Originally posted by Pentecost
View Post
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
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
-
Pentecost: on 37818's self condemnation in an error of his view.
. . . 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 KJVTags: None
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostCould you give a specific? Where you perceive an explanation I gave is self condemning. I need to here it from a fresh view. Thanks.
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
-
Originally posted by Pentecost View PostOf 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.. . . 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
-
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
-
Hi Pentecost,
Originally posted by PentecostThere 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..
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/page11Last edited by apostoli; 08-01-2015, 02:54 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by apostoli View PostHi 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/page11Does 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
-
Originally posted by Pentecost View PostI 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.
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
-
Originally posted by apostoli View PostI 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.Last edited by 37818; 08-02-2015, 03:40 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
-
Originally posted by 37818You do not understand my view.
Originally posted by 37818God is Yahweh
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 37818God is Yahweh, the Self-Existent.
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 37818God is Yahweh, the Self-Existent. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are that One 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.
Originally posted by 37818That whosoever/whatsoever is not Self-Existent[Yahweh] is not God.
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 37818There is only One Yahweh who is the only God.
Originally posted by 37818God the Father is the Source of the Son. The Son is not caused.
Originally posted by 37818The Son is the Cause of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:4; etc.)
Originally posted by 37818Originally posted by apostoliNot sure what [37818] believes regarding the person of the Spirit.
Originally posted by 37818Originally posted by apostoliHe 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.
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, 12:50 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by apostoliActually 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).
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.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by apostoli View PostMost 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.
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".
YHWH doesn't mean "self existent". . . ."
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).
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).
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.
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".
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.
". . .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.
You can't have a source without causation.
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).
". . . 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...
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 37818; 08-05-2015, 10:01 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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWhere 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.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818Where is the common ground upon which we agree?
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 37818Originally posted by apostoliFrom A.Paul, it seems that the name revealed to Moses ("ehyeh" Ex 3:14) has been superseded (Phil 2:9?).
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 37818Originally posted by apostoliGod'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...
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 37818Originally posted by apostoliYHWH doesn't mean "self existent". . . ."
Strong's Dictionary:
. . . self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord.
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 37818Originally posted by apostoliWhat 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).
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.
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 37818The one God is the Person of the Father.
Originally posted by 37818And the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are God with the Father.
Originally posted by 37818The explanation is called the Trinity.
Originally posted by 37818Originally posted by apostoliSelf-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".
Originally posted by 37818Atheists believe there is an uncaused existence, but do not believe it to be God.
Originally posted by 37818God whose Name means "Self-Existent"
Originally posted by 37818God 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.
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 37818The 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.
Originally posted by 37818Originally posted by apostoliWe 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 37818Originally posted by apostoliYou can't have a source without causation.
Originally posted by 37818Then 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?
My opinion is secured by the teaching of Catholic & Orthodox Christianity. Teachings you have said you reject.
Originally posted by 37818Originally posted by apostoliAccording 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 37818What is caused is not God.
Originally posted by 37818The term "cause" means to "make something happen." So according to you The Son of God and the Holy Spirit were made, made to be.
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, 04:10 PM.
Comment
-
Hello tabibito,
Whether you be friend or foe, it is reinvigorating to have another voice in this conversation...
Originally posted by tabibitoOriginally posted by 37818The Son is the Cause of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:4; etc.)Originally posted by apostoliActually 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).
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 tabibitoHowever, 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.
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 tabibitoProverbs 8:30 is part of a passage which in 8:12 identifies (and anthropmorhises) wisdom as the master-craftsman.
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
-
Originally posted by apostoli View PostHello tabibito,
If you are quibbling about words:
Like most people, I understand the words "make" and "create" as synonymous.
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"
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).
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".
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.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Larry Serflaten, 01-25-2024, 09:30 AM
|
432 responses
1,971 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-17-2024, 09:43 AM
|
Comment