John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[Der Alte]

[SIZE="-1"]Read properly: there is written that the Jews said. “The Jews answered Jesus: “We are not stoning you regarding excellent works, but regarding blasphemy! Because you as a human are making yourself a god!”” (Joh 10:33 MHM)
You as a human are making yourself a god: Or, KJV: makest thyself God; BEC: claim to be God. Nowhere has Jesus made such a claim. He has called God “my Father” and that is all. The charge is from the hateful Jewish hierarchy and is a false one. Jesus never said he was (a) god nor did he say that he was God. (Note the difference between god and God) As Jesus is to go on and answer this he only calls himself “the Son of The God.” [Or, “a son of The God.”] So for us it should also be clear that Jesus is the Son of God and not God the son.
(I recommend reading the Christadelphian ejournal Vol. 3. No. 1. Jan 2009 p 30- on this subject)[/SIZE]

I am not the least interested in the inane scribblings of a false religious group that did not exist until 1844. And I would like to see some evidence that the ancient Jews would have considered anyone claiming to be "a god" blasphemy? You seem to be familiar with certain O.T. scriptures which seem to support your assumptions/presuppositions, are you familiar with the passages which say "all the gods of the nations are idols?" If they understood Jesus to be making himself "a god," instead of "The God" they would have considered him crazy, not a blasphemer.

[SIZE="-1"]On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. (NWT)
It is because he called his God, The God Jehovah/Yahweh his own father, that they found that Jesus made himself equal with God. It is because Jesus did and dared to tell such things that the Jews wanted him to be killed. (Joh 1:19; 5:15, 16; Joh 5:16; 7:1; Joh 10:33; 19:7)

Did he make "himself equal with God," or did he claim to be "a god?"

[SIZE="-1"]For the Jews Moses could be called “god” for he spoke for God and from a certain perspective he could be equally viewed as God. [Exodus 4:15, 16; 7:1] [/SIZE]

Not supported by scripture.

[SIZE="-1"]But for them Jesus had not the right to call himself Son of God.
Jesus let them know that it is not him who does honour to him or glorifies himself. “Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God;” (Joh 8:54 ASV)[/SIZE]

Again did they accuse Jesus of claiming to be "the son of God" or "a god?"

[SIZE="-1"]Christ’s reference to Abraham is to affirm his (Christ’s) pre-eminence, not pre-existence and by saying that he is, he is not saying that he is verily God. Jesus simply uses the present tense of the verb “to be”.[/SIZE]

See my post earlier in this thread citing all the ECF who quoted John 8:58, Here!. You got assertions, assumptions/presuppositions, I got historical evidence that Jesus was claiming to be God.

[SIZE="-1"]When somebody phones us, we (in our language) answer, “I am” meaning ‘I am the person you want to speak to’ In a conversation we would mean ‘I am the person you are looking for’ ‘or I am the person you need’. Nobody is going to think we say that we are God.[/SIZE]

Irrelevant and meaningless. Modern English idioms and figures of speech have virtually no relevance to first century Jewish idioms.

[SIZE="-1"]Jesus became the firstborn because by his dead he entered the gate of the Kingdom and fulfilled the New Covenant with the hope of eternal life for everybody. [Assumptions/presuppositions, NOT stated in scripture,!] He became the second Adam. Christ was the result of the above-mentioned word made flesh, not the originator.[/SIZE]

You are substituting your assertions, assumptions,and presuppositions for what scripture clearly states.

[SIZE="-1"]He was foreordained in the divine purpose. He was in the Plan of God and was already foreseen before Abraham saw the light.[/SIZE] [Assumptions/presuppositions, NOT stated in scripture,!] “And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Ge 3:14-15 ASV) [SIZE="-1"]The God of peace made it possible to bruise the evil by foreseeing Jesus in His plan of salvation at the early days before Adam and Ave were sent out of the Garden of Eden.
He that has seen me has seen the Father [also].[/SIZE]

Still interjecting your assumptions/presuppositions.

“The person who has seen me has seen the Father” (Joh 14:9 GWV)
“And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me.” (Joh 12:45 ASV)
“who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” (Heb 1:3 ASV)

We also say “when you have seen me, you saw my mother/father”
He, who has looked on me, has looked on the Father. This may be something like the similarities in English: “like father, like son, ” “the apple does not fall far from the tree, ” “the spitting image of, ” “a chip off the old block.”
The things Jesus speaks are not his own, but what his Father told him to say. By the Spirit of God, Jesus received the power to speak and to do miracles. The Words from God are given into Jesus his mind. Thus, when Jesus speaks one is really hearing what the Father thinks – one is seeing or experiencing the Father. Also, the manner in which Jesus treated others gives an indication into the character of God. It is similar to the way others should see Christ in us. As men are in the image of God, so Christ is the perfect image God. [1Corinthians 11:1, 7; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3]

Irrelevant modern figures of speech and idioms. Still interjecting your unsupported assumptions/presuppositions.

[SIZE="-1"]The pre-position “parà” occurs also in [/SIZE]“There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.” (Joh 1:6 AV) [SIZE="-1"]When this would include the pre-existence of Christ it also should do for John the Baptist. Also Jeremiah was known before[/SIZE]: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer 1:5 ASV) [SIZE="-1"]Did he then exist before Abraham (who was called in 1921 BC) or was he there from the beginning of the existence? No, or from 629 to 588 BC it would have been a very very old man writing.[/SIZE]

Let us not ignore other passages spoken by Jesus witnessing to his self awareness of his own preexistence.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.​

[SIZE="-1"]As a choreographer when I wanted to create a work I had a picture of it in my head. I saw the things before me and they existed already before the dancers or the public was going to see it.[/SIZE]

Irrelevant analogies from your own experiences.

[SIZE="-1"]God is also a creator, even Thé Creator. God is the great Architect and in His divine Plan, Jesus Christ was[/SIZE] “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Re 13:8 AV)
[SIZE="-1"]The Cornerstone[/SIZE] “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,” (1Pe 1:20 AV)
[SIZE="-1"]So he was arranged beforehand. This does not mean he was formed beforehand. No, he was thought of beforehand. His position was foreseen to come to an existence at a certain point.[/SIZE] And that was when he was placed in the womb of the virgin.

Interjecting your assumptions/presuppositions.

[SIZE="-1"]About the glory he had with his Father you could say it also was foreseen.[/SIZE]

Nonsensical! Are you saying that Jesus having glory with the father before the world was, was foreseen? Jesus did NOT say anything about the being foreseen.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.​

Jesus was praying earnestly from his heart directly to the father, there was no reason for him to speak figuratively.

[SIZE="-1"]In the Plan of the Great Architect glory was given to the position Jesus was going to take in. From the beginning of the Prophesy by God in the Garden of Eden about the one going to conquer evil, glory was given to that person, who was going to be called Emmanuel, God with us, Jesus the Nazarene, son of Joseph (the artisan or the carpenter) and the virgin Mary. It was the subject of prophetic testimony [/SIZE]“Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it (the Spirit) testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” (1Pe 1:11 AV)

“searching into what [season] –or what type of season–the Messianic inspiration in them was pointing to when giving advance evidence of Messiah’s sufferings, as well as the glories to follow these [sufferings].” (1Pe 1:11 MHM)

Mostly your assumptions/presuppositions.

“Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke about Him.” (Joh 12:41 MHM)
[SIZE="-1"]Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke about Him: Many, including some Trinitarians, wish these words to be applied to Jesus the Nazarene. However, the context has previously discussed the glorification of Gods Name.[/SIZE]
“And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.” (Isa 6:8-10 ASV)
“These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.” (Joh 12:41 ASV)
[SIZE="-1"]John goes on to refer to God’s glory at the end of the paragraph. Therefore, the “Him” is the Father, and not the Son himself.[/SIZE]

Try actually reading John.

Joh 12:35-41
(35) Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.
(36) While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.
(37) But though he [Jesus, vs. 36] had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:[Jesus, vs. 36]
(38) That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
(39) Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
(40) He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
(41) These things said Esaias, when he saw his [Jesus, vs. 36] glory, and spake of him.[Jesus, vs. 36]​

“And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we [are] one;” (Joh 17:22 ASV)
[SIZE="-1"]God had given glory to Christ Jesus and as they are one we should be one with Jesus also (= becoming like Jesus =/= being the same person as Jesus) so that we could also receive the glory, which is foreseen for those who want to follow the Lord of Lords Jehovah/Yahweh and the Lord Jesus/Yeshua[/SIZE].

Where does John 17 say that Jesus received the glory he had with the father before the world was, between vs. 5 and vs. 22?[/SIZE]

 

[2ducklow]

He was foreordained in the divine purpose. He was in the Plan of God and was already foreseen before Abraham saw the light. “And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Ge 3:14-15 ASV) The God of peace made it possible to bruise the evil by foreseeing Jesus in His plan of salvation at the early days before Adam and Ave were sent out of the Garden of Eden.
He that has seen me has seen the Father [also].
“The person who has seen me has seen the Father” (Joh 14:9 GWV)
“And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me.” (Joh 12:45 ASV)
“who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” (Heb 1:3 ASV)
We also say “when you have seen me, you saw my mother/father”
He, who has looked on me, has looked on the Father. This may be something like the similarities in English: “like father, like son, ” “the apple does not fall far from the tree, ” “the spitting image of, ” “a chip off the old block.”
The things Jesus speaks are not his own, but what his Father told him to say. By the Spirit of God, Jesus received the power to speak and to do miracles. The Words from God are given into Jesus his mind. Thus, when Jesus speaks one is really hearing what the Father thinks – one is seeing or experiencing the Father. Also, the manner in which Jesus treated others gives an indication into the character of God. It is similar to the way others should see Christ in us. As men are in the image of God, so Christ is the perfect image God. [1Corinthians 11:1, 7; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3]


The pre-position “parà” occurs also in “There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.” (Joh 1:6 AV) When this would include the pre-existence of Christ it also should do for John the Baptist. Also Jeremiah was known before: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer 1:5 ASV) Did he then exist before Abraham (who was called in 1921 BC) or was he there from the beginning of the existence? No, or from 629 to 588 BC it would have been a very very old man writing.
As a choreographer when I wanted to create a work I had a picture of it in my head. I saw the things before me and they existed already before the dancers or the public was going to see it.
God is also a creator, even Thé Creator. God is the great Architect and in His divine Plan, Jesus Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Re 13:8 AV)
The Cornerstone “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,” (1Pe 1:20 AV)
So he was arranged beforehand. This does not mean he was formed beforehand. No, he was thought of beforehand. His position was foreseen to come to an existence at a certain point. And that was when he was placed in the womb of the virgin.

1 pet. 1.20 doesn't say Jesus was foreordained, it says he was foreknown. bible translators just change 1 pet. 1.20 to foreordained because what it really says proves Jesus didn't preexist, so they just change the word.

Rotherham) 1 Peter 1:20 Foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, but made manifest at a last stage of the times, for the sake of you

(Young) 1 Peter 1:20 foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times because of you,

(Darby) 1 Peter 1:20 foreknown indeed before [the] foundation of [the] world, but who has been manifested at the end of times for your sakes,

About the glory he had with his Father you could say it also was foreseen. In the Plan of the Great Architect glory was given to the position Jesus was going to take in. From the beginning of the Prophesy by God in the Garden of Eden about the one going to conquer evil, glory was given to that person, who was going to be called Emmanuel, God with us, Jesus the Nazarene, son of Joseph (the artisan or the carpenter) and the virgin Mary. It was the subject of prophetic testimony “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it (the Spirit) testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” (1Pe 1:11 AV)

Jesus already had the glory he asked for in john 17.5

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


Jesus had teh glory of God's own self throughout his ministry, it was because of god the father indwelling Jesus in all his fulness that Jesus was able to do the works he did, for god did the works not Jesus, according to Jesus own words. Plus, Jesus gave us the glory he asked for in john 17.5, that was his purpose in asking for that glory so that he could give it to us, his body, so in the sense that we are his body, he was asking for the glory of god's own self fore himself.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;


the glory god gave to jesus in john 17.5 is the glory that JEsus gave to us in vs. 22.

 

[marcusampe]

What we got here is a failure to communicate. A copy/paste from some writing, or other, about the H.S., most of which has nothing to do with my post. Once again trying to force your 20th-21st century idioms back onto the 1st century text/church. See my comment to 2dl above, about expertise and credentials in Biblical languages. If you, and many others here, had gone through the discipline of study, been peer reviewed by knowledgeable scholars in the field, have published recognized exegetical, grammatical works, etc., then your opinion might have some weight. Otherwise, your argument is not much different than LDS, JW, OP, SDA, WWCG, kristadelfian MJ, etc.

I prepared my own writing first in a Word Document.The textwriting was not just copy and pasting. Took me quite a lot of time to give/type my answers. At the end I pasted the parts from my Word Document in the Reply system. (Why not?)

The same place as your conclusions, below, ... Ignores my post. Can your "force," i.e. spirit, "Speak and Think can be aware of something, or feel and speak?" ... Of course you do, while ignoring the bulk of my post. ... We were not discussing the mind of God, but the Holy Spirit. Focus, please?

The things I wrote did not ignore your writing.
Naturally the Force of God can reason, think, feel and speak because it is His Mind. Now it looks you are imolying that the Holy Spirit is even something different than Gods mind. So you are introducing a fourth element of God.

Why should I link to anything, when you have ignored most of what I posted?

All the writing I did was just reacting on those many things you wrote, and hopefully did not copy and paste. Or are you also insinuating that the quotes brought on where not written by you, and not brougth in to bring opposite thinkings to mine?

I would be more inclined to believe what you say if you, or any other group, could show me credible, verifiable, historical evidence for any organized religious body which believed and practiced essentially as you do between 90 AD, when the N.T. was completed and the mid 19th century, and later, when the false beliefs first began to be taught.

Just look at the first Christians. The Trinitarian bias is the theology brought in in the 4th Century. And at that time there where also people reacting against that false teaching. Look into the history of Christian religion. In the 16 century lots of non-trinitarians where killed but luckily not all where wiped off. Our thinking did not originate in the mid 19 th century. I only can agree that at that time more people started to go back to the original thinking of the Christians. Most denominations had gone far away from the first Biblical teachings.

Again ignoring what I said, and basically saying, "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!"

I do not undrstand what you are trying to say here.

When Jesus was speaking, and the N.T. writers wrote, of the Holy Spirit having a mind, will, and self, etc., at different times and places, without their audience having the completed, compiled N.T. in their hands what would they have understood? Certainly not the organized doctrines of religious groups which did not exist until 2000 years +/- later.

When you consider the Holy Spirit as a person, probably wyou wanted it to be a full person, so it had to have a heart, blood and mind, or at least the last thing - though you could then wounder how it could survive without heart and blood? For us who take the Holy Spirit as the Force of God it is clear that it is His thinking, feeling and so on. Simply because it is His Mind and part of the Godhead.

Once again trying to force your Theology back onto the text. The church at Rome did NOT have the complete, compiled N.T. including Philippians 2:5, 1Peter 4:1, 1Corinthians 1:10. Therefore the simplest understanding for them would have been that the Holy Spirit had a mind and self distinct from the father.

Normally the first Christians did not need the Full New Testament. They could do with the Old Testament which they new better then most people today. Jesus came to clarify everything and the apostles could tell the other people what Jesus had done and told. By word of mouth the tradition of The Way brought people to the new faith.

None of these vss. address my post. And once again using various vss. from different places, times and contexts to build your Theology and impose it on vss. where it could not have applied since letters written to one church at a later time could NOT have influenced the understanding of a church in a different city and country at an earlier time. ... And once again how did the initial audience understand what they saw or heard, since they did not have the complete, compiled N.T. from which to anachronistically construct your 20th-21st century doctrines?

The things Non-Trinitarians believe are already very clearly exposed in the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jew, brought us more insight in the Word of God and brought us a New Covenant, but He did not bring a religion which was opposed to the Will of God of the Old Testament. It is no other God. We do have the same God.

And the scriptures I uesed which were newer then the ones you mentioned are in a certain way not necessary (I agree) because the previous writings should be clear enough. But the apostles took care that more things whe made clear, and also had to react to wrong teachings which entered already in their days.

Once again, why? You have not addressed my post in any meaningful way.

Sorry that it does not mean anything for you what I wrote and that you did not see the relation of the Scripture quotes I made. But I do hope it can show how you think and how other denominations can think. It is up to the readers then to make conclusions.
And when I do not speak clearly I can only hope that those who have more experience to argue and write shall dare to offer their texts.

 

[marcusampe]

Jesus was praying earnestly from his heart directly to the father, there was no reason for him to speak figuratively.

But is he not the Father according to your thinking? Then he was praying to himself, and then according to you did this seriously. Would you not find it strange if you have to write or phone to yourself?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE="-1"]But is he not the Father according to your thinking? Then he was praying to himself, and then according to you did this seriously. Would you not find it strange if you have to write or phone to yourself?[/SIZE]

I kinda like this definition from the Athanasian creed rather than every misconception that people want to argue about.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
​

 

[Der Alte]

I prepared my own writing first in a Word Document.The textwriting was not just copy and pasting. Took me quite a lot of time to give/type my answers. At the end I pasted the parts from my Word Document in the Reply system. (Why not?)

The things I wrote did not ignore your writing.

OK, I will accept that for now. Much of what you posted did not appear to specifically address any of my points.

Naturally the Force of God can reason, think, feel and speak because it is His Mind. Now it looks you are imolying that the Holy Spirit is even something different than Gods mind. So you are introducing a fourth element of God.

I have NOT seen any scriptural evidence that the Holy Spirit is some kind of impersonal force emitted by God. But I have posted scriptural evidence that the H.S. does have, at least, 72 personal characteristics, which are revealed distinct from God. Once again you are trying to misrepresent what I said. This is getting very old. The fact that I interpret the whole of scripture as revealing the H.S. as a distinct person of God, in no way affects whether or not God has a mind and I have certainly not said or implied that somehow his mind would be distinct from him.

[SIZE="-1"]All the writing I did was just reacting on those many things you wrote, and hopefully did not copy and paste. Or are you also insinuating that the quotes brought on where not written by you, and not brougth in to bring opposite thinkings to mine?

If I quote a source I identify it, otherwise it is my own work..

[SIZE="-1"]Just look at the first Christians. The Trinitarian bias is the theology brought in in the 4th Century. [/SIZE]

Perhaps you should actually study the history of the early church. I can show distinct Trinitarian teachings in the ECF as early as the 1st century

And at that time there where also people reacting against that false teaching. Look into the history of Christian religion.

Those rebelling against the historical teaching of the church were called heretics and their false teachings condemned.

In the 16 century lots of non-trinitarians where killed but luckily not all where wiped off. Our thinking did not originate in the mid 19 th century. I only can agree that at that time more people started to go back to the original thinking of the Christians. Most denominations had gone far away from the first Biblical teachings.

Evidence for your claims about the 16th century? If your false teachings did not originate in the 19th century then you should have no problem showing historical evidence for an organized body of believers who believed and practiced essentially as you do between 90 AD and the 19th century. The church that Jesus built against which the gates of hell could not prevail could NOT disappear from the earth for any length of time and certainly not 1900 years.

I do not undrstand what you are trying to say here.

There's a lot of that going around, almost every time I post.

When you consider the Holy Spirit as a person, probably wyou wanted it to be a full person, so it had to have a heart, blood and mind, or at least the last thing - though you could then wounder how it could survive without heart and blood? For us who take the Holy Spirit as the Force of God it is clear that it is His thinking, feeling and so on. Simply because it is His Mind and part of the Godhead.

Does your version of God have "a heart, blood and mind?"

Normally the first Christians did not need the Full New Testament. They could do with the Old Testament which they new better then most people today. Jesus came to clarify everything and the apostles could tell the other people what Jesus had done and told. By word of mouth the tradition of The Way brought people to the new faith.

If you are talking about the disciples, in Jerusalem, you are correct but I was talking about the new Christians in places like Rome, Corinth, Thessalonika, Ephesus, Babylon, Colossae, Philippi, Galatia, and many other places outside Israel, which were not Jewish, which did not have the O.T., where the disciples carried the gospel and wrote letters. I think I read somewhere in the N.T. e.g. where the apostles were violently opposed by worshippers of the pagan goddess Diana.

The things Non-Trinitarians believe are already very clearly exposed in the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jew, brought us more insight in the Word of God and brought us a New Covenant, but He did not bring a religion which was opposed to the Will of God of the Old Testament. It is no other God. We do have the same God.

Trinitarians also have the same God as the O.T. Jews

And the scriptures I uesed which were newer then the ones you mentioned are in a certain way not necessary (I agree) because the previous writings should be clear enough. But the apostles took care that more things whe made clear, and also had to react to wrong teachings which entered already in their days.

That is correct wrong teachings had entered, e.g. Judaizing and Gnosticism,

Sorry that it does not mean anything for you what I wrote and that you did not see the relation of the Scripture quotes I made. But I do hope it can show how you think and how other denominations can think. It is up to the readers then to make conclusions.

As I said I recognized that you were posting scriptures about the H.S. but none of them refuted the conclusions stated in my post, that the H.S. had at least 72 personal characteristics, including a self distinct from the father..

And when I do not speak clearly I can only hope that those who have more experience to argue and write shall dare to offer their texts.

Vene, Vidi, Vici. Bintheredunthatgotthetshirtdontfit. I presented scripture which you did not specifically address. You apparently think posting other scripture somehow trumps the scripture I posted. Well your scripture does not beat my scripture.[/SIZE]

 

[2ducklow]

I kinda like this definition from the Athanasian creed rather than every misconception that people want to argue about.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
​

confusing language, he has named 3 persons, a person is a peronal being, each person is god therefore he has name 3 gods and skirted the issue of saying 3 gods are one by saying the godhead is one. he needs to define godhead otherwise his explanation is just garble, and means nothing. all this guy has done is boldly state over and over that 3 is one as if that prooves that 3 is one. It doesn't. really what his explanation boils doown to is this, 'just believe 3 is one". and that is his explanation for why, just believe his bold statements that 3 is one.
​

why? because if he explained how 3 is one he would have to do a james white and say God is a personal being that is a no nothing god (one what, a what is just a being like a rock or a cat) and 3 persons of god (3 who's{a who is a personality})


so his method is just believe 3 is one, james white says believe it causee a personal god is a no nothing god + 3 personalities. like saying god the father is a personality and not a being makes sense, it don't.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
[/qutoe] this guy definitly needs to read the b ible taht says god is love and that we are to comprehend the depths of agape love, which is god.

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Ephesians 3:17-19 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God.


the love of god which is god is comprhensible, or apprehendable, and, passes all knowledge, not is incomprehensible.
Contradicting the bible, and boldly stating 3 is one is all this guy has done. It is not god that is incomprhensible, it is 3 is one stated over and over and over that is incomprhensible. he is in effect calling god an incomprehnsible contradiction.

 

[Der Alte]

I kinda like this definition from the Athanasian creed rather than every misconception that people want to argue about.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
​

[SIZE=-1]confusing language, he has named 3 persons, a person is a peronal being, each person is god therefore he has name 3 gods and skirted the issue of saying 3 gods are one by saying the godhead is one. he needs to define godhead otherwise his explanation is just garble, and means nothing. all this guy has done is boldly state over and over that 3 is one as if that prooves that 3 is one. It doesn't. really what his explanation boils doown to is this, 'just believe 3 is one". and that is his explanation for why, just believe his bold statements that 3 is one.

why? because if he explained how 3 is one he would have to do a james white and say God is a personal being that is a no nothing god (one what, a what is just a being like a rock or a cat) and 3 persons of god (3 who's{a who is a personality})

so his method is just believe 3 is one, james white says believe it causee god is a no nothing god + 3 personalities.[/size]

You are becoming more and more confused. I quoted the Athanasian creed, NOT James White. I think that is the problem you don't read what is posted, just copy some irrelevant hoohah and post it. Guess you just like seeing your picture in the thread.

[SIZE="-1"]this guy definitly needs to read the b ible taht says god is love and that we are to comprehend the depths of agape love, which is god.

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Ephesians 3:17-19 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

the love of god which is god is comprhensible, or apprehendable, and, passes all knowledge, not is incomprehensible.
Contradicting the bible, and boldly stating 3 is one is all this guy has done. It is not god that is incomprhensible, it is 3 is one stated over and over and over that is incomprhensible. he is in effect calling god an incomprehnsible contradiction.

"The love of God" is NOT all that God is. You lose!

Deu 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Job 11:5 But oh that God would speak, and open his lips against thee;
6 And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, that they are double to that which is! Know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth.
7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?
9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Job 5:8 I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:
9 Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number:

Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?

Job 37:23 Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict.

Psa 77:19 Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.

Psa 145:3 Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end

Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts [higher] than your thoughts.

Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!​

[/SIZE]

 

[2ducklow]

You are becoming more and more confused. I quoted the Athanasian creed, NOT James White. I think that is the problem you don't read what is posted, just copy some irrelevant hoohah and post it. Guess you just like seeing your picture in the thread.

irrelevant inaccurate ramblings, having nothing to do with what I said.

"The love of God" is NOT all that God is. You lose!

I didn't say it was all god is. I said what the bible says, that god is love.

Deu 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
​

Secret things doesn't cancel out eph. 3. 17-18 that says we are to comprehend with all the saints the highth debth of the love of god, which god is.
​

a secret doesn't equal incomprehensible. there are tons of secrets that people don't know that are all comprehensible. athenasian is saying god is 3 is one, and 3 is one is incomprehensible. which it is, but god is not 3 is one. ahtenasia is not saying god is a spirit and that is incomprehensible, he is not saying God is love, and that is incomprehensible, he is not saying the words of god are incomprehensible, he is saying god is 3 is one and that is incomprehensib le.
​

Job 11:5 But oh that God would speak, and open his lips against thee;
6 And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, that they are double to that which is! Know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth.
​

secret doesn't mean incomprehensible. you're making just as much sense as athenasian which says 3 is one. or James White who says the personal god is a no nothing rock like or cat like god with 3 personalities. which of course is no sense.

7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?
9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

these verses only imply that one cannot find out god by searching.
Not being able to find out god doesn't mean god is incomprehensible. ONe can not be able to find out god, and god can still be comprehensible, as eph .3.17 states.

besides if you read further in job 11-10-13 you will see that job is talking about the ungoldly not being able to find out god

Job 11:10-13 If he pass through, and shut up, And all unto judgment, then who can hinder him? For he knoweth false men: He seeth iniquity also, even though he consider it not. But vain man is void of understanding, Yea, man is born as a wild ass's colt. If thou set thy heart aright, And stretch out thy hands toward him;

Job 5:8 I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:
9 Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number:

Unsearchable is a hyperbole, we can search the scriptures and find any number of marvelous things God can and did do. unsearchable doesn't mean incomprehsible. one can have a low IQ and not be able to search out the things of god to the debth that a person with a higher IQ can. but that doesn't mean it is incomprehensible. you are extremly faulty in your understanding of words and their meanings.

Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?

one can't understand the thunder of his power because one doesn't have the information about what it is. if one did then one could understand it. job is using hyperbdole here anyway.

Job 26:12 He stirreth up the sea with his power, And by his understanding he smiteth through Rahab.

some things God has not revealed to us and we don't understand them, but that doesn't mean they are incomprehensible. It just means god hasn't revealed everything to us.

Job 37:23 Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict.

either hyperbole, or he is speaking as the natural man. Foe we can find out God, we can know him and his son, that is finding him out. When you get to know someone, you do so by finding out things about them, if you don't find anything out about someone you don't know them. Salvation is knowing God the father and Jesus christ.
find him out not doesn't equal incomprehensible.
[no need to go further, you're batting 0 for 20 or so. it would just be more of the same.your inability to understand words like find out, comprehend, secret etc. etc. etc.
​

 

[Der Alte]

You are becoming more and more confused. I quoted the Athanasian creed, NOT James White. I think that is the problem you don't read what is posted, just copy some irrelevant hoohah and post it. Guess you just like seeing your picture in the thread.

irrelevant inaccurate ramblings, having nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say it was all god is. I said what the bible says, that god is love.

. . . then you added to what the Bible said, "the love of god which is god" Not rambling nor inaccurate.

Secret things doesn't cancel out eph. 3. 17-18 that says we are to comprehend with all the saints the highth debth of the love of god, which god is.

There are many things about God which are secret, love is not one of them.

a secret doesn't equal incomprehensible. there are tons of secrets that people don't know that are all comprehensible.

secret doesn't mean incomprehensible. you're making just as much sense as athenasian which says 3 is one. or James White who says the personal god is a no nothing rock like or cat like god with 3 personalities. which of course is no sense.

If you don't know what is secret you cannot comprehend it.

these verses only imply that one cannot find out god by searching.
Not being able to find out god doesn't mean god is incomprehensible. ONe can not be able to find out god, and god can still be comprehensible, as eph .3.17 states.

The verses do not imply anything they state it very clearly. If you cannot search and find something you cannot comprehend it. But let us look at the original meaning of incomprehensible. Ooops, it is very true.

* Main Entry: in·com·pre·hen·si·ble
* Pronunciation: \(&#716in-ˌkäm-pri-ˈhen(t)-sə-bəl\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Middle English, from Latin incomprehensibilis, from in- + comprehensibilis comprehensible
* Date: 14th century

1 archaic : having or subject to no limits
2 : impossible to comprehend : unintelligible <incomprehensible instructions>

— in·com·pre·hen·si·bil·i·ty \-&#716;hen(t)-s&#601;-&#712;bi-l&#601;-t&#275;\ noun

— in·com·pre·hen·si·ble·ness noun

— in·com·pre·hen·si·bly \-&#712;hen(t)-s&#601;-bl&#275;\ adverb​

besides if you read further in job 11-10-13 you will see that job is talking about the ungoldly not being able to find out god

Job 11:10-13 If he pass through, and shut up, And all unto judgment, then who can hinder him? For he knoweth false men: He seeth iniquity also, even though he consider it not. But vain man is void of understanding, Yea, man is born as a wild ass's colt. If thou set thy heart aright, And stretch out thy hands toward him;

Looks like Job is talking about all men, "man is born as a wild ass's colt.."

Unsearchable is a hyperbole, we can search the scriptures and find any number of marvelous things God can and did do. unsearchable doesn't mean incomprehsible. one can have a low IQ and not be able to search out the things of god to the debth that a person with a higher IQ can. but that doesn't mean it is incomprehensible. you are extremly faulty in your understanding of words and their meanings.

Oh yes, the same ol', lame ol' SPAM-Fig argument. Whenever scripture as written contradicts any false doctrine then it is arbitrarily dismissed as symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, or figurative, or now "hyperbole."

one can't understand the thunder of his power because one doesn't have the information about what it is. if one did then one could understand it. job is using hyperbdole here anyway.

Job 26:12 He stirreth up the sea with his power, And by his understanding he smiteth through Rahab.

some things God has not revealed to us and we don't understand them, but that doesn't mean they are incomprehensible. It just means god hasn't revealed everything to us.

either hyperbole, or he is speaking as the natural man. Foe we can find out God, we can know him and his son, that is finding him out. When you get to know someone, you do so by finding out things about them, if you don't find anything out about someone you don't know them. Salvation is knowing God the father and Jesus christ.
find him out not doesn't equal incomprehensible.
[no need to go further, you're batting 0 for 20 or so. it would just be more of the same.your inability to understand words like find out, comprehend, secret etc. etc. etc.

Blow off everything that contradicts you as a figure of speech. As I have proven "incomprehensible" as used in the Athanasian creed originally meant "having or subject to no limits"

And were you to actually do some research you would find that one of the meanings of "comprehend" is "to contain or hold within a total scope, significance, or amount" From the definition online, "philosophy's scope comprehends the truth of everything which man may understand"

Using the definition we could say as Athanasiius did, "Everything about God cannot be comprehended [contained or held within a total scope, significance, or amount] by finite men."

 

[2ducklow]

. . . then you added to what the Bible said, "the love of god which is god" Not rambling nor inaccurate.

god is love = the love of god, which is god. I meant it in the sense that the word of god means it.

There are many things about God which are secret, love is not one of them.



If you don't know what is secret you cannot comprehend it.

I already explained how a secrret isn't something that is incomprehensible, you ignored it. so i've already answered this point of yours. do you think if you ignore my answers I said nothing? apparently. all you've said here really is "is not."

The verses do not imply anything they state it very clearly. If you cannot search and find something you cannot comprehend it. But let us look at the original meaning of incomprehensible. Ooops, it is very true.

the only reason you can't comprehend it is because you don't have enough information. truths are not contradictions incapable of being comprehended.

* Main Entry: in&#183;com&#183;pre&#183;hen&#183;si&#183;ble
​

* Pronunciation: \(&#716in-&#716;k&#228;m-pri-&#712;hen(t)-s&#601;-b&#601;l\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Middle English, from Latin incomprehensibilis, from in- + comprehensibilis comprehensible
* Date: 14th century

1 archaic : having or subject to no limits
2 : impossible to comprehend : unintelligible <incomprehensible instructions>

&#8212; in&#183;com&#183;pre&#183;hen&#183;si&#183;bil&#183;i&#183;ty \-&#716;hen(t)-s&#601;-&#712;bi-l&#601;-t&#275;\ noun

&#8212; in&#183;com&#183;pre&#183;hen&#183;si&#183;ble&#183;ness noun

&#8212; in&#183;com&#183;pre&#183;hen&#183;si&#183;bly \-&#712;hen(t)-s&#601;-bl&#275;\ adverb
​

a secret is only incomprehensible because someone doesn't have enough information to understand it. ​

Looks like Job is talking about all men, "man is born as a wild ass's colt.."

looks like you are ignoring the part about 'false men' 'inequity' and 'vanity.' that describes the natural man, not the spiritual man. the natural man cannot know god.

Oh yes, the same ol', lame ol' SPAM-Fig argument. Whenever scripture as written contradicts any false doctrine then it is arbitrarily dismissed as symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, or figurative, or now "hyperbole."

same ole everything is literal if it fits my doctrine there are no possiblities of even considering a verse to be poetic, allegory, metaphor, or figurative casue literal interpretations that make no sense, are the correct interrpetations cause they support my (der alter) doctrine. the whole bible is literal, so start plucking your eyes out.

Blow off everything that contradicts you as a figure of speech. As I have proven "incomprehensible" as used in the Athanasian creed originally meant "having or subject to no limits"

he says 3 is one at least 10 times always calling it god and incomprehensible. deal with it.

And were you to actually do some research you would find that one of the meanings of "comprehend" is "to contain or hold within a total scope, significance, or amount" From the definition online, "philosophy's scope comprehends the truth of everything which man may understand"

Using the definition we could say as Athanasiius did, "Everything about God cannot be comprehended [contained or held within a total scope, significance, or amount] by finite men."

he said god is incomprehenisble, not god is partly incomprehensible, he said at least 10 times god is three is one. remember" the father incomprehensible, etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Der Alte]

god is love = the love of god, which is god. I meant it in the sense that the word of god means it.

You reinterpreted scripture by adding "which is God." How about sending me a copy of that memo that appoints you the authority on what the "word of God means?"

I already explained how a secrret isn't something that is incomprehensible, you ignored it. so i've already answered this point of yours. do you think if you ignore my answers I said nothing? apparently. all you've said here really is "is not."

I ignored nothing I addressed every point. Guess your draws are in a twist because the dictionary totally destroys your argument.

the only reason you can't comprehend it is because you don't have enough information. truths are not contradictions incapable of being comprehended.
a secret is only incomprehensible because someone doesn't have enough information to understand it.

Something incomprehensible is not necessarily a contradiction! I can think of "secrets" in this world which many could not comprehend even if they were made known. And you need to be clear just which definition of "comprehend" applies, in which circumstance.

looks like you are ignoring the part about 'false men' 'inequity' and 'vanity.' that describes the natural man, not the spiritual man. the natural man cannot know god.

I pointed out how you selectively quoted Job and ignored the phrase about all mankind.

same ole everything is literal if it fits my doctrine there are no possiblities of even considering a verse to be poetic, allegory, metaphor, or figurative casue literal interpretations that make no sense, are the correct interrpetations cause they support my (der alter) doctrine. the whole bible is literal, so start plucking your eyes out.

I can understand your frustration me pointing how you arbitrarily claim that vss. are figurative, etc. when it is convenient to support your argument. There is a rule which states "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense."

he says 3 is one at least 10 times always calling it god [Not in the Athanasian creed!] and incomprehensible. deal with it.

he said god is incomprehenisble, not god is partly incomprehensible, he said at least 10 times god is three is one. [Not in the Athanasian creed!] remember" the father incomprehensible, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Still confusing the different definitions of "incomprehensible." At the time of Athanasius incomprehensible meant,"having or subject to no limits" Since you were unaware of this definition, you have no basis for dictating what Athanaius meant, or did not mean, when he used the word.

 

[2ducklow]

You reinterpreted scripture by adding "which is God." How about sending me a copy of that memo that appoints you the authority on what the "word of God means?"

So if I had said "The love of god, which the bible says is god" I have a done a terrible thing by usingthe word which? Sorry i can't see that. the bible says agape is of god, it also says god is agape. So i haven't reinterpreted scripture by saying "the love (agape) of god, which is god". I'm not even sure what you mean by reinterpret. We are told to intepret scritpure, that's what I do with scripture as the bible tells us to do.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:



everyone decides for themeselves what the word of god means. even people like you who abdicate their reasoning powers and just accept what someone like athenasia says.
I decide what is true, I will stand before god and have to defend myself, not you or athenasia, or anyone else, I have to prove the scritpures to me , not you, not athenasia, not billy graham. I don't just accept nonsense from someone cause his name is athenasia, or billy graham, or whoever. you do. you just accept that 3 is one cause athenasia said so. so tell it to god say "god well athenasia said 3 is one so i believed him." and I'll say to god "well god you said in your word that god the father is the one and only true god, so I believed you when you said it."


I don't believe 'my pastor says, billy graham says, the pope says, jfb says' is a good reason to believe anything. one must decide if what those people say is true or not using one's own abilities to determine the truth. None of those folks are going to stand before god and speak for me, I am. Uh oh, did i just say i was god? lol

I pointed out how you selectively quoted Job and ignored the phrase about all mankind.

all mankind, vanity, false men, inequity, I make of it that it is talking about the natural man (which all men are) and not the spiritual man (which some of us are becoming more and more, and others are not.) The natural man, mankind, cannot know or findout God, it is the born again, regenerated man that can find out god.


1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Something incomprehensible is not necessarily a contradiction!

3 is one is a contradiction and that is what athenasia is calling incomprehensible over and over and over and over and over.

I can think of "secrets" in this world which many could not comprehend even if they were made known. And you need to be clear just which definition of "comprehend" applies, in which circumstance.

I believe most trinitarians mean that god, the trinity, will never be understood when they say god is incomprensible.it's been 1500 years and no one has explained how 3 is one yet, so it doesn't take a giant leap of logic to see that it will never be explained. Three is one is incomprehensible because it is a contradiction and contradictions are not comprehensible. god never states any contradictions in the bible. man does with trinity. so God doesn't have to explain trinity, which he never uttered, man does, and man can't because it is impossible to explain a contradiction.
a person of very low IQ would never be able to comprehend quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics is comprehendable. A person of very low or extremely high IQ would never be able to comprehend how 3 is one, because it is a contradiction and contradicitons are not comprehendable. There is no way to explain how 3 is one, just look at the very brilliant James White (and I mean that he really is very smart) he has to resort to saying a peronal god is a no nothing god (a what) and 3 personalities (3 whats). That just shows you 3 is one is a contradiciton and no matter how smart you are it will never be explained it is incomprehensible.

Guess you just like seeing your picture in the thread.

I had a duck for a while, got tired of lookin at it. had a pic of me on a bike for a long time, got tired of looking at it, now i got a pic of me with a ruger airhawk taken in aug. prob get tired of it too. Like lookin at pics of me? well i wouldn't put a pic of you in my avatar. or george, or susan, or tom or dick or harry, or elizabeth. might put a pic of my cat next time dunno. has to be something appropriate. so im a bad guy cause i put a pic of me but your swell cause you put a pic of you, is that your reasoning?

 

[Der Alte]

So if I had said "The love of god, which the bible says is god" I have a done a terrible thing by usingthe word which? Sorry i can't see that. the bible says agape is of god, it also says god is agape. So i haven't reinterpreted scripture by saying "the love (agape) of god, which is god". I'm not even sure what you mean by reinterpret. We are told to intepret scritpure, that's what I do with scripture as the bible tells us to do.

The Bible does not say that "the love of God is God." The N.T. does say that "God is love," but it is worded in a way which precludes it being understood as "Love is God."

I don't just accept nonsense from someone cause his name is athenasia, or billy graham, or whoever. you do. you just accept that 3 is one cause athenasia said so. so tell it to god say "god well athenasia said 3 is one so i believed him."

Good for you then tell me what the Bible says here. Hint occurs twice in the O.T.

&#1488;&#1502;&#1512; &#1504;&#1489;&#1500; &#1489;&#1500;&#1489;&#1493; &#1488;&#1497;&#1503; &#1488;&#1500;&#1492;&#1497;&#1501; &#1492;&#1513;&#1473;&#1495;&#1497;&#1514;&#1493; &#1492;&#1514;&#1506;&#1497;&#1489;&#1493; &#1506;&#1500;&#1497;&#1500;&#1492; &#1488;&#1497;&#1503; &#1506;&#1513;&#1474;&#1492;&#1470;&#1496;&#1493;&#1489;​

And here. Hint the word &#960;&#961;&#969;&#964;&#959;&#957; means first.

&#964;&#959;&#965;&#964;&#959; &#960;&#961;&#969;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#947;&#953;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#954;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962; &#959;&#964;&#953; &#949;&#955;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#953; &#949;&#960; &#949;&#963;&#967;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#965; &#964;&#969;&#957; &#951;&#956;&#949;&#961;&#969;&#957; &#949;&#956;&#960;&#945;&#953;&#954;&#964;&#945;&#953; &#954;&#945;&#964;&#945; &#964;&#945;&#962; &#953;&#948;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#969;&#957; &#949;&#960;&#953;&#952;&#965;&#956;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#960;&#959;&#961;&#949;&#965;&#959;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#953;​

And no cheating, don't use any dictionaries, lexicons, etc.

I don't believe 'my pastor says, billy graham says, the pope says, jfb says' is a good reason to believe anything. one must decide if what those people say is true or not using one's own abilities to determine the truth. None of those folks are going to stand before god and speak for me, I am. Uh oh, did i just say i was god? lol

If you ever find someone who does those things, talk to them, NOT me.

all mankind, vanity, false men, inequity, I make of it that it is talking about the natural man (which all men are) and not the spiritual man (which some of us are becoming more and more, and others are not.) The natural man, mankind, cannot know or findout God, it is the born again, regenerated man that can find out god.

You are correct, the natural man cannot understand the things of God. And whether it is the natural man or the spiritual man, God does not have and is not subject to any limits."

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

3 is one is a contradiction and that is what athenasia is calling incomprehensible over and over and over and over and over.

One deliberately false statement and a misrepresentation. Athenasius was saying, "God has or is subject to no limits," that was the original meaning of "incomprehensible."

I believe most trinitarians mean that god, the trinity, will never be understood when they say god is incomprensible.it's been 1500 years and no one has explained how 3 is one yet, so it doesn't take a giant leap of logic to see that it will never be explained. Three is one is incomprehensible because it is a contradiction and contradictions are not comprehensible. god never states any contradictions in the bible. man does with trinity. so God doesn't have to explain trinity, which he never uttered, man does, and man can't because it is impossible to explain a contradiction.

You start off with a straw man, then add unsupported assertions, assumptions and presuppositions. And in the end you have said nothing, proved nothing.

a person of very low IQ would never be able to comprehend quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics is comprehendable.

True but irrelevant the word under discussion is "incomprehensible", and it originally meant "having or subject to no limits," and had no connection with understanding, etc.

A person of very low or extremely high IQ would never be able to comprehend how 3 is one, because it is a contradiction and contradicitons are not comprehendable. There is no way to explain how 3 is one, just look at the very brilliant James White (and I mean that he really is very smart) he has to resort to saying a peronal god is a no nothing god (a what) and 3 personalities (3 whats). That just shows you 3 is one is a contradiciton and no matter how smart you are it will never be explained it is incomprehensible

Same ol', same ol' straw man misrepresentations, which prove absolutely nothing. The original meaning of the word "incomprehensible" was "having or subject to no limits," that was the meaning when Athanasius wrote.

If you are experiencing some kind of vision problem which necessitates you posting in huge fonts, please have your eyes examined and get glasses. That size font is hard to read and I won't bother again.

 

[2ducklow]

Originally Posted by 2ducklow
So if I had said "The love of god, which the bible says is god" I have a done a terrible thing by usingthe word which? Sorry i can't see that. the bible says agape is of god, it also says god is agape. So i haven't reinterpreted scripture by saying "the love (agape) of god, which is god". I'm not even sure what you mean by reinterpret. We are told to intepret scritpure, that's what I do with scripture as the bible tells us to do.

The Bible does not say that "the love of God is God." The N.T. does say that "God is love," but it is worded in a way which precludes it being understood as "Love is God."

picayune. But I see your point now, ok , I should have said, &#8220;the love of god, which the bible says god is.&#8221; However, you are being inconsistent here if you say god is Jesus or the word.

I don't just accept nonsense from someone cause his name is athenasia, or billy graham, or whoever. you do. you just accept that 3 is one cause athenasia said so. so tell it to god say "god well athenasia said 3 is one so i believed him."

Good for you then tell me what the Bible says here. Hint occurs twice in the O.T.
&#1488;&#1502;&#1512; &#1504;&#1489;&#1500; &#1489;&#1500;&#1489;&#1493; &#1488;&#1497;&#1503; &#1488;&#1500;&#1492;&#1497;&#1501; &#1492;&#1513;&#1473;&#1495;&#1497;&#1514;&#1493; &#1492;&#1514;&#1506;&#1497;&#1489;&#1493; &#1506;&#1500;&#1497;&#1500;&#1492; &#1488;&#1497;&#1503; &#1506;&#1513;&#1474;&#1492;&#1470;&#1496;&#1493;&#1489;
And here. Hint the word &#960;&#961;&#969;&#964;&#959;&#957; means first.
&#964;&#959;&#965;&#964;&#959; &#960;&#961;&#969;&#964;&#959;&#957; [ah protons]&#947;&#953;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#954;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962; &#959;&#964;&#953; &#949;&#955;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#953; &#949;&#960; &#949;&#963;&#967;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#965; &#964;&#969;&#957; &#951;&#956;&#949;&#961;&#969;&#957; &#949;&#956;&#960;&#945;&#953;&#954;&#964;&#945;&#953; &#954;&#945;&#964;&#945; [must mean all over, like when judas kissed Jesus the greek word is kataphelema which means to kiss all over, most christians don't know that Judas kissed Jesus all overh is face and not just one kiss )see I know some stuff about greek]
&#964;&#945;&#962; &#953;&#948;&#953;&#945;&#962; [hummmm just a guess here,'idiot"? if so, you can call me an idiot in english it won't bother me, i know you think I am anyway so what's the big deal , eh? (canadian talk)]&#945;&#965;&#964;&#969;&#957; &#949;&#960;&#953;&#952;&#965;&#956;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#960;&#959;&#961;&#949;&#965;&#959;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#953;
And no cheating, don't use any dictionaries, lexicons, etc.

if you wanna believe some dood long ago dead who chanted 3 is one over and over, go for it. But as fore me I&#8217;m gonna believe the intelligent word of god. That you can read greek and I can&#8217;t (well not very well anyway) is no proof that you should accept nonsense chanting of 3 is one from athenasia.

I don't believe 'my pastor says, billy graham says, the pope says, jfb says' is a good reason to believe anything. one must decide if what those people say is true or not using one's own abilities to determine the truth. None of those folks are going to stand before god and speak for me, I am. Uh oh, did i just say i was god? lol

If you ever find someone who does those things, talk to them, NOT me.

you do. Athenasian says 3 is one, so you just believe him cause he chanted it and cause all your Trinitarian compadres believe him.

all mankind, vanity, false men, inequity, I make of it that it is talking about the natural man (which all men are) and not the spiritual man (which some of us are becoming more and more, and others are not.) The natural man, mankind, cannot know or findout God, it is the born again, regenerated man that can find out god.

You are correct, the natural man cannot understand the things of God. And whether it is the natural man or the spiritual man, God does not have and is not subject to any limits."

you&#8217;re drifting away here to a different topic . I was showing that the quote in Job refers to the natural man not being able to know god, or find god,
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

3 is one is a contradiction and that is what athenasia is calling incomprehensible over and over and over and over and over.

One deliberately false statement and a misrepresentation. Athenasius was saying, "God has or is subject to no limits," that was the original meaning of "incomprehensible."[/quote] whatever, he is still just chanting 3 is one over and over, no matter what definition you give for incomprehensible. The father limitless, the son limitless, the holy spirit limitless, yet not 3 limitlesses, but one limitless. Is still chanting 3 is one . 3 is one is incomprehensible ( in the sense of not being understandable), what you are saying is that he doesn&#8217;t even state that 3 is one is incomprehensible ( in the sense of being not understandable) but just says it is limitless. I don&#8217;t believe you nor does anyone reading the athenasian creed (including Trinitarians) take the meaning of incomprehensible to mean limitless.

I believe most trinitarians mean that god, the trinity, will never be understood when they say god is incomprensible.it's been 1500 years and no one has explained how 3 is one yet, so it doesn't take a giant leap of logic to see that it will never be explained. Three is one is incomprehensible because it is a contradiction and contradictions are not comprehensible. god never states any contradictions in the bible. man does with trinity. so God doesn't have to explain trinity, which he never uttered, man does, and man can't because it is impossible to explain a contradiction.

You start off with a straw man, then add unsupported assertions, assumptions and presuppositions. And in the end you have said nothing, proved nothing.

and you have avoided what I said with your typical &#8220;is not.&#8221; Just call something a strawman, don&#8217;t explain how = &#8220;Is not&#8221;

a person of very low IQ would never be able to comprehend quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics is comprehendable.

True but irrelevant the word under discussion is "incomprehensible", and it originally meant "having or subject to no limits," and had no connection with understanding, etc.

picqayune. Whatever you take incomprehensible to mean athenasia is still just chanting 3 is one over and over and over. And that is no proof or intelligent argument for 3 being one.

A person of very low or extremely high IQ would never be able to comprehend how 3 is one, because it is a contradiction and contradicitons are not comprehendable. There is no way to explain how 3 is one, just look at the very brilliant James White (and I mean that he really is very smart) he has to resort to saying a peronal god is a no nothing god (a what) and 3 personalities (3 whats). That just shows you 3 is one is a contradiciton and no matter how smart you are it will never be explained it is incomprehensible

Same ol', same ol' straw man misrepresentations, which prove absolutely nothing. The original meaning of the word "incomprehensible" was "having or subject to no limits," that was the meaning when Athanasius wrote.

you&#8217;re evading the salient point, which is that Trinitarians maintatin that god and the 3 persons are incomprehensible. Or are you now going to maintain that Trinitarians do not maintain that god is incomprehensible in the sense of not being understandable? Are you going to maintain that when modern day Trinitarians say god is incomprehensible that they mean he has no limits? That ain&#8217;t a gonna float.

If you are experiencing some kind of vision problem which necessitates you posting in huge fonts, please have your eyes examined and get glasses. That size font is hard to read and I won't bother again.

ah the der alter double standard, you make my quotes so small I can&#8217;t read them \( actually i have 20/15 eyesight but that's farsightedness not up close, but you don't have to call me hawkeye)but if I change a font size it&#8217;s a different story, I post apic of me and I&#8217;m bad you post a pic of you and good thing.
I didn&#8217;t know it would bother anyone, what size is the right size for you 2? Is 3 ok? 4 is not right? So I guess 10 is out of the question.


do i detect a desire to bail out? gettin to hot in the kitchen is it?

 

[Der Alte]

Here is my quote from the Athanasian creed.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.​

Please show me where he "chanted 3 is one over and over,[ . . . ]accept nonsense chanting of 3 is one from athenasia?"

I don’t believe you nor does anyone reading the athenasian creed (including Trinitarians) take the meaning of incomprehensible to mean limitless.

What you believe about Trinitarians is absolutely meaningless. I have not been discussing what you think, suppose, guess, etc. I posted a definition of the Trinity from the Athanasian creed and I have been discussing what he said and what he meant.

As I suspected you cannot read what the Bible says, you as most people are forced to read a translation. And as with most people who concoct their own religion you use the KJV. The KJV has over 800 words that have changed in meaning or have dropped out of the language altogether consequently it is easy to distort and misrepresent. When you have acquired a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek then you might be qualified to state authoritatively what the Bible says.

Athansius did not say "Three is one" so all that ramble about that is irrelevant.

 

[marcusampe]

Dear der Alter,

... 3 is one is a contradiction and that is what athenasia is calling incomprehensible over and over and over and over and over.

... 3 is one is incomprehensible ( in the sense of not being understandable), what you are saying is that he doesn&#8217;t even state that 3 is one is incomprehensible ( in the sense of being not understandable) but just says it is limitless....
I believe most trinitarians mean that god, the trinity, will never be understood when they say god is incomprensible.it's been 1500 years and no one has explained how 3 is one yet, so it doesn't take a giant leap of logic to see that it will never be explained. Three is one is incomprehensible because it is a contradiction and contradictions are not comprehensible. god never states any contradictions in the bible. man does with trinity. so God doesn't have to explain trinity, which he never uttered, man does, and man can't because it is impossible to explain a contradiction.

And are trinitarians just picking up the words from a few and say "it is doctrine". "It is something we can not fully understand, but have to take it as the truth."? Is that then not just taking in something without examinning it?
Do you think god would have made it so difficult fo the ordinary men that he needs theologians to explain the Scriptures.

I think God made it so that His Words says it all, and even a person who did not go to school shall be able to understand the essence of the Holy Scriptures. Anybody shall be able to learn to know God when He listens to the Word of God.

 

[Der Alte]

Dear der Alter,

And are trinitarians just picking up the words from a few and say "it is doctrine". "It is something we can not fully understand, but have to take it as the truth."? Is that then not just taking in something without examinning it?
Do you think god would have made it so difficult fo the ordinary men that he needs theologians to explain the Scriptures.

I think God made it so that His Words says it all, and even a person who did not go to school shall be able to understand the essence of the Holy Scriptures. Anybody shall be able to learn to know God when He listens to the Word of God.

Why are you quoting ducklow and addressing me? No matter, my two posts earlier in this thread listing 59 vss. which call or refer to Jesus as YHWH/Theos. http://www.christianforums.com/t7395041-14/#post52860098

YHWH says repeatedly in the O.T., there was no God before him, there is no God beside him, and there will be no God after him. There is no God he knows not any. The father is called/referred to as God but he is not the spirit or the son. Jesus is called/referred to as God but he is not the father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is called/referred to as God but he is not the father or the son. That is what scripture says, all the rest is commentary.

 

[marcusampe]

Why are you quoting ducklow and addressing me? No matter, my two posts earlier in this thread listing 59 vss. which call or refer to Jesus as YHWH/Theos.

YHWH says repeatedly in the O.T., there was no God before him, there is no God beside him, and there will be no God after him. There is no God he knows not any. The father is called/referred to as God but he is not the spirit or the son. Jesus is called/referred to as God but he is not the father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is called/referred to as God but he is not the father or the son. That is what scripture says, all the rest is commentary.

I brought up the sayings of ducklow because they where relevant to what he rightly said and what I wanted to confirm.

The claim that God is one God, three persons is part of the saying wich is taken over by many persons. Often they do not understand it and can not clearly explain it, but then they say we must believe it because it is a dogma. Nevertheless, those trinitarians do not seem to realize that for every scripture they give to support their claim, they have use their thoughts beyond has been written so to imagine their dogma and then add what they have imagined to, and read their assumptions into, each and every scripture they present. Thus, while they present scriptures, what they really present to support the trinitarian dogma are assumptions that have to added to and read into those scriptures, which means that their support for the trinity as alleged in the scriptures presented actually ends up being a circular argument.

Stangly now in the last reacton you wrote, der Alter, you suddenly say that God the Father is not the son, this incontradiction to previous posts. You also mention that He is not the Spirit.
How do you interpret called/referred to? And then you now say ... as ... which is not the same as "is".

about the Son of God we then come closer to what I also think would be wright: Jesus is as God, or has character elements like God, but he is not God the Father.
But about the Spirit we keep having problems.

 

[2ducklow]

Here is my quote from the Athanasian creed.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, [he means 3 is one, not 3 are one, 3 individuals that are one would mean that they are one in purpose or one in beliefs or some such thing, but he means they are one in that they literally not fig. Are one individual, therefore, he is saying 3 is one, and not 3 are one.] the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.[3 is 1]
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible [3 is 1].So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.[3 is 1]

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.[3 is 1]

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.[3 is 1]

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.[worship unity? Strange.]
Please show me where he "chanted 3 is one over and over,[ . . . ]accept nonsense chanting of 3 is one from athenasia?"

it’s color coded, red n blue.

What you believe about Trinitarians is absolutely meaningless. I have not been discussing what you think, suppose, guess, etc. I posted a definition of the Trinity from the Athanasian creed and I have been discussing what he said and what he meant.

then you guys should translate it to what it means if it means limitless then say limitless not incomprehensible. To translate it wrong and do so knowingly is a lie.

As I suspected you cannot read what the Bible says, you as most people are forced to read a translation. And as with most people who concoct their own religion you use the KJV. The KJV has over 800 words that have changed in meaning or have dropped out of the language altogether consequently it is easy to distort and misrepresent. When you have acquired a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek then you might be qualified to state authoritatively what the Bible says.

nah I use rotherham cause he is very literal, when I check him out against interlinears and strongs ,or vines or whoever, I find he is almost always right. I find the KJV very poetic, and very inspired, but at the same time very flawed. Sometimes the KJV is extremely literal, sometimes not. I wouldn’t trust it to base doctrine on without checking it out with other sources. I don’t believe your knowledge of Greek makes you right or anyone right. We have ways of checking out if what you guys who know Greek are saying is really true, and I proved to you that you are totally wrong when you say the word acted upon itself to become flesh. The proof is you have to say is is an action verb and verbs having no subjects to maintain your false knowledge of what a deponent verb is. You won’t even give it up in the face of scriptural proof that you are wrong, you just start saying nonsense like is is an action verb, and verbs have no subjects. But keep trying to prove what you say is true cause you know g reek. It only shows how destitute you are for proof to resort to that.

Athansius did not say "Three is one" so all that ramble about that is irrelevant.

no he didn’t but what he meant and what he said is equivalent to that, as I showed above.