Triune Godhead

by zone Fri May 25, 2012 12:56 pm

Edelweiss wrote:No brother your not banned yet. They have the usual protocol to go through.They will try to trip you up in C2M, so try not to sound condescending to them.What I hate is that fact that they don't go after Markedward, or Lookingup, and whoever else does not believe in the so holy trinity.I openly explain your point of view,so since I'm defending it, they should guess I'm no trinity fan. It's biased!

God bless you brother. my prayers are with you and your family.

note from zone:
i affirm the Triune God, i understand the Revelation of God in scripture through the use of Trinitarian language.
i reject Modalism.

however, i do understand the issue with "PERSONS" and how it drifts toward Tritheism.
i don't feel called to ascend into heaven to define God in His Glory (Father/Son/Spirit).

on that note, its perfectly legitimate to wrestle with The Lord on matters in scripture we are seeking to understand (just be prepared to have your leg hurt and to walk with a limp as a result of it! LOL), and i don't take offense at those who do try to understand the Godhead - provided they do not promote MODALISM.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Fri May 25, 2012 4:11 pm

zone wrote:

note from zone:
i affirm the Triune God, i understand the Revelation of God in scripture through the use of Trinitarian language.
i reject Modalism.

however, i do understand the issue with "PERSONS" and how it drifts toward Tritheism.
i don't feel called to ascend into heaven to define God in His Glory (Father/Son/Spirit).

on that note, its perfectly legitimate to wrestle with The Lord on matters in scripture we are seeking to understand (just be prepared to have your leg hurt and to walk with a limp as a result of it! LOL), and i don't take offense at those who do try to understand the Godhead - provided they do not promote MODALISM.

I can readily accept this from you. And yes, Modalism is egregious error as well. Those who espouse an unformulated view that F/S/HS are God are preferable to those promoting a fallacious "how" for that "what".

The core issue stems from the foundation of "three hupostases (persons) of one ousia". The colloquialized conceptualization is of distinct "persons", which is humanizing to F/S/HS.

Scripture clearly states Jesus is the express image (charakter) OF the Father's hupostasis, NOT another hupostasis. Nowhere are the S/HS referred to as separated hupostases. Ousia is used in scripture only twice, and in reference to immanent inanimate material substance. It is never remotely utilized when referring to F/S/HS.

Three hupostases of one ousia was imported from Gnostic and Platonic thought and practice, and superimposed upon the sacred text. A deductive hermeneutic method cannot address this fallacy. It's a projection and an infusion; a superimposition.

The Oneness models hold to the one hupostasis, but diverge into other problematic areas of "how". God is not three manifestations. There is only one manifestation of God... that of His OWN Logos in the flesh.

Hupostasis is subsistence. Objective assured reality. God is self-subsistent and self-existent. And utterly transcendent.

Formulated Trinity presents a Jesus that has/is a separate subsistence from the Father, then adds the Holy Spirit as a third subsistence.

Just like the NAR and Dispensationalism, well-meaning intent and pervasive innocuous belief does not nullify the fundamentally flawed premise and deception.

God has/is one hupostasis, and has/is not ousia, whether individually OR collectively. Jesus is the very transcendent subsistence of God made flesh. He is not a second separate subsistence who hypostasized.

No matter how acceptable "persons" sounds, it is rotten Tridaism at its core.

by **strangelove** Fri May 25, 2012 4:28 pm

---ADMIN---SPLIT TOPIC----ADMIN

by **strangelove** Fri May 25, 2012 4:34 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Formulated Trinity presents a Jesus that has/is a separate subsistence from the Father, then adds the Holy Spirit as a third subsistence.

Not my formulated trinity.

I'm a trinitarian, and I never thought of it that way.

Which creeds affirm that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are different 'subsistence' than the Father?

by PneumaPsucheSoma Fri May 25, 2012 6:29 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Not my formulated trinity.

Yes. You're just not aware, having accepted "persons" terminology.

I'm a trinitarian, and I never thought of it that way.

Which creeds affirm that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are different 'subsistence' than the Father?

Anything post-Nicene/Constantinopolitan. The Athanasian Creed. Anything containing hupostases (plural) or ousia. "Persons" is always derived from hupostases, even if it made an interim Latin pit-stop.

Don't confuse substance and subsistence. Technically, Trinity is three subsistences of one substance.

Trinity cannot actually present God as one subsistence. It's subtle subversion and coercion by the Dialectic to make the true oneness of God into threeness, emphasizing hupostases.

Trinity is one of three hupostases become flesh in a hypostatic union. There is no second hupostasis of three.

Jesus is the express image (charakter) OF the Father's singular hupostasis; NOT another hupostasis.

It's not semantics. Trinity is fallacious and doesn't present Jesus as the actual Deity He truly is.

God manifested in the flesh. NOT the Son of God manifested in the flesh.

Every Oneness proponent I've sat down with has received the truth and left Oneness behind. I'm working with a small group of Christadelphians who are begining to see the true Deity of Christ now.

by **strangelove** Fri May 25, 2012 6:39 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Yes. You're just not aware, having accepted "persons" terminology.

Who's "persons" terminology have I accepted?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Anything post-Nicene/Constantinopolitan. The Athanasian Creed.
Anything containing hupostases (plural) or ousia. "Persons" is always
derived from hupostases, even if it made an interim Latin pit-stop.

Where do they link "persons" to "subsistances" specifically?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Don't confuse substance and subsistence. Technically, Trinity is three subsistences of one substance.

Technically according to WHO?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Trinity cannot actually present God as one subsistence. It's subtle
subversion and coercion by the Dialectic to make the true oneness of God
into threeness, emphasizing hupostases.

My trinity can present God as one subsistence. G'head, ask me any question you want about my triune godhead.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Trinity is one of three hupostases become flesh in a hypostatic union. There is no second hupostasis of three.

Not my trinity.

Can I have a trinity that doesnt violate these concepts?

Am I allowed?

Arn't you allowed too?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Jesus is the express image (charakter) OF the Father's singular hupostasis; NOT another hupostasis.

That sounds great. That can work in our generally triune godhead.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:It's not semantics. Trinity is fallacious and doesn't present Jesus as the actual Deity He truly is.

Who's trinity?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:God manifested in the flesh. NOT the Son of God manifested in the flesh.

Obviously. Do certain creeds say the Son of God manifested in the flesh?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Every Oneness proponent I've sat down with has received the truth and
left Oneness behind. I'm working with a small group of Christadelphians
who are begining to see the true Deity of Christ now.

Thats great. Good work PPS, maybe you found your calling...convincing people that Jesus Christ is God.

by **strangelove** Fri May 25, 2012 8:55 pm

I guess I just wanna figger out why a Christian using the word "persons" automatically makes them an idoloter PPS?

When did "person" become a dirty word?

Which creed has stated that this word means that Jesus and the Father are two seperate gods fer crying out loud? Very Happy

by **strangelove** Fri May 25, 2012 9:00 pm

zone wrote:however, i do understand the issue with "PERSONS" and how it drifts toward Tritheism.

Seriousy though.....show me a Christian on a forum who thinks theres 3 gods in our religion? I'd be fascinated to read a thread on that.

At this moment I dont understand the issue.

Is it a big issue?

by zone Fri May 25, 2012 10:22 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Seriousy though.....show me a Christian on a forum who thinks theres 3 gods in our religion? I'd be fascinated to read a thread on that.

At this moment I dont understand the issue.

Is it a big issue?

i know Doc...cuz we don't see the Trinity as pps thinks we do.

but lots of people 'imagine' Father God with a body on a throne, and Jesus the Son next to Him (they eventually end up believing whether they admit it or not that Jesus was created), and the Holy Spirit as a wispy force God that is invisible and does their bidding. kinda like that.

by zone Fri May 25, 2012 10:24 pm

Strangelove wrote:
My trinity can present God as one subsistence. G'head, ask me any question you want about my triune godhead.

YAY!

Q#1: Doc, where did Jesus come from?

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat May 26, 2012 2:52 am

(Ummm... I somehow managed to really screw the pooch with the quotes on this post.)

All of them ultimately come from the same source theologically, though perception rules the day among the non-scholars.

It's not a link. It's the Greek term from which "persons" is derived. Hupostasis is substance, essence, subsistence, confident assurance, underlying support; the objective and assured reality of a thing.

Trinity is irrevocably built upon "three hupostases of one ousia".

Any Greek language tool. Hupostasis (G5287). It's only used of God once (Heb. 1:3) Five times total. Faith is a hupostasis.

Maybe conceptually in English. Not from the inspired text. It ain't there.

Okay. :-)
Trinity is three somethings of a something. What are the somethings and the something? ...specifically from the Greek text. Three whats of a what? Greek.

Though Trinity is not homogenous in that there are variants, it isn't merely a relatively generic descriptor for threeness of any concept or expression. All Trinity variants (Subordinate and Economic variants, Filioque and Non-Filioqute, and the small plethora of Social and Anti-Social variants) all must be based upon three hupostases of one ousia to be orthodox.

You can have any view you wish; and you may even call it anything you wish. But Trinity has certain specific immutables. Three "persons" is one the core mandates. "Persons" is hupostases, not individual conceptions based on English understandings of the translated rendering. THAT's the problem. In the end, Trinity is self-defeating paradox that is untenable from scripture itself.

You're allowed. But Trinity has given you at least a general conception that is incorrect.

I'm clearly heterodox.

In Trinity parlance, "Jesus is the express image OF God's "person"; NOT another "person". I don't think you would affirm that.

ANY Trinity variant. The Son was pre-existent as the Logos of God, not a separate "person".

Do you believe that a pre-existent transcendent second Son-"person" manifested in the flesh? Or do you believe that the singular-hupostasis God manifested in the flesh?

True. I found that calling long ago. The addendum to that calling is teaching others "how" Jesus Christ is God and the true meaning of the Logos.

In the end, Jesus is the prosopon (singular) of God's hupostasis (singular).

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat May 26, 2012 3:29 am

Strangelove wrote:I guess I just wanna figger out why a Christian using the word "persons" automatically makes them an idoloter PPS?

In my entire time engaging anyone on this subject, I've never once indicated Trinity is idolatry or Trinitarians are idolators. I've also never misrepresented Trintiy as Tritheism, though modern conceptions have morphed into Triadism.

When did "person" become a dirty word?

It isn't with Cath-O-Licks and Protestants alike. That's the problem.

Which creed has stated that this word means that Jesus and the Father are two seperate gods fer crying out loud?

None. I've never initmated Trinity represents multiple gods. I've asserted it is wrong according to scripture; and it is literally impossible. Not in the "nothing is impossible for God" sense; but in the "text can't support that view" sense.

Try it. Express Trinity without the term "persons". Then find every textual rendering for "persons". It quite literally cannot be expressed from the inspired text. The remaining deduction and conclusion is inference from attributes, behavior, and the like. But even the deduction and conclusion is based on the projection and superimposition of terminology from Gnostic and Platonic influence.

Scripture says Jesus is the express image (charakter) OF God's hupostasis (singular). Neither Son nor Holy Spirit are a hupostasis. But the real problem is ousia. Father NOR Son NOR Holy Spirit are/have an ousia, whether individually or collectively.

So... Back to the question you invited... God is three whats of a what? From the inspired text.

I understand why Cath-O-Licks would believe Trinity, since they swallow Papal authority and hold Ecumenical Councils as an addition on par with scripture.

I can't for the life of me understand why any Protestant would believe what the proto-Catholic church demanded as orthodoxy.

Trinity is so familiar, it doesn't sound silly. There is no way to get the text to say God is three "persons". So... ignoring the foundational lack of exegesis, it's promoted by conceptionalization.

In transcendence apart from all creation, there are not three God-"persons". God's OWN internal Logos became the external Son at the Divine Utterance from which all creation derived by/through/from that Logos. The Holy Spirit is God's OWN Spirit. God's OWN Logos divided asunder (merismos - distributed) God's OWN Spirit out from God's OWN transcendent Self (Soul) into immanent creation. Jesus is the immanent prosopon of God's transcendent hupostasis.

If others understood the utter and absolute transcendence of God, this wouldn't be so difficult. God alone is uncreated. Everything is external to Him. God externalized His OWN Rhema of His OWN Logos by His OWN breath (Spirit). That Logos had post-utterance, pre-incarnate form, and ultimately became flesh. The celestial AND terrestrial realms are created, as are there beings. The Logos is uncreated, and thus the Son is uncreated.

The Father is God transcendent; the Son is God immanent. God has no inherent, inate, intrinsic existence or subsitence in the created realm. His OWN externalized Spirit is His omnipresence in creation. His OWN externalized Logos became flesh to be His eternal personal presence in creation. Jesus is the finite point of presence for God's omnipresence; His eternal face-to-face presence to/with us.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat May 26, 2012 3:44 am

Strangelove wrote:
Seriousy though.....show me a Christian on a forum who thinks theres 3 gods in our religion? I'd be fascinated to read a thread on that.

Again, I never intimated that Trinity is three gods or that Trinitarians believe in three gods.

At this moment I dont understand the issue.

The issue is the truth of scripture. Trinity is three hupostases of one ousia. God is one hupostasis and is not an ousia. The usage and meaning of those terms was imported from Gnostic and Platonic thought and belief systems. They have no scriptural application. They have caused the conception of three eternally transcendent "persons". Coinherent internally-conjoined transcendent triplets.

Is it a big issue?

Yes, to non-Trinitarians. Trinis could care less, confident of their indoctrination. Trinitarians have anathematized everyone else, and it is Trinity that is untenable paradox unto itself as a hybridization derived from Gnostic and Philosophical terminology that can't be supported by scripture.

There would be WAY fewer Oneness, Unitarians, and Arians if orthodox doctrine weren't erroneous.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat May 26, 2012 3:52 am

zone wrote:i know Doc...cuz we don't see the Trinity as pps thinks we do.

I don't really assess you personally in regard to this. I just stand for the truth of scripture.

but lots of people 'imagine' Father God with a body on a throne, and Jesus the Son next to Him (they eventually end up believing whether they admit it or not that Jesus was created), and the Holy Spirit as a wispy force God that is invisible and does their bidding. kinda like that.

Some do. How DO you view Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

(And I'm certainly not here to fight about this with the two of you.)

by zone Sat May 26, 2012 8:03 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:

I don't really assess you personally in regard to this. I just stand for the truth of scripture.

okay pps....but do we kinda get lumped in with the 'bad/stoopid' Trinitarians when yer on a mission to correct the 'persons' thing? which i understand....i do.

you and i have talked about this before. i do it too when on a smash-the-dispo-error mission etc...but i'm hopefully a little more cautious concerning the Godhead Embarassed

as i mentioned earlier, i affirm the Triune Godhead, okay? and the Trinitarian language in the Bible (you do agree its there, right?). << because God has inspired the Bible to read in this way. not because Luther or anybody else made creeds (which i'm okay with. i love our creeds. i am pleased to be a Confessional Lutheran).

BUT, of utmost importance, i have understood the Lord as One, even in English, and even in the very actual and true Trinitarian/Triune language in my Bible...and so in this way and for this reason i affirm the Trinity/Triune God per the English revelation of God in scripture, AND understand your issue with PERSON(S).

this is apprehended in my spirit/mind without a concise english linguistic philosophical or physical/physics 'set of descriptors' (or uber-elaboration). i never felt the need for them.

i can just say JESUS IS GOD. THE SON OF GOD, THE SON OF HIMSELF.
The Creator (arche), but as Logos is the [expression of] the mind of/intent of the Father, always with Him (naturally!)

One with Father in THAT WAY, and now as a GodMan now Glorified (the fullest expression of God Almighty FOR US in His Plan to have Himself and His family as particular FORMS.

the Father is Greater than the Son in that the ETERNAL Son came forth FROM [within] the Father - The Son of HIMSELF...this is 'quantitative' [eek....what a horrible word for talking about God], not a diminishing of the Son (Logos/Arche).

at the same time, its easy and obvious to say that JESUS THE SON IS IN The Father and the Father is assuredly in Him. they're ONE. and the Holy Spirit is THEIR/HIS Spirit. so the Filioque fight is another waste of time, since scripture does indeed, very much so, say not only does the Father send the Spirit, SO DOES JESUS SAY HE DOES! of course! The Spirit is God's Own Spirit.

(see? i'm doing a hachet job just trying to express in my words! arg...)

so i am able in quite good conscience to Confess, with my church and our congregation the Lutheran creeds and confessions which say persons at times. that irks you, and scandalizes i know, but there's NO conflict for me since it is and always has been for me LANGUAGE, expressing a very very difficult thing, namely, the One True God Who is indeed Triune (at the very very least in His Own revelation of Himself to us in scripture)!

its not quite as simple as ANY of us claim it is, which is why i HAVE TO keep it as simple as i can....ex. of the complexity and nuances, and hence my reluctance to 'deconstruct' The Godhead for my personal fix on the WHAT/HOW:

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

continuing.....i don't just flop into a default Triad or Tritheistic position/picture of God in mind.

do you understand that?

i mean...how can i, with passages like these:?

Isaiah 6:1
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.

John 12:41
Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.

that's just SO CLEAR, yet is not quite as simple as it first appears....

in English, the Bible makes clear references to F/S/HS individually - specially and personally referenced (for that especial passage and expression) aspects of the One True God. ("aspects" for want of a better word than persons, which doesn't accomplish much for me either....which is why i rarely need to go here, and surely don't feel a need, unless we get Arians and such creeping into the fold)

Father is Father, the Son is called the Son, and The Holy Spirit is called the Holy Spirit. and they are written of as doing different things yet clearly One/Unity. this doesn't make "them" separate persons. but as Doc said, and you affirmed more than once, neither does it make them separate GODS.

now that has been poorly communicated from me to you, but as you'll see, i ALSO affirm joyfully your articulation below.....since its been my (non-verbalized) understanding of The Godhead anyway - but i was unable and didn't feel much need to use my own language to explain. i don't DARE try to say i understand the Mystery of the Godhead.

i might delete stuff from here later if i sound too confident in my own understanding...that's how nervous i am about intruding into the Godhead....i'm just a graphic designer and a caveman.

i will comment on your remarks though.

but lots of people 'imagine' Father God with a body on a throne, and Jesus the Son next to Him (they eventually end up believing whether they admit it or not that Jesus was created), and the Holy Spirit as a wispy force God that is invisible and does their bidding. kinda like that.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Some do. How DO you view Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

(And I'm certainly not here to fight about this with the two of you.)

i know you're not pps. and frankly, nothing could make me fight with you.
i love you. and though you make a point of describing yourself as heterodox, which is fine, i myself consider you within orthodoxy pirat

: here's why - i do not see you DENYING a Triune God Who is One. i see you balking at a word men have used to define what is a difficult concept, God Almighty.

but we can make an adjustment to my considering you within orthodoxy if you really insist:)
perhaps i'm way off base anyhow and you're outside orthodoxy (forget "persons" for a moment)....there are boundaries i have must have for my convictions.

i'll leave the rest of the discussion you were having with Doc for you and he...

here's where i AGREE with you. and i reiterate that this is my 'understanding', however unarticulated and internalized, of God....i'll comment, though you're right IN THE FOLLOWING PORTION, so very little is needed for me to agree.

i do find other expressions you've made iffy for me (possibly a shadow of a hint of emanation?), and others i don't feel a need to engage in as i am and always have been assured and comfortable with my grasp of The Lord from a simple reading of the English Bible. dunno....it didn't seem like an issue til i started reading of the great debate...and i do NOT care about Constantine or anybody else. LOL.

i love our creeds. the church should stop rejecting them even if they're not "perfect" - we'd have fewer of these cultic Mike DeSario (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNxFzA6Gloc) followers for one thing. basically they're ALL bleating "constantine and uncle auggie wrecked everything....and trying to go back TO LAW - which Rockefeller loves since he established the WCC with the Law in mind and the gutting of the New Testament his goal).

below - ALL GOOD AND RIGHT i believe! AMEN

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
In transcendence apart from all creation, there are not three God-"persons". God's OWN internal Logos became the external Son at the Divine Utterance from which all creation derived by/through/from that Logos. The Holy Spirit is God's OWN Spirit. God's OWN Logos divided asunder (merismos - distributed) God's OWN Spirit out from God's OWN transcendent Self (Soul) into immanent creation. Jesus is the immanent prosopon of God's transcendent hupostasis.

cool.
Jesus is God.
and God's Son - The SON OF [GOD] HIMSELF.
the PERSON of God as revealed and manifest to man.
simple.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
If others understood the utter and absolute transcendence of God, this wouldn't be so difficult. God alone is uncreated. Everything is external to Him. God externalized His OWN Rhema of His OWN Logos by His OWN breath (Spirit). That Logos had post-utterance, pre-incarnate form, and ultimately became flesh. The celestial AND terrestrial realms are created, as are there beings. The Logos is uncreated, and thus the Son is uncreated.

okay. nice.
but i think most of us DO understand the transcendence of God.
Jesus said God is [A] Spirit. and we must worship HIM (Jesus called Him HIM) in spirit and in truth. its not as simple as we want it to be.

but to avoid conflict with Trinitarians which i find wholly unnecessary (and i have to draw a line between me and any who anathamatize trinitarians), why not just keep it forever upfront that The Logos was always IN GOD, was GOD and became The Son of Man (as He is described and expressed IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE) when God entered, or revealed Himself to/into His creation as JESUS. the Incarnate God.

Jesus is God and is The Son of Himself. that's simple and clean to me; maintains the eternal, essential Oneness of God; yet does indeed allow for Trinitarian language as we ALL see and MUST affirm it is used in Holy Writ and has been accepted by Christians throughout the ages.

this is orthodoxy, and i stand there, without having to reject another believer beacuse of their desire for a more in-depth, and [perhaps] more precise rendering of the intent of the language to express the Mystery of the Godhead.

is that clear enough?

because as we have discussed, i'm not now nor ever really was comfortable with much more than a very simple expression from my caveman brain of the Nature and Essence of Our God. i am nervous about going too far into it (particularly not knowing greek, but even if i did, as MANY theologians i respect and appreciate DO yet still affirm Trinity....because i believe that what has been revealed in scripture is sufficient even in English(for me). i do use the Lexicon and do try to use commentaries and do try to jettison extra-biblical tinkering when i recognize it.

blah blah...me me me ....not what i intend, but i'm trying to say simply: i affirm Triunity of God as a way of saying Our God is One, who in the PERSON of Jesus Christ left Glory (heaven) and humbled Himself to come into His Own creation as a MAN, for us. and is back in Glory, still as a Man and yet is GOD ALMIGHTY. and sent (yes, the language says SENT) the Holy Spirit, which i agree is God's Own Spirit into the world for the redeemed/continued Work of redemption.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
The Father is God transcendent; the Son is God immanent. God has no inherent, inate, intrinsic existence or subsitence in the created realm. His OWN externalized Spirit is His omnipresence in creation. His OWN externalized Logos became flesh to be His eternal personal presence in creation. Jesus is the finite point of presence for God's omnipresence; His eternal face-to-face presence to/with us.

AMEN.
beautiful. i affirm this with great joy.
if kept this simple, no Trinitarian would disagree!

(well....some would due to the pavlovian thing - upset/suspicious at any intrusion into "persons" and with reasonable cause since Unitarianism/Arianism are serious problems.... but i respect and appreciate the desire to hold firm to sound doctrine, even if the word person(s) isn't exactly right, pps. and i respect this one either side of this issue provided we aren't off into the above errors.

let's face it, i hope we can agree, that there is so much apostasy IN ACTION dismantling the church before our very eyes, i don't see this as the schismatic issue in the way that you do. and frankly, i think its a smokescreen for the fake schism between EO and Rome.

HE is The Son of Himself.... come from eternity outside creation.... into His creation, for us.
He is the express image (as you said, character/essence) of the transcendant God, revealed in the PERSON of Jesus of Nazareth. Whom He is forevermore.

love zone.

by **strangelove** Sat May 26, 2012 11:48 am

My benchmark with Christian doctrine is...

....is it simple enough for a child to grasp?

If it isn't.....then its unnecessary.

by zone Sat May 26, 2012 1:32 pm

lol. so true doc.
the beauty of scripture and the things of God are such that a child can grasp the Lord and have saving faith....and there's enough in there, He's revealed enough to keep the hungriest student digging and reading and discussing for a lifetime and never scratch the surface.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat May 26, 2012 2:42 pm

Strangelove wrote:My benchmark with Christian doctrine is...

....is it simple enough for a child to grasp?

If it isn't.....then its unnecessary.

Okay. :-)

Well... My benchmark with Christian doctrine is...

...is it simple enough for a child to grasp initially, and can that child grow into a greater understanding with that same intial grasp.

If it isn't... then it needs to be.

I was a child. A tender young boy raised in a loving home with Christian parents who taught me and made sure my life was spent in and under the pew of a church. I was taught according to a principle-based life built upon the Word of God. I was taught Trinity.

I grew up as a child with an understanding of Trinity as it was taught to me. At age 7, I responded to an altar call during a revival meeting on a Thursday night, and was baptized the next service.

As I grew through my teenage years, I struggled with implementing my so-called faith; but was as faithful as my natural maturity level allowed me to be to all I'd been taught spiritually. I never once doubted what I'd been taught and understood about the Triune God. Each summer was spent at multiple weeks of Youth Camp and the years were full of rich relationships and church activities.

I felt the need to attend Bible College, even though I had better scholarship and talentship offers from three secular state universities (I'm a classically trained tenor, keyboardist, brass instrumentalist, and composer). And while in Bible College, I took a an apprentice associate staff position at a large mega-church.

During that tenure, there was an annual crusade with big names alternating for 2 weeks of preaching. Like many others, my heart was stirred to an altar from a sermon about being sure of your faith. Though I was raised Arminian, I had gradually taken on a more reformed understanding, and it left me unsure of where I stood in regards to salvation. Never once did I consider that my view of God's constitution could be erroneous, so I was searching out every other option.

After Bible College, I took a part-time ministry position in a small church and started a small business. Soon another larger church called to have consider a full-time position on their staff. Two years later, same-same. Three years later, a Pastor for whom I'd done a revival meeting moved out of state to take another position. Not long after, he called to persuade me to join him on associate staff, and I spent three years there before bring approached to join the ministry staff of yet another church.

Each was larger than the last, with all my areas of ministry busting at the seams with growth. I handled all the areas of non-Pastoral ministry while teaching weekly and preaching quarterly. Youth programs grew almost exponentially, as did childrens' ministry. I was leading and teaching in many extended ministries in the communities.

I thought my hidden personal deficiencies and struggles were normal based on observations of carnal Pastors, deacons, and laity; and I was being used to grow the churches, or so I thought.

Ultimately, my general disillusionment with Churchianity ran its course. I had cried out often to God that there had to be something more or something else. There was just no power. Not in me nor in anyone around me except glimpses here and there that kept me hungry and wondering... but still unfulfilled and unsure.

I left church ministry to pursue private business, and was financially successful. For a couple of years, I didn't really want anything to do with church or the pleroma of carnal believers I had always had to strive to follow to lead. I looked everywhere for answers except my own flawed understanding of faith and of God Himself because I was convinced I knew who He was.

My business flourished, but my marriage failed. It had always been tenuous and maintained as an outer appearance in many ways; and she had no real commitment to ministry or much else except security and entitlement. My deep oersonal flaws justified themselves and blamed her for her obvious issues.

The following three years left me in personal turmoil I'd never imagined. It was a tailspin that cost me my business and every shred of self-decency I had. I was at a point of no return, desperate but unable to even grasp my own plight or any way out and back to normalcy. Still, I clung to my understandings, for they were all I had.

Then... I met a man. I man who walked and talked as I had never seen a man be able. All he did was fervently pray and constsntly read and study the Word. He taught and preached. He spent time loving me and others, and showed me Jesus, whom I realized I'd never seen exampled before.

In short order, I had asked many questions and he had challenged my Trinity doctrine. He staunchly ministered the oneness of God not being three. The next conversation was, of course, about Modalism. He said, "No, not Modalism. God is One. Not three "persons".". His spiritual walk was more than enough to sway me, so I prayed one night. I asked, "Father, please show me the truth. I don't know the truth. I thought I knew, even from a child. I don't know what I know. Cut out what's wrong in my heart and mind. Put in me what's right. And change whatever needs to be changed."

Then I laid on my bed and opened the Word to Hebrews. By chapter 7 or 8, I had experienced true salvific faith that JESUS IS GOD. Not 1/3 of God. Not just the Son of God. Not another God-"person" that became a man. God. The one true and living God in the likeness of sinful flesh. I asked to be baptized, and it was scripturally done a few days later.

Trinity doctrine had obscured the truth from me since I was a child. In my heart and mind, I was conpelled; but doctrine was in the way. I was so indoctrinated, I never was even able to consider challenging the conceptualization Trinity had caused that kept me from truth. Such a subtle difference, yet the difference between well-meaning assent and true salvific faith.

Twelve years of grueling language scholarship and stewardship later, I have come to the true understanding and explainability of what scripture reveals about God's nature and constitution. He has honored my zillions (literally) of prayers for the one and only same thing: the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him (Eph. 1:17). I pray the Pauline prayers from scripture incessantly.

It's this understanding of God against Trinity doctrine that drives me. There are many others in the same plight I was. Yet many others like zone have escaped unscathed from Trinity and are somehow able to embrace ir. My dearest, closest friend and brother saw my years of ministry and struggle, then my recovery and growth and life. He grappled for over a decade to understand what I was saying, knowing and trusting it was true yet still unable to get it. A few months ago, the light bulb came on and he now truly understands that God is not a Trinity. Though he says it wasn't a salvific difference, he sees how it could be for others like me; and his spiritual life and walk has changed multitudinously. He's not the same as he was before that one night he "got it" while we were talking.

All I know is... God is not a Trinity of three "persons" according to true exegesis, exposition, hermeneutics, and apologetics. It's a truly impossible and untenable view in any formulation. Yet God Himself and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are not hindered by such a feeble expression. God can and will reveal Himself by His Spirit through His Word to those whom He hath called and chosen, even in spite of man's doctrine.

I just don't think it should have to be in spite of erroneous doctrine. So I do what I'm called and compelled and equipped to do. That's how and why I knew from the Word alone that the spirit of antichrist (not a person) would come out of modern Turkey, and the non-Israelite occupants of the Palestinian state were Mystery Babylon. Same spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him as that which revealed God's true nature and constitution to me.

Now I stand for truth against Trinitarianism and Dispensationalism. Enough have beed led astray by both.

by **strangelove** Sat May 26, 2012 3:58 pm

Nice testimony dude but I refuse to believe that most trini's think Jesus is 1/3 of God or just the Son of God or another God-"person" that became a man. That sounds stoopid.

If thats what you believed before you came to truth then fair play for getting out of it but IF thats what you believed then you got....erm....I dunno.....sounds like over-churched, and thus confused.

As for this..

Well... My benchmark with Christian doctrine is...

...is it simple enough for a child to grasp initially, and can that child grow into a greater understanding with that same intial grasp.

If it isn't... then it needs to be.

Ya greater understanding....cool.

But theres overdoin' it.

However, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for your pharisee trial in front of the council. I fear they will cut your head off before you get into 2nd gear in your detailed theology.

Pharisee: "Is Jesus God?"

PPS: "Well, the prosopon of the singul......"

[CHOP!]

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat May 26, 2012 5:23 pm

zone wrote:

okay pps....but do we kinda get lumped in with the 'bad/stoopid' Trinitarians when yer on a mission to correct the 'persons' thing? which i understand....i do.

you and i have talked about this before. i do it too when on a smash-the-dispo-error mission etc...but i'm hopefully a little more cautious concerning the Godhead

as i mentioned earlier, i affirm the Triune Godhead, okay? and the Trinitarian language in the Bible (you do agree its there, right?). << because God has inspired the Bible to read in this way. not because Luther or anybody else made creeds (which i'm okay with. i love our creeds. i am pleased to be a Confessional Lutheran).

BUT, of utmost importance, i have understood the Lord as One, even in English, and even in the very actual and true Trinitarian/Triune language in my Bible...and so in this way and for this reason i affirm the Trinity/Triune God per the English revelation of God in scripture, AND understand your issue with PERSON(S).

this is apprehended in my spirit/mind without a concise english linguistic philosophical or physical/physics 'set of descriptors' (or uber-elaboration). i never felt the need for them.

i can just say JESUS IS GOD. THE SON OF GOD, THE SON OF HIMSELF.
The Creator (arche), but as Logos is the [expression of] the mind of/intent of the Father, always with Him (naturally!)

One with Father in THAT WAY, and now as a GodMan now Glorified (the fullest expression of God Almighty FOR US in His Plan to have Himself and His family as particular FORMS.

the Father is Greater than the Son in that the ETERNAL Son came forth FROM [within] the Father - The Son of HIMSELF...this is 'quantitative' [eek....what a horrible word for talking about God], not a diminishing of the Son (Logos/Arche).

at the same time, its easy and obvious to say that JESUS THE SON IS IN The Father and the Father is assuredly in Him. they're ONE. and the Holy Spirit is THEIR/HIS Spirit. so the Filioque fight is another waste of time, since scripture does indeed, very much so, say not only does the Father send the Spirit, SO DOES JESUS SAY HE DOES! of course! The Spirit is God's Own Spirit.

(see? i'm doing a hachet job just trying to express in my words! arg...)

so i am able in quite good conscience to Confess, with my church and our congregation the Lutheran creeds and confessions which say persons at times. that irks you, and scandalizes i know, but there's NO conflict for me since it is and always has been for me LANGUAGE, expressing a very very difficult thing, namely, the One True God Who is indeed Triune (at the very very least in His Own revelation of Himself to us in scripture)!

its not quite as simple as ANY of us claim it is, which is why i HAVE TO keep it as simple as i can....ex. of the complexity and nuances, and hence my reluctance to 'deconstruct' The Godhead for my personal fix on the WHAT/HOW:

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

continuing.....i don't just flop into a default Triad or Tritheistic position/picture of God in mind.

do you understand that?

i mean...how can i, with passages like these:?

Isaiah 6:1
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.

John 12:41
Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.

that's just SO CLEAR, yet is not quite as simple as it first appears....

in English, the Bible makes clear references to F/S/HS individually - specially and personally referenced (for that especial passage and expression) aspects of the One True God. ("aspects" for want of a better word than persons, which doesn't accomplish much for me either....which is why i rarely need to go here, and surely don't feel a need, unless we get Arians and such creeping into the fold)

Father is Father, the Son is called the Son, and The Holy Spirit is called the Holy Spirit. and they are written of as doing different things yet clearly One/Unity. this doesn't make "them" separate persons. but as Doc said, and you affirmed more than once, neither does it make them separate GODS.

now that has been poorly communicated from me to you, but as you'll see, i ALSO affirm joyfully your articulation below.....since its been my (non-verbalized) understanding of The Godhead anyway - but i was unable and didn't feel much need to use my own language to explain. i don't DARE try to say i understand the Mystery of the Godhead.

i might delete stuff from here later if i sound too confident in my own understanding...that's how nervous i am about intruding into the Godhead....i'm just a graphic designer and a caveman.

i will comment on your remarks though.

i know you're not pps. and frankly, nothing could make me fight with you.
i love you. and though you make a point of describing yourself as heterodox, which is fine, i myself consider you within orthodoxy : here's why - i do not see you DENYING a Triune God Who is One. i see you balking at a word men have used to define what is a difficult concept, God Almighty.

but we can make an adjustment to my considering you within orthodoxy if you really insist:)
perhaps i'm way off base anyhow and you're outside orthodoxy (forget "persons" for a moment)....there are boundaries i have must have for my convictions.

i'll leave the rest of the discussion you were having with Doc for you and he...

here's where i AGREE with you. and i reiterate that this is my 'understanding', however unarticulated and internalized, of God....i'll comment, though you're right IN THE FOLLOWING PORTION, so very little is needed for me to agree.

i do find other expressions you've made iffy for me (possibly a shadow of a hint of emanation?), and others i don't feel a need to engage in as i am and always have been assured and comfortable with my grasp of The Lord from a simple reading of the English Bible. dunno....it didn't seem like an issue til i started reading of the great debate...and i do NOT care about Constantine or anybody else. LOL.

i love our creeds. the church should stop rejecting them even if they're not "perfect" - we'd have fewer of these cultic Mike DeSario (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNxFzA6Gloc) followers for one thing. basically they're ALL bleating "constantine and uncle auggie wrecked everything....and trying to go back TO LAW - which Rockefeller loves since he established the WCC with the Law in mind and the gutting of the New Testament his goal).

below - ALL GOOD AND RIGHT i believe! AMEN

cool.
Jesus is God.
and God's Son - The SON OF [GOD] HIMSELF.
the PERSON of God as revealed and manifest to man.
simple.

okay. nice.
but i think most of us DO understand the transcendence of God.
Jesus said God is [A] Spirit. and we must worship HIM (Jesus called Him HIM) in spirit and in truth. its not as simple as we want it to be.

but to avoid conflict with Trinitarians which i find wholly unnecessary (and i have to draw a line between me and any who anathamatize trinitarians), why not just keep it forever upfront that The Logos was always IN GOD, was GOD and became The Son of Man (as He is described and expressed IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE) when God entered, or revealed Himself to/into His creation as JESUS. the Incarnate God.

Jesus is God and is The Son of Himself. that's simple and clean to me; maintains the eternal, essential Oneness of God; yet does indeed allow for Trinitarian language as we ALL see and MUST affirm it is used in Holy Writ and has been accepted by Christians throughout the ages.

this is orthodoxy, and i stand there, without having to reject another believer beacuse of their desire for a more in-depth, and [perhaps] more precise rendering of the intent of the language to express the Mystery of the Godhead.

is that clear enough?

because as we have discussed, i'm not now nor ever really was comfortable with much more than a very simple expression from my caveman brain of the Nature and Essence of Our God. i am nervous about going too far into it (particularly not knowing greek, but even if i did, as MANY theologians i respect and appreciate DO yet still affirm Trinity....because i believe that what has been revealed in scripture is sufficient even in English(for me). i do use the Lexicon and do try to use commentaries and do try to jettison extra-biblical tinkering when i recognize it.

blah blah...me me me ....not what i intend, but i'm trying to say simply: i affirm Triunity of God as a way of saying Our God is One, who in the PERSON of Jesus Christ left Glory (heaven) and humbled Himself to come into His Own creation as a MAN, for us. and is back in Glory, still as a Man and yet is GOD ALMIGHTY. and sent (yes, the language says SENT) the Holy Spirit, which i agree is God's Own Spirit into the world for the redeemed/continued Work of redemption.

AMEN.
beautiful. i affirm this with great joy.
if kept this simple, no Trinitarian would disagree!

(well....some would due to the pavlovian thing - upset/suspicious at any intrusion into "persons" and with reasonable cause since Unitarianism/Arianism are serious problems.... but i respect and appreciate the desire to hold firm to sound doctrine, even if the word person(s) isn't exactly right, pps. and i respect this one either side of this issue provided we aren't off into the above errors.

let's face it, i hope we can agree, that there is so much apostasy IN ACTION dismantling the church before our very eyes, i don't see this as the schismatic issue in the way that you do. and frankly, i think its a smokescreen for the fake schism between EO and Rome.

HE is The Son of Himself.... come from eternity outside creation.... into His creation, for us.
He is the express image (as you said, character/essence) of the transcendant God, revealed in the PERSON of Jesus of Nazareth. Whom He is forevermore.

love zone.

This is such a beautiful expression of your heart, I don't even really want to scrutinize it or redpond to it. Having been moved to tears in the night after I awoke to read it, I'll just receive it and be edified by it.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat May 26, 2012 5:36 pm

Strangelove wrote:Nice testimony dude but I refuse to believe that most trini's think Jesus is 1/3 of God or just the Son of God or another God-"person" that became a man. That sounds stoopid.

It's Trinity. And yes, a vast majority of Trinis believe those things, even if they're expressed more palatably. I just had a discussion with a seminary-trained Pastor. His professor taught Trinity as "Three beings of one God.". He fought tooth and nail for this indoctrination he shares with thousands of other students. And that's one professor at one seminary.

Another arguer takes the hard-line orthodox Trinity stance that God the Son was manifested in flesh as a person with two natures via the hypostatic union. THAT is orthodox Trinity, and it is gross error.

You and zone are not actually Trinitarian. And you're the better for it.

If thats what you believed before you came to truth then fair play for getting out of it but IF thats what you believed then you got....erm....I dunno.....sounds like over-churched, and thus confused.

Like multitudes of thousands of others.

As for this..

Ya greater understanding....cool.

But theres overdoin' it.

Not really. You're as adamant about "rapture" as I am about Trinity garbage.

However, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for your pharisee trial in front of the council. I fear they will cut your head off before you get into 2nd gear in your detailed theology.

Pharisee: "Is Jesus God?"

PPS: "Well, the prosopon of the singul......"

[CHOP!]

If/when that day comes, and if it's not like the lions' shut mouths for Daniel or being saved like S/M/A from the fiery furnace or the like; I'll just utter a simple "yes", I suppose. I give no thought to what I'll say at such a time. I'll trust God will give me any words to speak as He promised. I doubt it'll be an exposition of my lengthy creed.

Maybe they'll all repent and their households saved rather than giving me the ol' chopster. Who knows? My life is not my own. I hope I can relish my martyrdom as did Ignatius. "Come, tearing of flesh and rending of bones..."

Life is Life; and Death is Life. Either way, I live. To live is Christ; to die is gain.

by **strangelove** Sat May 26, 2012 5:49 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:His professor taught Trinity as "Three beings of one God.". He fought
tooth and nail for this indoctrination he shares with thousands of other
students. And that's one professor at one seminary.

Another
arguer takes the hard-line orthodox Trinity stance that God the Son was
manifested in flesh as a person with two natures via the hypostatic
union. THAT is orthodox Trinity, and it is gross error.

Oh perlease.

So the heck what if someone wants to describe the Godhead like that?

ONE GOD!.....is the important bit!

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
If/when that day comes, and if it's not like the lions' shut mouths for
Daniel or being saved like S/M/A from the fiery furnace or the like;
I'll just utter a simple "yes", I suppose. I give no thought to what
I'll say at such a time. I'll trust God will give me any words to speak
as He promised. I doubt it'll be an exposition of my lengthy creed.

Kinda makes all the effort a waste of energy huh?

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon May 28, 2012 1:35 am

Oh perlease.

So the heck what if someone wants to describe the Godhead like that?

ONE GOD!.....is the important bit!

Ummm... It's Triadism. (A "being" is a subsistence. Even you said God is one subsistence. Three subsistences is NOT one God, even if it's used in an inane descriptive sentence by a novice or moron.) And it's taking liberties that you and others don't allow of any other views; but cuz it's "Da Holy Trinity", any and all discrepancies are allowed, condoned, and encouraged.

And yes One God is the important part provided there's an apologetic with appropriate hermeneuetics and exegesis for an exposition. That's Theology Proper, and without it Christianity is just another Theistic variant in a sea of Theism.

Theology Proper is important, and even your ridiculously oversimplified criteria owes its declaration to Theology Proper.

Oneness believe Jesus is God. You can't exclude Modalism. Even Arians can't be excluded by simplistic declarations.

Balancing the priorities of Theology Proper (which IS inherently salvific) and Eschatology (which ISN'T inherently salvific) is something I will continue to do; because he that winneth souls is wise. An understanding of who Jesus Christ IS is exponentially more important than even exposing the Eschaton Agenda and its details.

You are the Pan-Millennialist of Theology Proper.

Try this sarcasm...
One millennium, that's what's important. Doesn't matter when it is.

One Mystery Babylon, that's what's important. Doesn't matter who it is.

One Rapture, that's what's important. Doesn't matter when it is.

One Israel. Doesn't matter what that means.

One Election...

One Justification...

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If the 3 ARE 1 God, it certainly matters HOW. Trinity's HOW violates scripture. A Sola Scriptura proponent can't truly take that lightly.

Oh... And Godhead (Theotes) is singular. It isn't what Trinis represent it to be, either.

Kinda makes all the effort a waste of energy huh?

No, not in the least. Dozens upon dozens have come to Christ because of my clarifications and corrections. Many more have come to a resolution of understanding they never had before.

Besides, I doubt anybody standing before a tribunal will give a Trinity apology, either. And a Trinity apologetic is every bit as lengthy as mine... PLUS all the band-aids of kenosis, perichoresis, and hypostatic union, etc.

I can just as easily explain the Tripartite view to a child as Trinity rubbish. But there must also be substantial scholarship as Theology Proper.

It matters. Whether you think it does or not.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon May 28, 2012 2:20 am

PS (for zone)...

NO Emanationism. Not even a hint.

No, it's not a pseudo-conflict as you portray the Filioque/Non-Filioque Schizm. (The Filioque issue is about procession, NOT about being sent, BTW. Both F/S sent the HS; but the HS proceedeth only from the Father. FROM the Father, BY/THROUGH the Logos.)

And I'm not the one who started and perpetuated "deconstructing" God and making certain results anathematic. I'm just giving a much-belated response to that error.

Jesus Christ came to reconcile ALL things unto Himself. That's what I'm doing. Reconciling all God-models to the truth. It's what I'm called, gifted, and equipped to do. Correct Eschatology and Cosmology is an extension of that.

by zone Mon May 28, 2012 1:09 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:PS (for zone)...

NO Emanationism. Not even a hint.

hi pps.

ok....this part just kinda seemed like a hint of it.
which scriptures declare clearly the part in red?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:If others understood the utter and absolute transcendence of God, this wouldn't be so difficult. God alone is uncreated. Everything is external to Him. God externalized His OWN Rhema of His OWN Logos by His OWN breath (Spirit). That Logos had post-utterance, pre-incarnate form, and ultimately became flesh. The celestial AND terrestrial realms are created, as are there beings. The Logos is uncreated, and thus the Son is uncreated.

like....the Logos is uncreated. for sure.
but you have a place in "time" Rolling Eyes

in eternity (before the creation of the world) when the Logos was given a form as a result of 'externalization'.

take another look:
"God alone is uncreated. Everything is external to Him. God externalized His OWN Rhema of His OWN Logos by His OWN breath (Spirit). That Logos had post-utterance, pre-incarnate form

so there IS a hint of emanation. i know that's not what you say you mean but, logically, look:

God alone is uncreated
Everything is external to Him
God externalized His OWN...Logos
That Logos had post-utterance, pre-incarnate form

this SOUNDS like God created Jesus (externalized is just another word for it, when you have something being given a FORM as a RESULT of something God DOES)

this can't possibly be what you mean, so can you simplify or redirect it somehow (from the Bible please...verses)?

i just wanted to see the scripture on that (That Logos had post-utterance, pre-incarnate form). not saying it isn't there, i just have not seen it.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
No, it's not a pseudo-conflict as you portray the Filioque/Non-Filioque Schizm. (The Filioque issue is about procession, NOT about being sent, BTW. Both F/S sent the HS; but the HS proceedeth only from the Father. FROM the Father, BY/THROUGH the Logos.).

pps...i really do understand God as One - the Holy Spirit is also Christ's Spirit - scripture is clear on that. unless we have ANOTHER SPIRIT.

and unless we even subconsiously hold to some form of emanation, when Scripture says the Holy Spirit which 'proceedeth' from the Father it does not automatically follow nor categorically say anywhere that He does not ALSO 'proceed' from Jesus.

if we are going to say God is a Tripartite Being, using either scripture AND/OR our reasoning, not one 'part' of Him is not 'part' of the whole of Him...the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit and Jesus is God, and the Spirit is His Spirit as much as the Fathers'.

so the Filioque schism is a NON (for me). totally and completely.

for Filioque to be a scary issue for people, it means they are worried about emanation: an order of 'proceedings/procession' from the eternal source. they freak out and say NO! the HS can NOT 'proceed' from the Son, for this would make an emanation: but for true Monotheism, the OPPOSITE is true!

why would the HS proceeding from the Son make an emanation if Jesus is Eternally God? Rolling Eyes

see, even in this post/discussion alone, we are both FORCED to use 'trinitarian' language/identifiers, and we are both making an effort to make DISTINCTIONS between F/S/HS. do you agree?

i know you despise 'trinitarian' as a word and a concept. but i have to ask again: does the bible actually specially and purposefully make distinctive and separate identifications between and among the F/S/HS?

i'm not asking you to say Trinity...i'm asking if the Bible makes distinctions (which may simply be for God's Own purposes in His revelation of Himself to man....i don't need to know WHY He chose to inspire scripture to read in this way - even in the greek...i just know that He did....again: agree that He did?)

so no matter which way i try to constrain or define Him - be it from Modalism to Trinitarianism, and even your P/P/S there is always a part of it which REMAINS unexplained and a mystery. there's always some part of our God-models that we can not complete. and i think this is no accident, neither is it our faulty brains or sinful hearts - it think Ancient of Days is not as simply explained as we want Him to be...even Him as revealed in the Person of Jesus can be difficult when we start to try to define His ESSENCE/CONSTITUTION.

we can know Father's attributes and character, but we surely can NOT know what He is, outside His Person in Jesus Christ. we're told the Father is [A] Spirit. but that Spirit is NOT explained to us in material or physiological terms! yes, we have breath, pneuma, ruach and so on. but does it still doesn't anywhere tell what the constitution is - comparing created man (clay/dust) to a 'physical/material/spiritual/substantive God is not the order of how we do it i don't think. unless you can show me in scripture.

is the Holy Spirit God's Spirit? yes we agree he is (or else we have another spirit to add to the mix). Is Jesus I AM?

because I AM said: "And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." (Ezekiel 36:27)

you don't claim to know/'see'/have seen the eternal God (Spirit) outside the Person of Jesus, do you? of course not. so how can you know His constitution? if its written i'll accept it.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
And I'm not the one who started and perpetuated "deconstructing" God and making certain results anathematic. I'm just giving a much-belated response to that error.

ok. i don't want to make you defensive pps, but not to worry from my end.

i can take a hearty debate....i simply said i'm not comfortable deconstructing God's constitution to something resembling man's. Very Happy

(there's not even real agreement among us humans as to man's constitution. scripture says body soul and spirit, but there's by no means consensus that soul and spirit in man are completely DISTINCT).

i can't go that far in good conscience. maybe i can if i see it written in scripture.

there's a Mystery to it that i believe He intends. what He has revealed about Himself in scripture and in the Person of Jesus are for us to know.

there are things about Himself that are not given for us to know. and again....does scripture actually place Divine Articles before F/S/HS as distinct references or not? (i.e. "THE"/"He", and it being quite obviously and clearly being expressed as RELATIONAL between the Hes?)

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Jesus Christ came to reconcile ALL things unto Himself. That's what I'm doing. Reconciling all God-models to the truth. It's what I'm called, gifted, and equipped to do. Correct Eschatology and Cosmology is an extension of that.

well, ok.

but in order to be doing the works of Jesus in reconciling all things to Himself and to tie that to 'erroneous God-models/correct God-model'; you can ONLY use the scriptures.

so i spose i'm back to asking if you can explain to me WHY the HS inspired the scriptures to make distinctions between F/S/HS...and even the glimpses we get into eternity before the world began.

i might see things your way, but you have to show me using the Word first and foremost, not physiology or anthrobiology or philosophy any of that. i'm concerned for example about neoplatonic ideas [broadly said]...(just as i know you hate Trinitarian language/descriptors/creeds because you see paganism in THAT).

zone.

by zone Mon May 28, 2012 2:04 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:....And it's taking liberties that you and others don't allow of any other views....

doc is wa-a-a-a-ay more tolerant of 'other views' than i am.
i'm completely intolerant of stuff like charismatic/pentecostal theology and dispo-heresy etc because they're proven by the scriptures (as well as 1900 years of church history) to be false.

but the Mystery of the Eternal God is not as clearly laid out - unless you can show me using ONLY scripture, there's some of our own reasoning involved, and that can't be helped i guess.

your model is not proven by the scriptures pps (unless i haven't seen it), so could be faulty as well.

i'll wait for your reply on this one before continuing < pun intended LOL!.

lol!

love zone.

by zone Mon May 28, 2012 2:38 pm

Strangelove wrote:
But theres overdoin' it.

AMEN.

from both sides on this issue i think.

John 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Vincent's Word Studies

I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι)
He is inserted in the versions and is not in the text. By retaining it, we read, I am the Messiah. But the words are rather the solemn expression of His absolute divine being, as in John 8:58 : "If ye believe not that I am." See Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; and compare John 8:28, John 8:58 of this chapter, and John 13:19.

we confess and know that Jesus is I AM.

that is enough.

thank You for revealing this to us LORD!

Matthew 11:27
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon May 28, 2012 2:42 pm

'Mornin', zone dearest. :-)

Before I respond to specific content, let me toss this out there. I love you unconditionally, and I accept what you believe and your concerns about Philosophy and Psychology tainting Theology Proper. What you don't seem to realize is that I'm correcting just that. Platonism and Gnosticism directly influenced the subtleties of Trinity formulation. I'm excising that and depending ONLY on scripture. I read every ANF writing extant just to be able to do that. I engaged in grueling language study just to be able to do that, and be able to determine which scholars tended toward eisegesis over exegesis relative to Theology Proper.

I hadn't really ever intended to address Trinity on CW; but when Edel mentioned it and you were compelled to comment, I thought I should post. Then Doc got wound up a bit. Now, I suppose my intense and somewhat terse writing style seems aggressive. It's from dealing with condescending, anathematizing, indoctrinated megalomaniacs who haven't sufficient funds in their spiritual accounts to purchase a divine clue. I'm called a cultist on a nearly daily basis by some Sectarian wannabe novice who admits he's an ignorant layman who doesn't understand what's being said.

Edel is one of those many who had silently struggled with the whole "three hupostases" Trinity thing, and had a different understanding in her heart that she couldn't express. There are many others who share the same frustration. Most indicate it's not salvific, but is life-changing. Unitarians, Arians, and Oneness can be initially enlightened in one teaching session with prayerful follow-up.

Trinity can't do that because it's error. Here's the core of the issue. Trinity's immutable foundation is "three hupostases of one ousia". You've got a Strong's and other online tools at your disposal. Hupostasis appears five times. ONCE in reference to God, whether F/S/HS, in Heb. 1:3. Faith is a hupostasis.

The Father has/is a hupostasis. Jesus is the express image OF THAT hupostasis; not another hupostasis. Simply... Hupostasis is what is rendered "person" as the foundation of Trinity. So... In Trinity parlance, The Father has/is a "person". Jesus is the express image OF THAT "person".

"Person" isn't even a good English rendering, and has lent itself to every possible kind of conceptualized abuse in non-Greek etymologies. Hupostasis was multiplied and projected upon Son and Holy Spirit because of Platonic and Gnostic usage.

Hupostasis is substance, essence, subsistence, assured objective reality. Think about the Heb. 11:1 reference to faith being a hupostasis. Faith is the assured objective reality that is inherent subsistence. Substantial. Objectively real. It comes by hearing, and hearing by the RHEMA of God. The content spoken about... not the speaking OF it. Mary believed the Rhema content of what God said and conceived Jesus by that hupostasis of faith. Now THAT's substantial objective reality for sure.

God has an inate self-subsistence and existence. He IS objective reality. Transcendence is reality. That intrinsic self-subsistence is the subject matter of Himself He reasoned and contemplated internally to utter forth by/as His OWN Logos. He spoke the substance of Himself forth to be the Son, begotten from transcendence into the created realms.

The objective transcendent God subjectively realized... "real"-ized. God made real. Objective reality must be subjectively observed, but inherently exists whether observed or not. Subjective reality depends upon such observation. God could never have been known by man without Jesus Christ. And now we can have the indwelling Spirit of God... the Spirit of Christ... whose oida knowledge leads and guides us.

Trinity is three hupostases. Three subsistences. Three objectively assured realities. That's Gnostic and Philosophical at its core. It began innocuously with Tertullian abandoning "aspects" and "forms" for "persons" to contrast with Modalism. He drafted "persons" from Roman law that recognized entities as legal "persons", much like corporations in our modern business culture. This morphed as Arianism threatened to overtake the faith.

But multiple hupostases isn't even a deductive hermeneutical possibility from the text. It HAS to be superimposed and projected upon Son and Holy Spirit. And Jesus is specifically said to be the express image OF the Father's hupostasis. If He was a second hupostasis, He would be a hupostasis of a hupostasis. So He couldn't be a stand-alone hupostasis even if He WAS a second hupostasis. He'd merely be a hupostasis of a hupostasis. Really?! A "person" OF a "person"? An assured objective reality OF an assured objective reality? A subsistence OF a subsistence?

"Three hupostases of one ousia" certainly didn't come from scripture. Ousia is only used in scripture TWICE; and both refer to immanent inanimate material substance, and neither remotely refer to God and His nature or constitution. Ousia is solely employed from external influence.

So... Orthodox Trinity is built on a triplicate multiplication and projection of hupostasis and an insertion of ousia. Really sound heremeneutics and exegesis. NOT. It's the lamest of all the God-models, and it doesn't even meet the minimum standard for eisegesis, much less exegesis.

Jesus is the singular prosopon of God's singular hupostasis. There is no eternal Son as an eternally-transcendent separate God-"person" who hupostasized as a man with two natures. THAT's Trinity, and it's stoo- to the -pid. All non-UPC Protties affirm it. That's why I'm ecstatic to be heterodox.

(I'll post this and then deal with the content in sections. I hope I get the quotes correctly formatted.)

zone wrote:

hi pps.

ok....this part just kinda seemed like a hint of it.
which scriptures declare clearly the part in red?

like....the Logos is uncreated. for sure.
but you have a place in "time" in eternity (before the creation of the world) when the Logos was given a form as a result of 'externalization'.

take another look:
"God alone is uncreated. Everything is external to Him. God externalized His OWN Rhema of His OWN Logos by His OWN breath (Spirit). That Logos had post-utterance, pre-incarnate form

so there IS a hint of emanation. i know that's not what you say you mean but, logically, look:

God alone is uncreated
Everything is external to Him
God externalized His OWN...Logos
That Logos had post-utterance, pre-incarnate form

this SOUNDS like God created Jesus (externalized is just another word for it, when you have something being given a FORM as a RESULT of something God DOES)

this can't possibly be what you mean, so can you simplify or redirect it somehow (from the Bible please...verses)?

i just wanted to see the scripture on that (That Logos had post-utterance, pre-incarnate form). not saying it isn't there, i just have not seen it.

pps...i really do understand God as One - the Holy Spirit is also Christ's Spirit - scripture is clear on that. unless we have ANOTHER SPIRIT.

and unless we even subconsiously hold to some form of emanation, when Scripture says the Holy Spirit which 'proceedeth' from the Father it does not automatically follow nor categorically say anywhere that He does not ALSO 'proceed' from Jesus.

if we are going to say God is a Tripartate Being, using either scripture AND/OR our reasoning, not one 'part' of Him is not 'part' of the whole of Him...the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit and Jesus is God, and the Spirit is His Spirit as much as the Fathers'.

so the Filioque schism is a NON (for me). totally and completely.

for Filioque to be a scary issue for people, it means they are worried about emanation: an order of 'proceedings/procession' from the eternal source. they freak out and say NO! the HS can NOT 'proceed' from the Son, for this would make an emanation: but for true Monotheism, the OPPOSITE is true!

see, even in this post/discussion alone, we are both FORCED to use 'trinitarian' language/identifiers, and we are both making an effort to make DISTINCTIONS between F/S/HS. do you agree?

i know you despise 'trinitarian' as a word and a concept. but i have to ask again: does the bible actually specially and purposefully make distinctive and separate identifications between and among the F/S/HS?

i'm not asking you to say Trinity...i'm asking if the Bible makes distinctions (which may simply be for God's Own purposes in His revelation of Himself to man....i don't need to know WHY He chose to inspire scripture to read in this way - even in the greek...i just know that He did....again: agree that He did?)

so no matter which way i try to constrain or define Him - be it from Modalism to Trinitarianism, and even your P/P/S there is always a part of it which REMAINS unexplained and a mystery. there's always some part of our God-models that we can not complete. and i think this is no accident, neither is it our faulty brains or sinful hearts - it think Ancient of Days is not as simply explained as we want Him to be...even Him as revealed in the Person of Jesus can be difficult when we start to
try to define His ESSENCE/CONSTITUTION.

we can know His attributes and character, but we surely can NOT know what He is, outside His Person in Jesus Christ.

you don't claim to know/'see' the eternal God outside the Person of Jesus, do you?

ok. i don't want to make you defensive pps, but not to worry from my end.

i can take a hearty debate....i simply said i'm not comfortable deconstructing God's constitution to something resembling man's.

i can't go that far in good conscience. maybe i can if i see it written in scripture.

there's a Mystery to it that i believe He intends. what He has revealed about Himself in scripture and in the Person of Jesus are for us to know.

there are things about Himself that are not given for us to know. and again....does scripture actually place Divine Articles before F/S/HS as distinct references or not? (i.e. "THE"/"He", and it being quite obviously and clearly being expressed as RELATIONAL between the Hes?)

well, ok.

but in order to be doing the works of Jesus in reconciling all things to Himself and to tie that to 'erroneous God-models/correct God-model'; you can ONLY use the scriptures.

so i spose i'm back to asking if you can explain to me WHY the HS inspired the scriptures to make distinctions between F/S/HS...and even the glimpses we get into eternity before the world began.

i might see things your way, but you have to show me using the Word first and foremost, not physiology or anthrobiology or philosophy any of that. i'm concerned for example about neoplatonic ideas [broadly said]...(just as i know you hate Trinitarian language/descriptors/creeds because you see paganism in THAT).

zone.

by zone Mon May 28, 2012 3:02 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:'Mornin', zone dearest. :-)

....(I'll post this and then deal with the content in sections. I hope I get the quotes correctly formatted.)

okay pps. i'm so ticked off at the BullS killers in the Middle East at the moment, i am signing off for a breather but i'll check later for your reply.

i NEED english (with exegesis) Bible quotes to back up what you say.
give me the greek as well if you can, and i'll double check.

but i MUST see all you are claiming in scripture.

otherwise its philosophy.

i understand SUBSTANCE. got it. i agree the trinity doctrine can end up with 3 gods. i admit that. God is One.

don't forget to address WHY the Holy Spirit authored the Bible to make distinctions between F/S/HS please.

zoner

p.s: Doc didn't get wound up - hahaha. he doesn't get wound up.
he just said straightup what he thinks - its not a big deal - he read the synoptic gospels and believed Jesus is I AM (without even getting to John) LOL.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon May 28, 2012 3:23 pm

zone wrote:

doc is wa-a-a-a-ay more tolerant of 'other views' than i am.
i'm completely intolerant of stuff like charismatic/pentecostal theology and dispo-heresy etc because they're proven by the scriptures (as well as 1900 years of church history) to be false.

but the Mystery of the Eternal God is not as clearly laid out - unless you can show me using ONLY scripture, there's some of our own reasoning involved, and that can't be helped i guess.

your model is not proven by the scriptures pps (unless i haven't seen it), so could be faulty as well.

i'll wait for your reply on this one before continuing < pun intended LOL!.

love zone.

I've got a full day ahead, but I will get back to the details of your posts.

But NO, I do NOT present the Son as created. The externalization is at the utterance. Jesus proceeded forth (exerchomai) and came (heko). It's the procession of the uncreated Logos as the Son, begotten from transcendence to the immanent realms. Uncreated. Proceeded forth. "Emerged".

Same for the Holy Spirit, which proceedeth (ekporeuomai) from the Father. Procession is not creation. It's ex Theos, not ex nihilo. For the Son, it's procreation. Mary's faith hupostasis believed the Divine Content (Rhema) of God's hupostasis would be born to her. Creation did not proceed from God. I'll post a look at John 8:42 for the post-utterance pre-incarnation portion.

I can show you where each God-model diverges from the truth (and there are over 40 God-models). I'll even show you where the mystery of God lies, and that it will always remain a mystery that I don't even bother to really probe for understanding. Why don't you pray and see if you can truly trust what I say. I adamantly believe the sun orbits the earth fergoonessakes. In this company, that's gotta be worth a listen. :-D

And I'll post a thorough exposition as an overview.

by Sponsored content

Triune Godhead

Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Re: Triune Godhead

Geocentricity - Ordered Quotes