms of 'substance', then his identity is Yahweh while his substance is man. God as man. As man Jesus was not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., but his mind, his character, his whole person is Yahweh.

The Father is Yahweh transcendant: eternal, almighty, immortal, invisible, all-knowing, etc.
The Son of God is Yahweh immanent: mortal, finite, tangible, limited, etc.

In eternity, what distinguishes the transcendent who from the immanent who? How indistinct or distinct are the Father-who and the Son-who? If they are the same who, in what manner are they separate eternally beyond the temporal Incarnation?

shepherdsword
Jan 27th 2012, 12:57 PM
This is good thread. QuietDove and I were discussing this in a thread in chat to Mod. I guess my understanding of who Jesus is stems from my current view on the Trinity. I see three co-equal persons in the Godhead of eternity past. The respective positions we now see are only a result of the positions they take in the governing of creation In my view any one of them could have played any other respective role we now see. The one we now know as the Father maintained his totality outside of creation and his only intersect point was the throne.(and this is now changed because of his indwelling of us through Christ)Because in making creation,the first thing that had to be done was to make room for it.The Trinity was all there was before that. In making this "space"(all realms not just space/time) for creation it was the Holy Spirit who filled it with his presence and the Son who ruled it. The constant fellowship and connection they had with each other let each share the experiences of the other.Thus we see a certain form of 'kenosis" was underwent by the Spirit and the Son just in the process of creation.The Son underwent a new level of kenosis and limited himself to human form to redeem us. It was necessary for him to lay aside his divine power in order to be tested,tried and tempted in all manner as we are. The miracles that he performed did not stem from his own divine power but from the Holy Spirit who fills all of creation.
I see Jesus in this light:
1) humbled himself in the creative process
2)humbling himself to become a man.
3) pouring out all the life he had as a man to die for us.
4) In Resurrection power from the Father he regained his former glory and his Lordship over all creation.

This is just my current view. If it has some form of heresy in it I will repent. However,since the incarnation is a deep mystery we are left to broad speculation and conjecture by reading into the scriptures we have on the subject.

So my final analysis?
Jesus is both fully divine and fully human.The scripture is quite clear on this and all my other ideas are just sheer speculations of a peanut,finite mind trying to grasp the eternal.

Anyone else have a similar concept or even one that's different?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 27th 2012, 03:17 PM
This is good thread. QuietDove and I were discussing this in a thread in chat to Mod. I guess my understanding of who Jesus is stems from my current view on the Trinity. I see three co-equal persons in the Godhead of eternity past. The respective positions we now see are only a result of the positions they take in the governing of creation In my view any one of them could have played any other respective role we now see. The one we now know as the Father maintained his totality outside of creation and his only intersect point was the throne.(and this is now changed because of his indwelling of us through Christ)Because in making creation,the first thing that had to be done was to make room for it.The Trinity was all there was before that. In making this "space"(all realms not just space/time) for creation it was the Holy Spirit who filled it with his presence and the Son who ruled it. The constant fellowship and connection they had with each other let each share the experiences of the other.Thus we see a certain form of 'kenosis" was underwent by the Spirit and the Son just in the process of creation.The Son underwent a new level of kenosis and limited himself to human form to redeem us. It was necessary for him to lay aside his divine power in order to be tested,tried and tempted in all manner as we are. The miracles that he performed did not stem from his own divine power but from the Holy Spirit who fills all of creation.
I see Jesus in this light:
1) humbled himself in the creative process
2)humbling himself to become a man.
3) pouring out all the life he had as a man to die for us.
4) In Resurrection power from the Father he regained his former glory and his Lordship over all creation.

This is just my current view. If it has some form of heresy in it I will repent. However,since the incarnation is a deep mystery we are left to broad speculation and conjecture by reading into the scriptures we have on the subject.

So my final analysis?
Jesus is both fully divine and fully human.The scripture is quite clear on this and all my other ideas are just sheer speculations of a peanut,finite mind trying to grasp the eternal.

Anyone else have a similar concept or even one that's different?

I would definitely agree your view comes from your having a Trinity understanding to start. I think most have a difficult time accurately determining what is explicit and implicit in scripture. If the Deity of Christ and Trinity were so obviously explicit, there wouldn't be much room for objection.

What is heresy? I've studied Godhead doctrine as much as any human who ever drew a breath, and today's Trinity conceptualization is farther-removed from ANF formulation than is realized.

I'd be interested to hear someone elaborate on two things:

1). Who spoke? Did the Father speak His own Logos? Or did the Son speak Himself?
2). "How", EXACTLY, did a transcendent person hypostasize to become an immanent viable human pre-embryo?

markedward
Jan 27th 2012, 07:39 PM
How does your view of this parallel and/or differ from Bro Rog's Transcendentism?Don't know. He isn't here to compare notes.


Is there no ontological distinction to Deity?I don't know what the question means. You're going to have to bring it down to my level.


Distinguish "non"-substance from nothingness within your perview of semantics. If God "ISn't" a substance,I'm using the word 'God' as a synonym for 'Yahweh'; it is a reference to 'identity', not 'substance'. ('Yahweh' is a name, and therefore a reference to a person*, not a stuff.) I'm not necessarily saying that God does not consist of a substance, though I have no idea what that 'substance' would be (if he even does consist of a 'substance', and I won't venture to guess either way), beyond simply a statement like 'God is spirit'.

* (By 'person', I mean 'individual identity'. I do not mean 'human being'.)


Can you give a couple paragraphs that more thoroughly characterize the "whatlessness" of Deity?I'm not saying that God is 'whatless'. I'll clarify what I was saying in my previous post: 'God', as used in the New Testament, is most often used as a synonym for 'Yahweh' (the times it isn't, it is used as a title or position, not a stuff to be made of). In those cases [where 'God' is a synonym for 'Yahweh'], the word 'God' distinguishes 'identity' (who), not 'substance' (what). To say that Jesus of Nazareth is 'God' is to say that he is the who of God/Yahweh living as a man... not that he is the what of God/Yahweh jammed in a human body (so that he becomes two 'whats', where one exists metaphysically inside the other).

Going by identity:
Father = God/Yahweh
Son of God = God/Yahweh

Going by substance (working with the assumption that God/Yahweh consists of a 'substance'):
Father = deity
Son of God = humanity

Beyond that, I'm not much for arguing or debating the nitpicky things like 'how' Jesus came to be conceived (e.g. I don't care about the 'egg/seed/insemination' stuff, or logos/rhema/content details... Matthew 1.18-25 and Luke 1.26-35 are enough for me).

Watchman
Jan 27th 2012, 08:24 PM
This is good thread. I guess my understanding of who Jesus is stems from my current view on the Trinity. I see three co-equal persons in the Godhead of eternity past. The respective positions we now see are only a result of the positions they take in the governing of creation In my view any one of them could have played any other respective role we now see. The one we now know as the Father maintained his totality outside of creation and his only intersect point was the throne.(and this is now changed because of his indwelling of us through Christ)Because in making creation,the first thing that had to be done was to make room for it.The Trinity was all there was before that. In making this "space"(all realms not just space/time) for creation it was the Holy Spirit who filled it with his presence and the Son who ruled it. The constant fellowship and connection they had with each other let each share the experiences of the other.Thus we see a certain form of 'kenosis" was underwent by the Spirit and the Son just in the process of creation.The Son underwent a new level of kenosis and limited himself to human form to redeem us. It was necessary for him to lay aside his divine power in order to be tested,tried and tempted in all manner as we are. The miracles that he performed did not stem from his own divine power but from the Holy Spirit who fills all of creation.
I see Jesus in this light:
1) humbled himself in the creative process
2)humbling himself to become a man.
3) pouring out all the life he had as a man to die for us.
4) In Resurrection power from the Father he regained his former glory and his Lordship over all creation.

This is just my current view. If it has some form of heresy in it I will repent. However,since the incarnation is a deep mystery we are left to broad speculation and conjecture by reading into the scriptures we have on the subject.

So my final analysis?
Jesus is both fully divine and fully human.The scripture is quite clear on this and all my other ideas are just sheer speculations of a peanut,finite mind trying to grasp the eternal.

Anyone else have a similar concept or even one that's different?
Could it be that God the Father thinks a thought, God the Son expresses the thought, and God the Spirit carries out the thought?

W :)

divaD
Jan 27th 2012, 08:30 PM
Could it be that God the Father thinks a thought, God the Son expresses the thought, and God the Spirit carries out the thought?

W :)

I haven't read all of this thread as of yet, so not certain the context of your post.
But this sounds reasonable to me I guess. But why not also conclude that the Son carries out the thought of the Father as well?

ewq1938
Jan 27th 2012, 08:30 PM
Could it be that God the Father thinks a thought, God the Son expresses the thought, and God the Spirit carries out the thought?

W :)

No because all three have "carried out" things.

Watchman
Jan 27th 2012, 08:32 PM
No because all three have "carried out" things.
Yes, that is what scripture says. Chew on it awhile, though, and look at creation as an example.

blessings,

Watchman :)

percho
Jan 27th 2012, 09:32 PM
Let me ask a question. Why does the word of God that has been given us by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the God use words to introduce Jesus the Christ that require an understanding of reproduction. Am I the only one that believes God through the virgin Mary reproduced himself as a man child sinless from conception to death thus the one who beget was then the Father and the only begotten of a woman became the son flesh and blood begotten of God?

Did not Jesus himself who knew who beget him, whether from his mother or reviled to him by his Father I do not know, speak of himself as the son of man. I understand most here will say he knew because he was God. I believe Jesus is God because he is God's Son. To Jesus it was the Son of man who would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It is the moment of the resurrection this statement of God is made, "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee." He was Son of man by birth from his mother Mary and declared Son of God in power out of resurrection from the dead.

In cases where the voice from heaven say something like this, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" such as his baptism. This wasn't said before he went into the water but after he came out. The mount of transfiguration Jesus is coming in his kingdom, both post resurrection.

sheperdsword, said
I see Jesus in this light:
1) humbled himself in the creative process
2)humbling himself to become a man.
3) pouring out all the life he had as a man to die for us.
4) In Resurrection power from the Father he regained his former glory and his Lordship over all creation.

Do you believe he humbled himself and became a man or 100% God and 100% man? That would be impossible. Of course with God all things are possible.
Do you really believe Jesus/God was separated from God, what I assume you would call death, if so how long was Jesus/God was separated from God? Jesus said, "Father unto your hands I commend my spirit (spirit is life; it was his life he was putting in the hands of the Father) at that moment Jesus died. The spirit (life) of Jesus had gone to the Father, the body of Jesus was lifeless and subject to corruption in time and from Acts 2:31 the soul of Jesus was in Hades. How long was the spirit in the hands of the Father and the body lifeless and the soul in Hades?

Were these verses true of the only begotten Son of God? John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth See Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Was it at that moment that this verse applied? John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; These are the words of the prophet Jesus.

ewq1938
Jan 28th 2012, 01:10 AM
Could it be that God the Father thinks a thought, God the Son expresses the thought, and God the Spirit carries out the thought?

W :)

Any examples of this specifically happening in this order?

Watchman
Jan 28th 2012, 02:11 AM
Could it be that God the Father thinks a thought, God the Son expresses the thought, and God the Spirit carries out the thought?

Any examples of this specifically happening in this order?
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. We know the Word created and was God. The Spirit, in the passage above, is hovering over the waters just waiting to execute His will. The Spirit is the executor of God's will, the Son is the expression of His will.

W :)

ewq1938
Jan 28th 2012, 02:16 AM
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. We know the Word created and was God. The Spirit, in the passage above, is hovering over the waters just waiting to execute His will. The Spirit is the executor of God's will, the Son is the expression of His will.

W :)

It is written that the Son created all things, so how is it that you say the Son only expresses what the Father thinks of and the HS creates? Also, in the verse I do not see the Son expressing the thoughts of his Father, nor does the HS create the light. Looks more like the Father commanded that light appear and light appeared. The HS was simply hovering there before the light was commanded by God.

Watchman
Jan 28th 2012, 02:46 AM
What was the Spirit doing there?

ewq1938
Jan 28th 2012, 03:08 AM
What was the Spirit doing there?

Chillin' .

Brother Mark
Jan 28th 2012, 03:36 AM
What was the Spirit doing there?

It is a picture of salvation. Paul quoted Genesis to the Corinthian church.

2 Cor 4:6
6 For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
NASU

The Holy Spirit hovers over the darkness of our hearts till the Lord says "let there be light" and there is light! We get saved. The rest of Gen 1 then tells how the heart (earth) becomes fruitful. Until the Lord has completed his work and says that man is in His image. Then he declares that "very good". It's only after making man in His image that he says "very" good.

Gen 1 can be seen as a shadow of salvation. From the very beginning, God put salvation into the creation. Who else can author a story about one thing, but point to something even more important over and over again!

ewq1938
Jan 28th 2012, 03:38 AM
It is a picture of salvation. Paul quoted Genesis to the Corinthian church.

2 Cor 4:6
6 For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
NASU

The Holy Spirit hovers over the darkness of our hearts till the Lord says "let there be light" and there is light! We get saved. The rest of Gen 1 then tells how the heart (earth) becomes fruitful. Until the Lord has completed his work and says that man is in His image. Then he declares that "very good". It's only after making man in His image that he says "very" good.

Gen 1 can be seen as a shadow of salvation. From the very beginning, God put salvation into the creation. Who else can author a story about one thing, but point to something even more important over and over again!

Would you say the Holy Spirit created the light or was it another who did that?

Luciano Vinci
Jan 28th 2012, 06:12 AM
I think about how "I have a body but I am soul". Jesus had a body but his body wasn't who he was. He took on flesh. But he wasn't flesh.


I like to say I am a spirit that lives in a body which possesses a soul (1 Thes. 5:23). God is the Father of spirits (Heb. 12:9). Jesus is the Word made flesh; the Spirit of God becoming a body. I have heard Christians say they have had a spiritual experience in their human existence, but in reality we are not humans having a spiritual experience, but spirits experiencing a human existence. For our eternity (spiritual existence) is the real, and our temporal (human existence) is the passing, fading vapor.

Jesus was God/Spirit before He was in a body and is still God/Spirit. We were spirits before we were made flesh and will again be spirits after physical death. The unseen heavenly Jerusalem, general assembly and church of the firstborn are made up of spirits of just men made perfect (Heb. 12:22-23). The spirit of man is eternal. Our human experience is where the decision of where our eternity is spent. Either way the spirit lives on.

shepherdsword
Jan 28th 2012, 09:07 PM
I would definitely agree your view comes from your having a Trinity understanding to start. I think most have a difficult time accurately determining what is explicit and implicit in scripture.

The command "go therefore and baptize in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit is explicit,no? We can't argue if that's explicit. The point for debate is if the concept of the Trinity suggested by three being named is explicit or not.


If the Deity of Christ and Trinity were so obviously explicit, there wouldn't be much room for objection.

There are many explicit concepts that are redefined by various denominations in order to mold them into their doctrinal perspective. Elements of truth that are very clear to some are hidden to others.


What is heresy?
Quite simply,it is division.It breaks the body of Christ,which should be a united force,into sects,movements,streams and denominations. A bit more complex,and open for debate,is the teaching of doctrines that were not taught by the Lord himself or the apostles. This gets complex because so many disagree and what they actually taught. It's not as if we have any apostolic authority now that can set us all straight. In essence,we are like Israel in the days before the judges where "every man did that which was right in his own eyes".We all read the bible though our own paradigm and apophenia. I understand that I am guilty of this as well so I try to substantiate my beliefs by being led by the Spirit and keeping that in align with the ECF, but there I go even experiencing that through my own veil of apophenia(for lack of a better word). I guess when the Lord returns he will set us all straight.



I've studied Godhead doctrine as much as any human who ever drew a breath, and today's Trinity conceptualization is farther-removed from ANF formulation than is realized.

Really? I would like to see you defend this statement. I haven't studied the Godhead as much as any man living but I have put plenty of time and thought into it. I haven't come to the same conclusion as you.


I'd be interested to hear someone elaborate on two things:
1). Who spoke? Did the Father speak His own Logos? Or did the Son speak Himself?

The only explicit response possible is "and God said..." Implicit? God being "Elohim" or plural for "Eli". In my view,The Father spoke...the Son performed and it was at this precise moment that the respective roles of the Trinity were actualized. To others? It was at this moment the word,being inside the Father was brought forth.Neither position can be explicitly defended.


2). "How", EXACTLY, did a transcendent person hypostasize to become an immanent viable human pre-embryo?

That's a good question and delves into the "mystery" of the incarnation. The pre-existence of Jesus is explicitly stated in numerous places,by himself,the apostle John and John the baptist. As for how did he "hypostasize"? I don't think the word fits the question. Your use of the word implies that Jesus' pre-existence is just a hypothesis. If you are asking how did Jesus become an human embryo ?

This is the only explicit response possible:

Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 29th 2012, 05:32 AM
The command "go therefore and baptize in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit is explicit,no? We can't argue if that's explicit. The point for debate is if the concept of the Trinity suggested by three being named is explicit or not.

Yep. No denying there's a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit; and none are each other.

Name is singular. And if individual, never used. And F/S/HS aren't names, they're titles. No matter how it's sliced, speaking this sentence is "No Name" baptism. And all 6 baptisms recorded in scripture were in some comination of "Lord/Jesus/Christ". BTW... What IS the name of the Holy Spirit?


There are many explicit concepts that are redefined by various denominations in order to mold them into their doctrinal perspective. Elements of truth that are very clear to some are hidden to others.

Agreed. Elements of truth are hidden to Trinitarians. Are you saying three "person/s" is explicit in scripture? If so, please direct me to the passage/s with the term "person/s' so I can exegete it from the sacred text. If not, please indicate Trinity is implicit rather than explicit.



Quite simply,it is division. It breaks the body of Christ, which should be a united force, into sects, movements, streams and denominations.

So... By this definition (which isn't the definition for heresy at all), Trinity was heresy; Filioque Trinity was heresy; all Protestantism is heresy; Each sect of Protestantism is heresy; Every disagreement and dissention is heresy.

Heresy originally simply meant "teaching" or "school of teaching", to define different systematized schools of thought and belief. After Ireaneus' "Against Heresies" volumes, the etymology gradually changed to become "wrong teaching"; and that etymology is still with us today.


A bit more complex,and open for debate,is the teaching of doctrines that were not taught by the Lord himself or the apostles. This gets complex because so many disagree and what they actually taught. It's not as if we have any apostolic authority now that can set us all straight. In essence,we are like Israel in the days before the judges where "every man did that which was right in his own eyes".We all read the bible though our own paradigm and apophenia. I understand that I am guilty of this as well so I try to substantiate my beliefs by being led by the Spirit and keeping that in align with the ECF, but there I go even experiencing that through my own veil of apophenia(for lack of a better word). I guess when the Lord returns he will set us all straight.

Simply... Most beliefs are subjective to whatever extent influenced by interpretation, influence, and/or perception. Would that include adamantly defining God Himself by inserting an extra-biblical term ("person/s") that can't be exegeted FOR definition from any sacred text? I agree. Highly subjective. Inference. Deduction. Conclusion. NOT interpretation.


Really? I would like to see you defend this statement. I haven't studied the Godhead as much as any man living but I have put plenty of time and thought into it. I haven't come to the same conclusion as you.

Have you read any Ante Nicene writings? Tertullian? Hippolytus? Theophilus? Origen? Clement? Tatian? I can quote from any of their writings, but I think others should dig it out for themselves.

__________________________________________________ _______________________

"I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things, God was alone - being in Himself and for Himself universe, space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet, even then He was not completely alone. For He had with Him that which he possessed in Himself - that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him. And so all things were from himself. This Reason is His own Thought, which the Greeks call Logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse. Therefore, it is now ususal with our people - owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term - to say that the Word was in the beginning with God. Although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient. For God did not have "Word" from the beginning. But He did have Reason even before the beginning... For although God had not yet sent out His "Word", He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason - as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything that He was afterward about to utter through His Word. Now, while He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word... I may therefore without rashness first lay this down that even then before the creation of the universe, God was not alone. For He had within Himself both Reason, and inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.

Now, as soon as it please God to begin creation... He first put forth the Word himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things could be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed... Then, therefore, does the Word also himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, "Let there be light." This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God - formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom - "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways," then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect: "When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him." He thus makes His Son equal to Him. For, by proceeding from Himself, He became His First-Begotten Son. For He was begotten before all things. And He is His Only-Begotten also, for He was alone begotten of god in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of the Father's own heart. This is just as the Father Himself testifies. He says, "My heart has emmitted my most excellent Word." The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a mutual gladness in the Father's presence. "You are my Son. Today I have begotten you."
- Tertullian (circa 213AD) 3.600, 601

We need not dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name of both Wisdom and Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God and was begotten, when He proceeded forth from Him.
- Tertullian (circa 213AD) 3.602
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Tertullian was the original purveyor of both the term "person" and the term "Trinitas". He had previously referred to the "forms" or "aspects" of God, but in his treatise against Monarchianism (Modalism) he abandoned those terms because of their usage by the Modalists.

Notice his references to the Divine Soul and Spirit and the Word being God's INTERNAL Wisdom and Reason that proceeded out of God and BECAME the Son. The internal Logos became the external Son at the utterance.


There's much more. Ten volumes, in fact. Trinity has become Triadism, with the perception of "persons" becoming more and more discreet from each other because Tertullian's descriptive terminology to differentiate from Monarchianism was seized upon and employed as the central defining term for what would become orthodox doctrine by decree of Ecumenical Councils of a Catholic Church whose practices modern Protestants largely reject as a whole.

God spoke His OWN Logos. The internal Logos became the external Son. That Logos divided asunder God's OWN Divine Spirit out from His OWN Divine Soul. God spoke His OWN Reason and Wisdom by His OWN Word.


The only explicit response possible is "and God said..." Implicit? God being "Elohim" or plural for "Eli". In my view,The Father spoke...the Son performed and it was at this precise moment that the respective roles of the Trinity were actualized. To others? It was at this moment the word,being inside the Father was brought forth.Neither position can be explicitly defended.

Those who gave you Trinity in its earliest form disagree with you.


That's a good question and delves into the "mystery" of the incarnation. The pre-existence of Jesus is explicitly stated in numerous places,by himself,the apostle John and John the baptist. As for how did he "hypostasize"? I don't think the word fits the question. Your use of the word implies that Jesus' pre-existence is just a hypothesis. If you are asking how did Jesus become an human embryo ?

This is the only explicit response possible:

Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Then why would you say/agree something happened that scripture doesn't even hint happened?

(BTW... Hypostasized doesn't mean hypothetized.)

Watchman
Jan 29th 2012, 02:08 PM
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. We know the Word created and was God. The Spirit, in the passage above, is hovering over the waters just waiting to execute His will. The Spirit is the executor of God's will, the Son is the expression of His will.It is written that the Son created all things, so how is it that you say the Son only expresses what the Father thinks of and the HS creates? Also, in the verse I do not see the Son expressing the thoughts of his Father, nor does the HS create the light. Looks more like the Father commanded that light appear and light appeared. The HS was simply hovering there before the light was commanded by God.
Perhaps I have clouded the issue via my word choice. Let me rephrase: God thought the thought, it was spoken as logos, and the Spirit executed thereby causing the expression [logos) to be manifest. I confused things by interjecting the Son. The Word has always been and always will be. The Son was here for only a short time in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. The Son became the anointed one, the Christ, yet He could do nothing of Himself. He did only what He saw Father doing. How? Scripture tells us:

Hebrews 9:13-14 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The Spirit is the executor, or vehicle (if you please). The Word was expressed in the Son, Jesus who became Christ. Yet He was utterly dependent upon the Spirit, who showed Him what Father was doing. In creation, the same thing occurred. God thought, expressed the thought via the Word, and the Spirit executed. The Spirit was brooding over the waters, nurturing, ready to vivify.

w :)

shepherdsword
Jan 29th 2012, 03:59 PM
Yep. No denying there's a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit; and none are each other.

Name is singular. And if individual, never used. And F/S/HS aren't names, they're titles. No matter how it's sliced, speaking this sentence is "No Name" baptism. And all 6 baptisms recorded in scripture were in some comination of "Lord/Jesus/Christ". BTW... What IS the name of the Holy Spirit?

Of course "name" is singular as there is only one name. And this name is used,not only for the three distinct personages of the Trinity but for the whole family in heaven and earth as well:
Eph 3:14 . For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

We see that "named" is singular also but we would have to agree that the whole family is distinct and separate for the Godhead.





Agreed. Elements of truth are hidden to Trinitarians. Are you saying three "person/s" is explicit in scripture? If so, please direct me to the passage/s with the term "person/s' so I can exegete it from the sacred text. If not, please indicate Trinity is implicit rather than explicit.

Let's examine these verse:
Gn 19:24 . Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Here we see two distinct personages acting in unity with each other to accomplish this purpose. One was in heaven and the other on earth rained fire down from the personage in heaven. Both are named "Yahweh" Is that not explicit?






So... By this definition (which isn't the definition for heresy at all),

Heresy by definition means "sect"


Trinity was heresy; Filioque Trinity was heresy; all Protestantism is heresy; Each sect of Protestantism is heresy; Every disagreement and dissention is heresy.

Now you are homing in on the truth. We are all,in a certain sense, heretics.There is ONE body of Christ. Those that separate it in their own little compartment are heretics. The organisational structures that we have built and divided by giving them a separate name are all heresies. The true body is composed of those who maintain a unity with Christ by abiding in the vine.The structures that carnal men have built that divide this body,and there are members of it in all sects,will be destroyed. To understand the truth of this we must understand God's eternal purpose for the church. It is to gather together a group of living stone and build it together as a habitation for god through the Spirit. The denominations,streams and movements we have created have all gone beyond their God given mandate when they tack a name on it to separate it from the rest of the body. This truth will become clear to us all as God begins to purge and cleanse the body to make it a bride without wrinkle or spot. So yes,I am saying we are all deceived.




Heresy originally simply meant "teaching" or "school of teaching", to define different systematized schools of thought and belief. After Ireaneus' "Against Heresies" volumes, the etymology gradually changed to become "wrong teaching"; and that etymology is still with us today.

The definition for heresy is "sect". It has become synonymous for wrong teaching because the inevitable fruit of such teaching is to divide the body.Another reason for the common usage of the word is the context in which it was used in the NT.




Simply... Most beliefs are subjective to whatever extent influenced by interpretation, influence, and/or perception. Would that include adamantly defining God Himself by inserting an extra-biblical term ("person/s") that can't be exegeted FOR definition from any sacred text? I agree. Highly subjective. Inference. Deduction. Conclusion. NOT interpretation.

This conclusion is based on textual evidence and direct quotes from the ECF but I admit it is implicit. However,so is your merimos theory.
http://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes




Have you read any Ante Nicene writings? Tertullian? Hippolytus? Theophilus? Origen? Clement? Tatian? I can quote from any of their writings, but I think others should dig it out for themselves.
Tertullian was a Trinitarian. He seems to be saying that there are three:
Tertullian (160-215).

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds

Origen was a Trinitarian as well but I need to think on the distinction between it and traidism.

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father,



"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit."




__________________________________________________ _______________________





__________________________________________________ _____________________

"I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things, God was alone - being in Himself and for Himself universe, space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet, even then He was not completely alone. For He had with Him that which he possessed in Himself - that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him. And so all things were from himself. This Reason is His own Thought, which the Greeks call Logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse. Therefore, it is now ususal with our people - owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term - to say that the Word was in the beginning with God. Although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient. For God did not have "Word" from the beginning. But He did have Reason even before the beginning... For although God had not yet sent out His "Word", He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason - as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything that He was afterward about to utter through His Word. Now, while He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word... I may therefore without rashness first lay this down that even then before the creation of the universe, God was not alone. For He had within Himself both Reason, and inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.

Now, as soon as it please God to begin creation... He first put forth the Word himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things could be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed... Then, therefore, does the Word also himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, "Let there be light." This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God - formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom - "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways," then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect: "When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him." He thus makes His Son equal to Him. For, by proceeding from Himself, He became His First-Begotten Son. For He was begotten before all things. And He is His Only-Begotten also, for He was alone begotten of god in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of the Father's own heart. This is just as the Father Himself testifies. He says, "My heart has emmitted my most excellent Word." The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a mutual gladness in the Father's presence. "You are my Son. Today I have begotten you."
- Tertullian (circa 213AD) 3.600, 601

We need not dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name of both Wisdom and Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God and was begotten, when He proceeded forth from Him.
- Tertullian (circa 213AD) 3.602
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Tertullian was the original purveyor of both the term "person" and the term "Trinitas". He had previously referred to the "forms" or "aspects" of God, but in his treatise against Monarchianism (Modalism) he abandoned those terms because of their usage by the Modalists.

Notice his references to the Divine Soul and Spirit and the Word being God's INTERNAL Wisdom and Reason that proceeded out of God and BECAME the Son. The internal Logos became the external Son at the utterance.




There's much more. Ten volumes, in fact. Trinity has become Triadism, with the perception of "persons" becoming more and more discreet from each other because Tertullian's descriptive terminology to differentiate from Monarchianism was seized upon and employed as the central defining term for what would become orthodox doctrine by decree of Ecumenical Councils of a Catholic Church whose practices modern Protestants largely reject as a whole.

God spoke His OWN Logos. The internal Logos became the external Son. That Logos divided asunder God's OWN Divine Spirit out from His OWN Divine Soul. God spoke His OWN Reason and Wisdom by His OWN Word.

This is an interesting application of hebrews 4:12. I am not sure you can apply this to the Godhead as in it's context it applies to the discovering of the intents and motives of the heart. Did the father not know his own motives and intents or did he need the Son to determine this?




Those who gave you Trinity in its earliest form disagree with you.

It appears so. My formulation was based on conjecture and is by no means concrete. What went on in eternity past is not revealed to us. However,I would bow to such as Polycarp who sat and John's feet.




Then why would you say/agree something happened that scripture doesn't even hint happened?

If your application of heb 4:12 to this is accurate then it is hinted at but not fully defined.


(BTW... Hypostasized doesn't mean hypothetized.)

Thanks, my bad.
And oh by the way,this is interesting and thought provoking. The fine distinction between "traidism"and the "trinity" requires much thought. I want to be free of as much heresy as I can in this post-apostolic age. Can you point out the precise instance where The Trinity became the Triad? It would be interesting to research.

divaD
Jan 29th 2012, 06:48 PM
Let's examine these verse:
Gn 19:24 . Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Here we see two distinct personages acting in unity with each other to accomplish this purpose. One was in heaven and the other on earth rained fire down from the personage in heaven. Both are named "Yahweh" Is that not explicit?


Why is that some folks seem to see 2 beings there? I've heard others come to this same conclusion as well, but I just don't see it myself. The first part...Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire..this is explained at the end of the verse...from the LORD out of heaven. IOW only one LORD doing this, not two.

The verse says...Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire..meaning the LORD spoken of here done this. How? via Himself out of heaven, which likely means from our atmosphere, and not the 3rd heaven or something. IOW, the LORD personally paid a visit here.

Here's what I believe the verse is saying.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire VIA HIMSELF out of heaven;

shepherdsword
Jan 29th 2012, 06:54 PM
Why is that some folks seem to see 2 beings there? I've heard others come to this same conclusion as well, but I just don't see it myself. The first part...Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire..this is explained at the end of the verse...from the LORD out of heaven. IOW only one LORD doing this, not two.

The verse says...Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire..meaning the LORD spoken of here done this. How? via Himself out of heaven, which likely means from our atmosphere, and not the 3rd heaven or something. IOW, the LORD personally paid a visit here.

Here's what I believe the verse is saying.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire VIA HIMSELF out of heaven;

I see,so you think there is only one who then rains fire from himself out of heaven? That doesn't make sense to me as the language would read "Then the LORD rained fire out of heaven" if that were the case. The fact that it mentions two meant that there are two.


To PPS:
I meant to send this via PM but your inbox is full

It would be interesting to delve into the process of how The Trinity evolved into "triadism" Your posts have made me reconsider my theory of "eternity past". The ECFs had a different take on it than I did. Now I understand that their position is just as much conjecture as mine but it is safer to align oneself with views and opinions that were held by those who once sat at the apostles's feet,wouldn't you agree? Perhaps you can start a new thread "A History of Traidism and the Trinity"

It looks like you may be on to something but let's critique it fully and see how it holds up. Any of my views concerning this are disposable if something else better comes along. Would you be willing to start such an item? No Socratic trap involved,just an honest search for what is real.

Watchman
Jan 29th 2012, 07:19 PM
Any of my views concerning this are disposable if something else better comes along.
Great statement, and as it should be. It applies to me, as well.

W :)

divaD
Jan 29th 2012, 07:34 PM
I see,so you think there is only one who then rains fire from himself out of heaven? That doesn't make sense to me as the language would read "Then the LORD rained fire out of heaven" if that were the case. The fact that it mentions two meant that there are two.






The way it looks to me then, since you're seeing 2 LORDs here, you'll have to show when the first one came on the scene and why He would be different from this alleged 2nd one. BTW, I'm trinitarian, so it has nothing to do with trying to dispel trinitarianism or anything. I just think many of you are reading that verse wrong and coming to the wrong conclusions about it.

shepherdsword
Jan 29th 2012, 07:48 PM
The way it looks to me then, since you're seeing 2 LORDs here, you'll have to show when the first one came on the scene and why He would be different from this alleged 2nd one. BTW, I'm trinitarian, so it has nothing to do with trying to dispel trinitarianism or anything. I just think many of you are reading that verse wrong and coming to the wrong conclusions about it.

The two Lords are explicit.What you have to show is why there are two mentioned in this action if there is only. As I said,"The Lord raining fire out of himself in heaven" doesn't make any sense. Please diagram the sentence for me and tell me what you come up with.We see one Lord(The subject) We see another (Lord) object of the preposition. The syntax is even clearer in Hebrew where the "from" can also be translated "with"

Covkeeper30
Jan 29th 2012, 07:54 PM
I only read the first couple of replies, but would like to add my opinion as well.

I do not believe that Jesus was fully man. I do believe He was fully God. "[Father] was in Christ(temple) reconciling the world to Himself". I know where the teaching of "Fully God Fully Man" teaching came from. You'll have to research for yourself because I don't have that info on hand. But it was not taught among the firstfruits of the Church. This teaching is weak but is definitely upheld in Protestantism and other Christian brands today.

To say that Jesus was fully human is to say that He had a human spirit. We know that is not the truth. Anything with a human spirit comes from the ground up. Jesus came from Heaven down. He is God in human disguise and God is not a Man.

ewq1938
Jan 29th 2012, 08:53 PM
The way it looks to me then, since you're seeing 2 LORDs here, you'll have to show when the first one came on the scene and why He would be different from this alleged 2nd one. BTW, I'm trinitarian, so it has nothing to do with trying to dispel trinitarianism or anything. I just think many of you are reading that verse wrong and coming to the wrong conclusions about it.

Two Lords:

Mar_12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Same here:

Psa_78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.


Not two God's, but two persons who are both called God, one being higher than the other.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 31st 2012, 06:37 AM
Of course "name" is singular as there is only one name. And this name is used,not only for the three distinct personages of the Trinity but for the whole family in heaven and earth as well:
Eph 3:14 . For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

We see that "named" is singular also but we would have to agree that the whole family is distinct and separate for the Godhead.

Okay, but you've made my point. Baptism by reciting Matt. 28:19 is "No-Name" baptism. There isn't even one name mentioned. Acts clearly demonstrates what that one name is, but Trinitarians recite Matthew. Jesus knew what He was talking about, since it's His name.


Let's examine these verse:
Gn 19:24 . Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Here we see two distinct personages acting in unity with each other to accomplish this purpose. One was in heaven and the other on earth rained fire down from the personage in heaven. Both are named "Yahweh" Is that not explicit?

First, that's only two; and it's far from explicit. Why automatically infer "person(ages)"? There isn't any major God-model that can't/doesn't account for this and the few other examples like it. The pre-Incarnate Christ doesn't have to be a discreet "person" for this to be accounted for, any more that the Logos has to be eternally pre-existent as a discreet "person". In fact, it could be Triadist; three distinct beings as one God, which is how Trinity is perceived and conceptualized by many today.

The issue remains... this type of example is NOT explicit, except for those who take that pre-supposition TO the text. It is strictly implicit. Convincing for Trinitarians to stiff-arm everything else, but not truly objectively so. It certainly fits MY understanding just fine. The Logos was externalized at the utterance, but had yet to take on human form in the Incarnation. Out of this post-utterance/pre-Incarnate celestial form, the Logos accomplished everything from creating the celestial realm/beings and the terrestrial realm/beings to interacting with all immanent creation. God as a singular transcendent entity could not condescend to be "substantial". That's why He spoke forth the substance and identity of Himself to become an immanent man, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Theotes... bodily.


Heresy by definition means "sect"

Now you are homing in on the truth. We are all,in a certain sense, heretics.There is ONE body of Christ. Those that separate it in their own little compartment are heretics. The organisational structures that we have built and divided by giving them a separate name are all heresies. The true body is composed of those who maintain a unity with Christ by abiding in the vine.The structures that carnal men have built that divide this body,and there are members of it in all sects,will be destroyed. To understand the truth of this we must understand God's eternal purpose for the church. It is to gather together a group of living stone and build it together as a habitation for god through the Spirit. The denominations,streams and movements we have created have all gone beyond their God given mandate when they tack a name on it to separate it from the rest of the body. This truth will become clear to us all as God begins to purge and cleanse the body to make it a bride without wrinkle or spot. So yes,I am saying we are all deceived.

The definition for heresy is "sect". It has become synonymous for wrong teaching because the inevitable fruit of such teaching is to divide the body.Another reason for the common usage of the word is the context in which it was used in the NT.

Now I better understand what you meant, and I largely agree. The Arian conflict was the primary sectarian division, followed by many. So why maintain that element, when it was formatted with an extra-biblical term derived from another sectarian division? Tertullian was trying to "personalize" the Word as somehow more distinct than the Modalist were presenting. He abandoned "form", "aspect", and "degree" as descriptors to distinguish the Logos in a way Modalists were not. The morph came from using "person/s" as a DEFINER rather than a DESCRIPTOR. (The pragmatic non-semantical difference being that a descriptor maintains mystery, whereas a definer eliminates mystery and declares an absolute.) That is eisegetic if it's not in the text, and "person/s" is NOT in the text. "Person/s" can never truly be exegeted from the sacred text because it's not IN the sacred text. Without that one term, Trinity cannot be expressed. Any other term is just as speculative and eisegetic, and most often moves toward Triadism or full-on Tritheism. A little leaven leavened the whole lump.


This conclusion is based on textual evidence and direct quotes from the ECF but I admit it is implicit.

Thank you. You're only the second Trinitarian I've ever heard be able to admit that.


However,so is your merimos theory.
http://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes

No. I don't use any extra-biblical terms as definers. Spirit, Soul, and Body are all in the sacred text. "Person/s" is not in the text, and is inferred. All God-models are a correlation of all scripture, as they should be. Only Trinity hinges on an extra-biblical term that can't be exegeted. The confusion ensued originally from the East/West referring to hupostastis as "person"/"essence" respectively.

When I refer to inference, I'm speaking specifically of the term "person/s" and the entire conceptualization built around it. Again, there are broad boundaries when unconstrained by the actual text. That's why there are dozens of perceptions of "person/s". There's no textual standard to narrow the focus. Translation and interpretation is difficult enough without interjecting, importing, or imposing upon/into the text. This is simply inarguable, but Ideology trumps Theology.

Nobody else has been willing/able to present another view that takes up where the Councilors left off and finish the formulation with ALL the same sub-tenets without using extra-biblical terminology to define God. Others have simply migrated to various established God-models or variations of them. None, including Trinity, show man as constitutionally in the image and likeness of God. Only the Merismos understanding delineates that, and it's every bit as thorough and valid an exegesis as Trinity WITHOUT interjecting non-textual definers. Correlation is not conclusion or deduction by inferrence. Big difference. Even interpretation is merely different manners of dealing with the existing text. Trinity fails at being an interpretation.


Tertullian was a Trinitarian. He seems to be saying that there are three:
Tertullian (160-215).

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds

There ARE three. Just not three "person/s". I'm not a Modalist. There are three, and none are the others.


Origen was a Trinitarian as well but I need to think on the distinction between it and traidism.

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father,

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit."

Yes, they were all Trinitarian, but with an earlier understanding. I disagree with the final direction they chose to take. I believe they never substantially considered the spirit-soul-body understanding because of the sub-doctrine of simplicity. Simplicity was established to dispute Pantheism and Panentheism by indicating God was not comprised of constituent "parts". Simplicity was later rescinded, since Trinity technically violated it; but much too late to consider anything but Trinity, which was indelibly etched in stone. There are scatterings of considerations of God being tripartitie rather than triune, but nobody pursued developing the exegesis because of the pace and direction of orthodoxy. There were many other conflicts drawing plenty of attention.


This is an interesting application of hebrews 4:12. I am not sure you can apply this to the Godhead as in it's context it applies to the discovering of the intents and motives of the heart. Did the father not know his own motives and intents or did he need the Son to determine this?

Discerner is kritikos (G2924), and appears only here in scripture. From krites (G2923), judge; it means decisive, critical, discriminative. It indicates one whose business and special gift is to judge, conveying the meaning of the base of krino (G2919), which it to divide, separate, make a distinction, come to a decision. To judge properly, determine. To adjudicate, to take occasion to speak.

So... Yes, the Logos properly and decisively detemines to take occasion to speak of the thoughts and intents of God's heart. The Logos disemminates the Father's heart outward to us. The heart of God adjudicated by the Logos as the standard of righteousness and holiness. What/who else could discern the thoughts and intents of God's heart but the Logos which was God's OWN Wisdom and Reason, and proceeded forth and came from that heart?


It appears so. My formulation was based on conjecture and is by no means concrete. What went on in eternity past is not revealed to us. However,I would bow to such as Polycarp who sat and John's feet.

Polycarp's writings may be inferred to imply Trinity, but he nowhere indicates such. The Ideology of Trinity is so overwhelmingly inherent in conceptualiztion that anyone could read anything mentioning F/S/HS and insist it's Trinity. There wasn't such formulation or terminology as early as Polycarp or Ignatius. Justin Martyr was likely the first real apologist, immediately or concurrently followed by many others.

I've had conversations with Eastern Orthodoxers that insist Trinity is from Apostolic authority and is an unbroken specific teaching since shortly after Jesus' ascension. Of course, there's no documentation for any such thing... not even close. A common reference was God, HIS Word, and HIS Wisdom, which was somewhat predominant until at least 180AD.


If your application of heb 4:12 to this is accurate then it is hinted at but not fully defined.

No. Hypostasized is the transcendent second Trinity person being melded with a human person as two natures in one.


Thanks, my bad.
And oh by the way,this is interesting and thought provoking. The fine distinction between "traidism"and the "trinity" requires much thought. I want to be free of as much heresy as I can in this post-apostolic age. Can you point out the precise instance where The Trinity became the Triad? It would be interesting to research.

It has been a continual process of individual perception. It began when Tertullian coined the term and it became a definer rather than a descriptor. All mystery was abrogated. "Person/s" solved it all and has been adamantly declared since. Since it can't be exegeted from the text, it can be perceived to mean anything within broad boundaries. Who's to say if the three "persons" have one, two, or three minds or wills? It was never intended as a stand-alone definer. It was used of hupostasis, which means substance or confident assurance. Faith is the hupostasis of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Is faith then a "person"?

Problem is, nobody has expended ANY objective scholarship on this since it's the only absolute shared tenet of Christian faith and practice. People have their identity and worth tied to Trinity, so it's always personal when Trinity is challenged. "Your Godhead doctrine wears army boots" is how it's always taken.

I've challenged MDivs and PhDs and Pastors of every walk, and none of them can answer my questions or counter my challenges. Ultimately, they're self-convinced of having proven Trinity or they eventually appeal to mystery; much like it is here on the forum. Ideology is a hard task-master.

I just want the truth at any cost. Trinity cost me my soul for 28 years. By the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, I will have the truth.

ewq1938
Jan 31st 2012, 06:39 AM
Okay, but you've made my point. Baptism by reciting Matt. 28:19 is "No-Name" baptism. There isn't even one name mentioned.

It's a figure of speech. A literal name is missing the entire point.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 31st 2012, 06:58 AM
It's a figure of speech. A literal name is missing the entire point.

Duly noted that you believe that.

markedward
Jan 31st 2012, 04:35 PM
Let's examine these verse:
Gn 19:24 . Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Here we see two distinct personages acting in unity with each other to accomplish this purpose. One was in heaven and the other on earth rained fire down from the personage in heaven. Both are named "Yahweh" Is that not explicit?

1 Kings 8.1: Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers' houses of the people of Israel, before King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion.

Two distinct persons. One was out in the land of Israel assembling its leaders, the other in Jerusalem reigning as king. Both are named 'Solomon'. Very explicit.

shepherdsword
Feb 2nd 2012, 04:31 PM
1 Kings 8.1: Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers' houses of the people of Israel, before King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion.

Two distinct persons. One was out in the land of Israel assembling its leaders, the other in Jerusalem reigning as king. Both are named 'Solomon'. Very explicit.

No,it is not explicit that there are two separate Solomons. It does not state that Solomon was "out in the land" . That may be implied but it is not explicit.The grammer and syntax are very different. The hebrew words are quite different as well. You also have to take into account pronoun usage in Hebrew. The vast majority of (Christian) Hebrew scholars agree that two "LORDS" is explicit in Gen. None will agree that there are two explicit Solomons.

Good discussion.


*note* PPS...I will respond to your last post a little later. The response will be long and I am short on the time right now.

markedward
Feb 2nd 2012, 05:17 PM
The vast majority of (Christian) Hebrew scholars agree that two "LORDS" is explicit in Gen. None will agree that there are two explicit Solomons.That's the point, though. They only see two distinct 'Lord's because they want to see two there. The manner of speaking is the same as that for the two distinct 'Solomon's.

Solomon assembles before Solomon. Just because his name is used twice doesn't mean there's two of him.

Yahweh rains fire from Yahweh. Just because the Name is used twice doesn't mean there's two of him. (Which wouldn't even make sense, given that Yahweh says he is 'one'.)

shepherdsword
Feb 7th 2012, 01:09 AM
Okay, but you've made my point. Baptism by reciting Matt. 28:19 is "No-Name" baptism. There isn't even one name mentioned. Acts clearly demonstrates what that one name is, but Trinitarians recite Matthew. Jesus knew what He was talking about, since it's His name.

We sometimes look at events through our own paradigm. Here is a perfect example. The term "in the name of" is used to denote authority. For example when Jesus told us to "ask whatever you will in my name and the Father will do it" doesn't mean that if we tack on the name of Jesus after every prayer that it will get answered,abracadabra.The term "in my name' means" "by my will and authority" This is something the oneness people sometimes fail to grasp.




First, that's only two; and it's far from explicit. Why automatically infer "person(ages)"? There isn't any major God-model that can't/doesn't account for this and the few other examples like it. The pre-Incarnate Christ doesn't have to be a discreet "person" for this to be accounted for, any more that the Logos has to be eternally pre-existent as a discreet "person". In fact, it could be Triadist; three distinct beings as one God, which is how Trinity is perceived and conceptualized by many today.

It is explicit. There are two named. Personages are ascertained not only by this but by the fact each exists in separate form today.


The issue remains... this type of example is NOT explicit, except for those who take that pre-supposition TO the text. It is strictly implicit. Convincing for Trinitarians to stiff-arm everything else, but not truly objectively so.

I went to a "oneness" church when I first got saved. There were heavily into the Jesus only interpretation and when I read this passage. I saw the error. The understanding I brought to the text was that there was only one God who took three different forms. This verse was the beginning of my abandoning that position. Stating that my interpretation must be pre-supposed is untrue.



It certainly fits MY understanding just fine. The Logos was externalized at the utterance, but had yet to take on human form in the Incarnation. Out of this post-utterance/pre-Incarnate celestial form, the Logos accomplished everything from creating the celestial realm/beings and the terrestrial realm/beings to interacting with all immanent creation. God as a singular transcendent entity could not condescend to be "substantial". That's why He spoke forth the substance and identity of Himself to become an immanent man, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Theotes... bodily.

Your position is intriguing but CANNOT be defended by explicit biblical text. Please quote the text where the reality of this understanding is explicitly stated. I bet I will find you doing the same intellectual gymnastics that we,Trinitarians do. The reason of course,is that eternity past is only lightly touched upon and both positions are extrapolated from that. Both positions are based on mostly conjecture(even the ECF's)and by extrapolating the concepts from the rare scriptures regarding them.



Now I better understand what you meant, and I largely agree. The Arian conflict was the primary sectarian division, followed by many. So why maintain that element, when it was formatted with an extra-biblical term derived from another sectarian division? Tertullian was trying to "personalize" the Word as somehow more distinct than the Modalist were presenting. He abandoned "form", "aspect", and "degree" as descriptors to distinguish the Logos in a way Modalists were not. The morph came from using "person/s" as a DEFINER rather than a DESCRIPTOR. (The pragmatic non-semantical difference being that a descriptor maintains mystery, whereas a definer eliminates mystery and declares an absolute.) That is eisegetic if it's not in the text, and "person/s" is NOT in the text. "Person/s" can never truly be exegeted from the sacred text because it's not IN the sacred text. Without that one term, Trinity cannot be expressed. Any other term is just as speculative and eisegetic, and most often moves toward Triadism or full-on Tritheism. A little leaven leavened the whole lump.[/quote]

It appears that your "merimos" position does accomplishes the same end. It declares the mystery an absolute by sheer eisegetic interpretation and not by direct and explicit biblical statements.



[uote]Thank you. You're only the second Trinitarian I've ever heard be able to admit that.[/quote]

This is what I know about the Trinity. There is a Father,a Son and a Holy Spirit and they are not the same person but they are all fully divine. The question is,what is the nature of the Trinity? That is the mystery that cannot be explicitly defined. All of the ECFs resort to conjecture when dealing with the subject.
Just as I do and just as you do. While I don't believe they spoke "ex catherdra" I do think that the position of one who sat at the apostle John's feet trumps my personal position no matter how much intellectually superior I think it is. Hence the reevaluating of my prior view.




No. I don't use any extra-biblical terms as definers. Spirit, Soul, and Body are all in the sacred text "Person/s" is not in the text, and is inferred. All God-models are a correlation of all scripture, as they should be. Only Trinity hinges on an extra-biblical term that can't be exegeted. The confusion ensued originally from the East/West referring to hupostastis as "person"/"essence" respectively.

They are in the text but your application of the terms as a limitation of the Trinity is an intellectual extrapolation. The terms "Father" "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are in the text as well.


When I refer to inference, I'm speaking specifically of the term "person/s" and the entire conceptualization built around it. Again, there are broad boundaries when unconstrained by the actual text. That's why there are dozens of perceptions of "person/s". There's no textual standard to narrow the focus. Translation and interpretation is difficult enough without interjecting, importing, or imposing upon/into the text. This is simply inarguable, but Ideology trumps Theology.

Who did Jesus pray to when he was on earth? Who's hand did he take the scroll out of in revelation? To whom will he deliver the kingdom to at the very end? The differences require "personages"


Nobody else has been willing/able to present another view that takes up where the Councilors left off and finish the formulation with ALL the same sub-tenets without using extra-biblical terminology to define God.
Just because "merimos" is biblical term doesn't mean that it's application to God is true. Your interpretation of "merimos" has the word as the discerner of the deeper motives of God's heart. However this is contradicted by :

1C 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: [U]for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

It is clear,merimos is the process by which God divides our soul from Spirit to differentiate between what is of our carnal nature and what is from the Spirit.this is done by the living word. The Father has no need of such a differentiation and his deep things are searched out by the Spirit alone.


Others have simply migrated to various established God-models or variations of them. None, including Trinity, show man as constitutionally in the image and likeness of God. Only the Merismos understanding delineates that, and it's every bit as thorough and valid an exegesis as Trinity WITHOUT interjecting non-textual definers.
Why do you assume that? Because the term "merimos" is in the text? Perhaps so but you still make an intellectual leap into this position without any explicit backing.


Correlation is not conclusion or deduction by inferrence. Big difference.

What you call "correlation" I call "misapplication"




It is a better correlation than merimos. The ECFs held to Trinity,even if the nature of it was in dispute.




There ARE three. Just not three "person/s". I'm not a Modalist. There are three, and none are the others.

This is where many misunderstand you. I can agree with this. There are three and none are the others. Any further statement beyond this delves into intellectual gymnastics and conjecture based on implied assumptions.




Yes, they were all Trinitarian, but with an earlier understanding. I disagree with the final direction they chose to take. I believe they never substantially considered the spirit-soul-body understanding because of the sub-doctrine of simplicity. Simplicity was established to dispute Pantheism and Panentheism by indicating God was not comprised of constituent "parts". Simplicity was later rescinded, since Trinity technically violated it; but much too late to consider anything but Trinity, which was indelibly etched in stone. There are scatterings of considerations of God being tripartitie rather than triune, but nobody pursued developing the exegesis because of the pace and direction of orthodoxy. There were many other conflicts drawing plenty of attention.

I am abandoning my prior position that was more of a "traid" model and am returning to the position of the ECFS. I think there is safety in that.




Discerner is kritikos (G2924), and appears only here in scripture. From krites (G2923), judge; it means decisive, critical, discriminative. It indicates one whose business and special gift is to judge, conveying the meaning of the base of krino (G2919), which it to divide, separate, make a distinction, come to a decision. To judge properly, determine. To adjudicate, to take occasion to speak.

So... Yes, the Logos properly and decisively detemines to take occasion to speak of the thoughts and intents of God's heart. The Logos disemminates the Father's heart outward to us. The heart of God adjudicated by the Logos as the standard of righteousness and holiness. What/who else could discern the thoughts and intents of God's heart but the Logos which was God's OWN Wisdom and Reason, and proceeded forth and came from that heart?

The Spirit as can be seen from 1Cor 2:10




Polycarp's writings may be inferred to imply Trinity, but he nowhere indicates such. The Ideology of Trinity is so overwhelmingly inherent in conceptualiztion that anyone could read anything mentioning F/S/HS and insist it's Trinity. There wasn't such formulation or terminology as early as Polycarp or Ignatius. Justin Martyr was likely the first real apologist, immediately or concurrently followed by many others.

Tertullian ws pretty explicit:


Tertullian (160-215).

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit."


I've had conversations with Eastern Orthodoxers that insist Trinity is from Apostolic authority and is an unbroken specific teaching since shortly after Jesus' ascension. Of course, there's no documentation for any such thing... not even close. A common reference was God, HIS Word, and HIS Wisdom, which was somewhat predominant until at least 180AD.

Paul said the Spirit spoke.

[b] 1Ti 4:1 . Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

This could hardly be limited to God's wisdom.





Problem is, nobody has expended ANY objective scholarship on this since it's the only absolute shared tenet of Christian faith and practice. People have their identity and worth tied to Trinity, so it's always personal when Trinity is challenged. "Your Godhead doctrine wears army boots" is how it's always taken.

I've challenged MDivs and PhDs and Pastors of every walk, and none of them can answer my questions or counter my challenges. Ultimately, they're self-convinced of having proven Trinity or they eventually appeal to mystery; much like it is here on the forum. Ideology is a hard task-master.

I just want the truth at any cost. Trinity cost me my soul for 28 years. By the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, I will have the truth.


I challenge you to look at Heb 4:12 in light of the context.

"Today if you will hear my voice"

The whole context is speaking about the rest(or promise) that we are to enter into. Being transformed back into the image that we lost due to sin and having all possibility of future rebellion removed from us. To become mature in Christ we must put the carnal nature to death and walk in the Spirit. What the word is doing in 4:12 is exposing the ideas,opinions,desires and goals of the flesh from that which is of the Spirit. If we endure this process then the carnal nature,with it's motives and intents,will be exposed and we will hear the voice of God. It will not be twisted and contorted by our fleshy motives. The word will do this by the "merimos" process which is ,essentially,the circumcision of the heart. When it is complete we will be mature saints able to hear the voice of God with clarity and not be deceived by our own talking heart.

We must beware lest we not let this process complete and cease from our own works.....and do the works of God.

divaD
Feb 7th 2012, 04:32 AM
Two Lords:

Mar_12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

That's an entirely different situation there. Let's go back to the OT where that was quoted from.

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The first thing to notice, the same Hebrew word is not used here. The first LORD is Yhovah. The 2nd Lord is 'adown.

With that in mind, let's compare that to the Genesis passage.

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

The first LORD is Yhovah. The 2nd LORD is Yhovah.

It is only logical then, there is only one person being depicted here, not two. There's not 2 different Yhovahs that I'm aware of in Scriptures. The point is, had the LORD and my Lord in Psalms 110:1 both been named Yhovah in that verse, then you might have a valid point.

Which should one put the most trust in? The English translations? Or the Hebrew and Greek words?

ewq1938
Feb 7th 2012, 05:20 AM
That's an entirely different situation there. Let's go back to the OT where that was quoted from.

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The first thing to notice, the same Hebrew word is not used here. The first LORD is Yhovah. The 2nd Lord is 'adown.

Still two Lords, two different words but I was just making a point.





It is only logical then, there is only one person being depicted here, not two. There's not 2 different Yhovahs that I'm aware of in Scriptures. The point is, had the LORD and my Lord in Psalms 110:1 both been named Yhovah in that verse, then you might have a valid point.

I'm not the one who is claiming there are two there.

divaD
Feb 7th 2012, 05:30 AM
Still two Lords, two different words but I was just making a point..

I of course agree.




I'm not the one who is claiming there are two there.


LOL then. I guess I must have you confused with others in this thread then. I know some in this thread see 2 different LORDs in the Genesis 19 verse. For some reason I was thinking you were one of them.

ewq1938
Feb 7th 2012, 05:40 AM
I of course agree.






LOL then. I guess I must have you confused with others in this thread then. I know some in this thread see 2 different LORDs in the Genesis 19 verse. For some reason I was thinking you were one of them.

I believe in the concept obviously, but I am unclear if the two are mentioned in that one verse. Shepherdsword does I believe.

divaD
Feb 7th 2012, 06:28 AM
The two Lords are explicit.What you have to show is why there are two mentioned in this action if there is only. As I said,"The Lord raining fire out of himself in heaven" doesn't make any sense. Please diagram the sentence for me and tell me what you come up with.We see one Lord(The subject) We see another (Lord) object of the preposition. The syntax is even clearer in Hebrew where the "from" can also be translated "with"




You did notice that in Genesis 19:24. the Hebrew word for LORD is used both times in that passage?

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD(Yhovah) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD(Yhovah) out of heaven;


In order to convince me that you are correct and that I am wrong, simply provide a Scripture where there are two Yhovahs in one verse, and that they are not each other.

As far as I can tell, the following is the first time that occured in Scriptures.

Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD(Yhovah) God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD(Yhovah) God amongst the trees of the garden.

Obviously one and the same Yhovah both times.

1 Samuel 26:19 Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD(Yhovah) have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD(Yhovah); for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD(Yhovah), saying, Go, serve other gods.

3 Yhovahs in this verse. Obviously one and the same Yhovah all 3 times.

The point is, there are numerous passages in the OT where Yhovah is used more than 1 time in the same verse. Now all you have to do is find one of those verses where it is meaning 2 distinct Yhovahs, in order to prove your case about the Genesis 19:24 verse. If you can't do that tho, then you have proved nothing with Scriptures, which proves you haven't proven anything at all. If you want to continue believing there are 2 distinct Yhovahs in Genesis 19:24, then that's your right to do so. But that doesn't make you correct tho, just because you believe you are right. If you are correct, then you should have no problem proving that with other Scriptures that provide a 2nd witness, so to speak.

chad
Feb 7th 2012, 10:49 AM
Maybe through Christ, God was revealing to us the mystery, that was kept from us since the world began.

(Rom 16:25 KJV) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

(Rom 16:26 KJV) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

(Rom 16:27 KJV) To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.




Let me ask a question. Why does the word of God that has been given us by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the God use words to introduce Jesus the Christ that require an understanding of reproduction. Am I the only one that believes God through the virgin Mary reproduced himself as a man child sinless from conception to death thus the one who beget was then the Father and the only begotten of a woman became the son flesh and blood begotten of God?

percho
Feb 8th 2012, 06:21 AM
Maybe through Christ, God was revealing to us the mystery, that was kept from us since the world began.

(Rom 16:25 KJV) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

(Rom 16:26 KJV) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

(Rom 16:27 KJV) To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

Without a doubt. YLT Eph 1:9,10 having made known to us the secret of His will, according to His good pleasure, that He purposed in Himself, in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him;

chad
Feb 8th 2012, 07:23 PM
(1 Tim 3:16 KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

shepherdsword
Feb 11th 2012, 02:49 PM
You did notice that in Genesis 19:24. the Hebrew word for LORD is used both times in that passage?

Well,that's the whole point. <golf clap> :)


Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD(Yhovah) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD(Yhovah) out of heaven;

If the use of the same name is a barrier let's look at the reference to this even in Amos where two different names are used.


Am 4:11 I have overthrow[some of you, as God(Elohim) overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.(YAHWEH)




In order to convince me that you are correct and that I am wrong, simply provide a Scripture where there are two Yhovahs in one verse, and that they are not each other.

As far as I can tell, the following is the first time that occured in Scriptures.

Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD(Yhovah) God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD(Yhovah) God amongst the trees of the garden.

You need to look at the context and consider the grammar and syntax. The verse above clearly has reference to the same YHVH. The structure is the same as the verse that Mark posted.It is simply a case of a lack of pronoun substitution. Gen 19:24 has an entirely different structure and diagram. If the fine distinction escapes you then do a little research on hebrew grammarand pronoun usage. Search out some of the commentaries made by Christian Hebrew scholars ( and even some Jewish ones.) I have posted some,did you read them?



Obviously one and the same Yhovah both times.

1 Samuel 26:19 Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD(Yhovah) have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD(Yhovah); for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD(Yhovah), saying, Go, serve other gods.

Obvious,yes, the same context and grammar as Gen 19:24....NO.


3 Yhovahs in this verse. Obviously one and the same Yhovah all 3 times.

The point is, there are numerous passages in the OT where Yhovah is used more than 1 time in the same verse. Now all you have to do is find one of those verses where it is meaning 2 distinct Yhovahs, in order to prove your case about the Genesis 19:24 verse. If you can't do that tho, then you have proved nothing with Scriptures, which proves you haven't proven anything at all. If you want to continue believing there are 2 distinct Yhovahs in Genesis 19:24, then that's your right to do so. But that doesn't make you correct tho, just because you believe you are right. If you are correct, then you should have no problem proving that with other Scriptures that provide a 2nd witness, so to speak.

The "second" witness has been provided. See Amos 4:11. As for the point,it appears to elude you. The scriptures you posted simply do not have the same structure or meaning as Gen 19:24. They are simply verses where there were no pronoun substitutions. This is entirely different than Gen 19:24. Amos 4:11 backs this claim,however,even is there wasn't a second verse the two separate YHVHs are explicitly determined and defined by grammar and syntax.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 11th 2012, 03:19 PM
We sometimes look at events through our own paradigm. Here is a perfect example. The term "in the name of" is used to denote authority. For example when Jesus told us to "ask whatever you will in my name and the Father will do it" doesn't mean that if we tack on the name of Jesus after every prayer that it will get answered,abracadabra.The term "in my name' means" "by my will and authority" This is something the oneness people sometimes fail to grasp.





It is explicit. There are two named. Personages are ascertained not only by this but by the fact each exists in separate form today.



I went to a "oneness" church when I first got saved. There were heavily into the Jesus only interpretation and when I read this passage. I saw the error. The understanding I brought to the text was that there was only one God who took three different forms. This verse was the beginning of my abandoning that position. Stating that my interpretation must be pre-supposed is untrue.




Your position is intriguing but CANNOT be defended by explicit biblical text. Please quote the text where the reality of this understanding is explicitly stated. I bet I will find you doing the same intellectual gymnastics that we,Trinitarians do. The reason of course,is that eternity past is only lightly touched upon and both positions are extrapolated from that. Both positions are based on mostly conjecture(even the ECF's)and by extrapolating the concepts from the rare scriptures regarding them.



Now I better understand what you meant, and I largely agree. The Arian conflict was the primary sectarian division, followed by many. So why maintain that element, when it was formatted with an extra-biblical term derived from another sectarian division? Tertullian was trying to "personalize" the Word as somehow more distinct than the Modalist were presenting. He abandoned "form", "aspect", and "degree" as descriptors to distinguish the Logos in a way Modalists were not. The morph came from using "person/s" as a DEFINER rather than a DESCRIPTOR. (The pragmatic non-semantical difference being that a descriptor maintains mystery, whereas a definer eliminates mystery and declares an absolute.) That is eisegetic if it's not in the text, and "person/s" is NOT in the text. "Person/s" can never truly be exegeted from the sacred text because it's not IN the sacred text. Without that one term, Trinity cannot be expressed. Any other term is just as speculative and eisegetic, and most often moves toward Triadism or full-on Tritheism. A little leaven leavened the whole lump.

It appears that your "merimos" position does accomplishes the same end. It declares the mystery an absolute by sheer eisegetic interpretation and not by direct and explicit biblical statements.



Thank you. You're only the second Trinitarian I've ever heard be able to admit that.[/quote]

This is what I know about the Trinity. There is a Father,a Son and a Holy Spirit and they are not the same person but they are all fully divine. The question is,what is the nature of the Trinity? That is the mystery that cannot be explicitly defined. All of the ECFs resort to conjecture when dealing with the subject.
Just as I do and just as you do. While I don't believe they spoke "ex catherdra" I do think that the position of one who sat at the apostle John's feet trumps my personal position no matter how much intellectually superior I think it is. Hence the reevaluating of my prior view.





They are in the text but your application of the terms as a limitation of the Trinity is an intellectual extrapolation. The terms "Father" "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are in the text as well.



Who did Jesus pray to when he was on earth? Who's hand did he take the scroll out of in revelation? To whom will he deliver the kingdom to at the very end? The differences require "personages"


Just because "merimos" is biblical term doesn't mean that it's application to God is true. Your interpretation of "merimos" has the word as the discerner of the deeper motives of God's heart. However this is contradicted by :

1C 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: [U]for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

It is clear,merimos is the process by which God divides our soul from Spirit to differentiate between what is of our carnal nature and what is from the Spirit.this is done by the living word. The Father has no need of such a differentiation and his deep things are searched out by the Spirit alone.


Why do you assume that? Because the term "merimos" is in the text? Perhaps so but you still make an intellectual leap into this position without any explicit backing.



What you call "correlation" I call "misapplication"




It is a better correlation than merimos. The ECFs held to Trinity,even if the nature of it was in dispute.





This is where many misunderstand you. I can agree with this. There are three and none are the others. Any further statement beyond this delves into intellectual gymnastics and conjecture based on [U]implied assumptions.





I am abandoning my prior position that was more of a "traid" model and am returning to the position of the ECFS. I think there is safety in that.





The Spirit as can be seen from 1Cor 2:10





Tertullian ws pretty explicit:





Paul said the Spirit spoke.

[b] 1Ti 4:1 . Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

This could hardly be limited to God's wisdom.







I challenge you to look at Heb 4:12 in light of the context.

"Today if you will hear my voice"

The whole context is speaking about the rest(or promise) that we are to enter into. Being transformed back into the image that we lost due to sin and having all possibility of future rebellion removed from us. To become mature in Christ we must put the carnal nature to death and walk in the Spirit. What the word is doing in 4:12 is exposing the ideas,opinions,desires and goals of the flesh from that which is of the Spirit. If we endure this process then the carnal nature,with it's motives and intents,will be exposed and we will hear the voice of God. It will not be twisted and contorted by our fleshy motives. The word will do this by the "merimos" process which is ,essentially,the circumcision of the heart. When it is complete we will be mature saints able to hear the voice of God with clarity and not be deceived by our own talking heart.

We must beware lest we not let this process complete and cease from our own works.....and do the works of God.[/QUOTE]

I just saw this. I'm slammed for time and will respond soon. Glad you're at least abandoning modern Triadist comceptions.

As for YHVH/YHVH... God Transcendent. God Immanent.

divaD
Feb 11th 2012, 04:33 PM
The "second" witness has been provided. See Amos 4:11. As for the point,it appears to elude you. The scriptures you posted simply do not have the same structure or meaning as Gen 19:24. They are simply verses where there were no pronoun substitutions. This is entirely different than Gen 19:24. Amos 4:11 backs this claim,however,even is there wasn't a second verse the two separate YHVHs are explicitly determined and defined by grammar and syntax.


I'm not following exactly what it is that you think Amos 4:11 is proving? The next verse says the following.

Amos 4:12 Therefore thus will I do unto thee, O Israel: and because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.

Obviously it is the LORD in verse 11 that says this in verse 12. And the LORD goes on to say...and because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel. Thy God in this verse is meaning the LORD Himself, just like the God in verse 11 is meaning the LORD Himself plus His angels would be my guess.

Amos 4:11 I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.

In some cases I feel God can be understood in a collective sense, as in the LORD with His angels. And that's exactly what we see in Genesis 19. The LORD and His angels were involved in the destroying of. But even so, I still fail to see how there could be 2 different LORDs in Genesis 19:24 with the same Hebrew name, but not be the same person both times.

But you suggested I do a little research on syntax and the Hebrew language, etc. Perhaps I should get around to that I guess. But my guess would be, that for every scholar that might see it your way, there would be another scholar who might see it my way. So then we're back to where we started from unfortunately. :)

shepherdsword
Feb 12th 2012, 01:46 PM
I'm not following exactly what it is that you think Amos 4:11 is proving?


In your prior post,one of your objections was that "LORD" was used twice and therefore denoted the same person. This is not the case in Amos 4:11. Both Elohim and Jehovah are used. It is a reference to the same event in Gen 19. Thus it overcomes that objection.



The next verse says the following.

Amos 4:12 Therefore thus will I do unto thee, O Israel: and because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.

Obviously it is the LORD in verse 11 that says this in verse 12. And the LORD goes on to say...and because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel. Thy God in this verse is meaning the LORD Himself, just like the God in verse 11 is meaning the LORD Himself plus His angels would be my guess.

It is pointless to argue with someone who has no understanding about hebrew grammar,syntax and pronoun usage Your interpretation violates all three and this is the main point of debate between Christian and Hebrew scholars. I have found that most of the Jewish scholars who refute this position do so by mystical interpretation and not by the rules of Hebrew grammar.


Amos 4:11 I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.

In some cases I feel God can be understood in a collective sense, as in the LORD with His angels. And that's exactly what we see in Genesis 19.

What you "feel" isn't the issue. The issue is what the context and grammar demand. Two distinct "LORD's" with two distinct actions. One is the subject and the other the object of the preposition. Which hardly denotes the grammatical implications of the Hebrew but is the closest way to express it in English.



The LORD and His angels were involved in the destroying of. But even so, I still fail to see how there could be 2 different LORDs in Genesis 19:24 with the same Hebrew name, but not be the same person both times.

All members of the Trinity have the same names. Jesus is YHVH. The Holy Spirit is YHVH and the Father is YHVH so the answer is obvious how two differnent members can have the same name.


But you suggested I do a little research on syntax and the Hebrew language, etc. Perhaps I should get around to that I guess. But my guess would be, that for every scholar that might see it your way, there would be another scholar who might see it my way. So then we're back to where we started from unfortunately. :)

You will be hard pressed to find a single Christian Hebrew scholar who agrees with your interpretation. In fact,I have looked around and I can't find one. Can you?
The closest i can find is Fred Franz from the Watchtower(Jehovah Witnesses' if you want to count them as christian.)
This hardly leaves us where we started from. However,it does show the fruitlessness that will result from further discourse on the matter. I can only agree to disagree with you and move on. However,before I do,I want to answer your earlier request to show how one LORD was on earth. Let's look at the context:


Gn 18:1 . And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day

The appearance of this LORD was not in a vision. It was a physical manifestation that can be seen from:

Gn 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

Here we see what Abraham saw. Three "men" Some Trinity folks try to make this an appearance of the Trinity but it is clear from later passages that two were angels and one was the LORD himself:

Gn 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

We see from this that two,were later revealed to be angels went toward Sodom. Abraham stood before the one who remained,The LORD himself.
This made made clear by the continuous references to the LORD speaking.

There is the LORD on earth you requested. It was this LORD that rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD who was in heaven. Is there a reference to this LORD returning to heaven? Who then was the LORD in heaven?

Gn 19:24 . Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

It is pretty clear to me,as it is with most scholars I have consulted,that there were two distinct LORDs,in two different places. You claimed you believed in the Trinity so I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.


Like I said,I guess we will agree to disagree.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 12th 2012, 04:06 PM
In your prior post,one of your objections was that "LORD" was used twice and therefore denoted the same person. This is not the case in Amos 4:11. Both Elohim and Jehovah are used. It is a reference to the same event in Gen 19. Thus it overcomes that objection.




It is pointless to argue with someone who has no understanding about hebrew grammar,syntax and pronoun usage Your interpretation violates all three and this is the main point of debate between Christian and Hebrew scholars. I have found that most of the Jewish scholars who refute this position do so by mystical interpretation and not by the rules of Hebrew grammar.



What you "feel" isn't the issue. The issue is what the context and grammar demand. Two distinct "LORD's" with two distinct actions. One is the subject and the other the object of the preposition. Which hardly denotes the grammatical implications of the Hebrew but is the closest way to express it in English.




All members of the Trinity have the same names. Jesus is YHVH. The Holy Spirit is YHVH and the Father is YHVH so the answer is obvious how two differnent members can have the same name.



You will be hard pressed to find a single Christian Hebrew scholar who agrees with your interpretation. In fact,I have looked around and I can't find one. Can you?
The closest i can find is Fred Franz from the Watchtower(Jehovah Witnesses' if you want to count them as christian.)
This hardly leaves us where we started from. However,it does show the fruitlessness that will result from further discourse on the matter. I can only agree to disagree with you and move on. However,before I do,I want to answer your earlier request to show how one LORD was on earth. Let's look at the context:



The appearance of this LORD was not in a vision. It was a physical manifestation that can be seen from:

Gn 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

Here we see what Abraham saw. Three "men" Some Trinity folks try to make this an appearance of the Trinity but it is clear from later passages that two were angels and one was the LORD himself:

Gn 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

We see from this that two,were later revealed to be angels went toward Sodom. Abraham stood before the one who remained,The LORD himself.
This made made clear by the continuous references to the LORD speaking.

There is the LORD on earth you requested. It was this LORD that rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD who was in heaven. Is there a reference to this LORD returning to heaven? Who then was the LORD in heaven?

Gn 19:24 . Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

It is pretty clear to me,as it is with most scholars I have consulted,that there were two distinct LORDs,in two different places. You claimed you believed in the Trinity so I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.


Like I said,I guess we will agree to disagree.


And I'm not sure how or why any of this matters. It's a "twoness", and still requires inference to determine "persons". It could and would more likely support Dyadism, Ditheism, Bitheism, Binitarianism, or contribute to Triadism or Tritheism as readily as Trinitarianism.

This whole issue is simply one of God being inherently transcendent TO creation yet immanent WITHIN creation. "Twoness" isn't "threeness", and this is obviously a realm to realm description.

All the insistence in the world doesn't mean the Trinity model is "explicit" in this or any other passage. That's the problem. Once the extra-biblical superimposition of "persons" is utilized, Trinity CAN be effectively inferred throughout scripture. I've never said the Trinity exegesis wasn't thoroughly supportable.

But... In NO way can one legitimately insist the definition for "explicit" can suit this process. Trinity is IMPLICIT. To say otherwise is futile and fallacious. Other views don't share the weakness of ANY implicity resting wholly upon an extra-biblical term not in the sacred text.

In fact, the most natural reading of your referenced text would be two YHVHs... two Gods.

shepherdsword
Feb 13th 2012, 12:43 PM
And I'm not sure how or why any of this matters. It's a "twoness", and still requires inference to determine "persons". It could and would more likely support Dyadism, Ditheism, Bitheism, Binitarianism, or contribute to Triadism or Tritheism as readily as Trinitarianism.

This whole issue is simply one of God being inherently transcendent TO creation yet immanent WITHIN creation. "Twoness" isn't "threeness", and this is obviously a realm to realm description.

All the insistence in the world doesn't mean the Trinity model is "explicit" in this or any other passage. That's the problem. Once the extra-biblical superimposition of "persons" is utilized, Trinity CAN be effectively inferred throughout scripture. I've never said the Trinity exegesis wasn't thoroughly supportable.

But... In NO way can one legitimately insist the definition for "explicit" can suit this process. Trinity is IMPLICIT. To say otherwise is futile and fallacious. Other views don't share the weakness of ANY implicity resting wholly upon an extra-biblical term not in the sacred text.

In fact, the most natural reading of your referenced text would be two YHVHs... two Gods.

It wasn't intended to prove the Trinity by Gen 19. The only intent was to show the first step and that is multiplicity of persons in YHVH. The Trinity itself is shown in numerous other places. You make the mistake of assuming that the revelation of two distinct "YHVHs" as limiting it to two. It does not do so.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 13th 2012, 10:34 PM
It wasn't intended to prove the Trinity by Gen 19. The only intent was to show the first step and that is multiplicity of persons in YHVH. The Trinity itself is shown in numerous other places. You make the mistake of assuming that the revelation of two distinct "YHVHs" as limiting it to two. It does not do so.

I know, nor does it indicate more YHVHs, either. And Trinity is inferred in other places, not shown.

"Persons" is still, and forever will be, inference. And it's inference based solely on a superimposed DEFINING extra-biblical term upon which the entire doctrine precariously hangs. Whatever else it's white-washed with, it's eisegesis... it's read INTO the text. It must be, since it doesn't appear in the sacred text.

It's amazing you can't see this, as you are quite a mature student of the Word. How else could there be such "drift" of perception toward Tridaism? There can never be an exegesis of "person/s" relative to God. Hupostasis and Theotes are both specifically singular.

ewq1938
Feb 13th 2012, 10:38 PM
If a person is body, soul and spirit than two of the three of the Trinity qualify for personhood.


I know, nor does it indicate more YHVHs, either. And Trinity is inferred in other places, not shown.

"Persons" is still, and forever will be, inference. And it's inference based solely on a superimposed DEFINING extra-biblical term upon which the entire doctrine precariously hangs. Whatever else it's white-washed with, it's eisegesis... it's read INTO the text. It must be, since it doesn't appear in the sacred text.

It's amazing you can't see this, as you are quite a mature student of the Word. How else could there be such "drift" of perception toward Tridaism? There can never be an exegesis of "person/s" relative to God. Hupostasis and Theotes are both specifically singular.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 13th 2012, 10:43 PM
If a person is body, soul and spirit than two of the three of the Trinity qualify for personhood.

Duly noted AGAIN that you believe God has multiple souls.

I'll burn it into a board in the treehouse for posteriority... er... posterity. :-P

ewq1938
Feb 13th 2012, 11:01 PM
Duly noted AGAIN that you believe God has multiple souls.

God is not one "person" as you believe. The Father has a body, soul and spirit and his son has a body, soul and spirit :)



I'll burn it into a board in the treehouse for posteriority... er... posterity. :-P

Such a concept for idol worship lol

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 13th 2012, 11:33 PM
God is not one "person" as you believe. The Father has a body, soul and spirit and his son has a body, soul and spirit :)

God is not "persons" of ANY quantity. (Despite my occasional conversational concession which I always regret at times like this.). Hupostasis and Theotes are singular. "Persons" came from hupostasis. Three hupostases of one ousia. Ousia is, of course, not used in the text at all in regards to God.


Such a concept for idol worship lol

I promise not to worship you or your multi-souled god. :-P

In one specifically-understood sense, you are correct and closer to truth than Trinitarians; but it would take ten pages of frustrating and escalating discourse to atttempt to communicate that to you personally. Just call me a Modalist for the thousandth time and be on your way.

"Person/s" is inference by insertion, even for a semi-nearly-sorta-almost-pseudo-Trinitarian such as yourself. You've missed me again, haven't you?

ewq1938
Feb 13th 2012, 11:46 PM
God is not "persons" of ANY quantity.

Yes I know that's your position but I can't find that support scripturally while I can find massive support for God being composed of more than one person.



I promise not to worship you or your multi-souled god. :-P

Multi-personed God would be more accurate as we are talking about more than just how many souls there are.

Mat_26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Jesus has a soul.

Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Isa_42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

The Father also has a soul.






In one specifically-understood sense, you are correct and closer to truth than Trinitarians; but it would take ten pages of frustrating and escalating discourse to atttempt to communicate that to you personally. Just call me a Modalist for the thousandth time and be on your way.

I haven't done that since last year bro. You are not a Modalist but I maintain you aren't too far away from it :) At it's core, there is a one bodied God as you have described believing in.




"Person/s" is inference by insertion, even for a semi-nearly-sorta-almost-pseudo-Trinitarian such as yourself. You've missed me again, haven't you?

Well it did warm my heart when you spoke of my defense so I guess that could count :)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 14th 2012, 12:20 AM
Yes I know that's your position but I can't find that support scripturally while I can find massive support for God being composed of more than one person.

Multi-personed God would be more accurate as we are talking about more than just how many souls there are.

Mat_26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Jesus has a soul.

Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Isa_42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

The Father also has a soul.

I haven't done that since last year bro. You are not a Modalist but I maintain you aren't too far away from it :) At it's core, there is a one bodied God as you have described believing in.

Well it did warm my heart when you spoke of my defense so I guess that could count :)

Yeah, and all the above was more dry humor than serious, but didn't really come through on my reread.

I agree with parts of the above over Trinitarianism "proper", and I've purged most of my defensive adversarial responses. I just don't think it fruitful for us to seriously discuss the subject.

I'm anchored to the Rock of Ages, and you're not budging off your sandbar; so we won't agree. I'm fine with that, and you're probably not poppin' Unisom for insomnia over it, either. My issue was misrepresentation and I've broomed that, too, for the most part.

How's Joseph Smith? That was weird, eh? Which is better... MorMon or Moron? Same thing in my book. But I've never read the golden tablet things.

ewq1938
Feb 14th 2012, 12:24 AM
How's Joseph Smith? That was weird, eh? Which is better... MorMon or Moron? Same thing in my book. But I've never read the golden tablet things.

Either works for me I guess. But the outer space stuff is kinda cool, but I like Sci Fi stuff so...

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 14th 2012, 12:29 AM
Either works for me I guess. But the outer space stuff is kinda cool, but I like Sci Fi stuff so...

You'd LOOOOOVE Scientology then. Battlestar Galactica meets Sigmund Freud meets a confused Gnostic Hindu. YeeHaw, Jethro. :-)

ewq1938
Feb 14th 2012, 12:31 AM
You'd LOOOOOVE Scientology then. Battlestar Galactica meets Sigmund Freud meets a confused Gnostic Hindu. YeeHaw, Jethro. :-)

And I heard they don't age and can heal themselves...in my religion you just get old and die lol

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 14th 2012, 12:33 AM
And I heard they don't age and can heal themselves...in my religion you just get old and die lol

For the paltry sum of $300,000, Tom Cruise will "induct" you and you'll have opportunity to be as normal as he is. LOL.

percho
Feb 14th 2012, 03:16 AM
Gal. 4:4 YLT and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law,

Luke 1:30-33 And the messenger said to her, `Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God; and lo, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus; he shall be great, and Son of the Highest he shall be called, and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end.'

34 And Mary said unto the messenger, `How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?'

Am I to understand this as the God and the Word and the Holy Spirit were doing whatever they do and the God said. "Well it's time. Holy Spirit you take the Word and put him in the virgin Mary and Word you will be born as a baby man child 100% God and 100% man.

OR

Duet 6:4 `Hear, O Israel, Jehovah God of us Jehovah one'. Hebrew interlinear John 4:24 Greek interlinear Spirit the God------Did that God have the angel tell Mary

Luke 1:35 And the messenger answering said to her, `The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God;
Greek interlinear Scripture4all Spirit Holy shall be on coming on you and power of Highest shall be over shadowing you wherefore also the one being generated out of you Holy thing shall be being called Son of God.

How am I to understand the incarnation of the Christ.

Was the Christ the seed of Abraham, the son of David, the only begotten (as in one of a kind and conceived of woman) Son of God or not?