Triune Godhead

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 5:33 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
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".

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:I'll post a look at John 8:42 for the post-utterance pre-incarnation portion.

i'll start in the meantime.....i'll go to John 8:42.

okay...so i guess i'm going to find out if
exerchomai >> heko
means a " post-utterance pre-incarnation" (externalization yet no creation has taken place...though somehow there is a realm separate from the Transcendent/God realm for the Son to go forth into (? hmmmm)

however: this could be a problem....unless you show me where i can find it exactly this way in scripture:

"the uncreated Logos as the Son, begotten from transcendence to the immanent realms." = "post-utterance pre-incarnation"

THAT is emanation my friend. at the very least, and at worst is a created Son.
i'll retract that if i see it myself.

this is uncomfortably close to the twisting you say Trinitarians do (and some do - i admit).

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Same for the Holy Spirit, which proceedeth (ekporeuomai) from the Father. Procession is not creation.

no, it's not. but neither is it necessarily some interim externalization into an immanent realm outside creation! maybe it is, but i gotta see it in the text.

as our former member oscarkipling was fond of saying, i remain unconvinced.

i have to see that Jesus saying He came forth from the Father (exerchomai) means (ekporeuomai), AND that both of these things mean neither the Son nor the Spirit existed EXTERNALLY from the Father until a point in "time" in eternity "past" when He decided to externalize both the Spirit and the Son, prior to creation....presumably both at the same time (?):

"post-utterance pre-incarnation"...yet there's a "realm" that He/They went forth into.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
"It's ex Theos, not ex nihilo.....Creation did not proceed from God."
God? you mean creation did not proceed from the Father?
please specify what/who you mean by God.
more on this shortly...

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
For the Son, it's procreation. Mary's faith hupostasis believed the Divine Content (Rhema) of God's hupostasis would be born to her.

i'll check this as well if i get time, but hope to see this clearly shown in the text as well.
problem:

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
It's the procession of the uncreated Logos as the Son, begotten from transcendence to the immanent realms. Uncreated. Proceeded forth. "Emerged".

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
For the Son, it's procreation. Mary's faith hupostasis believed the Divine Content (Rhema) of God's hupostasis would be born to her.

which is it pps?

now, i'm not about to start making rules for debate, but i can tell you that if you can not show me from the texts that the Son proceeded forth from the Father into an immanent realm prior to creation, i'm going to have to set aside entire chunks of your theory, for the following reason:

Immanence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Immanant, a term in mathematics, or imminent, a word meaning "soon to happen".
Immanence refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence, in which the divine is seen to be manifested in or encompassing the material world. It is often contrasted with theories of transcendence, in which the divine is seen to be outside the material world. It is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the non-spiritual.

Immanence is generally associated with mysticism and mystical sects[citation needed], but most religions have elements of both immanent and transcendent belief in their doctrines. Major faiths commonly devote significant philosophical efforts to explaining the relationship between immanence and transcendence, but these efforts run the gamut from casting immanence as a characteristic of a transcendent God (common in Abrahamic faiths) to subsuming transcendent "personal" gods in a greater immanent being (Hindu Brahman) to approaching the question of transcendence as something which can only be answered through an appraisal of immanence (Some philosophical perspectives).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence

where is this in the Bible?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
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.
okay...let's make a separate thread "God-models"
and another for the mystery of God (not unfamiliar with what you are talking about, but that's NOT what i meant...i mean i think you're inferring a lot along with whatever exegesis you have concerning the Godhead...but we'll see. i need the bible passages PPS. nothing less will do bud)

hehehe....Geoguy, i'm listening.

and no, i can't just trust what you say, bud. that would be foolish. i have to be able to check the scriptures to see if these things are so.


Last edited by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 5:37 pm; edited 3 times in total
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by Strangelove on Mon May 28, 2012 5:34 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: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.)

Triadism? Erm...whats the Chinese mafia got to do with any of this?

Using the word "persons" does not have to mean "subsistences". God can reveal himself in 3 major ways and still be one subsistence.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: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.

Dont allow?....huh?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: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.

No....Christianity cant be just another Theistic
variant, cuz we say one God.

Simplez.

If you wanna append a bunch of long winded apologetics to that simple
concept its up to you but I'm no idolator just cuz I choose not to.

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

I care about scripture not theology. You better hope your ridiculously overcomplicated criteria is built on scripture rather than your own brain.

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

No but they sure can reveal themselves as heretics with simplistic declarations.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: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.

He's GOD. How simple can this get?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: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...

Erm....awful analogies dude.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: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.

You've said me and zone arn't violating scripture with our "HOW" havn't you? ....so there you go....your wrong with that statement.

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

Ugh.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:No, not in the least. Dozens upon dozens have come to Christ because of my clarifications and corrections.

Oh ego. Neutral

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: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.

Jesus is God.

For saying that you'll be labelled a trini...so dont sweat it bud.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: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.

Lolwhut? Tripartite? Is that what you call yourself then? lolZ!

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:It matters. Whether you think it does or not.

It matters if we are trinitarian or tripartarian?

Suuuuuuure mate. Sure. cyclops

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 5:40 pm

here's a buncha rubbish, i know this isn't what you mean, but is the principle the same?

Immanence and transcendence


Azoth Fouth woodcut,1659, Public Domain
Immanence can only be discovered in a dialectical relationship to transcendence. The word transcendence means “to surmount, to go beyond or to climb above”. And the concept of transcendence expresses an impulse to surmount the flow of intensities, to move beyond multiplicity, to climb out of the womb of nature. Like an acorn sprouting to become a tree, transcendence is the instinctual impulse of humans to grow and individuate. This impulse towards growth takes the spirit up to lofty heights, but it is only the initial movement of the spirit.

Immanence is the counter movement of the spirit. Experienced as a shift in consciousness: an immanent turn occurs as we shift our gaze from the transcendent horizon of our individuality to the truth of our relationality. In this shift, immanence is discovered in tandem with the realization of the depths of subjectivity; a subjectivity that is both personal and interpersonal, and yet extends beyond subject-object duality. While transcendence is the movement that individuates us from the larger body of life, immanence is realization of our unity and interdependence within the web of life.

Immanence is union, but never a fixated union. Imagine divine lovers in play: simultaneously one couple, but two beings, who through their love and opposition recognize the divine nature of each other. In a similar way we are simultaneously particular individuals and we are in relation to, and part of, a larger body: call it the Body of God or Body of Life. It is the process of working with this paradox that brings the soul into full realization. For the soul is the union of the finite & infinite, temporal & eternal, body & soul. And our immanence is the full realization of this paradox.
http://immanence.net/immanence-and-transcendence/

...
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by Strangelove on Mon May 28, 2012 5:55 pm

PPS is one o' dem tripartarians!

The pharisee will stop reading at "tri" I guarantees it!

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 6:14 pm

Strangelove wrote:PPS is one o' dem tripartarians!

The pharisee will stop reading at "tri" I guarantees it!

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 6:36 pm

mkay...i got about 15 minutes in me til i have to lay down (still recovering).....will continue later

John 8:42

New International Version (©1984)
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus told them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Jesus told them, "If God were your Father, you would have loved me, because I came from God and am here. I have not come on my own accord, but he sent me.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Yeshua said unto them, “If God were your father, you would have loved me, for I have proceeded from God and have not come of my own pleasure, but he has sent Me.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus told them, "If God were your Father, you would love me. After all, I'm here, and I came from God. I didn't come on my own. Instead, God sent me.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

American King James Version
Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

American Standard Version
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me:

Darby Bible Translation
Jesus said to them, If God were your father ye would have loved me, for I came forth from God and am come from him; for neither am I come of myself, but he has sent me.

English Revised Version
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.

Webster's Bible Translation
Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Weymouth New Testament
"If God were your Father," said Jesus, "you would love me; for it is from God that I came and I am now here. I have not come of myself, but *He* sent me.

World English Bible
Therefore Jesus said to them, "If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven't come of myself, but he sent me.

Young's Literal Translation
Jesus then said to them, 'If God were your father, ye were loving me, for I came forth from God, and am come; for neither have I come of myself, but He sent me;
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 6:41 pm

JOHN 8:42

Webster's Bible Translation
Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.


Me, for I proceeded forthἐξῆλθονexēlthon
1831to go or come out offrom ek and erchomai



exerchomai: to go or come out of
Original Word: ἐξέρχομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exerchomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-er'-khom-ahee)
Short Definition: I go out, come out
Definition: I go out, come out.




Word Origin
from ek and erchomai
Definition
to go or come out of


NASB Word Usage
came (33), came forth (4), come (22), come forth (3), comes (1), coming (7), departed (1), departing (1), descended* (1), eluded (1), get (2), go (21), go away (2), go* (1), goes (2), going (2), gone (13), gone forth (2), got (2), leave (4), left (15), proceeded forth (1), spread (3), went (61), went ashore (2), went away (3), went forth (5), went off (1).



STRONGS NT 1831: ἐξέρχομαι

ἐξέρχομαι; imperfect ἐξηρχομην; future ἐξελεύσομαι; 2 aorist ἐξῆλθον, plural 2 person ἐξήλθετε, 3 person ἐξῆλθον, and in L T Tr WH the Alex. forms (see ἀπέρχομαι, at the beginning) ἐξήλθατε (Matthew 11:7, 8, 9; Matthew 26:55; Mark 14:48, etc.), ἐξῆλθαν (1 John 2:19; 2 John 1:7 (here Tdf. ἐξῆλθον; 3 John 1:7, etc.)); perfect ἐξελήλυθα; pluperfect ἐξεληλύθειν (Luke 8:38, etc.); the Sept. for יָצָא times without number; to go or come out of;

1. properly;

a. with mention of the place out of which one goes, or of the point from which he departs; α. of those who leave a place of their own accord: with the genitive alone, Matthew 10:14 (L T Tr WH insert ἔξω); Acts 16:39 R G. followed by ἐκ: Mark 5:2; Mark 7:31; John 4:30; John 8:59; Acts 7:3; 1 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 18:4, etc. followed by ἔξω with the genitive — with addition of εἰς and the accusative of place, Matthew 21:17; Mark 14:68; or παρά with the accusative of place, Acts 16:13; or πρός τινα, the accusative of person, Hebrews 13:13. ἐξέρχεσθαι ἀπό with the genitive of place, Matthew 13:1 R G; Mark 11:12; Luke 9:5; Philippians 4:15; (Hebrews 11:15 R G); ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐκεῖθεν, Matthew 15:21; Mark 6:1, 10; Luke 9:4; (Luke 11:53 T Tr text WH text); John 4:43; ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον, Matthew 12:44; Luke 11:24 (yet see β. below). ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐκ etc. to come forth from, out of, a place: Matthew 8:28; Revelation 14:15, 17, 18 (L omits; WH brackets ἐξῆλθεν); ; ἐξελθεῖν ἀπό, to come out (toward one) from, Matthew 15:22. In the Gospel of John Christ, who by his incarnation left his place with God in heaven, is said ἐξελθεῖν παρά τοῦ Θεοῦ: John 16:27 and R G L marginal reading in John 16:28; ἀπό τοῦ Θεοῦ, John 13:3; John 16:30; ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, from his place with God, from God's abode, John 8:42 and L text T Tr WH in John 16:28. β. of those expelled or cast out (especially of demons driven forth from a body of which they have held possession): ἐκ τίνος, the genitive of person: Mark 1:25; Mark 5:8 (L marginal reading ἀπό); ; Luke 4:35 R Tr marginal reading; or ἀπό τίνος, Matthew 12:43; Matthew 17:18; Luke 4:35 L T Tr text WH; (yet see α. above); Acts 16:18; (Acts 19:12 Rec.). γ. of those who come forth, or are let go, from confinement in which they have been kept (e. g. from prison): Matthew 5:26; Acts 16:40.

b. without mention of the place from which one goes out; α. where the place from which one goes forth (as a house, city, ship) has just been mentioned: Matthew (Matthew 8:12 Tdf.); f (from the house, Matthew 9:28); Matthew 10:11 (namely, ἐκεῖθεν, i. e. ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἤ κώμης ἐκείνης); Matthew 12:14 (cf. Matthew 12:9); Matthew 18:28 (cf. Matthew 18:24); Matthew 14:14; Mark 1:45 (cf. Mark 1:43 ἐξέβαλεν αὐτόν); Luke 1:22 (from the temple); Luke 8:27; Luke 10:35 (Rec.); John 13:30, 31 (30), etc.; so also when the verb ἐξέρχεσθαι refers to the departure of demons: Matthew 8:32; Mark 5:13; Mark 7:30; Mark 9:29; Acts 8:7; Acts 16:19 (where for the name of the demon itself is substituted the descriptive clause ἡ ἐλπίς τάς ἐργασίας αὐτῶν; see 2 e. δ.). β. where one is said to have gone forth to do something, and it is obvious that he has gone forth from his home, or at least from the place where he has been staying: followed by an infinitive, Matthew 11:8; Matthew 13:3 (infinitive with τοῦ); Matthew 20:1; Mark 3:21; Mark 4:3 (R G infinitive with τοῦ (Tr brackets τοῦ)); Rec.; Luke 7:25; Acts 20:1; Revelation 20:8; with the addition of ἐπί τινα (against), Matthew 26:55; Mark 14:48; Luke 22:52; εἰς τοῦτο, Mark 1:38; ἵνα, Revelation 6:2; also without any infinitive or conjunction indicating the purpose: Mark 6:12; Mark 8:11; Mark 14:16; Mark 16:20; Luke 5:27; Luke 9:6; John 21:3; Acts 10:23; Acts 20:11; 2 Corinthians 8:17; followed by εἰς with the accusative of place: Matthew 22:10; Matthew 26:30, 71; Mark 8:27; Mark 11:11; Luke 6:12; Luke 14:21, 23; John 1:43 (44); Acts 11:25; Acts 14:20; 2 Corinthians 2:13; the place to which one goes forth being evident either from what goes before or from the context: Matthew 24:26 (namely, εἰς τήν ἔρημον); Matthew 27:32 (from the city to the place of crucifixion); ἐξερχομενοις alone is used of a people quitting the land which they had previously inhabited, Acts 7:7, cf. Hebrews 11:8; of angels coming forth from heaven, Matthew 13:49. ἐξῆλθον εἰς ἀπάντησιν τίνος, to meet one, Matthew 25:1 (L T Tr WH ὑπάντησιν), Matthew 25:6; (εἰς ἀπάντησιν or ὑπάντησιν) τίνι, John 12:13; Acts 28:15 R G; εἰς συνάντησιν τίνι, Matthew 8:34 (L T Tr WH ὑπάντησιν). Agreeably to the oriental redundancy of style in description (see ἀνίστημι, II. 1 c.), the participle ἐξελθών is often placed before another finite verb of departure: Matthew 8:32; Matthew 15:21; Matthew 24:1 (ἐξελθών (from the temple, see ) ἐπορεύετο ἀπό τοῦ ἱεροῦ, he departed from its vicinity); Mark 16:8; Luke 22:39; Acts 12:9, 17; Acts 16:36, 40; Acts 21:5, 8.

2. figuratively;

a. ἐκ τινων, ἐκ μέσου τινων, to go out from some assembly, i. e. to forsake it: 1 John 2:19 (opposed to μεμενήκεισαν μεθ' ἡμῶν); 2 Corinthians 6:17.

b. to come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of: ἐκ with the genitive of the place from which one comes by birth, Matthew 2:6 (from Micah 5:2); ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος τίνος, Hebrew מֵחֲלָצַיִם יָצָא; (Genesis 35:11; 1 Kings 8:19; (cf. Winer's Grammar, 33 (32))), Hebrews 7:5.

c. ἐκ χειρός τίνος, to go forth from one's power, escape from it in safety: John 10:39.

d. εἰς τόν κόσμον, to come forth (from privacy) into the world, before the public (of those who by novelty of opinion attract attention): 1 John 4:1.

e. of things; α. of report, rumors, messages, precepts, etc., equivalent to to be uttered, to be heard: φωνή, Revelation 16:17; Revelation 19:5; equivalent to to be made known, declared: ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ followed by ἀπό τινων, from their city or church, 1 Corinthians 14:36; equivalent to to spread, be diffused: ἡ φήμη, Matthew 9:26; Luke 4:14; ἡ ἀκοή, Mark 1:28; (Matthew 4:24 Tr marginal reading); ὁ φθόγγος, τά ῤήματα, Romans 10:18; ὁ λόγος the word, saying, John 21:23; Luke 7:17; ἡ πίστις τίνος, the report of one's faith, 1 Thessalonians 1:8; equivalent to to be proclaimed: δόγμα, an imperial edict, παρά τίνος, the genitive person, Luke 2:1. β. to come forth equivalent to be emitted, as from the heart, the mouth, etc.: Matthew 15:18; James 3:10; (cf. ῤομφαία ἐκ τοῦ στόματος, Revelation 19:21 G L T Tr WH); equivalent to to flow forth from the body: John 19:34; equivalent to to emanate, issue: Luke 8:46; Revelation 14:20. γ. ἐξέρχεσθαι (ἀπ' ἀνατολῶν), used of a sudden flash of lightning, Matthew 24:27. δ. that ἐξέρχεσθαι in Acts 16:19 (on which see 1 b. α. above) is used also of a thing's vanishing, viz. of a hope which has disappeared, arises from the circumstance that the demon that had gone out had been the hope of those who complain that their hope has gone out. On the phrase ἐισέρχεσθαι καί ἐξέρχεσθαι see in εἰσέρχομαι, 1 a. (Compare: διεξέρχομαι.)


come forth, depart, escape, get out

From ek and erchomai; to issue (literally or figuratively) -- come (forth, out), depart (out of), escape, get out, go (abroad, away, forth, out, thence), proceed (forth), spread abroad.

see GREEK ek
see GREEK erchomai

ἐξελθόντι — 1 Occ.
ἐξελθόντων — 2 Occ.
ἐξελθόντος — 3 Occ.
ἐξελθοῦσα — 3 Occ.
ἐξελθοῦσαι — 1 Occ.
ἐξελθοῦσαν — 1 Occ.
ἐξελθούσῃ — 1 Occ.
ἐξέρχεσθε — 2 Occ.
ἐξέρχεται — 3 Occ.
ἐξερχώμεθα — 1 Occ.
ἐξερχόμενοι — 5 Occ.
ἐξερχόμενος — 1 Occ.
ἐξέρχονται — 2 Occ.
ἔξεστιν — 29 Occ.
ἐξὸν — 3 Occ.
ἐξετάσαι — 1 Occ.
ἐξετάσατε — 2 Occ.
ἐξηγησάμενος — 1 Occ.
ἐξηγήσατο — 2 Occ.
ἐξηγεῖτο — 1 Occ.


Last edited by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 11:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 6:50 pm

okay....so the only use of the word that fits your theology is this (?):

b. to come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of: ἐκ with the genitive of the place from which one comes by birth, Matthew 2:6 (from Micah 5:2); ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος τίνος, Hebrew מֵחֲלָצַיִם יָצָא; (Genesis 35:11; 1 Kings 8:19; (cf. Winer's Grammar, 33 (32))), Hebrews 7:5.



........

but we have a problem:

if we choose this to mean the post utterance PRE-INCARNATE CHRIST, this is the meaning:

"to come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of: ἐκ with the genitive of the place from which one comes by birth"

this is either a CREATED entity. or surely does not express very well the Son proceeding forth or being externalized IN A FORM if he really is eternally God.

now perhaps you'll say Begotten. and that this will be from within eternity before creation....(maybe?)

i haven't check the references thoroughly, and plan to do so, with your help.

maybe it does. maybe you can show me.

continuing.....
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 7:10 pm

John 6:42
They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"

John 7:28
Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him,

John 8:14
Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

John 13:3
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;

John 16:28
I came from
the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

ALL:
erchomai: to come, go

........

John 8:42 commentaries on erchomai:

Gill:

for I proceeded forth; and came from God; the former of these phrases is observed by many learned men to be used by the Septuagint, of a proper natural birth, as in Genesis 15:4; and here designs the eternal generation of Christ, as the Son of God, being the only begotten of the Father, and the Son of the Father in truth and love; and the other is to be understood of his mission from him, as Mediator:

Vincent's Word Studies
I proceeded forth - from God (ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον)

Rev., came forth. The phrase occurs only here and in John 16:28. Ἑξελθεῖν is found in John 13:3; John 16:30, and emphasizes the idea of separation; a going from God to whom He was to return (and goeth unto God). Ἑξελθεῖν παρά (John 16:27; John 17:8), is going from beside, implying personal fellowship with God. Ἑξελθεῖν ἐκ, here, emphasizes the idea of essential, community of being: "I came forth out of."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
42, 43. If God were your Father, ye would love me-"If ye had anything of His moral image, as children have their father's likeness, ye would love Me, for I am immediately of Him and directly from Him." But "My speech" (meaning His peculiar style of expressing Himself on these subjects) is unintelligible to you because ye cannot take in the truth which it conveys.

....

k...have to lay down.

talk to you soon pps.....please carry on if possible. i want to see if the processions of the Holy spirit is the same as Christ coming forth from God. so far i see not much to back up the Transcendent/Immanence theory.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 10:41 pm

cont...

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
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.

John 15:26
New International Version (©1984)
"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"But I will send you the Advocate--the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will testify all about me.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

International Standard Version (©2008)
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
“But when The Redeemer of the accursed comes, him whom I shall send to you from the presence of my Father, The Spirit of Truth, he who proceeds from the presence of my Father, he shall testify concerning me.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"The helper whom I will send to you from the Father will come. This helper, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, will declare the truth about me.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me:

American King James Version
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me:

American Standard Version
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me:

Douay-Rheims Bible
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Darby Bible Translation
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes forth from with the Father, he shall bear witness concerning me;

English Revised Version
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me:

Webster's Bible Translation
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he will testify concerning me.

Weymouth New Testament
"When the Advocate is come whom I will send to you from the Father's presence--the Spirit of Truth who comes forth from the Father's presence--He will be a witness concerning me.

World English Bible
"When the Counselor has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.

Young's Literal Translation
'And when the Comforter may come, whom I will send to you from the Father -- the Spirit of truth, who from the Father doth come forth, he will testify of me;

.......

proceeds ἐκπορεύεται
ekporeuetai
1607
to make to go forth, to go forth
from ek and poreuomai

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Same for the Holy Spirit, which proceedeth (ekporeuomai) from the Father.[/b]
Procession is not creation.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 11:05 pm

zone wrote:cont...



John 15:26
New International Version (©1984)
"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"But I will send you the Advocate--the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will testify all about me.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

International Standard Version (©2008)
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
“But when The Redeemer of the accursed comes, him whom I shall send to you from the presence of my Father, The Spirit of Truth, he who proceeds from the presence of my Father, he shall testify concerning me.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"The helper whom I will send to you from the Father will come. This helper, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, will declare the truth about me.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me:

American King James Version
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me:

American Standard Version
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me:

Douay-Rheims Bible
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Darby Bible Translation
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes forth from with the Father, he shall bear witness concerning me;

English Revised Version
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me:

Webster's Bible Translation
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he will testify concerning me.

Weymouth New Testament
"When the Advocate is come whom I will send to you from the Father's presence--the Spirit of Truth who comes forth from the Father's presence--He will be a witness concerning me.

World English Bible
"When the Counselor has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.

Young's Literal Translation
'And when the Comforter may come, whom I will send to you from the Father -- the Spirit of truth, who from the Father doth come forth, he will testify of me;

.......

proceeds ἐκπορεύεται
ekporeuetai
1607
to make to go forth, to go forth
from ek and poreuomai


ekporeuomai: to make to go forth, to go forth
Original Word: ἐκπορεύομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ekporeuomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ek-por-yoo'-om-ahee)
Short Definition: I journey out, come forth
Definition: I depart from; I am voided, cast out; I proceed from, am spoken; I burst forth, flow out, am spread abroad.


1607 ekporeúomai (from 1537 /ek, "out from," intensifying 4198 /poreúomai, "take a particular passageway") – properly, go out from, emphasizing the outcome (end-impact) of going through a particular process or passage – i.e. the influence on the person (or thing) which comes forth. Note the force of the prefix 1537 (ek). 1607 /ekporeúomai ("come out from") links the source to the outcome (influence) on the object (as specified by the individual context).

Word Origin
from ek and poreuomai

Definition
to make to go forth, to go forth

NASB Word Usage
came (1), come (1), come forth (1), comes (1), coming (1), eliminated* (1), falling (1), flows (1), go (4), going (4), leave (1), leaving (2), moving about freely* (1), proceed (6), proceeded (1), proceeds (4), setting (1), spreading (1), went (1).

STRONGS NT 1607: ἐκπορεύομαι

ἐκπορεύομαι; imperfect ἐξεπορευόμην; future ἐκπορεύσομαι; (passive (mid, cf. πορεύω) of ἐκπορεύω to make to go forth, to lead out, with future middle); (from Xenophon down); the Sept. for יָצָא; to go forth, go out, depart;

1. properly, with mention of the place whence: ἀπό, Matthew 20:29; Mark 10:46; ἐξο (τῆς πόλεως), Mark 11:19; ἐκ, Mark 13:1; ἐκεῖθεν, Mark 6:11; παρά τίνος, from one's abode, one's vicinity, John 15:26 (ἀκούσωμεν τά ἐκπορευόμενα παρά κυρίου, Ezekiel 33:30); without mention of the place whence or whither, which must be learned from the context: Luke 3:7; Acts 25:4; with mention of the end to which: ἐπί τινα, Revelation 16:14; πρός τινα, Matthew 3:5; Mark 1:5; ἐκπορεύεσθαι εἰς ὁδόν, to go forth from some place into the road (or on his way, cf. ὁδός, 1 b.), Mark 10:17; on Acts 9:28 see εἰσπορεύομαι, 1 a. demons, when expelled, are said to go out (namely, from the human body): Matthew 17:21 R G L; Acts 19:12 G L T Tr WH. (food (excrement)) to go out i. e. be discharged, Mark 7:19. to come forth, ἐκ τῶν μνημείων, of the dead who are restored to life and leave the tomb, John 5:29.

2. figuratively, to come forth, to issue, to proceed: with the adjuncts ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἐκ τῆς καρδίας, ἐκ τοῦ στόματος, of feelings, affections, deeds, sayings, Matthew 15:11, 18; Mark 7:15 L T Tr WH, 20; Luke 4:22; Ephesians 4:29; (ἔσωθεν ἐκ τῆς καρδίας, Mark 7:21; with ἔσωθεν alone, Mark 7:23); πᾶν ῤῆμα ἐκπορευομένῳ διά στόματος Θεοῦ, every appointment whereby God bids a man to be nourished and preserved, Matthew 4:4, from Deuteronomy 8:3. to break forth: of lightnings, flames, etc., ἐκ τίνος, Revelation 4:5; Revelation 9:17ff; 11:5. to flow forth: of a river (ἐκ τίνος), Revelation 22:1. to project, from the month of one: of a sword, Revelation 1:16; Revelation 19:15, 21 Rec. to spread abroad, of a rumor: followed by εἰς, Luke 4:37. (Synonym: cf. ἔρχομαι, at the end.)

come out of, depart, go forth

From ek and poreuomai; to depart, be discharged, proceed, project -- come (forth, out of), depart, go (forth, out), issue, proceed (out of).

see GREEK ek

see GREEK poreuomai

ἐκπλησσόμενος — 1 Occ.
ἐξεπλάγησαν — 1 Occ.
ἐξεπλήσσετο — 1 Occ.
ἐξεπλήσσοντο — 9 Occ.
ἐξέπνευσεν — 3 Occ.
ἐκπορεύεσθαι — 2 Occ.
ἐκπορευέσθω — 1 Occ.
ἐκπορεύεται — 8 Occ.
ἐκπορευόμενα — 2 Occ.
ἐκπορευομένη — 1 Occ.
ἐκπορευομένων — 1 Occ.
ἐκπορευόμενοι — 1 Occ.
ἐκπορευομένοις — 2 Occ.
ἐκπορευόμενον — 3 Occ.
ἐκπορευόμενος — 1 Occ.
ἐκπορευομένου — 4 Occ.
ἐκπορεύονται — 2 Occ.
ἐκπορεύσονται — 1 Occ.
ἐξεπορεύετο — 3 Occ.
ἐξεπορεύοντο — 1 Occ.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Mon May 28, 2012 11:26 pm

The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father:

proceeds ἐκπορεύεται
ekporeuetai
1607
to make to go forth, to go forth
from ek and poreuomai

ekporeuomai: to make to go forth, to go forth
Original Word: ἐκπορεύομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ekporeuomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ek-por-yoo'-om-ahee)
Short Definition: I journey out, come forth
Definition: I depart from; I am voided, cast out; I proceed from, am spoken; I burst forth, flow out, am spread abroad.

............

Jesus proceeded forth and came from the Father:

proceeded forth
ἐξῆλθον
exēlthon
1831
to go or come out of
from ek and erchomai

exerchomai: to go or come out of
Original Word: ἐξέρχομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exerchomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-er'-khom-ahee)
Short Definition: I go out, come out
Definition: I go out, come out.

......

okay.
two different words.
similar in meaning....yet quite distinct.
perhaps that's where my answers lie....coming up next i spose (after some commentary on the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.

.......

so far i see nothing which says, re: though it is said of the Holy Spirit He was "to make to go forth, to go forth"..."I journey out, come forth" WHERE IS IT/WHY IS IT that this can not be said of the Spirit proceeding from Jesus ALSO?

are there any instances where Jesus uses the same word about Himself and the Spirit? "ekporeuomai: to make to go forth, to go forth"

if there are scriptures which say the Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father and never from The Son, i want to see those.

regarding the Son, who said He proceeded forth and came from from God - "for I proceeded forth" - "to go or come out of"; "I go out, come out.", i still see nothing in John 8:42 that means/says clearly:

"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."

.....same for both the Spirit and the Son?

....begotten from transcendence to the immanent realms - a post-utterance, pre-incarnational action causing the Son to emerge from the Father into an uncreated immanent realm pre-creation, and that the Son was given a FORM.......i need to see that.

continuing....(i'm learning as i go: who knows - maybe i'll find all this in Genesis or other places.) Idea

love zone.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 12:54 am

Okay... There's a lot to respond to. Let me start with a type of disclaimer. I thought we had discussed enough of this with enough scripture previously provided to speak conceptually, especially since you don't seem to hold the orthodox line on the literal Trinity doctrine. I need to proceed in a manner that may seem staunch or stern and unyielding, even adversarial. Nothing I say is personal, and it's a bit difficult for me to be so demanding; but I also know you want me to love you enough to no pull any punches.

I first suggest we come to a mutual general understanding about a few things as guidelines to better communication and prevent misunderstanding or misperception/misrepresentation.

There are descriptors and definers. In general, descriptors should be accurate and defined but are not necessarily required to be in the text itself. Examples would be various attributes that are presented in scripture overall but aren't specifially named. Omnipotent, for instance.

Definers are absolute and must appear it the text. The default meaning should be derived and determined by the original language, not modern conceptualizations from recipient languages. Context is, of course, of priority relevance.

We also must start from as neutral a baseline as possible, but with certain stipulated acquiescences. The deity of Christ is not in question between us, so that would be an example of mutual stipulation that needs no exegesis, even if we would utilize different proof-texting, etc.

There can't be any double standards. We've already begun with some to some extent. You're saying my view is Philosophy, when I've already asserted that Trinity is Philosophy. And the text I've presented has gone unaddressed. You've challenged me to provide copious scriptural detail, and I will, for the procession of the Son and the Holy Spirit, etc.; yet you offer none. And Trinity in general offers nada in this regard. No "how". Just "whooooooop", there it is. The Son proceeded forth (and came, which is an important distinction I'll cover) and the Holy Spirit proceedeth. Done. Don't ask, don't tell. And how did an eternally pre-existent God-"person" become a viable embryo?

Which brings us to my final initial concern. Trinity has certain fixed immutables, but is far from homogenous. I'm okay with anything beyond the immutables, but one must begin with the immutables. You have a different understanding in some manner that is more nebulous. I know you purposely avoid what you call "deconstruction", but your professed Trinity doctrine has utterly dismantled God for 1.7 millennia. I can't just address an unexpressed semi-generic threeness that isn't Trinity Proper as Theology Proper. The first order is for you to provide your working definition of "person/s" from the text and where you stand in regards to its meaning and usage. Do you affirm it?

Another threeness view apart from the immutables is not Trinity. I won't insist you call it something else, but I have to know what's what for discussion.

For me...
Transcendent and Immanent are descriptors, not definers. They're not in the text, and I will define them. Discussion for tweakage is always beneficial. I'll try to refer to terms in this manner.

Though Trinity can be a descriptor if you choose, "person/s" is a definer. It MUST be in the text. Without it, Trinity is not Trinity. God must be three somethings of a something; Trinity's foundation is hupostases and ousia. If you reject that and still call it Trinity, then you have to provide appropriate definers from the text. F/S/HS are God is not a "how".

And just because you perceive all the personal pronouns to be Trinitarian language, I hold F/S/HS to be distinct. I would contrast that to Trinity "persons" being discreet. Both are descriptors, and I can differentiate if necessary.

I'll post an introductory overview and then work through your previous posts that aren't accounted for and answer any questions, also defining descriptors and designating them from definers.

This will drive Doc nuts. Maybe you, too. But it's your Semi-Sorta-Trinity based on Trinity Philosophy (Phileo/Sophos-Brotherly Love of Wisdom) versus my view of Merismos Monotheism Agaposophy (Godly Love of Wisdom). (Merismos is in my exposition.)

Outline imminent (not immanent). :-D

PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 1:01 am

The following few posts express my understanding of God's constitution. I'll begin with a list of affirmations and proceed conceptually and exegetically.


I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son) is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.
The Father is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Holy Spirit is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Word is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Father is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Holy Spirit is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Son is Uncreated and the Only Begotten.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit nor the Son (Word).
The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son (Word).
The Word (Son) is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
The Son proceeded forth and came from the Father, Sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Sent by the Father and the Son.
(The Holy Spirit proceedeth NOT from both the Father and the Son [Filioque], though Sent by Both.)
Jesus is the Son of God and is Fully Divine, Begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the son of man and is fully human with a rational soul, born of the virgin by the Holy Spirit.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus was a Supernatural Procreative Act of God, NOT a Creative Act.
God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

I also wholly affirm the Nicene Creed, though I disaffirm the later Filioque-based "persons"-laced anonymous Athanasian Creed.

However... God is NOT three "persons". In fact, God is not "person(s)" of ANY quantity. "Person(s)" is a creedal term that unprecedentedly manufactured an alternate definition for an existing term and superimposed it upon scripture by inference.

In relation to God, only two words are rendered "person" in the KJV. Hupostasis (G5286) appears ONCE, in Hebrews 1:3. It is rendered "substance" in Hebrews 11:1 ("Now faith is the [hupostasis] of things hoped for...") Prosopon (G4383) appears ONCE, in reference only to Jesus in 2Corinthians 2:10.

Further... I have no issue with the term Trinity and its absense in scripture. Trinity is essentially a "shorthand" means of immediate recognition. It is descriptive, not defining. "Person(s)", on the other hand, is a clearly defining term upon which the formulated conceptualization of Trinity hinges. No "persons"? No Trinity. Trinity becomes Triadism or Tritheism without this one creedal, manufactured-definition, extra-biblical, superimposed term.

Historically, the first mention of Triad was by Theophilus (circa 180AD) in reference to God, His Word, and His Wisdom. The first use of Trinity (Latin, Trinitas) was by Tertullian (circa 213AD) in his treatise against Monarchianism shortly before his descent into semi-heretical Montanism. He subsequently referred to the "persons" of God, but until this time referred to the degrees, forms, or aspects of God. Once "persons" terminology was adopted, all contemporaries began to adopt the term, leading up to the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325AD.

My point? "Person(s)" is not from/by Apostolic authority and usage, and is extra-biblical. It is an adopted term with a definition manufactured specifically for formulation and expression of a God-model. It is NOT the Divine Expression of God by His Word or His Apostles.

To begin, remember that all original Godhead formulations were undertaken as a means of apologetics to affirm and maintain Monotheism while accounting for Jesus and, ultimately, the Holy Spirit. Those God-models that presented Jesus as created and/or non-deity were focused on maintaining Monotheism in the face of pervasive Polytheism, Pantheism/Panentheism, and the many forms of Gnosticism.

Of the various existing formulated God-models, only two represent Jesus as uncreated deity by substance: Trinitarianism and whatever label one places on modern Oneness (Sabellianism/Monarchianism/Partripassianism). The Trinity formulation presents God as three "persons", which makes F/S/HS too discreet. Oneness presents God as three "manifestations", which makes F/S/HS too indistinct. These can be reconciled with a deeper search for the truth of God's constitution.

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made. ...And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." -John 1:1-3,14

John's use of logos is authorially unique. He is addressing much of his gospel and epistles toward refuting contemporary Gnostic and philosophical understandings. John's usage is referring to the Logos of God (Rev. 19:13). This contrasts to Gnostic usage to portray a lower demi-urge that was a lesser god, and Hellenistic understandings that hybridized Greek and Judaistic cultures.

The spoken word is comprised of two parts: Rhema and Logos (G4487 and G3056). Though distinct, rhema and logos are inseparable. There can be no logos without rhema. Alone within all of creation, man has been delegated the capability of logos. During the Incarnation of God's Logos (upper case), Jesus spoke the logos (lower case). Also represented by the logos (lower case) are the decrees and sayings of YHVH that are conveyed directly through messengers or inspired writings. (Upper/lower case is my own differentiation for clarity, not a reference to translational practice.)

Rhema is the substance content of subject matter that is thought and spoken about. Logos is the reason, wisdom, and intelligent thought and expression of that rhema subject matter. (The following is specifically of God's Rhema-Logos.)

Rhema is the Divine Content of the Divine Expression; Logos is the Divine Expression of the Divine Content. BOTH Rhema and Logos PRECEDE THE ACT OF THE UTTERANCE.

To be spoken, Rhema-Logos is breath-borne forth from the internal depths of God's divine essence, containing the very substance of that divine essence in the external speaking forth from the internal; and that breath (Pneuma) is God's OWN Spirit.

Rhema-Logos is the total substance of the complete divine essence of God's Self, externalized from silence to expression by the breath of His Spirit. The internal Word became the external Son, eternally pre-existent to proceed forth (exerchomai) and come (heko) from God.

Logos is the intelligent thought and speaking forth of all that is contained in its counterpart, Rhema. Logos is the rational reason, wisdom, intelligence, and thought of God spoken forth in the word or discourse of His plan and arrangement to reveal Himself IN and TO His creation. It is His thorough contemplation of pondering, knowing, and expressing outwardly and externally from Himself. It is the Divine Expression.

That which is being reasoned, contemplated, pondered, and thought to be outwardly expressed is the Rhema. Rhema is the substance content of Himself... God's OWN Self. Everything that God IS is within the Rhema portion of the spoken word. It is the subject matter spoken about. The Logos reasons and thinks to speak forth the entire substance of content that is God's OWN Self. Rhema is the Divine Content OF the Divine Expression.

Rhema and Logos precede the act of the utterance. God SILENTLY planned and arranged within Himself everything He was afyerwards about to utter through His Word. While He was thus planning and arranging with His own wisdom and reason, He was actually causing the very substance of His divine essence to become the Word (Ho Logos), borne forth by His breath after it was initiated in the depths of His soul by His mind (nous) and His will (thelema).

God thought and willed to speak forth the entirety of (the substance and identity of) Himself upon His breath. His mind and will and emotions thought and chose and felt to express, uttering the internal Rhema by the Logos to become the external Son.

God's OWN Logos spoke forth His OWN Rhema of Himself as flesh. His OWN Self as flesh. Not AS a separate "person". Not BY a separate "person". Not THROUGH a separate "person". Not WITH a separate "person". His OWN Self, that ultimately became the person (prospon) of Jesus Christ; God's OWN personality manifest in the likeness of sinful flesh. The fullness of the Godhead (Theotes) bodily. God's OWN singular personality within a virgin-born man.

The Infinite Uncreated God as Spirit uttered Himself forth to become flesh. Nothing had ever been external to God before He spoke. His speaking begat that which was internal to become external. As He spoke, all creation came into existence as the realm in which He would visibly and tangibly reveal His invisible and intangible Self to mankind who was made in His image and likeness.

Jesus is literally God embodied in flesh. Jesus is NOT another "person", but is the person (prosopon) of God.

Person (prosopon G4383) is most often rendered face or presence. In general, it is that part of anything which is turned or presented to the eye of another. It is face, outward appearance, person, personal appearance, presence; in the presence of and/or in the sight of. Literally, the personal presence of one in sight of another.

Jesus is the personal outward appearance and presence of God Himself in the sight of mankind. The invisible, intangible, eternal, uncreated God embodied (the substance of) Himself to be visible and tangible within His temporal creation. Jesus is God's personal presence face-to-face with mankind. His Word spoke His eternal substance into temporal creation within flesh.

In Romans 8:3, "...God sending His OWN Son" can literally be translated "the Son of Himself." Someone recently read an exegesis of that, and after 6 months of wrestling with my view, they immediately understood all I was presenting. I include it for clarity for those it may help, but others may reject it entirely.

Creation (as a realm of existence) is external to God, though He is omnipresent within that creation. Contrast Pantheism (God IS everything and/or is IN everything) and Panentheism (Everything is IN God). The Son is the externalized Self of God in creation.

(continued)

PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 1:02 am

(continued)


The following is how I exegete and present the Godhead. It is a HOW of what I've presented as much as it is a WHAT of God's constitution. HOW did God manifest His OWN self (person/prosopon) in the flesh?

The Rhema-Logos portion covered John 8:42...
"...for I proceeded forth (exerchomai) and came (heko) from God;..."

In John 15:26, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth (ekporeuomai) FROM THE FATHER..." [NO Filioque]

Ekporueomai is a compound of ek (G1537) and poreuomai (G4198).

Ek means out from; spoken of objects which before were in another object but are now separated from it, either in respect to place, time, source, or origin. It reflects the primary, immediate source from which something proceeds out of.

Poreuomai is from peira (G3984), with the idea of piercing; to pierce or run through to the other side. It comes from the base of peran (G4008).

The meaning of proceedeth (ekpoeuomai) is to be pierced through for separation and dispatch from the primary source and origin to another place and time.

Sent (pempo G3992) means sent, but with the idea of a temporary errand.

Proceedeth means... The Holy Spirit was pierced through for separation and dispatch from its eternal primary source and origin (the Father) to a temporal place and time.

In 2Thess. 2:8, we see scripture refer to the "spirit of his mouth". Rev. 1:16, 2:12, and 2:16 refer to the sharp two-edged sword OUT OF (ekporeuomai G1537) his mouth", as does Rev. 19:15 and 19:21.

OT Messianic Prophecy of Isaiah 42:1...
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my elect, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles."

NT Quotation of Above in Matt. 12:18...
"Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgement to the Gentiles."

Apostolic Confirmation of Above in 2Peter 1:17...
"For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

God's Soul is well pleased in the Son.
The Father is well pleased in the Son.

"For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." -Col. 2:9
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person (hupostasis - SUBSTANCE)..." - Heb. 1:3
"...in the person (prosopon) of Christ;..." -2Cor. 2:10
"...I will put MY SPIRIT upon him,..." -Matt. 12:18

The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit.
The Father is God's Soul (Self).
The Son (Word) is God's embodiment (Body).

God is Spirit-Soul-Body of One Divinity.
Man is spirit-soul-body of one person.

While Incarnate, the Word (Logos) spoke the word (logos) out of His mouth.

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder (merismos G3311) of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow..." -Heb. 4:12

Merismos (G3311) is to separate or partition for distribution. Also rendered "gifts" in Heb. 2:4. Joints (harmos G719) is the parts of the body. Marrow (muelos G3452) is the source of blood. In Lev. 17:11, "...the life (nephesh H5315 - SOUL) of the flesh is in the blood." Joints-Marrow is body-soul.

The Word (Logos) is the only thing that can pierce (diikneomai) to the dividing asunder (merismos) of God's Soul-Spirit, Body-Soul.
The word (logos) is the only thing that can pierce (diikneomai) to the dividing asunder (merismos) of man's soul-spirit, joints-marrow.

The Holy Spirit was pierced through for separation and dispatch from its primary eternal source and origin (the Father) to a temporal place and time. God's OWN Logos did this to distribute His OWN Spirit from His OWN Soul to indwell us in the temporal. We are His temple. The presence of His Spirit within the Holy of Holies (naos) of our spirit as His abode. There He makes our depraved soul into the Holy Place for us to serve. Our body is the outer courts where we can all physically join together.*

In Acts 2:3, when the Holy Spirit is given at Pentecost... "And there appeared unto them cloven (diamerizo G1266) tongues of fire..."

Cloven (diamerizo) comes from the same root (merizo) as divide asunder (merismos) in Heb. 4:12, and is also rendered "gifts" in Heb. 2:4. Dia denotes separation; merizo is to divide. It means separated into parts and divided up. In the passive participle, meaning divided flames distributed out to each person from one common source. Merismos is largely the same, meaning partitioned for separation and distribution.

God's OWN utterance of His OWN substance of His OWN Self as His OWN Logos divides asunder His OWN Spirit from His OWN Soul to distribute it individually from the eternal into the temporal to accomplish our internal redemption from sin. Our spirit-soul is also divided asunder to receive the indwelling of God's OWN Spirit.

God is not three "persons". God is Spirit-Soul-Body of One Divinity. He embodied His OWN non-corporeal substance in the corporeal that we might see and know Him.

Jesus isn't 1/3 of God as the second of three God-"persons". Jesus IS God. The express image of His substance. The fullness of the Godhead bodily.

"A" word (person/s) isn't quick, powerful, and sharp enough to pierce and divide asunder any further than itself (person/s), and isn't part of the written record of the logos.

"THE" word is quick, powerful, and sharpet than any two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of soul-spirit and body-soul (joints-marrow). Soul-spirit on one edge; body-soul on the other edge.


[One caveat... Because Trinity conceptualizes F/S/HS as discreet rather than distinct, the prayer in Gethsemane is NOT to be perceived as God's Body somehow praying to God's Soul. I present no such fractured concept. Body = Embodiment. The embodiment was of God's eternal divine substance within a man with a rational human soul.]

There's much more, especially about the conception and how a soul is emergently derived by spirit-body joining (Gen. 2:7); but that's the basic outline.

P.S. NO Nestorianism, Eutychianism, or Apollinarianism is expressed or implied!!!!


More on Rhema...

"For with God, (no)thing (rhema G4487) shall be impossible." -Luke 1:37

"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be (ginomai) it unto me according to thy word (rhema G4487)." - Luke 1:38

"But Mary kept all these things (rhema G4487), and pondered (sumballo G4820) in her heart." -Luke 2:19


Remember... "...faith is the substance (hupostasis G5287) of things hoped for (elpizo G1679), the evidence (elehchos G1650) of things not seen." -Heb. 11:1

And... "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person (hupostasis G5287), and upholding all things by the word (rhema G4487) of his power (dunamis G1411), ..." -Heb. 1:3a

And... "...and the power (dunamis G1411) of the Highest shall overshadow thee;..." - Luke 1:35

(continued)

PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 1:03 am

(continued)

I see that the HS is God's OWN Spirit, not a third discreet God-"person". Jesus said He and the Father would come and make their abode in us, and we also see references to the indwelling HS. If none of the F/S/HS are each other and they're three distinct God-"people"; how do all three "persons" indwell us? And how are they ALL both indwelling millions of saints' glorified bodies and still hangin' around sitting in proximity finite positions in/on a throne?

God indwells each of our spirits temporally AND eternally by having divided asunder His OWN Spirit from His OWN Soul by His OWN Logos (spoken from the eternal realm INTO the temporal realm); and while Incarnate, the Logos spoke the logos (WITHIN the temporal realm) to divide asunder our sin-melded soul and spirit that He might make His abode in us as His temple.

In eternity, we ARE the many mansions (mone G3438) in His house (oikia G3614).

AND...

He then says (in John 14:2b), "I go (poreuomai G4198) to prepare a place (topos G5117) for you."

"I go" is poreuomai (to transport oneself, to go from one place to another), which is from peran (to pierce or run through). Jesus is going as the Logos to pierce through and partition for individual distribution the Holy Spirit.

"Place" is topos. Of things, as a place where something is kept such as a sword, meaning a sheath or scabbard.

Jesus (Ho Logos) is literally preparing to pierce and divide asunder God's Spirit from the Father (God's Soul); and to make room in our spirit for its resting place. The Sword of the Spirit in the sheath/scabbard of our spirit.

The High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek eternally dwelling in His Holy of Holies... OUR SPIRIT.


Jesus IS the Word that was spoken forth. Since the expression is preceeded [bless and do not curse]by the content OF expression, the Logos was eternally before the beginning WITH God.

With is pros (G4314), and indicates motion/direction, such as toward. "The Word had been toward (the) God and God had been the Word."

This is DIRECTIONAL, not RELATIONAL. A focus. An intensity of attention. Toward.

It is God's OWN Logos expressing God's OWN Rhema content of God's OWN substance, which is being externalized from eternal silent pondering and reason to be the expression of Himself within and upon the canvas of creation as the backrop for His Incarnation.

The Logos is God in the temporal. Once Incarnate, the Word was within a rational-souled man.

A finite point of presence for God's entire substance. God spoke the substance of Himself into His own creation.

The Father is God Transcendent.
The Son is God Immanent.
The Holy Spirit is God's OWN Spirit, which proceedeth from the Father.

God embodied His Soul and Spirit.
God is Spirit-Soul-Body of One Divinity.


PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 1:42 am

John 8:42...

In all your posting from translations and the basic Stong's, etc.; you haven't looked at the grammar of exerchomai (proceeded forth) and contrasted it to heko (came). (And the second came is erchomai.)

EXERCHOMAI
Exerchomai is in the aorist indicative active, while heko is in the present indicative active. The aorist indicative expresses action that is not continuous. The indicative mood indicates punctiliar action that happens at a specific point in time in the past; and is distinguished from the imperfect tense, which denotes continuous action in the past. The active voice represents action as being accomplished by the subject of the verb.

HEKO
In the present indicative active, it means heko asserts something which is occurring while the speaker is making the statement. The indicative mood represents contemporaneous action as opposed to action in the past or the future.

ERCHOMAI
The second came, erchomai, is in the perfect indicative active. First, the indicative mood highlights the special meaning and temporal significance of the perfect tense at it height, and emphasizes either the completeness of the action or the finished results. The perfect tense describes an action, or more correctly a process, that took place in the past, the results of which have continued to the present.

These are two events... Proceeded forth. Came/Came. There was a proceeded forth at some time in the past as a punctiliar action; yet there was a came (heko) that was the present result of a process of a came (erchomai), indicating the completeness of the action. And the latter came was because of the sent (apostello) of the Father, while the former came was action accomplished by the subject. The proceeded forth was also active.

So... there was a specific time in the past that there was a proceeded forth. And there is a present culmination of a process of a came that represents completeness of a finished act which was begun more recently that the proceeded forth.

The procession and the incarnation were quite obviously separated in time. The grammar indicates it was a long period of time and the second part was a process of completeness.

Look at my above lexical exegesis of Rhema/Logos. The Logos proceeded forth by the spirit of His mouth. That's the Divine Utterance, which also created both the spiritual realm and the natural realm. Erchomai and heko are the bookends of the process of the Incarnation.

Contrast to ekporeuomai as the proceedeth of the Holy Spirit.

God's OWN Logos pierced (diikneomai) to the dividing*asunder (merismos) of God's OWN Spirit out from God's OWN Self (Soul) into creation.


PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 3:49 am

zone wrote:i'll start in the meantime.....i'll go to John 8:42.

okay...so i guess i'm going to find out if
exerchomai >> heko
means a " post-utterance pre-incarnation" (externalization yet no creation has taken place...though somehow there is a realm separate from the Transcendent/God realm for the Son to go forth into (? hmmmm)

No. The Divine Utterance is the point of procession for the Logos and the Holy Spirit AND the creation of the spiritual and natural realms. I tried to illustrate this for you some time ago with a health sciences overview. You skipped over it because you thought it was weird or whatever.

Yet you nor any Trinitarian offers any "how" whatsoever for any of this. The procession is like the Jesus-"person" leaving to go to elementary school in the morning after breakfast. Ta-da!! The eternally pre-existent God-"person" became a viable embryo by hypostasizing into a two-natured oocyte.

I can post a glimpse of Divine Embryology, but you'll decry it as Philosophy while clinging to the baseless Philosophy of Trinity.

however: this could be a problem....unless you show me where i can find it exactly this way in scripture:

Seriously? You demand things exactly a certain way in scripture but accept total inference that the Holy Spirit is a "person". This is what I mean by double standards. I've shown the grammar for John 8:42. Proceeded forth. Came/Came. Two events, with one being a process.

"the uncreated Logos as the Son, begotten from transcendence to the immanent realms." = "post-utterance pre-incarnation"

THAT is emanation my friend. at the very least, and at worst is a created Son.
i'll retract that if i see it myself.

We need to discuss emanation versus Emanationism. There are three primary views. Emanationism, Creationism, Materialism. Procession is emanation, technically; but is not Emanationism. We need to have some mutual understanding of a definition here.

this is uncomfortably close to the twisting you say Trinitarians do (and some do - i admit).

The entire foundation of Trinity is three hupostases of one ousia. Period. Fact. THAT needs to be addressed before criticism continues. It's utterly fallacious and unscriptural. Superimposed and projected Philosophic and Gnostic influence that violates the actual text. I don't even get within a whiff of a sniff of twisting like that.

Heb. 1:3 says Jesus is the express image OF the Father's hupostasis; NOT another hupostasis. There is literally NO scripture for the foundation of Trinity, and it is, in fact, in opposition to the only passage that uses hupostasis in reference to God. No scriptural usage of ousia can be construed to refer to God in any manner. It's an import from outside sources of usage.

no, it's not. but neither is it necessarily some interim externalization into an immanent realm outside creation! maybe it is, but i gotta see it in the text.

as our former member oscarkipling was fond of saying, i remain unconvinced.

i have to see that Jesus saying He came forth from the Father (exerchomai) means (ekporeuomai), AND that both of these things mean neither the Son nor the Spirit existed EXTERNALLY from the Father until a point in "time" in eternity "past" when He decided to externalize both the Spirit and the Son, prior to creation....presumably both at the same time (?):

Ummm... Ex and ek as prefixes mean "out of/out from". Exerchomai is NOT ekporeuomai. Ekporeuomai comes from a base that means pierced through to the other side. Does that sound like any scripture you know of? (Hint: Heb. 4:12). At the utterance, the Logos pierced to the dividing asunder...

"post-utterance pre-incarnation"...yet there's a "realm" that He/They went forth into.

We'll get to it. There's much else and you've focused on this. We'll get to it, whether you understand or agree.

God? you mean creation did not proceed from the Father?

No. Procession and creation are distinct things. Creation proceeding from God is Emanationism.

please specify what/who you mean by God.
more on this shortly...

I'm not in the conundrum of always having to specify the meaning of Theos. Theos is God. The Father. It's Trinitarians that have to/get to juggle it at their discretion to mean Father or Son or Holy Spirit, which is absurd.

i'll check this as well if i get time, but hope to see this clearly shown in the text as well.
problem:

which is it pps?

Procession at the utterance. Generally, it is procreation. I'm contrasting to a creative act.

now, i'm not about to start making rules for debate, but i can tell you that if you can not show me from the texts that the Son proceeded forth from the Father into an immanent realm prior to creation,

Nope. We'll get to it. The grammar in John 8:42 is a key text.

i'm going to have to set aside entire chunks of your theory, for the following reason:

Immanence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Immanant, a term in mathematics, or imminent, a word meaning "soon to happen".
Immanence refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence, in which the divine is seen to be manifested in or encompassing the material world. It is often contrasted with theories of transcendence, in which the divine is seen to be outside the material world. It is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the non-spiritual.

Immanence is generally associated with mysticism and mystical sects[citation needed], but most religions have elements of both immanent and transcendent belief in their doctrines. Major faiths commonly devote significant philosophical efforts to explaining the relationship between immanence and transcendence, but these efforts run the gamut from casting immanence as a characteristic of a transcendent God (common in Abrahamic faiths) to subsuming transcendent "personal" gods in a greater immanent being (Hindu Brahman) to approaching the question of transcendence as something which can only be answered through an appraisal of immanence (Some philosophical perspectives).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence

where is this in the Bible?

Immanence is a general descriptor that I use for all creation contrasted with God Himself who alone is transcendent. There is no uncreated realm in which God is or that realm would be God. Time is created. Space is created. Matter is created. All that is time-space-matter is created. That includes the spiritual realm and its beings as well as the natural realm and all its beings.

God is utterly transcendent to all else. It's nothing like that gobbledygook you posted about transcendence and immanence. God is apart from all creation. He's not at a time(s) in a place(s) as a what(s). He alone is absolutely self-subsistence and self-existent.

Anything else smacks of Pantheism (God is/is in everything) or Pan-Entheism/Panen-Theism (Everything is/is in God). If you disagree, tell me how God is IN creation but not OF creation.

okay...let's make a separate thread "God-models"
and another for the mystery of God (not unfamiliar with what you are talking about, but that's NOT what i meant...i mean i think you're inferring a lot along with whatever exegesis you have concerning the Godhead...but we'll see. i need the bible passages PPS. nothing less will do bud)

A good number are provided. We can look at many more.

hehehe....Geoguy, i'm listening.

and no, i can't just trust what you say, bud. that would be foolish. i have to be able to check the scriptures to see if these things are so.

I didn't mean blindly take my word for anything. I meant listen to my exposition with some sense of neutrality and consider the scripture I present.

And let's include this as a point. All Theism is mystical and metaphysical. That includes the Christian faith.

PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Tue May 29, 2012 4:17 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Okay... There's a lot to respond to. Let me start with a type of disclaimer. I thought we had discussed enough of this with enough scripture previously provided to speak conceptually, especially since you don't seem to hold the orthodox line on the literal Trinity doctrine. I need to proceed in a manner that may seem staunch or stern and unyielding, even adversarial. Nothing I say is personal, and it's a bit difficult for me to be so demanding; but I also know you want me to love you enough to no pull any punches.....

no problem. i suggest we come to one understanding right off the bat.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
I first suggest we come to a mutual general understanding about a few things as guidelines to better communication and prevent misunderstanding or misperception/misrepresentation.This will drive Doc nuts. Maybe you, too. But it's your Semi-Sorta-Trinity based on Trinity Philosophy (Phileo/Sophos-Brotherly Love of Wisdom) versus my view of Merismos Monotheism Agaposophy (Godly Love of Wisdom). (Merismos is in my exposition.)

the above is complete and utter RUBBISH.

its offensive to me, and embarrassing for you, and an insult to doc and i, AND to God.

while you've been off doing your GodHead studies, Doc and i have been VERY busy and involved in our own service to the Lord, His people and our studies. i ain't gonna list the stuff i've been led to work on...you know it by now (though you've already stamped all that as low-end work compared to what you've been doing) - which is stoopid, since i believed Jesus was I AM the first time i read scripture, and got saved right then, and baptised weeks later....so i reckon i didn't feel led to go where you went.

anyways.....back to the offensive part - do you even know what you're saying?

but - YOU got the godly love of wisdom and WE got lameo philo-love?

1) every Christian is given AGAPE love and LOVE originates from GOD. so does WISDOM and the love of it and His Truth.

2) none of us has a damn thing we didn't RECEIVE so what's all the bragging?

anyways...that's my starting point, you can do what you want with it.
now i'll proceed to show you where i ALREADY agree with much of what you've written...not because you discovered anything new but because the confession you make are given to you BY GOD....and so are mine. that's how we know each other, and that we are taught by The Spirit.

lastly, i don't really care if my "Semi-Sorta-Trinity based on Trinity Philosophy (Phileo/Sophos-Brotherly Love of Wisdom)" gets YOUR stamp of approval or not in the end.

okay?Surprised

I need to proceed in a manner that may seem staunch or stern and unyielding, even adversarial. Nothing I say is personal, and it's a bit difficult for me to be so demanding; but I also know you want me to love you enough to no pull any punches.....

^^ ditto.

moving on
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 4:30 am

zone wrote:

no problem. i suggest we come to one understanding right off the bat.



the above is complete and utter RUBBISH.

its offensive to me, and embarrassing for you, and an insult to doc and i, AND to God.

while you've been off doing your GodHead studies, Doc and i have been VERY busy and involved in our own service to the Lord, His people and our studies. i ain't gonna list the stuff i've been led to work on...you know it by now (though you've already stamped all that as low-end work compared to what you've been doing) - which is stoopid, since i believed Jesus was I AM the first time i read scripture, and got saved right then, and baptised weeks later....so i reckon i didn't feel led to go where you went.

anyways.....back to the offensive part - do you even know what you're saying?

but - YOU got the godly love of wisdom and WE got lameo philo-love?

1) every Christian is given AGAPE love and LOVE originates from GOD. so does WISDOM and the love of it and His Truth.

2) none of us has a damn thing we didn't RECEIVE so what's all the bragging?

anyways...that's my starting point, you can do what you want with it.
now i'll proceed to show you where i ALREADY agree with much of what you've written...not because you discovered anything new but because the confession you make are given to you BY GOD....and so are mine. that's how we know each other, and that we are taught by The Spirit.

lastly, i don't really care if my "Semi-Sorta-Trinity based on Trinity Philosophy (Phileo/Sophos-Brotherly Love of Wisdom)" gets YOUR stamp of approval or not in the end.

okay?Surprised



^^ ditto.

moving on

Wow. I guess I shoulda put the smileyface next to the intended HUMOROUS tongue-in-cheek play on words with the whole Philosophy/Agaposophy thing that I thought was a clever little tension-breaker.

There isn't a bit of bragging in what I've posted. My humble apologies for the offenses. THIS is why I've never broached the subject here. I didn't really think it would go like THIS, though.

God bless, and be at peace my precious Sister.

PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Tue May 29, 2012 4:31 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:The following few posts express my understanding of God's constitution. I'll begin with a list of affirmations and proceed conceptually and exegetically.


I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son) is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.
The Father is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Holy Spirit is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Word is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Father is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Holy Spirit is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Son is Uncreated and the Only Begotten.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit nor the Son (Word).
The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son (Word).
The Word (Son) is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
The Son proceeded forth and came from the Father, Sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Sent by the Father and the Son.
(The Holy Spirit proceedeth NOT from both the Father and the Son [Filioque], though Sent by Both.)
Jesus is the Son of God and is Fully Divine, Begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the son of man and is fully human with a rational soul, born of the virgin by the Holy Spirit.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus was a Supernatural Procreative Act of God, NOT a Creative Act.
God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

I also wholly affirm the Nicene Creed



AGREE.

THESE ARE THE ORTHODOX CONFESSIONS.
my orthodoxy.

i confess the same...because these things are revealed BY GOD.

so what's the problem so far PPS?
why all the animosity towards people who recognize what we [unfortunately?] have to useTRINITARIAN language...(notice i keep saying language?)...since that's the 'big divisive issue'.



your deal is with ONE WORD. PERSONS.

i've already said OK on that. JESUS IS THE ONLY PERSON. and i've already said i'm not remotely close to cursing trinitarians for their attempts to grasp the Godhead through the language used in scripture...i'll address your complaints on that as we go.

and i'll say right up front i've skimmed this latest round of posts and agree with MOST of it.

but i also see you yourself take liberties with "descriptors versus whatever esle" when it suits you (transcendence/immanence) and hate it when others do the same....continuing....
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Tue May 29, 2012 4:36 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Wow. I guess I shoulda put the smileyface next to the intended HUMOROUS tongue-in-cheek play on words with the whole Philosophy/Agaposophy thing that I thought was a clever little tension-breaker.

There isn't a bit of bragging in what I've posted. My humble apologies for the offenses. THIS is why I've never broached the subject here. I didn't really think it would go like THIS, though.

God bless, and be at peace my precious Sister.

pps, just admit you were exhalting yourself with your slam of mine and doc's "second-class philo-love" versus your Godly Wisdom thing.

if we can't be honest while we're thrashing this out, we're already done.

and what's why you've never broached it here? because of tensions or conflict? that's not anything new to either you or i...you think i'm in false theology (though apparnetly not to the point of damnation?)...i think you're in error in some areas (continuationism, etc).

you said right out you were gonna be brutal...did you think i was someone i was not?

i said i love you, and nothing could make me fight with you.

i'm not fighting...not sure you've seen me fight yet, have you? maybe at CC (?)

anyways....continuing on....
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 am

zone wrote:

pps, just admit you were exhalting yourself with your slam of mine and doc's "second-class philo-love" versus your Godly Wisdom thing.

if we can't be honest while we're thrashing this out, we're already done.

and what's why you've never broached it here? because of tensions or conflict? that's not anything new to either you or i...you think i'm in false theology (though apparnetly not to the point of damnation?)...i think you're in error in some areas (continuationism, etc).

you said right out you were gonna be brutal...did you think i was someone i was not?

i said i love you, and nothing could make me fight with you.

i'm not fighting...not sure you've seen me fight yet, have you? maybe at CC (?)

anyways....continuing on....

Not at all. It's my weird need to inject wordplay dry sarcastic humor to lighten tension. It even works a lot of the time.

Brutality about the outright subject matter and criticism of Trinity. Not arrogant ad hominem toward you. :-(

PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Tue May 29, 2012 5:43 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:There are descriptors anddefiners.

In general, descriptors should be accurate and defined but are not necessarily required to be in the text itself. Examples would be various attributes that are presented in scripture overall but aren't specifially named. Omnipotent, for instance.

Definers are absolute and must appear it the text.

agree.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Definers are absolute and must appear it the text. The default meaning should be derived and determined by the original language, not modern conceptualizations from recipient languages.

hang on...objection!

i agree that we can and should go to the original languages. absolutely.

but my language (and dialect) is English. and God has proclaimed the Gospel (and His Word to all nations, in all langauges - THAT'S what happened at Pentecost....not gibbering btw.)

so i will be using the English ALSO. its been good enough for the church for a long time PPS and i'm not especially inclined to side with people who claim the church has had everything wrong for nearly 2000 years (or since Luther or whenever....): that's part of the problem.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Context is, of course, of priority relevance.

i couldn't agree more, and this may be one of your weaknesses. we'll see. maybe we can work together on it.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
We also must start from as neutral a baseline as possible, but with certain stipulated acquiescences. The deity of Christ is not in question between us, so that would be an example of mutual stipulation that needs no exegesis, even if we would utilize different proof-texting, etc.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son) is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.
The Father is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Holy Spirit is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Word is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Father is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Holy Spirit is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Son is Uncreated and the Only Begotten.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit nor the Son (Word).
The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son (Word).
The Word (Son) is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
The Son proceeded forth and came from the Father, Sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Sent by the Father and the Son.
(The Holy Spirit proceedeth NOT from both the Father and the Son [Filioque], though Sent by Both.)
Jesus is the Son of God and is Fully Divine, Begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the son of man and is fully human with a rational soul, born of the virgin by the Holy Spirit.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus was a Supernatural Procreative Act of God, NOT a Creative Act.
God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

I also wholly affirm the Nicene Creed

is agreement on all the above (with the possiblity of one exception - which i MIGHT be persuaded to affirm) enough common ground?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
There can't be any double standards. We've already begun with some to some extent. You're saying my view is Philosophy, when I've already asserted that Trinity is Philosophy.

lol...huh?
if we both say the other is gnostic/philosophy, that's not a double standard.

you use TONS of philosophy, and i assert that i don't need to confess PERSONS in my use of trinitarian language and disticntions as they are used IN SCRIPTURE. i also assert that i can in good conscience fellowship with people who DO say persons.

so the PERSONS issue is really not one i need to argue for. but we'll discuss it, because its the thorn for you.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
And the text I've presented has gone unaddressed.

i just got started...i was lying down for awhile and then out for awhile.
and you haven't used a whole lot of text. you've constructed an argument and used texts sparingly.

my point was that i hope to see (and perhaps i will) the actual chapters, verses etc that exactly define what you are saying. if they aren't there, you've got too much of your own stuff mixed in. but we'll see.

i agree with most of what i've seen, and will underscore where i agree and why, and ditto for where i disagree, and will either say why using scripture or ask for clarification.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
You've challenged me to provide copious scriptural detail, and I will, for the procession of the Son and the Holy Spirit, etc.; yet you offer none.

no, i need you to provide copious scriptural detail for EVERYTHING you're asserting. all of it. not just the procession of the Son and Holy Spirit.

as for me offering none, i haven't started yet. and i may find myself seeing it exactly as you say. but i haven't gone any further into it since i logged off earlier. i will be doing so for as long as it takes now until i know for myself, for certain that what you say is actually in the texts....this might take months...who knows.

but i'll resolve this to my satisfaction.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
And Trinity in general offers nada in this regard. No "how". Just "whooooooop", there it is. The Son proceeded forth (and came, which is an important distinction I'll cover) and the Holy Spirit proceedeth. Done. Don't ask, don't tell. And how did an eternally pre-existent God-"person" become a viable embryo?

lol!

ok....but your HOW must appear in scripture and be clear and apparent to all. if you can't point directly to it, then without a wittle sprinkle of eisegesis or philosophy here and there, you got nada....which is exactly your beef with Trini.

(and i don't necessarily disagree...yet).

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Which brings us to my final initial concern. Trinity has certain fixed immutables, but is far from homogenous. I'm okay with anything beyond the immutables, but one must begin with the immutables.

Begin the Beguine

list the immutables you won't tolerate and i'll see if i agree.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
You have a different understanding in some manner that is more nebulous. I know you purposely avoid what you call "deconstruction", but your professed Trinity doctrine has utterly dismantled God for 1.7 millennia.

^^ rubbish ^^

Jesus revealed Himself TO ME...not the other way around.

Jesus Christ is I AM.

He is the Creator and He is God's Son, the Son of Himself.

SCRIPTURE ITSELF uses distinct, and specially, Divinely inspired, separated references (DEFINERS) for F/S/HS >> not sure if you address this problem in your posts, but hopefully we will, because PERSONS is not your biggest problem...the distinctions between F/S/HS are.

i didn't write scripture. neither did i formulate the trinity doctrine.

i accept the trinitarian definers/langauge used in the Bible, AND i know Christ is GOD.

i previously have avoided deconstructing the Godhead (attempting to ascend into heaven and into eternity past without a permit) since every time i see it done by others they are falling into IDOLATRY by doing it. if you can show me where God Himself says whay you say, i'll obviously embrace it all.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: I can't just address an unexpressed semi-generic threeness that isn't Trinity Proper as Theology Proper. The first order is for you to provide your working definition of "person/s" from the text and where you stand in regards to its meaning and usage. Do you affirm it?

dude. i said NO. i don't need to use Persons

you don't need to address my understanding. i'll do that. you need to prove your own position.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son) is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.

"Another threeness view apart from the immutables is not Trinity. I won't insist you call it something else, but I have to know what's what for discussion."

LOL. PPS you are FUNNY!

you're a threeness guy. and your thing starts with Tri.

afro LOL. okay....anyways....

lay out the immutables of trinity and i'll strike out what i disagree with and we'll see what i'm left with.

Jesus Christ is the Person i am allowed to call and know as a PERSON.

when others confess/profess persons, i understand why they do it. i don't see it as DAMNABLE HERESY for ONE REASON - the way the Bible itself describes the distinct(fill in the descriptor you like) of F/S/HS!

so that's ok...right? i don't believe there are 3 gods. and i don't reject trinitarians.

but i've got a boatload of questions about why F/S/HS are distinctly named and described separately in THE BIBLE.

Bud, you've got me beat by far with your ability to construct an argument pps...i'm not remotely close to being as articulate as you are. but there are a few things i need scriptural proof on, and some other things maybe tossed out (like metaphysical musings that aren't recorded). we can use 'em, but they need to be color-coded or something so we aren't mixing what we THINK with what is revealed.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
For me...
Transcendent and Immanent are descriptors, not definers. They're not in the text, and I will define them. Discussion for tweakage is always beneficial. I'll try to refer to terms in this manner.

they're not anywhere in the text.
where did you learn this stuff? because its mystical philosophy. and its exactly what i chafe at. i don't think it has any place in theology except as sophistry, and it terrifies me to be so free with it when we're defining GOD HIMSELF.

you can use it, i won't condemn you for it any more than i condemn folks who use trinitarian language as they've seen it in scripture (except those who go off in the boonies and end up with 3 gods)....but you know i'm not okay with it.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Though Trinity can be a descriptor if you choose, "person/s" is a definer. It MUST be in the text. Without it, Trinity is not Trinity.

already answered (i believe).

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
God must be three somethings of a something; Trinity's foundation is hupostases and ousia. If you reject that and still call it Trinity, then you have to provide appropriate definers from the text. F/S/HS are God is not a "how".

but you show me from scripture that i NEED TO KNOW THE HOW.

like i said: God is three(use your own definer/descriptor). but be ready to address (which you already confess, so i know you're not a modalist, WHY the distinctions)

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
And just because you perceive all the personal pronouns to be Trinitarian language, I hold F/S/HS to be distinct. I would contrast that to Trinity "persons" being discreet. Both are descriptors, and I can differentiate if necessary.

this really makes it a non-issue between us, because i agree completely. ^^
again: does scripture or does it not make distinctions between F/S/HS? if yes, we have a TRIUNE GOD DESCRIBED to us in scripture. Trinitarian LANGUAGE. undeniable.

[/quote]

okay bud....moving on....flower
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Tue May 29, 2012 5:47 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Not at all. It's my weird need to inject wordplay dry sarcastic humor to lighten tension. It even works a lot of the time.

Brutality about the outright subject matter and criticism of Trinity. Not arrogant ad hominem toward you. :-(

alright. i apologize for not getting it; for taking offense; and for firing from the hip.

but what did you expect Homes?


carrying on.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by zone on Tue May 29, 2012 6:42 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:The following few posts express my understanding of God's constitution. I'll begin with a list of affirmations and proceed conceptually and exegetically.


I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son) is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.
The Father is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Holy Spirit is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Word is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Father is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Holy Spirit is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Son is Uncreated and the Only Begotten.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit nor the Son (Word).
The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son (Word).
The Word (Son) is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
The Son proceeded forth and came from the Father, Sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Sent by the Father and the Son.
(The Holy Spirit proceedeth NOT from both the Father and the Son [Filioque], though Sent by Both.)
Jesus is the Son of God and is Fully Divine, Begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the son of man and is fully human with a rational soul, born of the virgin by the Holy Spirit.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus was a Supernatural Procreative Act of God, NOT a Creative Act.
God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

I also wholly affirm the Nicene Creed, though I disaffirm the later Filioque-based "persons"-laced anonymous Athanasian Creed.

agree 99%.

but we'll have to address your interim immanent realm.
i see it further along in your posts.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
However... God is NOT three "persons". In fact, God is not "person(s)" of ANY quantity. "Person(s)" is a creedal term that unprecedentedly manufactured an alternate definition for an existing term and superimposed it upon scripture by inference.

okay. we'll see.
Jesus is a Person tho. He became a MAN. a real PERSON.

and if i hear others say things like "the person and work of the Holy Spirit", i'm okay with that. i KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN!

example of the distinctions which lead to Trinitarian language:

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--

now presumably Jesus means Post-Ascension. no difference either way.

He says He's going to ask the Father (Whom He refers to as a He: a distinct something)...to send the Helper. who is referred to throught scripture using a PERSONAL pronoun with divine article.

so?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
In relation to God, only two words are rendered "person" in the KJV. Hupostasis (G5286) appears ONCE, in Hebrews 1:3. It is rendered "substance" in Hebrews 11:1 ("Now faith is the [hupostasis] of things hoped for...") Prosopon (G4383) appears ONCE, in reference only to Jesus in 2Corinthians 2:10.

cool. Jesus is a PERSON. Someone with a Body and a Face. but you said expressly:

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:In fact, God is not "person(s)" of ANY quantity

and that's NOT TRUE. Jesus became a Person. a real one.

person is a WORD. a descriptor, as you said. and for us as human beings, we use the word PERSON. Jesus became a MAN and was a real PERSON.

Jesus was a Man (Person) and He is also God....or do you disagree?

do you ever describe other men as persons?
"look at that person over there"? its a WORD.

A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, the precise definition of which is the subject of much controversy.[vague language] The common plural of "person", "people", is often used to refer to an entire nation or ethnic group (as in "a people"), so the plural "persons" is often used in contexts which require precision such as philosophical and legal writing.

In ancient Rome, the word "persona" (Latin) or "prosopon" (πρόσωπον: Greek) originally referred to the masks worn by actors on stage. The various masks represented the various "personae" in the stage play, while the masks themselves helped the actor's voice resonate and made it easier for the audience to hear.[1]

In Roman law, the word "persona" became used to refer to a role played in court, and it became established that it was the role rather than the actor that could have rights, powers, and duties, because different individuals could assume the same roles, the rights, powers, and duties followed the role rather than the actor, and each individual could act in more than one role, each a different "person" in law.[tortured english][citation needed]

The concept of a "person" was further developed during the Trinitarian and Christological debates of the first through sixth centuries. Since then, a number of important changes to the word's meaning and use have taken place, and attempts have been made to redefine the word with varying degrees of adoption and influence.
wiki

so are you planning to expunge the word person from our language PPS?Cool

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Further... I have no issue with the term Trinity and its absense in scripture. Trinity is essentially a "shorthand" means of immediate recognition. It is descriptive, not defining.

huh? hmmm...here's where you're not being true to your own convictions.
or perhaps your genuine tolerance for the term Trinity should be ditched since its like saying you're okay with giving a kid a candy cane but he can't eat it. why allow it at all?

see, here's where i just scratch my head. if you're okay with trinity, as i am, because its a word (that isn't in scripture but we use it because its suggested by the language of scripture), then whatup with the word person? they're both shorthand (for me).

i know......it can lead persons to invent pictures in their minds of 3 gods in heaven. but aren't we all struggling to AVOID doing that? even Trinitarians do. IMO, none of us should be imagining or constructing any images of God in Glory outside what is written down for us.

Jesus is our focus. and we don't even know what he looked like. but that He was a Real PERSON.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
"Person(s)", on the other hand, is a clearly defining term upon which the formulated conceptualization of Trinity hinges. No "persons"? No Trinity. Trinity becomes Triadism or Tritheism without this one creedal, manufactured-definition, extra-biblical, superimposed term.

okay. we'll see.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Historically, the first mention of Triad was by Theophilus (circa 180AD) in reference to God, His Word, and His Wisdom. The first use of Trinity (Latin, Trinitas) was by Tertullian (circa 213AD) in his treatise against Monarchianism shortly before his descent into semi-heretical Montanism. He subsequently referred to the "persons" of God, but until this time referred to the degrees, forms, or aspects of God. Once "persons" terminology was adopted, all contemporaries began to adopt the term, leading up to the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325AD..

well, i prefer persons to degrees, i tell you that.
LOL.

i'm not bad with aspects i guess. but all those PERSONAL PRONOUNS and all those DISTINCTIONS.

and the word person was NEW anyways back then. so?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
My point? "Person(s)" is not from/by Apostolic authority and usage, and is extra-biblical. It is an adopted term with a definition manufactured specifically for formulation and expression of a God-model. It is NOT the Divine Expression of God by His Word or His Apostles.

To begin, remember that all original Godhead formulations were undertaken as a means of apologetics to affirm and maintain Monotheism while accounting for Jesus and, ultimately, the Holy Spirit. Those God-models that presented Jesus as created and/or non-deity were focused on maintaining Monotheism in the face of pervasive Polytheism, Pantheism/Panentheism, and the many forms of Gnosticism.

Of the various existing formulated God-models, only two represent Jesus as uncreated deity by substance: Trinitarianism and whatever label one places on modern Oneness (Sabellianism/Monarchianism/Partripassianism). The Trinity formulation presents God as three "persons", which makes F/S/HS too discreet. Oneness presents God as three "manifestations", which makes F/S/HS too indistinct. These can be reconciled with a deeper search for the truth of God's constitution.

exactly.

and something else....Monotheism according to what foundation/definition? JUDAISM?
the jews got it wrong because of their version of monotheism.

we'll get to it i guess.

Monotheism (from Greek μόνος, monos, "single", and θεός, theos, "god") is the belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God.[1]. Strict monotheism is characteristic of Judaism and Islam. Weaker forms of monotheism are expressed in mainstream Christianity and Sabianism, and are also recognizable in numerous other religions such as Zoroastrianism, Bahá'í Faith, Sikhism and Hinduism.[2]

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made. ...And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." -John 1:1-3,14

John's use of logos is authorially unique. He is addressing much of his gospel and epistles toward refuting contemporary Gnostic and philosophical understandings. John's usage is referring to the Logos of God (Rev. 19:13). This contrasts to Gnostic usage to portray a lower demi-urge that was a lesser god, and Hellenistic understandings that hybridized Greek and Judaistic cultures.

The spoken word is comprised of two parts: Rhema and Logos (G4487 and G3056). Though distinct, rhema and logos are inseparable. There can be no logos without rhema. Alone within all of creation, man has been delegated the capability of logos. During the Incarnation of God's Logos (upper case), Jesus spoke the logos (lower case). Also represented by the logos (lower case) are the decrees and sayings of YHVH that are conveyed directly through messengers or inspired writings. (Upper/lower case is my own differentiation for clarity, not a reference to translational practice.)

yep. got it.
nicely said and i 'knew' this.

but we have an immanent realm to find in the bible too....

i'm going to leave off here as its late...
i'll pick up tomorrow.
hopefully we're going to examine why the distinct personal identifications of F/S/HS are made in scripture the way they are....it NOT as simple as you are making it out to be.

and in order for your model to work, sooner or later, you're going to go to metaphysics....if you can prove your assertions biblically (without philosophy or mystical injections) i will say amen.




nit bud....see you a demain, Lord willing.



TBC....

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Rhema is the substance content of subject matter that is thought and spoken about. Logos is the reason, wisdom, and intelligent thought and expression of that rhema subject matter. (The following is specifically of God's Rhema-Logos.)

Rhema is the Divine Content of the Divine Expression; Logos is the Divine Expression of the Divine Content. BOTH Rhema and Logos PRECEDE THE ACT OF THE UTTERANCE.

To be spoken, Rhema-Logos is breath-borne forth from the internal depths of God's divine essence, containing the very substance of that divine essence in the external speaking forth from the internal; and that breath (Pneuma) is God's OWN Spirit.

Rhema-Logos is the total substance of the complete divine essence of God's Self, externalized from silence to expression by the breath of His Spirit. The internal Word became the external Son, eternally pre-existent to proceed forth (exerchomai) and come (heko) from God.

Logos is the intelligent thought and speaking forth of all that is contained in its counterpart, Rhema. Logos is the rational reason, wisdom, intelligence, and thought of God spoken forth in the word or discourse of His plan and arrangement to reveal Himself IN and TO His creation. It is His thorough contemplation of pondering, knowing, and expressing outwardly and externally from Himself. It is the Divine Expression.

That which is being reasoned, contemplated, pondered, and thought to be outwardly expressed is the Rhema. Rhema is the substance content of Himself... God's OWN Self. Everything that God IS is within the Rhema portion of the spoken word. It is the subject matter spoken about. The Logos reasons and thinks to speak forth the entire substance of content that is God's OWN Self. Rhema is the Divine Content OF the Divine Expression.

Rhema and Logos precede the act of the utterance. God SILENTLY planned and arranged within Himself everything He was afyerwards about to utter through His Word. While He was thus planning and arranging with His own wisdom and reason, He was actually causing the very substance of His divine essence to become the Word (Ho Logos), borne forth by His breath after it was initiated in the depths of His soul by His mind (nous) and His will (thelema).

God thought and willed to speak forth the entirety of (the substance and identity of) Himself upon His breath. His mind and will and emotions thought and chose and felt to express, uttering the internal Rhema by the Logos to become the external Son.

God's OWN Logos spoke forth His OWN Rhema of Himself as flesh. His OWN Self as flesh. Not AS a separate "person". Not BY a separate "person". Not THROUGH a separate "person". Not WITH a separate "person". His OWN Self, that ultimately became the person (prospon) of Jesus Christ; God's OWN personality manifest in the likeness of sinful flesh. The fullness of the Godhead (Theotes) bodily. God's OWN singular personality within a virgin-born man.

The Infinite Uncreated God as Spirit uttered Himself forth to become flesh. Nothing had ever been external to God before He spoke. His speaking begat that which was internal to become external. As He spoke, all creation came into existence as the realm in which He would visibly and tangibly reveal His invisible and intangible Self to mankind who was made in His image and likeness.

Jesus is literally God embodied in flesh. Jesus is NOT another "person", but is the person (prosopon) of God.

Person (prosopon G4383) is most often rendered face or presence. In general, it is that part of anything which is turned or presented to the eye of another. It is face, outward appearance, person, personal appearance, presence; in the presence of and/or in the sight of. Literally, the personal presence of one in sight of another.

Jesus is the personal outward appearance and presence of God Himself in the sight of mankind. The invisible, intangible, eternal, uncreated God embodied (the substance of) Himself to be visible and tangible within His temporal creation. Jesus is God's personal presence face-to-face with mankind. His Word spoke His eternal substance into temporal creation within flesh.

In Romans 8:3, "...God sending His OWN Son" can literally be translated "the Son of Himself." Someone recently read an exegesis of that, and after 6 months of wrestling with my view, they immediately understood all I was presenting. I include it for clarity for those it may help, but others may reject it entirely.

Creation (as a realm of existence) is external to God, though He is omnipresent within that creation. Contrast Pantheism (God IS everything and/or is IN everything) and Panentheism (Everything is IN God). The Son is the externalized Self of God in creation.

(continued)

.....
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 3:24 pm

zone wrote:

alright. i apologize for not getting it; for taking offense; and for firing from the hip.

but what did you expect Homes?


carrying on.

Just so you know... I don't view your (and Doc's) life work of study and ministry as something lesser or small. My comments about Theology Proper being salvific in comparison to Eschatology was not to initiate criticism. It was to respond to what I perceive as the inverse from you and Doc about Theology Proper. It seems almost a footnote. Jesus is God. So what about "how". Next.

Even with all my awareness of the general Eschaton Agenda, I would not know who the Khazars are without your enlightenment; and I'd still be deluded by the Copernican myth if not for Doc. I'd swallowed Helio without so much as an inkling of Geo. Hoodwinked, I tell ya. Flat-footed. I was like, "Whaaaaaaaa? The sun does what?". Possibly my most vulnerable gullible moment. Followed by indescribable pissed-offness.

I just don't want the deep truths of my Almighty God and Savior left on a side shelf while we're exposing stuff that isn't going to be deterred anyway; and others aren't repenting of sin with salvific faith cuz the pseudo-Jews have taken over the world.

But the NAR needs to be exposed. All the BS rubbish needs to be heralded, even if few listen. So I'm not dis'ing anything you guys are doing. And I don't vaunt myself. I have nothing and know nothing that was not given or shown to me.

And you're gonna have to overwhelm me with exposition of scripture on Cessationism. I was a Cessationist. I went back to the text for years of study. I don't find it.

I think the historical diminished presence of the gifts is from the diluted Theology Proper. It's the same thing pushing the NAR and the Purpose-Driven and Emergent garbage. They're all token Trinitarians with nebulous understanding and no emphasis on the GIVER.

I despise the practice of tongues. The prophet schools are inane. All the so-called word of knowledge is neither word nor knowledge. But that's another topic.

Anyway... Put your dang crossbow away. I wet myself awready. :-P

PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 3:55 pm

Going on...

ALL Theism is inherently mystical and metaphysical by definition.

When I use transcendent and immanent, they are adjectival. They're not proper nouns as isms. Descriptors. I give just as wide a berth for descriptors with Trinity.

Without proof-texting (for the moment), and considering an overall exegesis of the whole of scripture...

Is God alone uncreated and stands apart from all that is created?

Is God in a realm that is also uncreated like He is? Is He in an uncreated "place"?

Is time created or uncreated? Space? Matter? Are any of those part of God Himself or do they somehow govern God? Is God subject to time-space-matter as co-uncreated things? Are they part of Him?

Transcendent means that God is utterly apart from ALL else, and all else not inherently part of Him. It also intimates that the spiritual realm is created, just like the natural realm is created. It means God has no inate, intrinsic subsistence or existence apart from Himself. He is utterly self-subsistent/-existent.

No Pantheism. No Pan-Entheism/Panen-Theism. God is nor is in everything else. Neither everything is nor is in God. God is absolutely apart from all else, be it time, space, or matter. And all else is created, be it spiritual or natural; everything having subsistence and existence because of God by His divine design. All things upheld by the word (Rhema) of HIS power.

God is apart from all else. Everything is external to God.

So... "How" did everything become external to God? "How" are all things upheld by the Rhema of His power?

He spoke. To speak intelligibly, there must be subject matter as content to be spoken ABOUT. Otherwise, it's gibberish (like NAR tongues) and is NOT Logos. Logos requires Rhema to be Logos.

God ex- (out from Himself) -haled His own Breath (Pneuma - Spirit) as He uttered the Rhema-contented Logos. The Logos proceeded forth. Came (heko)/Came (erchomai) are the ensuing process of that Logos being Incarnate. The internal Logos became the external Son. The entire self-subsistence (hupostasis) of God within the Rhema content of the Logos wisdom and reason that was the utterance.

God manifest in the flesh. The Logos became flesh. God's OWN Logos... of His OWN Rhema subsistence that He ex- -haled by His OWN breath (Spirit).

The Logos distributed God's own Spirit-subsistence out from His Self (Soul is Self), which remains utterly appart from all else. This utterance was also the means of creation INTO which the Logos was manifested as the Son; who then came from the created spiritual realm into the created natural realm by Mary's subsistence of faith in God's Rhema-content being physically birthed in her.

Proceeded forth. Came/came. Two events; the second a process.

Immanent is just the adjectival opposite of transcendent.

PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by Strangelove on Tue May 29, 2012 5:15 pm

I'm getting a definate urge to have nothing at all to do with this subject.

I'm happy knowing Jesus is God.

I dont need nor want to know "how" other than the "hows" that are simply laid forth in scripture. How complicated can those hows be? If they are SO COMPLICATED then they are not for humble Christians to know! No matter how intelligent you THINK you are!

Theres a whole lotta philosophysing goin on around here.

We all have the same basic idea about God. And the foundation for those ideas is the Word of God.

What the heck are you two discussing...?....honestly? If it aint in scripture then WHO CARES?

Use any descriptor you want guys. But at the end of the day, the bible rules. Ok, our God has a triune flavour, but He's OBVIOUSLY ONE GOD. We dont have apantheon of gods...its just our God has decided to reveal Himself in 3 major ways. Even PPS is a TRI summink or other. Theres no trinis who think we have 3 gods. Link me to a thread where serious Christians say we have 3 gods. Show me.

JEEEEEEZ! This is so lame and a waste of effort, I dont even....


,,,oh fergettit. I'm outta here.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3144
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by PneumaPsucheSoma on Tue May 29, 2012 5:32 pm

Strangelove wrote:I'm getting a definate urge to have nothing at all to do with this subject.

I'm happy knowing Jesus is God.

I dont need nor want to know "how" other than the "hows" that are simply laid forth in scripture. How complicated can those hows be? If they are SO COMPLICATED then they are not for humble Christians to know! No matter how intelligent you THINK you are!

Theres a whole lotta philosophysing goin on around here.

We all have the same basic idea about God. And the foundation for those ideas is the Word of God.

What the heck are you two discussing...?....honestly? If it aint in scripture then WHO CARES?

Use any descriptor you want guys. But at the end of the day, the bible rules. Ok, our God has a triune flavour, but He's OBVIOUSLY ONE GOD. We dont have apantheon of gods...its just our God has decided to reveal Himself in 3 major ways. Even PPS is a TRI summink or other. Theres no trinis who think we have 3 gods. Link me to a thread where serious Christians say we have 3 gods. Show me.

JEEEEEEZ! This is so lame and a waste of effort, I dont even....


,,,oh fergettit. I'm outta here.

As you wish.

But deep truths are to be Didactically expounded to and among those simple, human Christians who could have and share a simple understanding. Trinity replaced that with a centuries-long Dialectic. You know... 318 Bishops and and Emporer around a table, determining by consensus who and what God is. But you're not appalled by THAT; you're appalled that I dare challenge THAT.

Error misrepresenting scripture is error misrepresenting scripture. You can let Trinity off the hook for lying about scripture for Theology Proper. I won't. And it's my stand against the Dialectic of man's consensus coercion, as much as anything.

The Dialectic of man deceives. Didactic truth matters.

And if scripture matters so much to you, you should be outraged at Trinity and its Dialectic deceit.

Oh, well. I'm thankful for the other priorities you have. I just despise ALL Diabolical Dialectic.

And Trinity is purely Philosophical. Your view of Trinity is a Philosophy OF that Philosophy.

And God "in 3 major ways" is Modalism.

PneumaPsucheSoma

Posts : 308
Join date : 2011-03-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Triune Godhead

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum