Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate
Browse by what's: hot | new | rising | top of the week

Is God a PERSON or PERSONS?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Is God a PERSON or PERSONS? Yo Dude
Anakrino and I have been carrying on a very good private discussion. And it has served to help me better clarify my position. I'd like to invite others to give thier thoughts...please, without calling me or others heretics.

Jesus is God in the sense that He is the express image of God...has been given all power by God...has the authority of God...and so forth.

BUT...

Jesus is not the PERSON of God.

Let me ask a simple question: Is God a PERSON?

That seems almost too simple. Of course, He is. But if we hold to the Trinity, we have to say that, no, God is not A PERSON...but is PERSONS.

Thus, a singular word, "God," is forced to mean, in our most basic understanding of the word, that "One PERSON is actually THREE PERSONS."

If Trinitarians will actually say what they mean, that "the God-class of Being are comprised of three Persons," we would have this all resolved." But instead of invoking "God-class" or "God group" or "God-Family," they steadfastly hold to the singular form: God.

And why is that? Because they think (rightfully, perhaps) that any other word implies polytheism. But let me ask another question:

If the Hindus claimed that all their thousands of gods were actually co-equal and co-eternal persons of the one God, and while we have a Trinity, they have a Million-inity, would we nod our heads and say, "Yes, well, that works."

I don't think we would. I think we'd say, "That's just a bit of definitional trickery...to SAY that they are all part of the one God does not at all mean that you have--viola!--went from polytheism to monotheism."

We'd say things along the line of, "How can there be ONE God with a MILLION PERSONS comprising that ONE GOD? You have, de facto, a polytheistic model, whether you put that in writing or not."

But when we reduce it from a million PERSONS to three PERSONS, why suddenly, we no longer have problems with it--or at least we don't make any waves.

My claim is simple: Jesus issues from God. And in the sense that He is comprised of whatever God is, and is the express image of His PERSON, and in Him all the fulness of the Godhead dwells, in those senses, HE IS GOD.

Ah, but in the sense of being THE PERSON OF GOD, Jesus is NOT God. He is distinct from God.

Just as you may look like your father, have power of attorney, have all his characteristics, etc., IN THAT SENSE, you are your father. But you are not, nor ever will be, THE PERSON OF YOUR FATHER.

THAT is all I am trying to say. Which some will discard. But in my opinion, it answers every passage of scripture on the matter. When Jesus is referred to as God, it is in the sense I speak of...and when the scriptures indicate that Jesus has a God, or that His head is God, it is in the sense of the PERSON of God.

In any case...there you have it.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8625
3/22/06 2:29 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post none of the above! 12thman
it's obviously none of the above.

I met a guy in a Cristian bookstore wearing blue jeans, a blue jean jacket and a pair of Ray-Ban police glasses. He explained to me that there is a Quad-inity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and of course, God Almighty. Naturally he was God Almighty. He explained he had spent many of his last few years touring his creation throughout the Universe, but had recently come back to Earth to do that which Jesus had not done... raise up seed bearing his name. I was laughing my tail off, but he didn't flinch. I was so taken back by his seriousness that I paused and asked him to take his sunglasses off, look me in the eye, and repeat himself again. He replied, "oh no my son, if I take off my glasses you will peer into the glory of the Almighty and be consumed immediately... we wouldn't want that, now would we?"

I guess I'm expecting to get to the throne and see either four thrones or one throne with 4 seats where a guy with jeans and police glasses nonchalantly says, "See, I told you!"
Member
Posts: 49
3/22/06 9:35 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Is God a PERSON or PERSONS? Rafael D Martinez
Yo Dude wrote:
Anakrino and I have been carrying on a very good private discussion. And it has served to help me better clarify my position. I'd like to invite others to give thier thoughts...please, without calling me or others heretics.

Jesus is God in the sense that He is the express image of God...has been given all power by God...has the authority of God...and so forth.

BUT...

Jesus is not the PERSON of God.

Let me ask a simple question: Is God a PERSON?

That seems almost too simple. Of course, He is. But if we hold to the Trinity, we have to say that, no, God is not A PERSON...but is PERSONS.

Thus, a singular word, "God," is forced to mean, in our most basic understanding of the word, that "One PERSON is actually THREE PERSONS."

If Trinitarians will actually say what they mean, that "the God-class of Being are comprised of three Persons," we would have this all resolved." But instead of invoking "God-class" or "God group" or "God-Family," they steadfastly hold to the singular form: God.

And why is that? Because they think (rightfully, perhaps) that any other word implies polytheism. But let me ask another question:

If the Hindus claimed that all their thousands of gods were actually co-equal and co-eternal persons of the one God, and while we have a Trinity, they have a Million-inity, would we nod our heads and say, "Yes, well, that works."

I don't think we would. I think we'd say, "That's just a bit of definitional trickery...to SAY that they are all part of the one God does not at all mean that you have--viola!--went from polytheism to monotheism."

We'd say things along the line of, "How can there be ONE God with a MILLION PERSONS comprising that ONE GOD? You have, de facto, a polytheistic model, whether you put that in writing or not."

But when we reduce it from a million PERSONS to three PERSONS, why suddenly, we no longer have problems with it--or at least we don't make any waves.

My claim is simple: Jesus issues from God. And in the sense that He is comprised of whatever God is, and is the express image of His PERSON, and in Him all the fulness of the Godhead dwells, in those senses, HE IS GOD.

Ah, but in the sense of being THE PERSON OF GOD, Jesus is NOT God. He is distinct from God.

Just as you may look like your father, have power of attorney, have all his characteristics, etc., IN THAT SENSE, you are your father. But you are not, nor ever will be, THE PERSON OF YOUR FATHER.

THAT is all I am trying to say. Which some will discard. But in my opinion, it answers every passage of scripture on the matter. When Jesus is referred to as God, it is in the sense I speak of...and when the scriptures indicate that Jesus has a God, or that His head is God, it is in the sense of the PERSON of God.

In any case...there you have it.


In all of this public rumination, Yo, you say much about Scripture without quoting any of it to support your beliefs. That's pretty telling.

What you say here hasn't got any Bible to back it up. You say much about who you think God is and who Jesus is, but how did you arrive at your conclusions?

If you're going to engage in dialogue on this, it's got to be on the basis of the Word. We have no other objective source of truth for that but God's Word. I'm not interested in opinions - just the truth of the Word. So if you are going to make the kind of statements you are, you'd better tell me where the Bible tells us Jesus isn't God. Otherwise, you won't appear to have much to stand upon. And I won't be back in this thread.

While you don't want to be called a heretic, and I don't want to call you one, believe me, what you are advocating here is the same level of error that heresy advances. False teacher make the same claims. I will have to apologize and repent for every bit of the refutation I've ever done with every cultist under the sun for the past 20 years of my life who deny the Trinity and reject the deity of Christ if I was to accept your teaching here.
And I'm not about to do that because I know that God has self-disclosed Himself as Triune in the Word.

This isn't trying to hit you over the head or demonize you, so there's no need to be defensive. I have no agenda here. But you keep posting this rather incredible statement of faith you have every now and then here on Actscelerate that are still fraught with unbiblical assumptions.

I suggest you go back to the Word and see what it says .. again ..

agape

rafael
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7766
3/23/06 5:08 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Rafael Yo Dude
Rafael,

I have included MULTIPLE mentions of scripture during the course of various postings:

Here's a few:

"I ascend to your God and MY God."

"My Father is greater than I."

"There is ONE God, and ONE Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."

"The head of Christ is God."


And there are others like this. At the same time, I acknowledge that there are some verses in the favor of a more Triniatarian viewpoint. BUT, from the OVERALL reading of scripture, I come to the conclusion that God is A PERSON. Not PERSONS, but PERSON.

But if that is the case, how do we understand Jesus? And my reply has been that Jesus is the IMAGE and SON and ONLY BEGOTTEN of God, carrying all His power and authority, but is NOT the PERSON of God...which belongs to the Father. Here's another verse:

"There is ONE GOD, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ...."

You know as well as I do, that while your son may have all of your characteristics and DNA, he is NOT you. He is your SON. Likewise, there is a reason that Jesus is called the SON in scripture.

Now, is Jesus the Son of God? Of course! The Bible tells us so. BUT, is Jesus LITERALLY the Son of God...or is it just a title or position? Well, just remember, you took me to task somewhat for my "opinion," so be careful what you say.


And just to mess you up, what in the world did Hebrews mean when it states that Jesus was anointed with the oil of gladness above His FELLOWS?

I have a theory that the early church did not have this figured out. And so when we read the various statements about Jesus, we are getting their take on it, but not necessarily the objective case about Jesus. All thought of Him as divine, but some seemed to circle around the God-role more closely, while others made a clearer distinction between Him and God.

Quite simply, the church is STILL in need of the full truth about Jesus. Why? Because of Nicea. We locked it down and decided to call anyone a heretic who disagreed then. And so there has not been the 20 centuries of debate. I would imagine that orthodoxy would have come to some variation on Jesus' role had we permitted wider discussion.

From Scripture, we KNOW (assuming every statement in the Bible about Jesus is correct):

We KNOW that Jesus is not JUST A MAN ("Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God")

We know that He both was with God and was God.

We know that "all power is given unto Him."

We know that God is the Head of Christ.

We know that the Father is greater than Jesus (and the "emptying" argument is, in my opinion, simply a means to support the Trinity--at what point did the Father stop being greater? Chapter and verse, please?)

So we have these logical issues--scripture pulling in, it seems, two different directions. What do we do?

Well, if you're a Trinitarian, you come up with the nonsense that there is indeed one God, but He is comprised of three persons. (Actually, could you call God "He"? Wouldn't you have to say, "There is one God, and IT is comprised of three persons ?)

And you must do this at all costs. Because you know that to say there is more than one God is heresy. And yet you also feel you must make Jesus into God, too--else Arius gets a point.

My position is a better reckoning of the facts, I believe. For in my position, Jesus IS God in the sense that your son is you. He is the IMAGE of God, carries the authority of God, is the Son of God...and so can be rightfully said to be God...yet He is not the PERSON of God.

Why is that heresy but the tortured Trinitarian position isn't? Why, it's as simple as "We said so." Understand, that SAYING that there is ONE GOD but THREE PERSONS doesn't mean it holds any weight at all logically. I can say that a circle is square. Doesn't make it happen.

Can you find any verse--any verse!--in which my position is found wanting? That is, can you show me a verse where it cannot be the case that when it is implied that Jesus is God, it is in the sense that I mentioned?

And can you show me any verse where if equality is implied, that it is cannot be in the sense that Jesus issues from God (and is not necessarily the PERSON of God)?

And can you show me any verse where it CANNOT be the case that Jesus is NOT the person of God?

And can you show me any verse that specifically implies that God is made up of multiple Persons? ("These three are one"? Nope. I agree they are one--in the Son and Holy Ghost issue God and are comprised of whatever He is...but they are not the PERSON of God).

Look, you have to realize that you have given a lot of time to defending ORTHODOXY...and perhaps while doing that, you were not actually defending the SCRIPTURE. I need not remind you of some of the things that once were considered orthodox. I need not remind you that what you believe right now was once considered heresy by the Catholic Church (unless you believe men can forgive sins, etc.).

So orthodoxy ultimately means NOTHING...UNLESS it is based clearly and incontrovertably upon scripture. Otherwise, it's opinions. And I know how you feel about them.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8625
3/23/06 5:51 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Let's dig in the Word - John 10:30 Rafael D Martinez
OK, Yo. If you want to insist that I am defending what you scorn as "orthodoxy" without ever touching the Word, that's your opinion. It's not one I'm going to agree with. What you have been continually citing as Scripture which supposedly proves Jesus is not divine or God Incarnate simply don't say what you infer them to say.

Open your Bible, Yo and read the following ..

I will address the 4 scriptures you cited in a separate post .. First, I'd like you to explain to me what Jesus meant when he said this ..

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." (NIV)

Many antitrinitarians or those who don't understand the Trinity, when confronted by this plainly stated assertion of Jesus try to backpedal and evade the inescapable truth we see here that Jesus is stating that He and His Father are in essence the one and the same Almighty God. "He means they're one in purpose, in will, in mission .." and then begin to bring forth word pictures of comparison between a human father and how others around him will marvel at how aspects of his personality are reflected in the nature of his human son.

Yet it becomes clear that in just 5 words, the Lord Jesus Christ's self-revelation of His relationship to His Father levels all of this unbiblical religious speculation to the ground. The words of Jesus here cannot be drawn down to the level of human to human comparison. He plainly says here that He and His Father are one, and the Greek construction of the verse (ego kai ho pater hen esmen) makes no room for such an interpretation that you and other antitrinitarians might make.

The neuter numerical word "hen" means what it says – "one." The first person plural verb "esmen" (are) conclusively settles the relationship of God to Christ: they are one and the same person in not just purpose but in power, authority, eternity and essential nature, all the while retaining completely separate and independent identities as distinctive yet divine Persons.

He is saying that "we are one" in all of the attributes of deity that are found in the nature of God Himself. Jesus didn't "deny" He was God – He made abundantly clear that He was indeed Almighty in all respects!

Yo, what else does the word "one" mean?

agape

rafael
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7766
3/24/06 11:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Is God a PERSON or PERSONS? notwanghere
Is there any limit to the promotion of heresy here? Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1794
3/24/06 11:26 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Jesus is not the same person as the Father Anakrino
Trinitarian theology states this fact clearly. There are not three gods but one God eternally existing is three persons.
_________________
The way of Salvation is simple, but it is not easy.
Friendly Face
Posts: 304
3/25/06 9:46 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post "My Father and I Are One" Yo Dude
Rafael, why in the world do you think that verse even remotely affects my argument?

If nothing else, it is a strong argument for Oneness.

Let me ask you a question: Did Jesus say that while He was a man? (Yes). Well, didn't He also say that "My Father is greater than I"?

So why do you get to roll out the illogic of, "Well, one was Jesus speaking as God, and one was Him speaking as a man"? but I can't interpret it as I see it?

Because, "orthodoxy" has, at times, been a barricade to the truth of God, in some cases. I need not remind you that our Pentecostal forefathers were considered all but orthodox for the beliefs you and I now cherish.

Jesus and the Father ARE one...in the sense that I gave--i.e., that Jesus issues from the Father.

But, again, I argue that God is a SINGLE PERSON, and that is the Father. If we take the verse you gave in the most literal sense, we must needs find and join an apostolic church.

So...why is it OK for you to argue that, no, their not the SAME PERSON...but the SAME GOD...but it is somehow illogical for me to argue that, God Himself is a PERSON, and Jesus while the SON of God, is not the PERSON of God?

Well, there's no good reason for disqualfying my position. And sooner or later, it usually ends in the same place: Yo, dude, you're a heretic.

But I'm not. I hold that the Trinity has been the cause of the problems...because it is out of alignment I believe with the common understanding of scripture.

Again, is it right to call THREE PERSONS "He"? If we say, "God is on HIS throne," are we speaking of one person or three? And if three, then shouldn't we be saying, "God is on ITS throne"? That is--and this is a response to some things that my brother Anakrino said--while we can call a member of the Supreme Court "he" or "she," we cannot call the SUPREME COURT a "he" or a "she."

Love ya, Rafael!
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8625
3/25/06 7:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Is God a PERSON or PERSONS? TheoloJohn
"I and my Father are one," refers to Christ's unity of spirit, purpose, and yes, Deity, with the Father.

"My Father is greater than I" is in reference to the voluntary self-limitation of the Son of God necessitated by virtue of His Incarnation.

By the way, Yo, there are in fact orthodox trinitarian theologians who recognize the trinity in social terms, as a perfectly loving family, without denying (as you seem to) the full Deity both of Christ and of the Spirit.
_________________
"Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2160
3/25/06 9:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Theolojohn Yo Dude
I do not, nor have I ever, denied the FULL DEITY of Jesus. I simply assert that He is God in every sense except the PERSON of God.

By the way, further to Rafael's point, Jesus and the Father are NOT one person...that would mean that, at most, there are TWO persons in the, um, Trinity: The Father/Son Person and the Holy Ghost.

Theolojohn, those Trinitarian theologians who do take the social position are closer in alignment with my position. But then problem still remains in that we speak of God as HE...never THEM or IT.

But, in any case, so long as they are saying that "There is on God-Family," so to speak, I can see that working much better than what we have now.

Love--and thanks for the insight.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8625
3/26/06 12:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Theolojohn TheoloJohn
Yo Dude wrote:
I do not, nor have I ever, denied the FULL DEITY of Jesus. I simply assert that He is God in every sense except the PERSON of God.


Your argument assumes that which it must prove. No trinitarian who knows what he's talking about would ever assert that the PERSON of Jesus Christ is indistinguishable from the PERSON of the Father or the person of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:
By the way, further to Rafael's point, Jesus and the Father are NOT one person...that would mean that, at most, there are TWO persons in the, um, Trinity: The Father/Son Person and the Holy Ghost.


And again, no trinitarian with even a bare understanding of the orthodox doctrine of the trinity has ever said that Jesus and the Father were not distinct persons. The orthodox doctrine is "God in three Persons," not "God in one Person," or "God as three persons." The very word "trinity" itself simply means "three-in-one," a tri-unity.

Further, the orthodox doctrine states that all three persons of the Godhead are one in substance/essence, as well as one in will, mind, and heart.
_________________
"Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2160
3/26/06 3:23 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Illogic? Please .. Rafael D Martinez
You haven't interacted with the question I asked about John 10:30.

You wrote:

>>Jesus and the Father ARE one...in the sense that I gave--i.e., that Jesus issues from the Father. <<

What does >>>one<<< mean? I can see how you tried to evade the issue by bringing up your problematic discussion of the Son as the "Father/Son Person." Using the old saw of "one in purpose" and "one in spirit" won't fly when we get the Word out to dig this out because that is NOT what the Scripture teaches. You hang in on this thread you started, I'm going to show it to you. That's if you choose to hang in there to hear what I have to say. I just spent 8 months doing 15 separate articles on the antitrinitarianism of Remnant Fellowship's Gwen Shamblin and your arguments are NO different then hers, I am sorry to have to say.

>>But, again, I argue that God is a SINGLE PERSON, and that is the Father. If we take the verse you gave in the most literal sense, we must needs find and join an apostolic church.<<

Not at all. The verse gives you no room at all for this! I'm rather amazed you'd say something like that. It does show one of two things: that you really don't understand what the Trinity doctrine teaches and/or you really are rejecting what the Trinity doctrine teaches in full knowledge of it. I'm not God the Spirit who judges you. He knows your heart and mind. I do not. I can only take what you say at face value for what it says. And you have, in no uncertain terms here, taken exception with the heart of God's self-revelation here. There are few errors worse than this.

Yo, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this .. but I am not calling you a heretic. I told you that to start with when I began to hesitantly discuss this. If you feel impressed to embrace the idea, however, then maybe its because the shoe fits here. For what you are saying is heretical. It's a denial of what God has revealed of Himself.

What you dismiss as "illogic" when referring to the dual natures of Christ as both man and divine is Biblical teaching is drawn straight from Scripture. And this isn't a matter of private interpretation, my friend. Your suggestion that Trinitarians view the Trinity as some unguarded doctrinal froth that somehow blocks people from God is equally baseless. The Biblical prophecies, genealogies and Gospel account references to the humanity of Jesus establish firmly His Incarnation. The Biblical verses that clearly allude to that Trinity are too well established to ignore.

You stated:

>> .. can you show me any verse that specifically implies that God is made up of multiple Persons? ("These three are one"? Nope. I agree they are one--in the Son and Holy Ghost issue God and are comprised of whatever He is...but they are not the PERSON of God .. <<

I just did. You neatly stepped aside from the plain sense of the Scripture in John 10:30 to ignore it.

I think that what you are doing isn't hardly any different than what other antitrinitarians have done for centuries: in your rejection of it, you betray a grave misunderstanding of what Trinitarians teach about the Trinity and at the same time a serious misrepresentation of it as you set forth your own views. And I know you've been told this again and again in the past. I've seen your arguments about this in the past without entering into them because others here have raised this point with you.

You are stumbling over the fact that the Person of God as the Father can in anyway be reconciled with the fact that another Person can be the Son. The verses you cited (torn out of their context, I might add, and not referenced are as follows):

"I ascend to your God and MY God."

"My Father is greater than I."

"There is ONE God, and ONE Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."

"The head of Christ is God."

These are the verses that for you apparently indicate a complete and total superiority of the Father to the Son. In fact, your position is one that assumes that Christ's own words and the teaching of Paul is that God is a supreme Being that has no peer. But simply because the Son is who He is, the Son of God in no way implies or suggests (as you explicitly overblow) that He is inferior to Him in power, glory, authority and eternity. That is what the implications of your teaching as you spell it out here - where do you get this from? You decry the "literalism" you accuse me of having in looking at John 10:30, yet your own "literalism" here reads more into the texts you quote incompletely and out of context.

When I get some time, I'm going to show that to you. That's if you stick it out here.

You also state that

>>I hold that the Trinity has been the cause of the problems...because it is out of alignment I believe with the common understanding of scripture.<<

What problems? What "common understanding"? If you were a Oneness Pentecostal, as you may well be, I can see why you feel threatened, but why? The antitrinitarianism you advance is the minority opinion here and always has been, not because of some spiritual subterfuge or conspiracy theory, but because the Trinity is founded on the Word. So what problems does the Trinity have for the Christian Faith? The Trinity is actually the shining Scriptural embodiment of Divine Grace that God has extended to us in these last days. You miss out on that and you are in serious spiritual trouble. What "problems" has the Trinity really posed for the Christian Church? Answer me that if you will.

No Trinitarian denies there is One God, but you keep rather stubbornly insisting that they do. No Trinitarian denies that Yahweh is the One True God, but you keep doggedly spewing this claim that the doctrine of the Trinity bars men from His Glory. This is misrepresentation - whether in ignorance or rebellion I know not, but that's beside the point. These reproaches you offer aren't just "fighting" words, they are condescending words .. expressions of a belief that is fundamentally incompatible with Biblical Christianity.

You show how much you do not understand of my Father .. and His Son .. and the Spirit .. and their Glory. How much then can you understand of the Christian life? Who then is barring God's glory to whom?

agape

rafael
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7766
3/26/06 7:13 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Rafael... Yo Dude
You stated in your original post on John 10:30 that Jesus and the Father are the SAME PERSON. Now, if that is your take on matters, then, my brother, it is you who have a serious misunderstanding of the Trinity. For they are most certainly NOT the same person.

Further, I think it somewhat proves my point when we--you, Theolojohn, and myself--can't even be assured that the others really understand the Trinity. It's a confusing notion.

I fully understand that the Trinity is saying "Three-in-One." Fully. What I am saying, though, is that is nonsense. I can SAY all kinds of nonsensical things, but that doesn't mean they are so.

I can say, "God can make a rock heavier than He can pick up." Or "God can create an unstoppable force and an immovable object and run them into each other." Or "God can draw a square circle."

My point is that JUST SAYING "God is is three-in-one" doesn't at all make it so. And I further claim that SCRIPTURE does not bear that out. What happens/happened is that we are EXTRAPOLATING the Trinity from the various verses we see.

Now, that's perfectly legitimate to do. We do such things all the time. But let's not act as if the scriptures themselves are absolutely clear and certain regarding the Trinity, for they are not.

By the "illogic" of your position, what I was meaning to say is that how come when Jesus said, "My father and I are one," (and He said it in the flesh, so to speak), that is supposedly the GOD side of Jesus talking...but when He says, "My Father is greater than I," that is the MAN side speaking? Do we have grounds to decide what what was what? No. We do that because we don't know how to explain it otherwise.

Again, God is a HE, is He not? At least that Bible says such. And if He is a HE--a singular PERSON--then we must take care to not just let that slip so we can hold on to a manmade doctrine.

A TRI-unity is not a HE. It is a THEM, perhaps, or an IT, perhaps, but it is not a HE.

Again, to Theolo's other point...if we want to define "God" as "God Family" or "God-Class," then I think the scriptures make a lot more sense with that understanding. But the fact that almost no one can speak sensibly for long on the Trinity...yet we can speak with great erudition on almost all the other doctrines...tells me that perhaps something is amiss in our take.

Doctrine must ALWAYS be certain from scripture. CERTAIN. If it's not, it might be our "preferences" or "our beliefs," but it is not doctrine.

I fully realize that my stance is "heretical" in one sense. But I am not basing my faith on what Nicea said...but on what the scriptures say. And what Nicea got right, I'll keep...and what (I think) they missed, I am duty-bound to keep searching the scriptures regarding that.

Love.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8625
3/26/06 7:50 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Yo- You got one thing right! Kenny L Flaming
Yo Dude wrote:
... I fully realize that my stance is "heretical" in one sense...


I cannot wait to hear what RDM has to say in response to Yo's latest post. !
_________________
Pastor of Cross Pointe
Abbeville LA.,
http://www.crosspointe-church.net

Formerly "WardlinePastor"
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1360
3/26/06 8:10 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post God is One curly
There is one God in three persons. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1754
3/26/06 10:46 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Re: Is God a PERSON or PERSONS? notwanghere
If I could understand the full nature of God I don't know if I could worship Him. His ways are so above mine to me it is asinine to constantly debate a settled issue of the Trinity. Do I understand it totally, no! My limited capabilities prohibit me from doing so. "For now we see through a glass darkly."

There will always be those whose faith, or lack of faith, requires endless disputing.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1794
3/26/06 11:45 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Is God a PERSON or PERSONS? curly
I just accept it by faith Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1754
3/26/06 11:51 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Yo, you'd better read again what I said ... Rafael D Martinez
Nowhere in my original post did I say that God and Christ are the same Person as you are misrepresenting this .. I have qualified what "one" means. I am asking you to once again consider what I have said ..

>>The neuter numerical word "hen" means what it says – "one." The first person plural verb "esmen" (are) conclusively settles the relationship of God to Christ: they are one and the same person in not just purpose but in power, authority, eternity and essential nature, all the while retaining completely separate and independent identities as distinctive yet divine Persons.

He is saying that "we are one" in all of the attributes of deity that are found in the nature of God Himself. Jesus didn't "deny" He was God – He made abundantly clear that He was indeed Almighty in all respects!

Yo, what else does the word "one" mean?
<<

I never said God and Christ are the same PERSON. I have said again AND again that they are one in spiritual essence and complete divinity, and that their personages were no less fully of the Almighty than the other. That is the wonder of God's saving grace .. only GOD can save us, not a Jesus that is somehow "divine" but ISN'T God.

You are I are in full agreement that there is ONE true God.

BUT you are completely missing .. and KEEP missing .. what not only I but others assert is that the SCRIPTURE alludes to this ONE true God being revealed to mankind as not only Christ but the SPIRIT. The WORD reveals them to be three Divine personalities eternally one in Spirit, but completely autonomous in relationship, mind and being.

For whatever reason, Yo, you can't get past this. No one here is denying the Person of God by asserting that He is also God manifest in the flesh as Christ and speaking eternally as the Spirit of Yahweh.

I could care less what Nicea, Calvin, Wesley or Spurling himself may say when the WORD speaks. You are using that bugaboo needlessly. I haven't quoted a single creed here. That is a whole side issue, so to facilitate discussion, keep that rabbit trail firmly shut. I will say that there's an awful lot of what they say that I think is Scriptural and Biblical, but that's beside the point.

And simply because there may be others who don't understand the Trinity in no way invalidates the doctrine. There's plenty in the church herself who can't understand the Atonement, speaking in tongues, the love of God, the notion of a prayer answering God .. but perservere in faith in them. I don't understand God's arithmetic, but it's what HE said about it, not me.

I can tell you that plenty of the Christians who found themselves confronted by Gwen Shamblin's antitrinitarianism in 2000 understood enough of it to send her a message her cult has yet to recover from and withdrew their support from her for the heresy. Hundreds of thousands of men and women from over 30,000 chapters of her Weigh Down Workshop did so in two years .. and while I won't pretend they were all doing so because of the Trinity, I can tell you that it was the MAJOR issue that started the exodus. Enough people cared enough about that to almost shut her down ..

Yo, I'm believing you are dead serious about this conviction of yours to go on the record as embracing a heresy. I respect you and love you enough to hear you out on that, but not to let it go unchallenged. There's a lot at stake here .. and I hope you are praying as much as I will be over this.

agape

rafael
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7766
3/27/06 12:56 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Rafael... Yo Dude
You said:

The neuter numerical word "hen" means what it says – "one." The first person plural verb "esmen" (are) conclusively settles the relationship of God to Christ: THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME PERSON in not just purpose but in power, authority, eternity and essential nature, all the while retaining completely separate and independent identities as distinctive yet divine Persons.

Am I misreading this? did you miswrite it? You claim that you never said they are one and the same person...yet there it is. So I am going to assume this is a typo? Please advise.

Now, you don't have to quote from any creed. The very fact that you are supporting a trinitarian view is proof that the creed has influenced you. How do I know? Because no normal, literal, thoughtful reading of scripture would lead us to such a confused position. That is, your study of scripture is loaded--you are studying to prove what the creed says...and not studying to prove what the scriptures say.

A reasoned reading of scripture would lead us to some of the following conclusions:

There is only one God.

God is a person.

Jesus is the Son of God.

Because Jesus is stated to be the SON of God, we would reason then that He cannot be the God that He is the Son of, for that would mean that He was the the Son of Himself, that He was prior to Himself (for lack of a better term when speaking of eternal persons).

But at the same time, we could not help but note that Jesus is said to have been "with God and was God."

So we would say..."OK, we know that the SON of God is NOT the GOD whom He is the son of, but is instead, the SON of God. But what do we make of these verses?"

And then something funny would happen....

We would either say, "Aha, Jesus is BOTH God AND the SON of God. He is the ONE GOD, but manifests in different ways." And so we would come to Oneness. (Which makes some sense, but appears to fail for several other reasons.)

OR...

We would say, "Hmmm, Jesus is the SON of God, but not the God whom He is the Son of....how do we resolve that? Well, come to think of it, the fact that He is the SON of God does, in a sense, make Him God (in that He is of the same substance, nature, etc., as His Father). But yet we can see that the SON of God can never be the the PERSON whom He is the son of."

And we would perhaps wind up with my position.

Now, I use the word "nonsense" sometimes, but really, I can see why someone might eventually arrive at the Trinity with these facts...but it would be a twisted leap from the scriptures...which AT NO PLACE OR TIME say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ALL GOD.

Yes, they are ONE...but my position addresses in just what sense. To reason that they are the ONE GOD goes too far with the scripture.

I think much of the confusion comes with the use of the obviously singular word "GOD." Yes, I am aware (thanks, Anakrino) of the supposedly composite nature of the word, but here's my logic:

When we say "Gods" (plural), we think of multiple PERSONS.

And conversely, when we say GOD, we think, very logically, of a single PERSON.

The Trinity turns that on its head. It uses the word God to imply a plurality of PERSONS--EVEN if they are in perfect agreement, etc. But we all know and use the word GOD as a singular word, to connote ONE PERSON.

And so the confusion begins.

And even if we want to define "God" as "The God-class set of beings: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," that may work better logically, but not linguistically, for we still define God as SINGULAR, and not a "class of beings."

That is, we are not going to start thinking differently about the word GOD--that is it now somehow representative of a plurality of persons--just because the trinitarians want to redefine it.

No. If they want to hold to this position, they need to not take a word that means one thing and try to impose some unique definition upon it. I might as well try to redefine the color green. I can say it's blue all day long, and some people will go along with me (especially if they will be ostracized otherwise), but the truth is that green is NOT blue.

Love.
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8625
3/27/06 10:20 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post No confusion with me curly
I am not confused at all. I believe there is one God eternally existing in three persons,namely the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It's just that simple that a child could understand. Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1754
3/27/06 1:17 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.