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

37818: Three persons, one God

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

  • 37818: Three persons, one God

    Originally posted by 37818
    Either there is only One God or you have two.
    Originally posted by apostoli
    You have three! Thats Tritheism, three unbegotten Gods each of whom are autotheos.
    No. I make no such profession.
    You may think you don't profess Tritheism but your posts definitely come close to advocating it!

    In your posts you insist that the Father, Son and Spirit are each God. You also insist that the Father is unbegotten, and emphatically demand that the Son is unbegotten. Though I don't remember you mentioning it, I assume you also hold that the Holy Spirit is unbegotten (does not proceed from the Father). As I understand it: That is Tritheism! Three unbegotten Gods!!!

    What your private thoughts are is your business, but if you go public as you have here at TheologyWeb, it is not sufficent for you to believe in "three unbegotten Gods who are the one unbegotten God named YHWH"! You must be able to explain it!!!

    Trinitarians believe there are three distinct hypostases (persons) who are homoousious (consubstantial). The doctrine of the homoousios explains that the Son and the Spirit are homoousios with the Father, thus each possesses theotēs (the state of being God). The Father, as the source of the "ousia" common to the three, is alone autotheos (God of himself). In regards to the Son, the homoousios is especially evident at Hebrews 1:3 & John 1:1c ("what God was/is the Word was/is" - NEB).

    Trinitarian Christians profess that there are three distinct hypostases (persons). The distinctions: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

    Originally posted by 37818
    I believe in three Persons who are the One God. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the one Yahweh, who is the One God.
    Has the name YHWH been replaced by the name Jesus/Yeshua? After all Philippians 2:9 would seem to indicate such.

    Question: How do you explain 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Especially verses 24 & 28 "Then comes the end, when He [Jesus] delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He [Jesus] puts an end to all rule and all authority and power....when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him [God the Father] who put all things under Him, that God [the Father] may be all in all."

    Originally posted by 37818
    It has been said that the Trintitarians who say, "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" promote tritheism.
    http://www.compellingtruth.org/trinity-tritheism.htm
    A typical sunday school type article. It contains a couple of errors and at least one glaring omission:

    * "Jesus Christ is also referred to as God. John 1:1 states that He 'was God'."

    John 1:1 does not state that Jesus Christ "was God" - that rendition is just another example of the KJV's inadequacy (see the original preface to the KJV which admits the inadequacy of translation). The modern, conservative experts in Greek Grammar (Wallace, Mantey, Harner etc) all agree that John 1:1c is qualitative, thus it means "what God was/is the Word was/is" (NEB) or as I prefer "the Word was as God" (cp. John 12:45; 14:6-11 etc).

    * "Paul also explicitly stated "For there is one God" (1 Timothy 2:5)."

    He sure did! And each time he nominated the Father as the one God = 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:8. Also, note that with few exceptions, if any, when A.Paul usesy the word "God" he always means "God the Father", as chapter 1 of his letters makes plain. To A.Paul Jesus is our one Lord, and the Spirit is the one Spirit.

    * The author of the article gives no explanation of how the doctrine of the Trinity differs from Tritheism. eg: He could have mentioned what distinguishes the Father, the Son and the Spirit. I learnt that in infants school, when I was somewhere between 7 and 8 years old.
    Last edited by apostoli; 07-30-2015, 05:19 PM.

  • #2
    Edited by a Moderator

    Moderated By: Zymologist


    In future, please get permission before posting in this area. Thank you.

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    Last edited by Zymologist; 04-18-2017, 10:11 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by apostoli View Post
      John 1:1 does not state that Jesus Christ "was God" - that rendition is just another example of the KJV's inadequacy (see the original preface to the KJV which admits the inadequacy of translation). The modern, conservative experts in Greek Grammar (Wallace, Mantey, Harner etc) all agree that John 1:1c is qualitative, thus it means "what God was/is the Word was/is" (NEB) or as I prefer "the Word was as God" (cp. John 12:45; 14:6-11 etc).
      Check the sentence structure out. "Theos" is place at the beginning of the phrase for emphasis. "God was the Word."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
        Father, as the source of the "ousia" common to the three, is alone autotheos (God of himself). In regards to the Son, the homoousios is especially evident at Hebrews 1:3 & John 1:1c ("what God was/is the Word was/is" - NEB).

        Trinitarian Christians profess that there are three distinct hypostases (persons). The distinctions: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

        Has the name YHWH been replaced by the name Jesus/Yeshua? After all Philippians 2:9 would seem to indicate such.

        Question: How do you explain 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Especially verses 24 & 28 "Then comes the end, when He [Jesus] delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He [Jesus] puts an end to all rule and all authority and power....when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him [God the Father] who put all things under Him, that God [the Father] may be all in all."

        A typical sunday school type article. It contains a couple of errors and at least one glaring omission:

        * "Jesus Christ is also referred to as God. John 1:1 states that He 'was God'."

        John 1:1 does not state that Jesus Christ "was God" - that rendition is just another example of the KJV's inadequacy (see the original preface to the KJV which admits the inadequacy of translation). The modern, conservative experts in Greek Grammar (Wallace, Mantey, Harner etc) all agree that John 1:1c is qualitative, thus it means "what God was/is the Word was/is" (NEB) or as I prefer "the Word was as God" (cp. John 12:45; 14:6-11 etc).

        * "Paul also explicitly stated "For there is one God" (1 Timothy 2:5)."

        He sure did! And each time he nominated the Father as the one God = 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:8. Also, note that with few exceptions, if any, when A.Paul usesy the word "God" he always means "God the Father", as chapter 1 of his letters makes plain. To A.Paul Jesus is our one Lord, and the Spirit is the one Spirit.

        * The author of the article gives no explanation of how the doctrine of the Trinity differs from Tritheism. eg: He could have mentioned what distinguishes the Father, the Son and the Spirit. I learnt that in infants school, when I was somewhere between 7 and 8 years old.
        "The context is that God's name will be glorified by Israel being blessed, and by Jerusalem being blessed. God's name resides in "Jerusalem". What is translated "by" in "by thy name" is actually the two prepositions governing "Jerusalem" and "Israel" - the Hebrew preposition "al". It usually means "on/over", and can have various other meanings. Young translates the clause, "for Thy name is called on Thy city, and on Thy people." The word "on" here may indicate support, as in "relying, supported on" (HALOT on Dan 9:18), or it may simply mean "over" (as in "Thy name is called over thy city and over thy people"). Either way, it denotes a close association between God, Israel His people, and Jerusalem, His chosen city."


        POINT OF REFERENCE
        : - John 17, "17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you." 2 For you granted him authority over all people (comparative with King David who God gave authority over his people, Zechariah’s Prophecy exclaimed - He has raised up a mighty savior for us in the house of his servant David,) that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."


        Point being - and in the same breath, " 6 but I have chosen Jerusalem that My name might be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.' However, and in John, Jesus exhorts (6:27), “For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
        Last edited by Marta; 04-24-2017, 12:44 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Faber View Post
          Check the sentence structure out. "Theos" is place at the beginning of the phrase for emphasis. "God was the Word."
          28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

          29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

          30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”

          32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

          34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

          35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life."

          Very significant to John 1 - 2 "He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Faber View Post
            Check the sentence structure out. "Theos" is place at the beginning of the phrase for emphasis. "God was the Word."
            If you read John 1 - and then read Paul's comment to this, you will find that the wording is a little different but meant to be the same.

            Colossians 1:16, 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…

            So if the Son is in the image of the invisible God and the firstborn over all creation - where does that phrase put Genesis 1, "27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." - Then Adam and Eve were not the "first of mankind" - Genesis 1, gives the account of the beginning of mankind "created" spiritually and Genesis 2, was the actual physical form of mankind. Like the Son - Jesus was created spiritually (The Word - the wisdom of God) and then came in the Flesh - physically. When God spoke to Abraham it was in a vision (Genesis 15) then God "appeared' in the Flesh and spoke to Abraham. (Genesis 18, "The Three Visitors,1 "The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day")

            Last point:

            "And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat." Genesis 18:8
            The Targum of Jonathan and other Jewish authorities translate “and they made show of eating,” lest it should seem as though angels ate (Judges 13:16). There is the same mystery as regards our risen Lord (Luke 24:43).
            Last edited by Marta; 04-24-2017, 01:24 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Faber View Post
              Check the sentence structure out. "Theos" is place at the beginning of the phrase for emphasis. "God was the Word."
              John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

              ....Couldn't this be another way of saying (two thoughts here) John 8:56–59 (ESV), “I AM” statement or even to say, that when Moses asked for God's name, He replied, "I am that I am", indicating a present or future tense, meaning "I am what I will be" or "I will be what I will be" a reference to God's eternal nature.


              There are: I AM the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 41, 48, 51); I AM the Light of the World (John 8:12); I AM the Door of the Sheep (John 10:7, 9); I AM the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14); I AM the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25); I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6); and I AM the True Vine (John 15:1, 5).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                You may think you don't profess Tritheism but your posts definitely come close to advocating it!

                In your posts you insist that the Father, Son and Spirit are each God. You also insist that the Father is unbegotten, and emphatically demand that the Son is unbegotten. Though I don't remember you mentioning it, I assume you also hold that the Holy Spirit is unbegotten (does not proceed from the Father). As I understand it: That is Tritheism! Three unbegotten Gods!!!
                The theology of the Trinity is slippery enough that I can make a plausible case for heresy for anyone who isn't simply repeating the Nicene Creed.

                Saying that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all unbegotten looks heretical because it suggests that they are independent of each other. The Eastern approach to the Trinity sees the unity as coming from the fact that the Father is the source of the entire Trinity. In such an approach saying that all three are unbegotten removes the basis for their unity, leaving us with three separate gods.

                However the Western approach tends to start with the unity of God, and see a distinction in role based on a mutual relationship. Someone taking that approach could reasonably consider being unbegotten to be a property of the common essence, and express that relational distinction in a different way.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                  The theology of the Trinity is slippery enough that I can make a plausible case for heresy for anyone who isn't simply repeating the Nicene Creed.

                  Saying that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all unbegotten looks heretical because it suggests that they are independent of each other. The Eastern approach to the Trinity sees the unity as coming from the fact that the Father is the source of the entire Trinity. In such an approach saying that all three are unbegotten removes the basis for their unity, leaving us with three separate gods.

                  However the Western approach tends to start with the unity of God, and see a distinction in role based on a mutual relationship. Someone taking that approach could reasonably consider being unbegotten to be a property of the common essence, and express that relational distinction in a different way.
                  Are you saying that the Western approach on the theology of the Trinity entails tritheism (a belief in three gods) where as, the Eastern approach the same theology as being more unified?

                  "We should take note of the distinction between the "generative" procession that consititutes the Son, and the "spirative" procession that constitutes the Holy Spirit. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, and Scripture reveals, the Son is uniquely "begotten" of the Father (cf. John 3:16; 1:18). He is also said to proceed from the Father as "the Word" in John 1:1. This "generative" procession is one of "begetting," but not in the same way a dog "begets" a dog, or a human being "begets" a human being. This is an intellectual "begetting," and fittingly so, as a "word" proceeds from the knower while, at the same time remaining in the knower. Thus, this procession or begetting of the Son occurs within the inner life of God. There are not "two beings" involved; rather, two persons relationally distinct, while ever-remaining one in being.

                  The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but not in a generative sense; rather, in a spiration. "Spiration" comes from the Latin word for "spirit" or "breath." Jesus "breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit..." (John 20:22). Scripture reveals the Holy Spirit as pertaining to "God's love [that] has been poured into our hearts" in Romans 5:5, and as flowing out of and identified with the reciprocating love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father (John 15:26; Rev. 22:1-2). Thus, the Holy Spirit's procession is not intellecual and generative, but has its origin in God's will and in the ultimate act of the will, which is love." Explaining the Trinity

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Marta View Post
                    So if the Son is in the image of the invisible God and the firstborn over all creation - where does that phrase put Genesis 1, "27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." - Then Adam and Eve were not the "first of mankind" - Genesis 1, gives the account of the beginning of mankind "created" spiritually and Genesis 2, was the actual physical form of mankind. Like the Son - Jesus was created spiritually (The Word - the wisdom of God) and then came in the Flesh - physically. When God spoke to Abraham it was in a vision (Genesis 15) then God "appeared' in the Flesh and spoke to Abraham. (Genesis 18, "The Three Visitors,1 "The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day")
                    You're saying the Jesus was created? And part of that is that Jesus was created in the spiritual form that man would take? Am I misunderstanding you? Will you please clarify?
                    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


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                      You're saying the Jesus was created? And part of that is that Jesus was created in the spiritual form that man would take? Am I misunderstanding you? Will you please clarify?
                      Noting the passage: Colossians 1:15-21

                      “And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together


                      Not saying that at all. If Christ were the “first-created,” the Greek word would have been protoktisis. Better said on this part of scripture: The Greek word prototokos, is translated as being the "firstborn". My understanding is that word takes on a couple of meanings away from "first created". The psalmist gives a description of David as being the firstborn. The Lord said of him, "I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth (Psalm 89:27). So in David's case - comes with authority, referring to the rights and authority of a person, because David was considered to be the youngest, correct? So if this is correct, I had asked the question where does this put Adam? Genesis 1, gives the account of the beginning of mankind "created in the image" spiritually and then in Genesis 2, was the actual physical form of mankind. Like the Son - Jesus was “firstborn of all creation” spiritually (The Word - the wisdom of God, as in John 1) and then became Flesh - physically born from a woman.

                      Many things have been written along the lines of Colossians 1:15-21.

                      Continuing with Genesis 12, God had called out to Abraham and then commanded him to leave (Harran), then we read later in Genesis (Genesis 15), that the "word" of Lord "came" to Abraham, this is different then "calling out" vs. the "word" came, then came the actual physical appearance in Genesis 18, " The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre". Again, each occasion is a build up to the actual "physical" appearance. Also, this is viewed in Exodus with Moses. At the beginning, God called out Moses, "God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” and as the passages in Exodus continue - scripture builds up toward Moses asking, “Now show me your glory.” 19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence."

                      Was John 1 referring to this part? That is the leading up until the actual "physical" appearance becoming present. Re-reading John 1, "9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.


                      and as with Moses _ We saw God's Glory passing .....14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                        You're saying the Jesus was created? And part of that is that Jesus was created in the spiritual form that man would take? Am I misunderstanding you? Will you please clarify?
                        You know that there have been some conflict with this part in scripture. Even speaking about revelations - Revelation 3:14 King James Version (KJV) 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Marta View Post
                          You know that there have been some conflict with this part in scripture. Even speaking about revelations - Revelation 3:14 King James Version (KJV) 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
                          The beginning of the creation of God =/= first thing created, it means the start of creation. Jesus started creation = Jesus created; not that he was created.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                            The beginning of the creation of God =/= first thing created, it means the start of creation. Jesus started creation = Jesus created; not that he was created.
                            It is important to note, in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ He is in fact the beginning of the New Heaven and Earth (John 1:3; Romans 8:21-29; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 21:1).
                            . . . 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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Marta View Post
                              You know that there have been some conflict with this part in scripture. Even speaking about revelations - Revelation 3:14 King James Version (KJV) 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
                              Your posts seem to be doing more obfuscation than clarification as to what you believe. Can you answer the question of your belief openly and clearly?
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment

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