|
Actscelerate.com Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Message |
Author |
|
Quiet Wyatt |
Technically, that makes me a monophysite and a monothelite, though I don't agree with the typical monophysite and orthodox idea that Jesus was essentially a kind of superman just basically going around showing off His divinity in a human body. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 3/18/12 9:30 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
Quiet Wyatt... |
FloridaForever |
But OF NECESSITY Jesus is of two natures (I don't think that means two personalities). That is, if Jesus is 100% human...then there is no part of Him that is God.
If He is 100% God, then vice versa.
Somehow, there is a mystical blending of the human and the divine. I cannot explain it, but it seems absolutely necessary.
If Jesus is 100% man, then He is ONLY a man. But He was NOT just a man.
At the same time, I reject the "superman" notion that you rightly pointed out. Jesus is not some super-anointed man, etc. He is human AND divine, thus the necessity of Virgin Birth. |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2295 3/18/12 9:33 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
Quiet Wyatt |
I didn't say He wasn't a super-anointed man. I do agree that as the Scriptures say, God gave Him the Spirit without measure. I just don't find the idea scriptural or reasonable that He was basically just God showing off His divinity (and therefore not fully human). He always ascribed his power to do miracles to his Father's power within Him (i.e., the Spirit). |
[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 3/18/12 9:41 pm
|
|
| |
|
Jesus operated in the power of the Holy Spirit... |
Quiet Wyatt |
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
In context speaking of the Son of God, John 3:34 says: “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure.
Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
Luke 4:14 And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district.
Heb. 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 3/18/12 9:56 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
Bro Bob |
I think we blew right past one of the best things ever said here on topic:
Quote: | Nick Park: None of those things are a demonstration of divine characteristics. Jesus could tell the distant past from a first person narrative because He prayed, heard His Father speak to Him, and studied the Scriptures to see what they said about Himself. | (emphasis added)
I think Bro Park has settled something in his mind. The question he addresses is that of messianic consciousness. When did Jesus the boy become aware (fully aware) that he was Messiah, and aware of the actual truth of what that meant, as opposed to common wisdom on the subject?
There are references to the messiah in the scriptures available to Christ, that not one soul understood to be a reference to the messiah. But Jesus understood it.
One example we can see clearly:
Zechariah 13:6
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
But you go back and read that verse in it's full context and you cannot tell me other readers up until that time knew what they were reading. Jesus knew. |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3944 3/18/12 11:24 pm
|
|
| |
|
Some thoughts... |
FloridaForever |
A man says, "I saw the Stones in concert in 1970."
Now, he either remembers this directly or not. If directly, then the statements means pretty much what it means when you an I recall and event.
But some here are arguing that this man is just as likely to have been TOLD that he saw the Stones in 1970. Or that perhaps he read a newspaper article that indicated he had been there. This can, technically, be the case.
However, it is not NEARLY as plausible as the plain meaning of the statement--i.e., that he literally RECALLS going to the concert.
The person who claims that he read about it, or was otherwise told about his attendance, is claiming that this man suffers from some sort of amnesia--purposeful or not.
The analogy to Jesus should be clear. I cannot buy it, even though it comes from good intentions.
The problem is that this convoluted take happens because to allow Jesus to directly know/remember things that He did/experienced/knew as the Son of God is to endanger the doctrine of the trinity, for how could Jesus be God...yet not know the timing of His return?
But when you strip that away and let the chips fall where they may--after all, the trinity it not a necessary doctrine...unless you've personally decided that it is...since virtually everyone who has been saved has received without understanding the trinity, and has remained saved while either not really understanding it, or flat-out rejecting it in favor of Oneness or other positions--you come to a different place. |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2295 3/19/12 6:25 am
|
|
| |
|
|
Quiet Wyatt |
1. The "I was watching Satan fall like lightning..." statement, in context, refers to Satan's power being thrown down by the disciples' anointed ministries.
2. In my view, Christ's incredibly intimate relationship with the Father would have provided ample opportunity for Him to grow in knowledge and understanding of just who He was and what his pre-existent past consisted of. Why should we think the Father could not reveal the glory that the Son had had with Him? Jesus certainly knew experientially God as His Father in such intimate terms that the Jews wanted to stone Him for blasphemy, "making Himself equal with God" as John 5 says.
3. That said It is kind of puzzling to see your apparent line of argument here though, as I was pretty sure you denied Jesus was/is God anyway, right? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 3/19/12 6:36 am
|
|
| |
|
|
Nick Park |
Any understanding of God, in order to be faithful to the Scripture, needs to take account of several truths that were accepted by the earliest Christians:
1. There is only one God.
2. Jesus Christ is God.
3. Jesus Christ was a man.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. Jesus Christ is not God the Father.
6. Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit.
7. The Holy Spirit is not God the Father.
These earliest Christians never attempted to systematically put these truths together into one unified doctrine. They were more concerned with sharing the Gospel and avoiding getting butchered by their persecutors. So there was no formal adoption of the concept of the Trinity as such.
Later on, they realised that certain individuals or groups were talking about God and about Jesus in ways that either weakened or violated some of these truths. So, in response to error, they worked out a way of expressing their belief in all these 7 truths - and the result is the doctrine of the Trinity.
As NT Wright has said, “Although the writers of the New Testament did not themselves formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, they bequeathed to their successors a manner of speaking and writing about God which made it, or something very like it, almost inevitable.”
So, if we are to go strictly by Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity is not necessarily essential to being a Christian - at least, not if we could find another way of expressing all those seven truths simultaneously. However, in 2000 years of Church History no-one seems to have been able to come up with any alternative doctrine to the Trinity which is also faithful to those New Testament truths. So, until someone comes up with something better, the doctrine of the Trinity remains the default position for orthodox Christian belief. _________________ Senior Pastor, Solid Rock Church, Drogheda
National Overseer, Church of God, Ireland
Executive Director, Evangelical Alliance Ireland
http://eaiseanchai.wordpress.com/ |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1021 3/19/12 6:37 am
|
|
| |
|
Nick... |
FloridaForever |
The early church did not hold all of those positions at once. This is not to say that these positions did not come to be eventually held at the same time, but certainly there was not this clear understanding of it that way from the beginning. For if there had been, we would not be having this discussion now--it would be clear.
The reason we know that this was not the case is because, clearly, a monotheistic view of God would prohibit anyone from thinking that there is ONE God...and that His Son is that God. Any such understanding of God in this form almost certainly had to arise from Hellenic/Hellenistic understandings, which did not adhere to monotheism.
Even the language of "Father-Son" does not permit a trinitarian view of God in a monothesitic setting. That is, if God is your Father, then you clearly are not Him. And if there is one God, and that is your Father.... |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2295 3/19/12 7:11 am
|
|
| |
|
|
Quiet Wyatt |
Excellent (and true) observations, Nick. One simply has to deny or ignore the plain statements of Scripture (as FF usually does) in order to deny the triunity of the Godhead. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 3/19/12 7:21 am
|
|
| |
|
Re: Nick... |
Nick Park |
FloridaForever wrote: | The early church did not hold all of those positions at once. This is not to say that these positions did not come to be eventually held at the same time, but certainly there was not this clear understanding of it that way from the beginning. |
The early church did hold these positions all at once, certainly by about 90AD or 100AD when the last book of the New Testament was written. It is clear that the error of Docetism (that Jesus was not fully human) is identified and condemned in the letters of John.
Tertullian first used the term 'Trinity' around 210AD. But full blown heresies such as modalism and Arianism came some years later.
Quote: | For if there had been, we would not be having this discussion now--it would be clear. |
Not so. It doesn't matter how clear things are - you'll still find people who want to argue otherwise. _________________ Senior Pastor, Solid Rock Church, Drogheda
National Overseer, Church of God, Ireland
Executive Director, Evangelical Alliance Ireland
http://eaiseanchai.wordpress.com/ |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1021 3/19/12 7:51 am
|
|
| |
|
Nick Park... |
FloridaForever |
Quote: | The early church did hold these positions all at once, certainly by about 90AD or 100AD when the last book of the New Testament was written. It is clear that the error of Docetism (that Jesus was not fully human) is identified and condemned in the letters of John.
Bro. Park, to say that these positions WERE held is not at all the same as saying they were held BY THE CHURCH. The fact that there was serious disagreement about it (see the Council of Nicea) lets us know that this was not some clear, written-in-stone, understanding of how things were.
That is, there was struggle going on about the nature of Christ, and it was decided by fiat.
If someone were writing the history of the church and looked back to, say, 1896, they could write, "The Church believed in the Pentecostal understanding of the world."
The would be true only in the most limited sense. In fact, most of the "Church" did NOT believe as we believed back then.
As I've said elsewhere, this doctrine is only truly meaningful to those who think about it. To most--most of whom cannot even articulate the trinity--it is just an article of faith that has little actual value to their spirituality. So, while SOME who actually thought about the "trinity" wrote and spoke about it, we have no reason to think this was espoused by all, and have reason to believe that it was not very acceptable to Jewish believers who felt this in conflict (as they did then and today) with monotheism.
We would not accept that the Greek gods were actually person of ONE GOD. We simply wouldn't. We'd call it what it was. But then we allow the very same principle to be violated in the doctrine of the trinity.
Tertullian first used the term 'Trinity' around 210AD. But full blown heresies such as modalism and Arianism came some years later. |
|
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2295 3/19/12 9:14 am
|
|
| |
|
Re: Nick Park... |
Nick Park |
FloridaForever wrote: |
Bro. Park, to say that these positions WERE held is not at all the same as saying they were held BY THE CHURCH. The fact that there was serious disagreement about it (see the Council of Nicea) lets us know that this was not some clear, written-in-stone, understanding of how things were.
That is, there was struggle going on about the nature of Christ, and it was decided by fiat. |
The seven truths I listed were not decided by the Council of Nicaea. They were decided by Scripture. And, for orthodox Christians (THE CHURCH), Scripture is a sufficient fiat.
The Council of Nicaea dealt with the specific heresy of Arianism - a heresy that arose over two centuries after the Scriptures were written, and which was ultimately rejected because it was irreconcilable with the truths contained in Scripture.
You cannot use 4th Century controversies and argue that they somehow cast doubt on truths clearly taught in 1st Century Scriptures. Just because people had departed from the faith sufficiently by the 4th Century to deny Scriptural truths does not, by any logic worthy of the name, imply that there was disagreement in this matter among 1st Century Christians. _________________ Senior Pastor, Solid Rock Church, Drogheda
National Overseer, Church of God, Ireland
Executive Director, Evangelical Alliance Ireland
http://eaiseanchai.wordpress.com/ |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1021 3/19/12 9:38 am
|
|
| |
|
|
Resident Skeptic |
Quote: | 1. There is only one God. |
yes, and one does not equal three.
Quote: | 2. Jesus Christ is God. |
Amen
Quote: | 3. Jesus Christ was a man. |
amen
Quote: | 4. The Holy Spirit is God. |
yes, the Father of Jesus Christ
Quote: |
5. Jesus Christ is not God the Father. |
The Father is the only true God who extended himself into time and space through the Son.
Quote: | 6. Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit. |
The Lord is that Spirit. Christ IN you. The Spirit of his Son. The second Adam is a quickening Spirit.
Quote: | 7. The Holy Spirit is not God the Father. |
Then Jesus has two Fathers? |
Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 3/19/12 10:17 am
|
|
| |
|
Nick Park... |
FloridaForever |
Quote: | The seven truths I listed were not decided by the Council of Nicaea. They were decided by Scripture. And, for orthodox Christians (THE CHURCH), Scripture is a sufficient fiat.
This is not so. It was decided by VESTED INTERPRETATION of scripture, which often does not go with the clear understanding that a literal reading would provide.
For instance, if you are told that there is ONE GOD, and every single instance where you read of this one God, He is presented as a single person, you would not conclude that there are THREE PERSONS who are this one God...unless you had a vested interest.
Rather, you would declare one or the other of the positions as wrong. Unless you were trying to find a way to say there was one God...all while maintaining that Jesus was both the SON of God...and God Himself.
It was absolutely abhorrent (even now) for us to think that Jesus was JUST A MAN. At the same time, it was abhorrent to the monotheistic foundations of Christianity to hold that Jesus was both Son of God and God.
So we have the trinity as a "solution." Again, no plain reading would lead anyone to conclude that God was more than one person. From my earliest memories of hearing the Bible read to me, I never made the mistake of thinking that God was more than one person. It was only after becoming aware of the doctrine of the trinity that I came to hold that position...and later have found it wanting.
The Council of Nicaea dealt with the specific heresy of Arianism - a heresy that arose over two centuries after the Scriptures were written, and which was ultimately rejected because it was irreconcilable with the truths contained in Scripture.
While any doctrine that claims that Jesus was created should be resisted, the response--the codification of the trinity, so to speak--went further than scripture allows in seeking to eliminate this heresy. (Of course, Arius was later exonerated, then again found guilty...and I believe Athanasius also underwent similar issues.)
I posit that the early church did not quite know just how Jesus fit into it all. Some scriptures lead us one way, others lead us another. Hebrews even makes it look like Jesus, at one time, was "fellows" with the angels. We have grown skilled at "interpreting" all of that away (which is necessary, of course, because of our belief in verbal inspiration).
I contend that we have grounds to say only that there is one God...and the Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God.
On this we can be certain. As soon as we try to go further, we wind up with problems. The trinity leaves us with a God who HAS a God. Oneness leaves us with a Jesus who doesn't know when He is returning, even though there is only one God...and He is that God.
You cannot use 4th Century controversies and argue that they somehow cast doubt on truths clearly taught in 1st Century Scriptures. Just because people had departed from the faith sufficiently by the 4th Century to deny Scriptural truths does not, by any logic worthy of the name, imply that there was disagreement in this matter among 1st Century Christians. |
Again, the "1st century scriptures" that you refer to are those that have been conveniently interpreted to mean what you think they mean (i.e., that they promote the trinity). The early church had controversy over circumcision, yet you think there was common agreement that Jesus was both the Son of God and the PERSON of God?
Further, such "truths" spread slowly. Paul found people who had not even heard whether there be a Holy Ghost!
Of the millions of Christians on earth, only a small, small fraction ever write a book or an epistle. If a future generation judged the Christian church by Harold Camping's writing, they'd be sure that the church believed Jesus was returning in 2011.
A church father who wrote on a topic that he had done a great deal of thinking about does not mean that 1) it was a widespread belief, or 2) that those who did "espouse" it really understood it.
The Greeks no doubt could go with a God of multiple persons because it was not--it should be agreed!--all the far from the polytheism they had once espoused. The Jews certainly would resist a notion that God is really three persons.
I know that rational people can disagree. I also know that this is not a heaven or hell issue. I am sure that millions will go to heaven without being able to understand--or even outright rejecting--the doctrine of the trinity. But I will continue to hold that we ought to back away from any creedal statement that cannot be found with absolute certainty in the scriptures. We simply must accept that there is One God and that Jesus is the Son of God...who in SOME WAY WAS ("was God")...and in SOME WAY WAS NOT ("with God") GOD. |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2295 3/19/12 3:13 pm
|
|
| |
|
Quiet Wyatt... |
FloridaForever |
Quote: | Excellent (and true) observations, Nick. One simply has to deny or ignore the plain statements of Scripture (as FF usually does) in order to deny the triunity of the Godhead. |
And I would reply that one has to ignore the plain statements of scripture to accept the trinity. You know as well as I do that you must explain away those hard scriptures (you know--"that was before the resurrection" or "that's because Jesus had emptied Himself," etc.) in order to understand why Jesus would HAVE a God.
It's crazy, yes, I know. But let's not have any of this pure nonsense that the trinity is as plain as the nose on one's face. It's not. It is derived, extrapolated, and cherry-picked.
When you can satisfactorily explain why God sits on one throne...and His Son sits on another, and why the resurrected Jesus considers God HIS God, and a lot more issues, then maybe you'll have some reason to hold that the trinity is a plain reading from scripture. |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2295 3/19/12 3:17 pm
|
|
| |
|
Re: Quiet Wyatt... |
p5harri |
FloridaForever wrote: | Quote: | Excellent (and true) observations, Nick. One simply has to deny or ignore the plain statements of Scripture (as FF usually does) in order to deny the triunity of the Godhead. |
And I would reply that one has to ignore the plain statements of scripture to accept the trinity. You know as well as I do that you must explain away those hard scriptures (you know--"that was before the resurrection" or "that's because Jesus had emptied Himself," etc.) in order to understand why Jesus would HAVE a God.
It's crazy, yes, I know. But let's not have any of this pure nonsense that the trinity is as plain as the nose on one's face. It's not. It is derived, extrapolated, and cherry-picked.
When you can satisfactorily explain why God sits on one throne...and His Son sits on another, and why the resurrected Jesus considers God HIS God, and a lot more issues, then maybe you'll have some reason to hold that the trinity is a plain reading from scripture. |
It's really not that hard to comprehend.
You have to try real hard and over analyze it to come up with a different conclusion.
I've read David K Bernards books on oneness theology. Now that's cherry picking and confusing. If that comes across as snarky, oh well. _________________ We are beating the bushes for mice and the lions are tearing us apart. |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1702 3/19/12 3:52 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
Resident Skeptic |
Quote: | Further, such "truths" spread slowly. Paul found people who had not even heard whether there be a Holy Ghost! |
I'm not sure if that is the context. If they were disciples of John the Baptist and Jews, then I'm sure knew that Jehovah was the Spirit of Jehovah mentioned in the OT. What that scripture in Acts 19 is more than likely referring to is the fact that they didn"t know that John's prophecy about the Messiah baptizing people with the Holy Ghost had come to pass.
The same can be said of John 7:39. In the Greek the word "given" is not there. It simply says.."The Spirit not yet was.". But of course that didn't mean God did not yet exist. I think you see where I'm going here.
Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 3/19/12 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-dicted Posts: 8065 3/19/12 4:01 pm
|
|
| |
|
Re: Quiet Wyatt... |
Quiet Wyatt |
FloridaForever wrote: | Quote: | Excellent (and true) observations, Nick. One simply has to deny or ignore the plain statements of Scripture (as FF usually does) in order to deny the triunity of the Godhead. |
And I would reply that one has to ignore the plain statements of scripture to accept the trinity. You know as well as I do that you must explain away those hard scriptures (you know--"that was before the resurrection" or "that's because Jesus had emptied Himself," etc.) in order to understand why Jesus would HAVE a God.
It's crazy, yes, I know. But let's not have any of this pure nonsense that the trinity is as plain as the nose on one's face. It's not. It is derived, extrapolated, and cherry-picked.
|
LoL. What an ignorant statement. You certainly spout nothing BUT pure nonsense whenever this issue is brought up. For someone as intelligent as you seem to be, you certainly exhibit nothing but prejudice when it comes to this subject. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 3/19/12 6:29 pm
|
|
| |
|
Wyatt... |
FloridaForever |
Quote: | LoL. What an ignorant statement. You certainly spout nothing BUT pure nonsense whenever this issue is brought up. For someone as intelligent as you seem to be, you certainly exhibit nothing but prejudice when it comes to this subject. |
Wyatt, it is not "prejudice." It is the continuous stream of questions and complexities that arise from trying to hold the scriptures on one hand and the doctrine of the trinity on the other.
I got tired of getting "explanations" that seemed like nothing more than excuses. I saw "trinitarians" fall all over themselves about "Let US make man...," then conveniently ignore the hundreds of other scriptures where God is a HE, HIM, HIS, and I.
I got tired of trying to claim that the "The Lord, HE is God" on one hand, and then claim that God is not really a HE at all, but a THEY.
If that's prejudice, sign me up. I want that TRUTH. And the doctrine of the trinity, as the doctrine of oneness, has too many issues, over and over, to allow for the current formulation of the trinity.
So, get your shorts in a knot if you must, but that's how I see it. And I cannot help if it bothers you, but I reckon I'll speak my mind on the matter. |
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2295 3/19/12 6:57 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
|