Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Pentecost: on 37818's self condemnation in an error of his view.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pentecost: on 37818's self condemnation in an error of his view.

    Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
    Quick clarification, there was a time that I thought 37818 held views compatible with orthodox Christianity, but in his further attempts to explain himself he is condemning himself, . . .
    Could you give a specific? Where you perceive an explanation I gave is self condemning. I need to here it from a fresh view. Thanks.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  • #2
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Could you give a specific? Where you perceive an explanation I gave is self condemning. I need to here it from a fresh view. Thanks.
    Of course 37818, I will go through to find the precise comment I had in mind, I recall being rather shocked at it, and I know that in the process of crafting a post and the editing involved perhaps you wrote something unlike what you believe, and if I fail to find the comment, or one like it, or if upon closer examination I find that I misread it, I will of course apologize.

    Please allow me time to find it.
    Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
      Of course 37818, I will go through to find the precise comment I had in mind, I recall being rather shocked at it, and I know that in the process of crafting a post and the editing involved perhaps you wrote something unlike what you believe, and if I fail to find the comment, or one like it, or if upon closer examination I find that I misread it, I will of course apologize.

      Please allow me time to find it.
      Thank you.
      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

      Comment


      • #4
        37818, I owe you an apology. I have gone back to all the threads that I could have read, and did not find it. I made a mistake at some point, and so I apologize for condemning you without evidence. I revert to my previous position: you have unusual beliefs, but to the best of my knowledge hold to the fundamentals in an orthodox manner, and it should not be charity for me to call you my brother.
        Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Pentecost,

          Originally posted by Pentecost
          There was a time that I thought 37818 held views compatible with orthodox Christianity, but in his further attempts to explain himself he is condemning himself..
          You may have encountered 37818 on the thread "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" where he was confronted by numerous people for proposing inherently unorthodox views (if not heretical views).

          I entered the conversation at post #194 after all but OBP had ceased conversing with him, and finally OBP had had enough of 37818's outlandish statements. OBP concludes post #191 with "Perhaps you've failed to notice, but NO ONE in this thread is agreeing with you on your stances here. That should tell you something".

          I just did a very quick browse of the thread only going back to page 11. Imo, Calvin' would have had him burnt at the stake for some of the statements he makes...
          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...stology/page11
          Last edited by apostoli; 08-01-2015, 03:54 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by apostoli View Post
            Hi Pentecost,


            You may have encountered 37818 on the thread "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" where he was confronted by numerous people for proposing inherently unorthodox views (if not heretical views).

            I entered the conversation at post #194 after all but OBP had ceased conversing with him, and finally OBP had had enough of 37818's outlandish statements. OBP concludes post #191 with "Perhaps you've failed to notice, but NO ONE in this thread is agreeing with you on your stances here. That should tell you something".

            I just did a very quick browse of the thread only going back to page 11. Imo, Calvin' would have had him burnt at the stake for some of the statements he makes...
            http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...stology/page11
            I was in that thread too, long before you. I found fault with his beliefs, but by the time I had left I did not consider him an out and out heretic. I do not hold to his beliefs, and I believe that almost anyone he taught them to would wind up a heretic, but he himself had not crossed that boundary last time I checked.
            Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
              I was in that thread too, long before you. I found fault with his beliefs, but by the time I had left I did not consider him an out and out heretic. I do not hold to his beliefs, and I believe that almost anyone he taught them to would wind up a heretic, but he himself had not crossed that boundary last time I checked.
              I must admit at times he appears to say the right words, but then he slips up...Have a read through my latest conversations with him, they are an eye opener...

              Here is a very short list of his unorthodox ideas...

              1. The Father, Son and Spirit have always been Father, Son and Spirit (this is an iffy, sounds OK but what he says and means are two different things. He denies the differentiation of the three: Father=unbegotten, Son=begotton of the Father and Spirit=proceeds from the Father alone ).

              2. The Father, Son and Spirit are each unbegotten and autotheos (God of themselves).

              3. The Son was not begotten of the Father. The Father is not the Son's source and cause - the Son is!

              4. The Spirit does not proceed from the Father (?). The Father is not the Spirit's source and cause - the Spirit is (?). Not sure what he believes regarding the person of the Spirit.

              5. He says he accepts the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality) but rejects the orthodox teaching regarding it, which requires that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit.

              I'll leave it there for now...
              _________________

              I figure I am a fairly open guy: I've welcomed into my home and sat with many unorthodox people discussing each others understanding of scripture (eg: JWs, Christadelphians, SDAs, Open Brethren, Mormons & even Muslims (my neighbours - lovely couple. Muslims await the coming of Isa (Jesus) just like us.)). I must admit chatting with 37818 has been a unique experience, but then most "christians" I've talked with have had a good handle on the scriptures...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                I must admit at times he appears to say the right words, but then he slips up...Have a read through my latest conversations with him, they are an eye opener...

                Here is a very short list of his unorthodox ideas...

                1. The Father, Son and Spirit have always been Father, Son and Spirit (this is an iffy, sounds OK but what he says and means are two different things. He denies the differentiation of the three: Father=unbegotten, Son=begotton of the Father and Spirit=proceeds from the Father alone ).
                You do not understand my view. God is Yahweh, the Self-Existent. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are that One God. That whosoever/whatsoever is not Self-Existent[Yahweh] is not God.
                2. The Father, Son and Spirit are each unbegotten and autotheos (God of themselves).
                False. There is only One Yahweh who is the only God.
                3. The Son was not begotten of the Father. The Father is not the Son's source and cause - the Son is!
                Again false. God the Father is the Source of the Son. The Son is not caused. The Son is the Cause of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:4; etc.)

                4. The Spirit does not proceed from the Father (?). The Father is not the Spirit's source and cause - the Spirit is (?). Not sure what he believes regarding the person of the Spirit.
                Who is God is uncaused. God is Spirit (John 4:24, etc).
                5. He says he accepts the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality) but rejects the orthodox teaching regarding it, which requires that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit.
                Again, false. It is heresy to say the Son or the Holy Spirit are caused.
                Last edited by 37818; 08-02-2015, 04:40 PM.
                . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 37818
                  You do not understand my view.
                  Most here at TheologyWeb don't understand your view! Possibly you need to take a breath, slowly working through your propositions, and aim to build a coherent explanation of your view in words and terms commonly understood.

                  Originally posted by 37818
                  God is Yahweh
                  From A.Paul, it seems that the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14) has been superseded (Phil 2:9?).

                  In anycase, God's name isn't "Yahweh" it is "YHWH"! Nobody for more that two thousand years has known how to pronounce the tetragrammaton, and so nobody can determine the correct vowels to spell the name. You may as well use the name "Jehovah", it is just as valid! Possibly moreso...

                  A quick background: The Jews have had this unfathomable superstition about using the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14). These days some religious Jews won't even write or say the word "God" (they write G-D instead). Likewise, they won't use the word "Lord" (Adonai) instead they refer to "HaShem" (the name). Somewhere between the 6th & 10th centuries the Masoretes (Jewish scribes) entered the vowel points for "Adonai" whenever they encountered the tetragammaton, this indicated "YHWH" was to be read as "Adonai"="Lord". Also, if "YHWH" appears either before or after the word "Adonai" in the Hebrew text, the Masoretes entered vowel points of "Elohim" to indicate that the word "God" is to be read instead of "YHWH".

                  Originally posted by 37818
                  God is Yahweh, the Self-Existent.
                  YHWH doesn't mean "self existent". Nobody knows exactly what it means, but whatever its meaning it is reflected in the fact that Moses was to reveal to the Israelites that the one who called himself "ehyeh" = "YHWH" is/was the God of their forefathers (Ex 3:14-16). More than likely it means "ever existing" (especially as the message Moses was to deliver to the Israelites was this is the same God that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob encountered).

                  What do you make of Exodus 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as [El Shaddai], but by My name [YHWH] I was not known to them" (NKJV).

                  Originally posted by 37818
                  God is Yahweh, the Self-Existent. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are that One God.
                  Would you explain to me how it is that there is one God when according to your propositions, there are three persons, each of whom is unbegotten and autotheos (God of themselves)? As far as I know, only Modalist/Sabellians would support you, assuming you mean one person (hypostasis/ousia), three distinct faces (treis prosopa=three persons).

                  Is your "one God" a person? Yes or No? If you answer "No", what is it? If you answer "three persons", please explain in what way, though they be three they be one.

                  Originally posted by 37818
                  That whosoever/whatsoever is not Self-Existent[Yahweh] is not God.
                  Self-existing is of little relevance if you can be destroyed (eg: the infighting amongst the pagan self-existing gods). What I presume you mean is "Self-Persisting".

                  In anycase, consider Jesus' words to the Jews: "[YHWH] called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)" (Jn 10:34-35; Ps 82:6 cp. Isa 41:23). in scripture "God/god" is used of YHWH, men, idols, Satan etc. The idea doesn't require "self-existence", it is just an appellation.

                  Originally posted by 37818
                  There is only One Yahweh who is the only God.
                  We have previously agreed that Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit = three persons (plural), one name (singular). So what is that name? Whatever name you supply it is evident that we have three distinct persons with the same name. Thus there are three "YHWHs" or "Jesus"/"Yeshuas". Do you agree? Yes or No.

                  Originally posted by 37818
                  God the Father is the Source of the Son. The Son is not caused.
                  You can't have a source without causation.

                  Originally posted by 37818
                  The Son is the Cause of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:4; etc.)
                  Actually the Father is said to be the source and cause of everything the Son made. The Father is the primary cause having made all things through the Son (Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2). The Son is thus a secondary cause in the creation accounts, by comparison to the Father, merely a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30).

                  Originally posted by 37818
                  Originally posted by apostoli
                  Not sure what [37818] believes regarding the person of the Spirit.
                  Who is God is uncaused. God is Spirit (John 4:24, etc).
                  According to scripture the Holy Spirit has causation. According to John 15:26 "I [Jesus] shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father". You really should try consulting the scriptures before you babble away - that way you might appear less of a charlatan...

                  Originally posted by 37818
                  Originally posted by apostoli
                  He says he accepts the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality) but rejects the orthodox teaching regarding it, which requires that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit.
                  It is heresy to say the Son or the Holy Spirit are caused.
                  The RCC,EOC,ROC,OOC etc etc all consider belief that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit a requirement for true Christian belief, it explains the homoousios, and with it how the Father, Son and Spirit are the one God to us.

                  On scriptural grounds alone all of the mainstream Christian Churches would consider your silliness heretical. Possibly, your main problem is your inability or reluctance to know and understand word meanings. For instance: "cause" does not mean "created" as you seem to want. Atheist are happy to say that the universe has cause but also argue that the universe was not created...
                  Last edited by apostoli; 08-05-2015, 01:50 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by apostoli
                    Actually the Father is said to be the source and cause of everything the Son made. The Father is the primary cause having made all things through the Son (Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2). The Son is thus a secondary cause in the creation accounts, by comparison to the Father, merely a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30).
                    Actually, it states that God created all things through the Son - in both references.
                    However, Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son he says ... 10
                    “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
                    And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

                    Proverbs 8:30 is part of a passage which in 8:12 identifies (and anthropmorhises) wisdom as the master-craftsman.
                    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                      Most here at TheologyWeb don't understand your view! Possibly you need to take a breath, slowly working through your propositions, and aim to build a coherent explanation of your view in words and terms commonly understood.
                      Where is the common ground upon which we agree?

                      From A.Paul, it seems that the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14) has been superseded (Phil 2:9?).
                      I believe your interpretation is mistaken. Paul cites Joel 2:23, "And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: . . ." in Romans 10:13, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. . . ."

                      In anycase, God's name isn't "Yahweh" it is "YHWH"! Nobody for more that two thousand years has known how to pronounce the tetragrammaton, and so nobody can determine the correct vowels to spell the name. You may as well use the name "Jehovah", it is just as valid! Possibly moreso...
                      You are quibbling about God's Name. When God's Name is meant.

                      A quick background: The Jews have had this unfathomable superstition about using the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14). These days some religious Jews won't even write or say the word "God" (they write G-D instead). Likewise, they won't use the word "Lord" (Adonai) instead they refer to "HaShem" (the name). Somewhere between the 6th & 10th centuries the Masoretes (Jewish scribes) entered the vowel points for "Adonai" whenever they encountered the tetragammaton, this indicated "YHWH" was to be read as "Adonai"="Lord". Also, if "YHWH" appears either before or after the word "Adonai" in the Hebrew text, the Masoretes entered vowel points of "Elohim" to indicate that the word "God" is to be read instead of "YHWH".
                      More quibbling.
                      YHWH doesn't mean "self existent". . . ."
                      I understand the Name to mean, "Self-Existent." Since you do not seem to think anyone knows - you are not proving my view wrong here.

                      Strong's Dictionary:
                      . . . self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord.


                      What do you make of Exodus 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as [El Shaddai], but by My name [YHWH] I was not known to them" (NKJV).
                      My short answer: "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them? And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers."

                      To Abraham, " And he[YHWH] said unto him, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. . . ." -- Genesis 15:7.

                      To Jacob,"And, behold, the LORD[YHWH] stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; . . . " -- Genesis 28:13.





                      Would you explain to me how it is that there is one God when according to your propositions, there are three persons, each of whom is unbegotten and autotheos (God of themselves)? As far as I know, only Modalist/Sabellians would support you, assuming you mean one person (hypostasis/ousia), three distinct faces (treis prosopa=three persons).
                      Again, only the Self-Existent is autotheos. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the Self-Existent God.
                      Is your "one God" a person? Yes or No? If you answer "No", what is it? If you answer "three persons", please explain in what way, though they be three they be one.
                      Read Van Til on this.
                      The one God is the Person of the Father. And the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are God with the Father. The explanation is called the Trinity.
                      Self-existing is of little relevance if you can be destroyed (eg: the infighting amongst the pagan self-existing gods). What I presume you mean is "Self-Persisting".
                      No. There is an uncaused existence. And uncaused existence needs no God. Atheists believe there is an uncaused existence, but do not believe it to be God. God whose Name means "Self-Existent" is the identity of the uncaused existence. So, either it is the Person God or there is no God. Take your pick. Since an uncaused existence needs no God. It's uncaused.

                      In anycase, consider Jesus' words to the Jews: "[YHWH] called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)" (Jn 10:34-35; Ps 82:6 cp. Isa 41:23). in scripture "God/god" is used of YHWH, men, idols, Satan etc. The idea doesn't require "self-existence", it is just an appellation.
                      The Hebrew plural term for deity does not convey God's Name. And only the Self-Existent [YHWH] is God. And there is none else. [Isaiah 43:10]

                      ". . .For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.


                      We have previously agreed that Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit = three persons (plural), one name (singular). So what is that name? Whatever name you supply it is evident that we have three distinct persons with the same name. Thus there are three "YHWHs" or "Jesus"/"Yeshuas". Do you agree? Yes or No.
                      No. Three Persons, one Name, one authority. They being the one and the same YHWH. Not three YHWHs.

                      You can't have a source without causation.
                      Oh. Because you say so.

                      Actually the Father is said to be the source and cause of everything the Son made. The Father is the primary cause having made all things through the Son (Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2). The Son is thus a secondary cause in the creation accounts, by comparison to the Father, merely a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30).
                      Then what is caused is not God. And what is uncaused needs no God.

                      ". . . And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . ." -- Ephesian 3:9.

                      ". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . ." -- Hebrews 1:2.

                      So according to you Jesus Christ is not God. Is that what you are saying?

                      According to scripture the Holy Spirit has causation. According to John 15:26 "I [Jesus] shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father". You really should try consulting the scriptures before you babble away - that way you might appear less of a charlatan...
                      So are you saying the Spirit came in to being by being sent?
                      The RCC,EOC,ROC,OOC etc etc all consider belief that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit a requirement for true Christian belief, it explains the homoousios, and with it how the Father, Son and Spirit are the one God to us.
                      What is caused is not God.

                      On scriptural grounds alone all of the mainstream Christian Churches would consider your silliness heretical. Possibly, your main problem is your inability or reluctance to know and understand word meanings. For instance: "cause" does not mean "created" as you seem to want. Atheist are happy to say that the universe has cause but also argue that the universe was not created...
                      The term "cause" means to "make something happen." So according to you The Son of God and the Holy Spirit were made, made to be.
                      Last edited by 37818; 08-05-2015, 11:01 AM.
                      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        Where is the common ground upon which we agree?

                        I believe your interpretation is mistaken. Paul cites Joel 2:23, "And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: . . ." in Romans 10:13, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. . . ."

                        You are quibbling about God's Name. When God's Name is meant.

                        More quibbling.
                        I understand the Name to mean, "Self-Existent." Since you do not seem to think anyone knows - you are not proving my view wrong here.

                        Strong's Dictionary:
                        . . . self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord.




                        My short answer: "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them? And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers."

                        To Abraham, " And he[YHWH] said unto him, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. . . ." -- Genesis 15:7.

                        To Jacob,"And, behold, the LORD[YHWH] stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; . . . " -- Genesis 28:13.





                        Again, only the Self-Existent is autotheos. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the Self-Existent God.
                        Read Van Til on this.
                        The one God is the Person of the Father. And the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are God with the Father. The explanation is called the Trinity.
                        No. There is an uncaused existence. And uncaused existence needs no God. Atheists believe there is an uncaused existence, but do not believe it to be God. God whose Name means "Self-Existent" is the identity of the uncaused existence. So, either it is the Person God or there is no God. Take your pick. Since an uncaused existence needs no God. It's uncaused.

                        The Hebrew plural term for deity does not convey God's Name. And only the Self-Existent [YHWH] is God. And there is none else. [Isaiah 43:10]

                        ". . .For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.


                        No. Three Persons, one Name, one authority. They being the one and the same YHWH. Not three YHWHs.

                        Oh. Because you say so.

                        Then what is caused is not God. And what is uncaused needs no God.

                        ". . . And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . ." -- Ephesian 3:9.

                        ". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . ." -- Hebrews 1:2.

                        So according to you Jesus Christ is not God. Is that what you are saying?

                        So are you saying the Spirit came in to being by being sent?
                        What is caused is not God.

                        The term "cause" means to "make something happen." So according to you The Son of God and the Holy Spirit were made, made to be.
                        Nicely stated.
                        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Where is the common ground upon which we agree?
                          My first instinct was to reply: we have no common ground, your personal ideas are just too unique. However, wishfully thinking on our conversations, I decided to sus out what we might have agreed upon or might agree on...

                          1. You say you reject Modalism/Sabellianism. If so then we agree that the Trinity does not entail three prosopa (persons = the actors masks), one hypostasis (person as a concrete reality). Do we agree that God is not a person (hypostasis) but three distinct and ever enduring persons (hypostases)?
                          2. I assume we agree that the Trinity persists as three distinct hypostases, each of whom possesses an identical ousia (essence). We disagree on the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality), whereby the Son, having been begotten by the Father derives his ousia (essence) from his Father (cp. Heb 1:3).
                          3. We have agreed that Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son & Spirit. Do we agree there is one name and three persons, each of whom have the same name? Consider John 17:11 "Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one" (NIV).
                          4. I presume we can agree on most things concerning our salvation.

                          Well, those are the positives, the negatives would take pages to list...

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Originally posted by apostoli
                          From A.Paul, it seems that the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14) has been superseded (Phil 2:9?).
                          I believe your interpretation is mistaken. Paul cites Joel 2:23, "And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: . . ." in Romans 10:13, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. . . ."
                          As I recall, we agree that the YHWH of the OT, is Jesus of the NT. In that regard, have a read of Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” What is that name? Go back a couple of verses to vs10. The name is Jesus Christ!!! Such fits Phil 2:9 perfectly.

                          In previous posts you advocate that the one God is YHWH. A.Paul tells us at 1 Cor 8:6 and at Ephesians 4:5-6 that to us there is one God=the Father, and one Lord=the Son. In Acts, all the baptism were performed solely in the name of Jesus. A grand curiousity!!!

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Originally posted by apostoli
                          God's name isn't "Yahweh" it is "YHWH"! Nobody for more that two thousand years has known how to pronounce the tetragrammaton, and so nobody can determine the correct vowels to spell the name. You may as well use the name "Jehovah", it is just as valid! Possibly moreso...
                          You are quibbling about God's Name. When God's Name is meant.
                          You make a huge thing about the name "YahweH", so obviously I'm going to call you out on your premises, and correct your glaring errors.

                          Imo, the triune God, not being a person, is nameless. Though, from Mt 28:19 I perceive that the three distinct persons of the Trinity each possess the same name, and for simplicity's sake are collectively refered to by the name they have in common. As for the name YHWH: The Spokesman of God=the Memra of God=the Word of God gave his name as "ehyeh"="YHWH" to Moses and tells Moses he is the God of the Israelites forefathers. So this YHWH is the God of the Israelite nation only.

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Originally posted by apostoli
                          YHWH doesn't mean "self existent". . . ."
                          I understand the Name to mean, "Self-Existent." Since you do not seem to think anyone knows - you are not proving my view wrong here.

                          Strong's Dictionary:
                          . . . self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord.
                          If nobody knows the correct meaning then every proposed meaning is a guess based on religious bias. Strong's Lexicon is no different. If you do some research you'll find there are as many meanings given as there are books on the subject.

                          As for proving your views wrong, just read the famous medieval scholar Maimonides, who gives what is considered the most authoritative analysis of the Hebrew. I've quoted him for you numerous times. Here is the link to the relevant book...
                          http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htm

                          What I find enlightening is your need to run away from the clear text of Exodus 3:14-15, whatever the meaning of YHWH it has to tell the Israelites something about him that would make the Israelites take note, the Jews and nations knew of thousands of "self existing" Gods so that idea would have no significance. However, that he was the very same God that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob encountered is an attention getter. That is why I perceive the name to mean "ever existing" from Abraham to Moses and beyond.

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Originally posted by apostoli
                          What do you make of Exodus 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as [El Shaddai], but by My name [YHWH] I was not known to them" (NKJV).
                          My short answer: "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them? And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers."

                          To Abraham, " And he[YHWH] said unto him, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. . . ." -- Genesis 15:7.

                          To Jacob,"And, behold, the LORD[YHWH] stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD[YHWH] God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; . . . " -- Genesis 28:13.
                          That is a lengthy non answer. You could have said that some linguist see the text as a question rather than a statement, but that idea seems to have little to no support these days.

                          Moses is said to have compiled the first five book of the Bible. So, given he knew the name YHWH we can assume he would have applied it in Genesis for the sake of clarity, especially when relating the patriarchs interaction with God. However, YHWH plainly states the patriarch's didn't know him by the name YHWH. YHWH plainly states the patriarchs called him El Shaddai = God Almighty. Such seems to undermine your previous ideas concerning the name.

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          The one God is the Person of the Father.
                          Finally, something we can agree upon. Though your statement contradicts your previous ramblings.
                          Originally posted by 37818
                          And the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are God with the Father.
                          Close enough. Though, you seem to have changed your tune. How are the Son of God and the Holy Spirit God with the Father?

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          The explanation is called the Trinity.
                          As the saying goes: the devil is in the detail. Do you still insist that the Son and the Spirit are autotheos (God of themselves), or do you now accept the orthodox position that they are God in themselves?

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Originally posted by apostoli
                          Self-existing is of little relevance if you can be destroyed (eg: the infighting amongst the pagan self-existing gods). What I presume you mean is "Self-Persisting".
                          No. There is an uncaused existence. And uncaused existence needs no God.
                          Interesting. Jesus tells us he has a God and Father (John 20:17), and A.Paul regularly refers to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (eg: Rom 15:8; 2 Cor 1:3). So by your definition. the Son has cause and therefore is not God.

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Atheists believe there is an uncaused existence, but do not believe it to be God.
                          OK. I am aware that philosophers refer to an "uncaused cause", but I've never encountered the term "uncaused existence". Is it an oriental idea?

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          God whose Name means "Self-Existent"
                          You have yet to prove YHWH means "self existent". It is just your opinion, there are heaps of scholars that would contest your assertion. So we can ignore that silliness.

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          God whose Name means "Self-Existent" is the identity of the uncaused existence. So, either it is the Person God or there is no God. Take your pick.
                          Most people would refer to it as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

                          I've just picked up on something. Here you seem to think God is a single person, which is OK if you mean the Father, but elsewhere you advocate that the three persons, Father, Son & Spirit are that God.

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          The Hebrew plural term for deity does not convey God's Name. And only the Self-Existent [YHWH] is God. And there is none else. [Isaiah 43:10]

                          ". . .For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.
                          Note the bit I bolded. Have you changed your mind and determined that the Father is exclusively your "uncaused existence".

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Originally posted by apostoli
                          We have previously agreed that Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit = three persons (plural), one name (singular). So what is that name? Whatever name you supply it is evident that we have three distinct persons with the same name. Thus there are three "YHWHs" or "Jesus"/"Yeshuas". Do you agree? Yes or No.
                          No. Three Persons, one Name, one authority. They being the one and the same YHWH. Not three YHWHs.
                          Would you show me where in scripture the Father, Son and Spirit are explicitly and collectively named YHWH.

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Originally posted by apostoli
                          You can't have a source without causation.
                          Oh. Because you say so.
                          Nope! Read any book on causation. Philosophers will tell you that you can have a cause without a source, but you can't have a source without a cause (ie: Of what is the source, the source?).

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Then what is caused is not God. And what is uncaused needs no God.

                          ". . . And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . ." -- Ephesian 3:9.

                          ". . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . ." -- Hebrews 1:2.

                          So according to you Jesus Christ is not God. Is that what you are saying?
                          Nope! It is what you are demanding with your stupidities!!! Your opinions when confronted by what scripture states, ultimately lead to the rejection of the Son as God, as you have just made plainly evident by your assumption regarding what I believe.

                          My opinion is secured by the teaching of Catholic & Orthodox Christianity. Teachings you have said you reject.

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Originally posted by apostoli
                          According to scripture the Holy Spirit has causation. According to John 15:26 "I [Jesus] shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father". You really should try consulting the scriptures before you babble away - that way you might appear less of a charlatan...
                          So are you saying the Spirit came in to being by being sent?
                          Nope! Scripture, says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (so do the creeds).

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          What is caused is not God.
                          Prove it! You keep babbling away with this mantra but offer nothing to support your opinion.

                          Originally posted by 37818
                          The term "cause" means to "make something happen." So according to you The Son of God and the Holy Spirit were made, made to be.
                          Your problem is you are stuck with a temporal mind and apparently can only understand the seen world. You are trying to make the word "cause" mean formed, shaped etc, all craftsman type analogies.

                          Here is a Dictionary definition: Cause: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.

                          exists in such a way: We read in scripture that God is love, love has consequences...
                          Last edited by apostoli; 08-05-2015, 05:10 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hello tabibito,

                            Whether you be friend or foe, it is reinvigorating to have another voice in this conversation...

                            Originally posted by tabibito
                            Originally posted by 37818
                            The Son is the Cause of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:4; etc.)
                            Originally posted by apostoli
                            Actually the Father is said to be the source and cause of everything the Son made. The Father is the primary cause having made all things through the Son (Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2). The Son is thus a secondary cause in the creation accounts, by comparison to the Father, merely a master craftsman (Proverbs 8:30).
                            Actually, it states that God created all things through the Son - in both references.
                            So I thought I had said...

                            If you are quibbling about words:

                            * The Greek of Hebrews 1:2 has "poieō", the KJV,NKJ,NIV,HCSB,NASB,ASV,DBY,WEB,HNV renders "made" (YLT="make"], whilst the NLT,ESV,NET,RSV renders "created". Amoung other things, "poieō" indicates the author, the cause...

                            * The Greek of Ephesians 3:9 has "ktizō" which most translations render "create". The lexicon suggests that "ktizō" is probably akin to ktaomai (through the idea of proprietorship in manufacturing).

                            Like most people, I understand the words "make" and "create" as synonymous.

                            Originally posted by tabibito
                            However, Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son he says ... 10
                            “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
                            And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
                            Hebrews 1:10-12 echos Psalm 102:25-27. As an observation: from the Greek "poieō" in Hebrews 1:2 the Father is the author and cause of all things, the architect if you will. The Son is the guy that actually gets his hands dirty.

                            Consider John 5:19 with John 14:10 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner". John 14:10: "the Father who dwells in Me does the works"

                            Originally posted by tabibito
                            Proverbs 8:30 is part of a passage which in 8:12 identifies (and anthropmorhises) wisdom as the master-craftsman.
                            in my experience, both the orthodox and non-orthodox consider Proverbs 8 as speaking of the Son as the Wisdom and Power of God. (1 Cor 1:24).

                            By my estimation the anthropomorphism of Wisdom begins in verse 1. Who is speaking from verse 1? From verse 12 where we encounter the "I", obviously Wisdom.

                            A curiosity: In the NKJV vs30 is rendered "Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman...". Compare the KJV which renders "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him:..". Most translations take the first rendering, or something like it. The KJV,WEB follow the second rendering. DBY has "Then I was by him his nursling".

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                              Hello tabibito,

                              If you are quibbling about words:
                              I leave that activity to others. However, I do make a distinction between those occasions when "God" is used to denote "the Father", and those when "God" denotes the trinity.

                              Like most people, I understand the words "make" and "create" as synonymous.
                              likewise "fashion", "craft", "produce", "author" etc. Some of these words are interchangable in almost any context, others only in some contexts.

                              Hebrews 1:10-12 echos Psalm 102:25-27. As an observation: from the Greek "poieō" in Hebrews 1:2 the Father is the author and cause of all things, the architect if you will. The Son is the guy that actually gets his hands dirty.
                              Again, Hebrews 1:2, continuing from 1:1 states that God (none of the major Koine manuscript groups state "Father") created all things through the Son. Whether "the Father" or the trinity is the more valid interpretation of the word "God" may be a matter of opinion, but I do not read it as "the Father."

                              Consider John 5:19 with John 14:10 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner". John 14:10: "the Father who dwells in Me does the works"
                              This would be Jesus, I believe. The one who had given up all his authority to act as God during his sojourn on Earth as a man. Jesus is also considered to be the author of a couple of things - our salvation and our faith at a minimum. (Hebrews 5:9, 12:2)

                              in my experience, both the orthodox and non-orthodox consider Proverbs 8 as speaking of the Son as the Wisdom and Power of God. (1 Cor 1:24).
                              Again, opinions will vary. 1 Corinthians 1:30 shows that Christ became for us, wisdom, righteousness and sanctification. IMO Any possible correlation between this and proverbs is weak.

                              A curiosity: In the NKJV vs30 is rendered "Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman...". Compare the KJV which renders "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him:..". Most translations take the first rendering, or something like it. The KJV,WEB follow the second rendering. DBY has "Then I was by him his nursling".
                              Which is why we need to take recourse to the Hebrew and Septuagint. The Hebrew for the meaning, and the Koine for determining the Hebrew interpretation of the statement in context.
                              The Septuagint leaves no doubt about wisdom being present with the one who was involved in the hands on part of creation.
                              27 When he prepared the heaven, I was present with him; and when he prepared his throne upon the winds:
                              28 and when he strengthened the clouds above; and when he secured the fountains of the earth:
                              29 and when he strengthened the foundations of the earth:
                              30 I was by him, suiting myself to him, I was that wherein he took delight; and daily I rejoiced in his presence continually.
                              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X