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

  • #16
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    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."
    Imo, Hebrews 1:3 makes it obvious that the Father is in focus (=the Majesty on high). Come to think of it Hebrews 1:2 reference to "by his Son" also makes it obvious.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    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)
    Imu, the Father is the primary source and primary cause of our salvation (1 John 4:14 etc). Jesus declares he did not come of his own volition (John 8:42).

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The Septuagint leaves no doubt about wisdom being present with the one who was involved in the hands on part of creation.
    No one argues whether Wisdom was present or not. The experts say the Hebrew and Greek is ambiguous, it might refer to it as a co-worker or it might refer to it as a child. The consensus seems to be master workman/craftsman.
    Last edited by apostoli; 08-06-2015, 01:47 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by apostoli View Post
      Imo, Hebrews 1:3 makes it obvious that the Father is in focus (=the Majesty on high). Come to think of it Hebrews 1:2 reference to "by his Son" also makes it obvious.
      εν υιω doesn't say "his son" - If you look carefully the translation shows his son. Assuming that is, that the translation marks the interpolation.

      Imu, the Father is the primary source and primary cause of our salvation (1 John 4:14 etc). Jesus declares he did not come of his own volition (John 8:42).
      "own volition" might be inferred from the text, but that would pit it in conflict with Philippians 2:6-8, which shows that Jesus submitted himself - that is, his being sent was, on his part, volitional. This is of course a mere quibble.
      But John 4:14 shows that the Father sent his Son, Saviour of the world. Of course, various interpolations in translation ("as", "to be") sort of change that in varying degree, and may be valid - depending on whether the Son was Saviour of the world prior to his conception as a human.
      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        εν υιω doesn't say "his son" - If you look carefully the translation shows his son. Assuming that is, that the translation marks the interpolation.
        I figured you would try that on. Read the Greek fully, "his" is implied, otherwise the text doesn't make sense. The alternative requires the text to read εν o υιω.

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        "own volition" might be inferred from the text, but that would pit it in conflict with Philippians 2:6-8, which shows that Jesus submitted himself - that is, his being sent was, on his part, volitional. This is of course a mere quibble.
        Notice the bit I bolded. Subconsciously you admit the facts.

        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        But John 4:14 shows that the Father sent his Son, Saviour of the world. Of course, various interpolations in translation ("as", "to be") sort of change that in varying degree, and may be valid - depending on whether the Son was Saviour of the world prior to his conception as a human.
        (?) Please expand...

        I'm aware Mormons teach (at least the ones I've encountered) that the Son volunteered for the task...So did Satan according to them...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by apostoli View Post
          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...
          A common ground is to be a basis draw agreement where possible. And where not possible, that common ground might prove to be a tool to persuade in the argument. At the very least help identify the actual differences in understanding.
          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)?
          Yes, and on the latter. But I also hold that God can be understood as an individual Person, One Person, referring to the first Person of the the three.
          2. I assume we agree that the Trinity persists as three distinct hypostases, each of whom possesses an identical ousia (essence).
          Yes.
          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).
          Only in part. I hold that the Son does derive his ousia (essence) from His Father. I find the term "begotten" to be misleading and not used in this way in Holy Scripture, and as a concept lead to the error of Arius.
          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?
          Not just a Name, but they are the same YHWH.
          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).
          Because God is His Father. (compare Isaiah 9:6.) Also 17:5 ". . . the glory which I had with thee before the world was. . . ." Also ". . . I will not give my glory unto another. . . ." -- Isaiah 48:11.
          4. I presume we can agree on most things concerning our salvation.
          I would hope so. You do now posses eternal life? Do you not? 1 John 5:12, 20 (John 17:3). Romans 8:9.
          Well, those are the positives, the negatives would take pages to list...
          As far as I knew: There were only two key points where I differed. The only-begotten Son was not begotten nor made to be the Son. And that the preincarnate Son always had two ousia, one which was always the same as His Father, and the other in which He actually changed when He became human in the incarnation. And that both ousia being why He as the very image of God appearing for God even when He was the preincarnate Son (John 1:18; Genesis 12:7; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15).
          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.
          That does not negate Isaiah 43:10, 11.
          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!!!
          No. The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia.

          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.
          It was the Son who appeared(John 1:18) and spoke to Moses on behalf the the Father.
          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.
          Quote one of your sources. Maybe someone who denies Strong's "self-Existent."
          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
          OK? What did you understand hat he said that contradicts what I believe?

          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.
          Name one of those thousands. just one.
          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.
          OK. "ever existing" would also have to be "self-Existent" in order to be "ever Existing." The alternate translation, Strong's dictionary gives is "Eternal." James Moffett, as an example, translated God's Name as "Eternal." That would be of little or no difference to mean the same as "ever Existing."
          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.
          God spoke His Name to Abraham and Jacob. So to have the text say He did not is wrong. And the interpretations that use that contradictory reading does not make sense to me. You want my long explanation?
          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.
          What is self existent needs no God. So if it is not God's Name. God is not God. (John 17:3).

          Originally posted by 37818
          And the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are God with the Father.
          Finally, something we can agree upon. Though your statement contradicts your previous ramblings.
          Close enough. Though, you seem to have changed your tune. How are the Son of God and the Holy Spirit God with the Father?
          I've not change my position. Maybe you do not what to understand what I am saying. My answer is the one you want to reject. God is YHWH, the Self-Existent, the uncaused existence (compare Acts 17:28).

          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?
          Only YHWH is autotheos, and there is none else.

          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).
          The title "the Lord Jesus Christ" refers to Him as the man. Jesus Christ has two natures (essences). Both the divine and not divine. It is your definition: that the Son was caused and therefore would mean that he would not 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?
          No. Existence is presumed by all. We experience an existence in space-time. There is an uncased existence. It, the uncaused existence, is either the identity of God or there is no God. And "uncased cause" has two ousia: Uncaused being eternal. Being a cause temporal. (John 1:1-3.)
          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.
          Tell you what, you prove your God even exists. My God is the uncaused existence. If God is not the uncaused existence then there is no God. You do have eternal life, right? (1 John 5:9-13; John 17:3; 1 John 5:20). I'm not saying you do not. I'm am asking you (2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8;9; 1 John 5:1, 12).


          Most people would refer to it as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
          Again, understanding Jesus as Lord being the man in His incarnation.
          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.
          If we are going to refer to God as a single Person, we must understand this to be the Father. Otherwise, the three Persons.
          Note the bit I bolded. Have you changed your mind and determined that the Father is exclusively your "uncaused existence".
          Since I have not changed my mind. The Father can be thought of being exclusively as the "uncaused existence." But then the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same exclusive "uncaused existence" with the Father, not apart from the Father. There is only one uncaused existence.

          Would you show me where in scripture the Father, Son and Spirit are explicitly and collectively named YHWH.
          It is found in proving the Trinity in the OT referencing the NT.

          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?)
          A cause without a source is the "uncaused cause." You cannot have an effect without a cause. And to say anything is caused is to refer to it as an effect. What is caused is what we call an effect. Both the cause and the effect are temporal. An uncaused cause only has a source of being uncaused.

          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.
          I'm challenging what you believe. Not making empty accusations. What is caused is not God. The Son of God, on this all Christians agree, is both uncaused God and caused man in His incarnation. You agree on this do you not?
          My opinion is secured by the teaching of Catholic & Orthodox Christianity. Teachings you have said you reject.
          I accept Biblical Christianity as orthodox Christianity. I do reject the RCC & OC as true churches in regard to the written word of God. They both believe they are the true Church. I find the OC preferable over the RCC.
          Nope! Scripture, says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (so do the creeds).
          So do you believe the Creeds to be Holy Scripture too (Matthew 4:4)? And the Holy Spirit acting in our world does in fact proceed from the Father. The Holy Spirit is the same ousia as the Father and the Son.

          Originally posted by apostoli View Post
          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.
          No. It would be easier to prove there is no God than to prove there is a caused God. Again, what is caused is not God.
          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.
          Why use a temporal term "begotten" to mean the eternal Son of God from God the Father? This odd use of the otherwise temporal term "begotten" is the cause of the error of Arius.
          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.
          Yes. Produces an effect.
          exists in such a way: We read in scripture that God is love, love has consequences...
          God a metaphor for love. Just as God a metaphor for light (1 John 1:5). God is a Spirit (John 5:24).
          Last edited by 37818; 08-09-2015, 12:31 AM.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . 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 KJV

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

          Comment


          • #20
            Hello 37818,

            I am glad after all our years of conversation we are making some progress in understanding each other...For now I'll respond to only one item in your post...

            Originally posted by 37818
            The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia.
            No Catholic or Orthodox Christian believes what you propose (the part I have underlined). In fact no Protestant, Reformed, Lutheran etc Christian that subscribes to the Confession of Chalcedon believes what you propose. All consider what you have proposed "His human ousia being added to His divine ousia" to be heresy. Allow me to explain your error...

            Below I've quoted the Chalcedon belief for you to examine and reappraise your invention.. Maybe you have simply confused yourself with the terminology. By definition "ousia" is unchangeable, so the Son could not add a human ousia to his divene ousia as you propose. Ousia is the absolute definition of a category of things - what they are!!! Change the definition and you have something entirely different - a new category of thing - in your case some kind of hybrid. An ousia (essence) is an attribute possessed by a hypostasis (person as a concrete reality). A hypostasis can have attributes added to it. Thus Chalcedon belief holds that the Son (a hypostasis) via Mary acquired humanity. Thus the Son has two observable natures (duo physes). Physis/es are the terms used at Chalcedon. Basically physis is what proves an ousia. Unlike ousia which can be determined from metaphysical speculatiion, a physis has observable motion/activity and it is this motion/activity that proves an ousia.

            The Confession of Chalcedon

            We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
            Last edited by apostoli; 08-09-2015, 04:55 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by apostoli View Post
              I figured you would try that on. Read the Greek fully, "his" is implied, otherwise the text doesn't make sense. The alternative requires the text to read εν o υιω.
              Having given this claim some investigation, I find that the presence or absence of the definite article, as is commonly the case with Koine Greek, does not materially affect the reading. "εν υιω" and "εω τω υιω" can be used interchangably.
              1 John 5:20 in particular reads "εν τω υιω αυτου" - the definite article τω is present, and "his (αυτου)" explicitly stated.
              There being only one use of the dative υιω without the definite article, it becomes necessary to examine the interplay of other nouns in the dative case.
              So then, "in the Spirit"
              Ephesians 6:18 - praying in every season in the Spirit - εν πνευματι - no definite article present.
              Hebrews 1:1 identifies "o θεος (God)" as speaking to us "εν (in/by) υιω (son)" ... if the phrase were to be expanded as indicating "son of whom" - "εν υιω αυτου (of him)" could equally be "his son", or as "the son of him (God)". I can't see any valid cause to make such an expansion to the text - either way, God is the principal.




              [/QUOTE]
              Last edited by tabibito; 08-09-2015, 04:40 AM.
              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Having given this claim some investigation, I find that the presence or absence of the definite article, as is commonly the case with Koine Greek, does not materially affect the reading. "εν υιω" and "εω τω υιω" can be used interchangably.
                1 John 5:20 in particular reads "εν τω υιω αυτου" - the definite article τω is present, and "his (αυτου)" explicitly stated.
                There being only one use of the dative υιω without the definite article, it becomes necessary to examine the interplay of other nouns in the dative case.
                So then, "in the Spirit"
                Ephesians 6:18 - praying in every season in the Spirit - εν πνευματι - no definite article present.
                Hebrews 1:1 identifies "o θεος (God)" as speaking to us "εν (in/by) υιω (son)" ... if the phrase were to be expanded as indicating "son of whom" - "εν υιω αυτου (of him)" could equally be "his son", or as "the son of him (God)". I can't see any valid cause to make such an expansion to the text...
                Based on vs3 "his Son" is a natural reading, else have "the Son" doesn't matter what-so-ever - his Son is understood by the fact of inheritance (vs2).

                Originally posted by tabibito
                either way, God is the principal.
                Until we get to vs3 onwards...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                  Based on vs3 "his Son" is a natural reading, else have "the Son" doesn't matter what-so-ever - his Son is understood by the fact of inheritance (vs2).
                  That goes to understanding - it doesn't go to what is actually written: "εν υιω" says "in/by the Son". Moreover, the number of times that Jesus is referred to as "the Son", without denoting whose son, shows using "the Son" to be valid.
                  As to the rest: "His" (pronoun) denoting "God's" from "God" as the appropriate antecedent noun. There is no reason to read "God" as an alternative for "Father" in this context, given the number of times that Jesus is referred to as "the son of God" throughout the New Testament.
                  sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    tabibito

                    I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to prove!!!

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    That goes to understanding - it doesn't go to what is actually written: "εν υιω" says "in/by the Son". Moreover, the number of times that Jesus is referred to as "the Son", without denoting whose son, shows using "the Son" to be valid.
                    So what? A.Paul's letters fully disclose God to be the Father of "the Son", and that the Son is the Son of our God and Father!.

                    Traditionally, since the year dot, Hebrews has been attributed to A.Paul. A.Paul in his letters makes reference to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 15:8; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3; Col 1:3) as "our God and Father" (eg: Galatians 1:4; Phil 4:20; 1 Thes 1:3; 3:11,13; 2 Thes 2:16;).

                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    As to the rest: "His" (pronoun) denoting "God's" from "God" as the appropriate antecedent noun. There is no reason to read "God" as an alternative for "Father" in this context, given the number of times that Jesus is referred to as "the son of God" throughout the New Testament.
                    You seem to have ignored vs1. Contextually, "the Son" of vs2, is the son of the God who had spoken through the prophets but now speaks to us through his/the Son..

                    Consider 1 John 4:9 "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him". From this we know God has one and only one Son whom he directly begot.
                    Last edited by apostoli; 08-10-2015, 01:31 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      It did get kind of convoluted.

                      Originally posted by apostoli View Post

                      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).
                      You seem to have ignored vs1. Contextually, "the Son" of vs2, is the son of the God who had spoken through the prophets but now speaks to us through his/the Son..
                      Correct - "The Son of God" (were "the Son" to be expanded, it could only be "the Son of God" - there is no reference to the individual "Father" in the passage). God created all things - by/in the Son. This is not a matter of the Father creating all things using the son as the craftsman (which "through" might be said to imply) and which your claim that "the Son is a secondary cause" states. The distinction is demonstrated by the statement that God spoke through the prophets - the prophets being vessels, as it were. Hebrews states that God created, by God the Son: thus, while God did the creating, only the Son was directly involved in the creation.
                      Lest this be considered mere pedantry, it should not pass without notice that the wording of your explanation lends credence to the Watchtower Corporation's claims.
                      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        I"The Son of God" (were "the Son" to be expanded, it could only be "the Son of God" - there is no reference to the individual "Father" in the passage). God created all things - by/in the Son. This is not a matter of the Father creating all things using the son as the craftsman (which "through" might be said to imply) and which your claim that "the Son is a secondary cause" states. The distinction is demonstrated by the statement that God spoke through the prophets - the prophets being vessels, as it were. Hebrews states that God created, by God the Son: thus, while God did the creating, only the Son was directly involved in the creation.
                        Lest this be considered mere pedantry, it should not pass without notice that the wording of your explanation lends credence to the Watchtower Corporation's claims.
                        I doubt you subscribe to patripassianism. All things in scripture are intertwined, so to object to one thing mightcause you to object to another...

                        I assume you agree that the the Father is the primary cause of our salvation in as much as he sent his only begotten Son to die for us, and the Son is the secondary cause in as much as he was obedient to his Father and actually died for us? By analogy: the Father was the architect, the Son was the workman...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 37818
                          Originally posted by apostoli
                          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.
                          What is self existent needs no God. So if it is not God's Name. God is not God. (John 17:3).
                          ????

                          Your comment in unintelligible. Please extend your thought/s. Also what has John 17:3 got to do with what name the patriarchs used to address their God?
                          ______________

                          "self existing": I am observably "self existing", so are you and everybody else but not until the resurrection will we become "ever existing" as is God. Do you comprehend the difference in word usage?

                          Us humans all have dependency of some type. Unlike us, God is said to have no dependency or need. For instance: he doesn't need us to recognise him as God, but scripture definitely indicates he has aspirations for our well being that requires us to understand Jesus' Father as the only true God... John 17:3 uses a very interesting word in the Greek that directly addresses this point. However, most translations inadequately translate the word as "know", so most people miss what Jesus was actually saying."Ginōskō" indicates the type of knowledge gained from having an intimate relationship with someone. Jesus uses the same word repetitively at John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also".
                          Last edited by apostoli; 08-14-2015, 01:41 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                            Hello 37818,

                            I am glad after all our years of conversation we are making some progress in understanding each other...For now I'll respond to only one item in your post...
                            Originally posted by 37818
                            The Son in the incarnation is understood by all Christians to have two ousia, His human ousia being added to His divine ousia without changing His divine ousia.
                            No Catholic or Orthodox Christian believes what you propose (the part I have underlined). In fact no Protestant, Reformed, Lutheran etc Christian that subscribes to the Confession of Chalcedon believes what you propose. All consider what you have proposed "His human ousia being added to His divine ousia" to be heresy. Allow me to explain your error...

                            Below I've quoted the Chalcedon belief for you to examine and reappraise your invention.. Maybe you have simply confused yourself with the terminology. By definition "ousia" is unchangeable, so the Son could not add a human ousia to his divene ousia as you propose. Ousia is the absolute definition of a category of things - what they are!!! Change the definition and you have something entirely different - a new category of thing - in your case some kind of hybrid. An ousia (essence) is an attribute possessed by a hypostasis (person as a concrete reality). A hypostasis can have attributes added to it. Thus Chalcedon belief holds that the Son (a hypostasis) via Mary acquired humanity. Thus the Son has two observable natures (duo physes). Physis/es are the terms used at Chalcedon. Basically physis is what proves an ousia. Unlike ousia which can be determined from metaphysical speculatiion, a physis has observable motion/activity and it is this motion/activity that proves an ousia.

                            The Confession of Chalcedon

                            We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
                            You have falsely accused me for things I did not say in the past. I did qualify my statement by "without changing His divine ousia." Further qualification, that He was made one with His Divinity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. That there is a distinct Divine ousia, a distinct human ousia, in one hypostasis. Now please explain what you think is heresy here. Thanks.
                            Last edited by 37818; 08-15-2015, 08:51 PM.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . 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 KJV

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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              37818, I've responded on the Chalcedon thread.

                              Comment

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