Arrr! Assuming Trinitarianism.

[John 07]

God is not a person.

silly post
read Mt 3.17 for once...

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

[2ducklow]

silly post
read Mt 3.17 for once...

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

please underline the word PERSON in that verse. Please show me any verse tthat says God is a person.

per·son

   /ˈpɜrsən/ Show Spelled[pur-suhn] Show IPA
noun 1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing
3.
Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy ( philosophy like neoplatonic trinity , or the other fellas metaphysics nonsense philosophy so philosophy doesn't count cause human philosophys purpose is to goof up the bible and turn it into a book of nonsense.2dl_). a self-conscious or rational being.

5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

Person | Define Person at Dictionary.com

God is not a person, a human being, animals are not persons either, only humans are persons. . God is a person Only in your neoplatonic trinitarian theology, not the bible. The bible doesn't say God is a man, you do , the bible doesn't say God is a person (human) you do. the only def. of person that doesn't mean human is the neoplatonic trinitarian one theyh stuck in there to use to make God a man. God is not a man. never was never will be.

 

[Christopher0121]

Grrrr... cut and paste didn't work. lol

 

[Christopher0121]

No verse says God is a person. God is a spirit . Most people associate humans with the word person. that is the whole deception behind calling "God a person. It doesn't matter if you define the word person differently than it is commonly used. You say God is a person and people are going to automatically thing god is a human. A person is a human God is not a human, so God is not a person.
but thats not why what you said is nonsensical to the max. you like all people with false doctrines get funny with the meanings of words. like person,, and nature, and essence, et. al.
it doesn't get anymore nonsensical than your spirit subsisting in his nature world, or the universe, or the material world. all are definitions of nature. Any way you define nature, its going to make your stataement goofy beyond belief.

please underline the word PERSON in that verse. Please show me any verse tthat says God is a person.
Person | Define Person at Dictionary.com
God is not a person, a human being, animals are not persons either, only humans are persons. . God is a person Only in your neoplatonic trinitarian theology, not the bible. The bible doesn't say God is a man, you do , the bible doesn't say God is a person (human) you do. the only def. of person that doesn't mean human is the neoplatonic trinitarian one theyh stuck in there to use to make God a man. God is not a man. never was never will be.

Ducklow,

You sound like an intelligent man. And I sincerely don’t think that you’re taking any offense to what I’m saying; you simply disagree based on your understanding. And, I too disagree with you, based on my understanding. It sounds like we have to define terms. This is because we’re not meaning the same thing when we say the same word. I’m a firm believer that words have meaning. They are important. So far the word that we are struggling with most is the word “person”. You defined it as you are using it above, and I thank you for that. Based on the definition you’ve chosen, I have to say that I agree with the overall concept that you hold. However, I do disagree with the narrow definition of the term “person” that you have chosen. You’ll most likely agree with my concept, but disagree with my choice terminology. At the end of the day, we might find that we’re saying the same thing using different words. I’ll offer my definition as chosen from the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Here is the entire entry:

per•son
noun \ˈpər-sən\
Definition of PERSON
1
: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2
: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3
a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4
aarchaic: bodily appearance b: the body of a human being; also: the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5
: the personality of a human being : self
6
: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7
: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
— per•son•hood noun
— in person
: in one's bodily presence <the movie star appeared in person>

In this entry above I’ve chosen definition 5 (bolded) to best describe what I mean when I say the word “person” in a theological context. When I say “person” I’m referring to the inherent attribute of, “self”. A living being that has a sense of “self” is a “person”. That means if a being has an inherent “self-conscious” reality (something that is real about it) and can speak in terms demonstrating an I/You relationship… it possesses “personhood” and therefore is a “person”. When we say a living being is a “person” I don’t believe we have defined its nature. We’ve only determined that it is sentient, self-aware, and has the inherent attribute of reason.
So let’s look at the verse you presented:

Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased

Here we have God saying “my” and “I”. This demonstrates that God is sentient, possessing self-awareness, and reason. Thus God is a “person”. Now…to define what kind of person God is… we must examine his nature. His nature is revealed in His actions. And once we see His nature, we can define His essence. Throughout the Bible God defines Himself as God and even demonstrates that He has all power. Therefore we can say that God is a “divine person”. By saying this I’m only saying that God is a divine living being who is capable of reason and has an innate sense of “self”. This would preclude God being defined as merely a mindless, living, divine “force” or “energy”. Because if something isn’t a “person” it’s a “thing”.

You brought up “spirit” by saying that God is a “spirit”. Terms such as “spirit”, “matter”, and “flesh” denote substance, not inherent sentience. For example, a dead body is human. But it is not a person. The person (self-consciousness) is gone. It is a carcass. A shell.

I’d also like to add that the term “spirit” is “pneuma” in the Greek. It simply means “breath” as in “the breath of life”. It is the inherent living quality of a being. It speaks nothing of reason or the mind. To denote the faculty of reason within a being Scripture uses the term “soul”. In the Greek “soul” is “psuche”. The word “psuche” is the root of the English term “psyche”, denoting the mind and all self-conscious qualities of reason. Therefore the terms “soul” and “person” are very much associated with one another. A living soul is a living person. Since “soul” is the mind or “psyche” and “spirit” is the “breath of life”, the body is merely material. It’s much like hardware (body), software (soul), and electricity (spirit). To say that God is not a person but rather a spirit says to me that God is an impersonal living force without sentience or the ability to reason. I know you don’t mean to say this and you certainly don’t believe that. However, the words you use communicate that concept to me.

Now, I haven’t said you were goofy, or that your belief is goofy. Nor have I said that what you’ve said is “nonsensical”. I’ve only attempted to define the terms I’m using to assist you with understanding my point. While you may disagree with my use of the term “person”, I’m certain that you will agree that God indeed is living being who is self-conscious, self-aware, and capable of reason. You’ll notice that the King James Bible uses the word “person” relating to Christ being the express image of God’s own “person”:

Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

The word for person here is “hupostasis”. It is commonly defined as meaning:

1) a setting or placing under
1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
2) that which has foundation, is firm
2a) that which has actual existence
2a1) a substance, real being
2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
2c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
2c1) confidence, firm trust, assurance

The best definition for the term as used in Hebrews 1:3 is definition 2b, “the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing”.

For all these reasons I have no issue using the term “person” with relation to God.

 

[2ducklow]

Ducklow,

You sound like an intelligent man. And I sincerely don&#8217;t think that you&#8217;re taking any offense to what I&#8217;m saying; you simply disagree based on your understanding. And, I too disagree with you, based on my understanding. It sounds like we have to define terms. This is because we&#8217;re not meaning the same thing when we say the same word. I&#8217;m a firm believer that words have meaning. They are important. So far the word that we are struggling with most is the word &#8220;person&#8221;. You defined it as you are using it above, and I thank you for that. Based on the definition you&#8217;ve chosen, I have to say that I agree with the overall concept that you hold. However, I do disagree with the narrow definition of the term &#8220;person&#8221; that you have chosen. You&#8217;ll most likely agree with my concept, but disagree with my choice terminology. At the end of the day, we might find that we&#8217;re saying the same thing using different words. I&#8217;ll offer my definition as chosen from the Merriam-Webster&#8217;s Dictionary. Here is the entire entry:

per&#8226;son
noun \'p&#601;r-s&#601;n\
Definition of PERSON
1
: human, individual &#8212;sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2
: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3
a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4
aarchaic: bodily appearance b: the body of a human being; also: the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5
: the personality of a human being : self
6
: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7
: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
&#8212; per&#8226;son&#8226;hood noun
&#8212; in person
: in one's bodily presence <the movie star appeared in person>

In this entry above I&#8217;ve chosen definition 5 (bolded) to best describe what I mean when I say the word &#8220;person&#8221; in a theological context. When I say &#8220;person&#8221; I&#8217;m referring to the inherent attribute of, &#8220;self&#8221;. A living being that has a sense of &#8220;self&#8221; is a &#8220;person&#8221;. That means if a being has an inherent &#8220;self-conscious&#8221; reality (something that is real about it)

you need to understand what a colon is.

co·lon
1 [koh-luhn] Show IPA
noun, plural -lons for 1, -la [-luh] Show IPA for 2.
1.
the sign ) used to mark a major division in a sentence, to indicate that what follows is an elaboration, summation, implication, etc., of what precedes; or to separate groups of numbers referring to different things, as hours from minutes in 5:30; or the members of a ratio or proportion, as in 1 : 2 = 3 : 6.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colon
Self is not another definition it is an elaboration of the meaning of &#8220;the personality of a human being&#8221;.
So your definition of person is one of your own making, and thus all that follows that you say is based upon your metaphysics theology and terminology, your definition is a philosophic one, one of your own making,, thus you are interpreting scripture with human philosophy, in this case, metaphysics.
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;

 

[2ducklow]

So let&#8217;s look at the verse you presented:

I didn&#8217;t present the verse John did.

Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased

Here we have God saying &#8220;my&#8221; and &#8220;I&#8221;. This demonstrates that God is sentient, possessing self-awareness, and reason. Thus God is a &#8220;person&#8221;.

he is a person based on the definition of person you invented. The dictionary says person means self in the sense of &#8216;personality of a human being&#8221; you change it to something different.

&#12288;
Now&#8230;to define what kind of person God is&#8230; we must examine his nature.

you have only established that God is a person in the sense that you define the word, not in the sense of the meaning of the word. So your theological wanderings here are an offshoot of your own philosophy and definitions of words. This is how you and Trinitarians get everyone c onfused you use words that have your own special definition which isn&#8217;t what the word means, thus you confuse everyone as to what you mean, and possibly even your own self. It&#8217;s not just the word person that you have messed with, if we go and look at other words you use we will find that you have your own special definition for those words as well. Thus making your comments nonsense because a reader like me is going to understand English words, like person, nature, essence etc for what the word means not your own special invented definititon that we are suppose to guess at. Changijng the meaning of words and not telling anyone what you have changed the words meaning to, results in a total break down of communication. Which I feel is the desired effect because it prevents anyone from showing a Trinitarian how he is wrong, or in your case a metaphicist how he is wrong.
At some point, to preserve your false theology, you will have to refuse to define your words, and leave in a huff, It happens all the time. It&#8217;s the only way to preserve your theology in your own mind.
&#12288;

 

[Christopher0121]

2ducklow,

Do you believe that God is a Spirit who condescends to relate personally to man?

 

[Noxot]

i always looked at it like this. I see 3 different kinds of explanations of God. I see Father, I see Son and I see the Holy Spirit. i read a certain book that talked about and explained how the Son is God as well and how the Son was always with the Father and how He is both begotten and unbegotten. sort of like the Word was in God and just because words are spoken does not mean that they leave the brain as well. they are then both outside and inside.

also I believe that Jesus is both created and uncreated and so there is part of Jesus that is human and a creation and the other part of Him is not created or made. I believe that because of the words of the NT saying things like "Jesus is both passable and unpassable" and such things as that. it also seems a good thing that Jesus is created and uncreated ( i.e. not made rather than "does not exist") as it makes me feel closer to God and I feel like I have a bridge and mediator from created to God.

of course God is past any kind of explaining with words or visions and ect ect. everything falls short of Him because the creation can not grasp the Creator.

 

[2ducklow]

2ducklow,

Do you believe that God is a Spirit who condescends to relate personally to man?

what do you think a colon is used for? I'd like to hear your own special invented definition of a colon.

 

[cupid dave]

silly post
read Mt 3.17 for once...

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

But the kigdom of God in inside your head...



[FONT='Helvetica','sans-serif']Luke 17:20-21: Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied,[/FONT]
[FONT='Helvetica','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Helvetica','sans-serif'] "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."[/FONT]

 

[Christopher0121]

what do you think a colon is used for? I'd like to hear your own special invented definition of a colon.

I don't think that you realize that I'm trying to understand your position. You've made some provocative points.

I can see where one could argue that God isn't a "person" according to our standard definition of the term, but rather a "spirit". My question is, do you believe that this "Spirit" relates to us "personally"?

I'd also like to know your interpretation of the following verse:

Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

​

We both now agree that perhaps the word "person", as we use it today, is not appropriate. However, does God (who is Spirit) have "person" in some sense? If so, in what sense? Or... how is this verse actually using the word?

I'm enjoying the conversation. Thanks!

 

[2ducklow]

I don't think that you realize that I'm trying to understand your position. You've made some provocative points.

you are the one who doesn't know what a colon means. you claim that the definition of person is self, but it isn't , the definition of person you quoted said "personality of a HUMAN BEING : SELF. So your argument that person means a non human self is one of your own invention because you don't know what a colon means even after I posted the definition for you and highlighted it in red. you don't care to correct yourself because the words you use don't mean what they mean and you know it so for you it's like 'what's the big deal.'

I can see where one could argue that God isn't a "person" according to our standard definition of the term, but rather a "spirit". My question is, do you believe that this "Spirit" relates to us "personally"?

Do cats realte to us personally? cats aren't human just cause they can relate personally to us. cats can like us, or hate us or be indifferent to us, that doesn't make them human or a person.

I'd also like to know your interpretation of the following verse:

Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:​

the word doesn't mean person, which is typical for christian translations of scripture. It is a common teaching in christianity to use words to mean something other than what they mean. because it confuses everyone and prevents anyone from discovering the truth of thier false understandings. It's a tool for hiding the falsehood of false doctrines from understanding so that they could be rejected and replaced with the truth. Youy've just fallen into that christian trap of using words to mean something theyh don't mean or using them to mean nothing.

here's strongs def.

New Testament Greek for ' person '
5287 hupostasis {hoop-os'-tas-is}
from a compound of 5259 and 2476; TDNT - 8:572,1237; n f
AV - confidence 2, confident 1, person 1, substance 1; 5
1) a setting or placing under
1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
(strong's number 5287)

Strongs concordance.

Please not that person is not the def. of the word but merely how the AV translates it. what the word means is different than how it is translated in the Av.
here is a more accurate translation.


(Young) Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might--through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest

​

We both now agree that perhaps the word "person", as we use it today, is not appropriate. However, does God (who is Spirit) have "person" in some sense? If so, in what sense? Or... how is this verse actually using the word?

I'm enjoying the conversation. Thanks!

you have to use words to mean what they mean. since person is only used to refer to a non human in philosphy/theology it behoves us to not use it to refer to God because we should not, and I do not, use philosophy to interpret the bible. Philosophy often times , like metaphysics and neoplatonism only serves to make the bible a book of nonsense. and God is far far far beyond speaking nonsense, Humans are the sole propietors of nonsense.

 

[Ronald]

I every now and then run across a Trinitarian accusing me of 'assuming Unitarianism.' So here's my response: When Yeshua says 'my God' (Mat 27:46; Rev 3:12) how many persons is he calling 'his God' (hint; Jhn 20:17). When the Apostles talk about 'the God of our Lord Yeshua' (Eph. 1:17 for example) how many persons are they calling&#65279; 'his&#65279; God'&#65279; (hint; Col. 1:3). So, Yeshua's God only contains one person; the Father. Thus I will be like Rabbi Yeshua and have the same God that he has; the Father instead of a Trinity.

God emptied himself and became a man. The book of John starts with:
" In the beginning was the Word (who is Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So Jesus is God.
"He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." Jesus is the creator, who made all things! (Col. 16,17)
"He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."
" And the Word became 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, 2, 10, 14 NKJV

Jesus had two natures, He is the God/ Man. His humanity prayed to and submitted to the Father as a humble servant. He did not regard his equality with God as something to be GRASPED by man, that wasn't his primary intention, he was humble. (Phil. 2:6) Yet, when He ascended to heaven, He was glorified as he was before in heaven and given all authority in heaven and on earth. He can't have all authority unless you are God, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, nor could you create all. His is the fullness and radiance of the Father. "The Father and I are one." You cannot be full of grace unless you are fully God.

There are many verses that reveal the Triune God! Matt. 3:16, 17; 1Pet.1:2; 1John 5:6, 7; 1Pet. 3:18; Eph 2:18; John 14:16, 17, 26

Jesus made it clear that the Father would send another Helper who " ... teaches, guides, counsels, leads, gives truth, hears, speaks, is all powerful (omnipotent), searches all truth which means He has all knowledge (omniscience), is omnipresent since billions are comforted by Him, bears witness to Christ and glorifies Him, is wise, gives gifts, baptizes us, makes promises, loves us, fellowships with us, sanctifies us, justifies us, convicts us of sin and edifies us." (from "Hell ... If I Know")

 

[Christopher0121]

God emptied himself and became a man. The book of John starts with:
" In the beginning was the Word (who is Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So Jesus is God.
"He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." Jesus is the creator, who made all things! (Col. 16,17)
"He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."
" And the Word became 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, 2, 10, 14 NKJV

Jesus had two natures, He is the God/ Man. His humanity prayed to and submitted to the Father as a humble servant. He did not regard his equality with God as something to be GRASPED by man, that wasn't his primary intention, he was humble. (Phil. 2:6) Yet, when He ascended to heaven, He was glorified as he was before in heaven and given all authority in heaven and on earth. He can't have all authority unless you are God, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, nor could you create all. His is the fullness and radiance of the Father. "The Father and I are one." You cannot be full of grace unless you are fully God.

There are many verses that reveal the Triune God! Matt. 3:16, 17; 1Pet.1:2; 1John 5:6, 7; 1Pet. 3:18; Eph 2:18; John 14:16, 17, 26

Jesus made it clear that the Father would send another Helper who " ... teaches, guides, counsels, leads, gives truth, hears, speaks, is all powerful (omnipotent), searches all truth which means He has all knowledge (omniscience), is omnipresent since billions are comforted by Him, bears witness to Christ and glorifies Him, is wise, gives gifts, baptizes us, makes promises, loves us, fellowships with us, sanctifies us, justifies us, convicts us of sin and edifies us." (from "Hell ... If I Know")

I believe that God is triune... However, is God triune in the sense that He has three distinct modes of existence or is God triune in the sense that He is three distinct and eternal "persons"? If God is three distinct and eternal "persons", how does this differ from having three Gods?

 

[Ronald]

I believe that God is triune... However, is God triune in the sense that He has three distinct modes of existence or is God triune in the sense that He is three distinct and eternal "persons"? If God is three distinct and eternal "persons", how does this differ from having three Gods?

Three persons. This is a fundamental Christian doctrine held by Catholics and Prostestants. Being alone by yourself is no fun. Relationships are the core of His love and in this case, a perfect relationship in unity of mind, power and purpose. It is a profound concept that cannot be fully grasped. There is a distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for humanity to grasp and compartmentalize. That there is one God is true in the form of three persons, having the same spirit. "The Father is in Me and I am in the Father..." When the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus, was it some different spirit than the Fathers? In other words, is the Father's spirit in heaven, while a different spirit is in Jesus and a third spirit is in us, meaning three separate spirits, which would imply three separate gods? No! The fullness of God is in Jesus. When Jesus said, I must go so that the Father can send you another Helper who will live in you and glorify Me," He meant the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of the Father which is the Spirit of the Son. You are the temple of the Holy Spirit, yet Jesus is in you and the Father is in you! God is in you. "Mode" is not exactly the idea, you can't have a relationship with a mode.

 

[Christopher0121]

Three persons. This is a fundamental Christian doctrine held by Catholics and Prostestants.

Well… just because Catholics and Protestants believe in something, it doesn’t make it true. After all, Catholics also believe in Transubstantiation, the veneration of saints, etc. Protestants are so varied on so many doctrines (there are even multiple doctrines of the Trinity within Protestantism). Essentially, all a “Protestant” is, is a Christian believer who is in protest against the Catholic orthodoxy. And from a Catholic perspective…Protestants are heretical. By technical definition… even non-Trinitarians are “Protestants”.

Being alone by yourself is no fun. Relationships are the core of His love and in this case, a perfect relationship in unity of mind, power and purpose. It is a profound concept that cannot be fully grasped.

You imply that God is in need of relationship. God is not in need of anything. God desires relationship. That’s why God created living beings.

There is a distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for humanity to grasp and compartmentalize. That there is one God is true in the form of three persons, having the same spirit.

What is the difference between this and saying that you have three Gods who have the same spirit?

"The Father is in Me and I am in the Father..." When the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus, was it some different spirit than the Fathers? In other words, is the Father's spirit in heaven, while a different spirit is in Jesus and a third spirit is in us, meaning three separate spirits, which would imply three separate gods? No! The fullness of God is in Jesus. When Jesus said, I must go so that the Father can send you another Helper who will live in you and glorify Me," He meant the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of the Father which is the Spirit of the Son. You are the temple of the Holy Spirit, yet Jesus is in you and the Father is in you! God is in you.

We agree in that there is but one divine Spirit. However, I don’t see this Almighty God as having co-equals.

"Mode" is not exactly the idea, you can't have a relationship with a mode.

Ahhhh… but that’s not the concept. A mode of existence is simply a mode wherein God is working and manifest. For example, we have untold number of churches throughout the world. God is present in each church, through the Spirit, functioning, acting, drawing, saving in distinct ways…all at once. Therefore, we see the God at work in a spiritual mode of existence. This doesn’t negate truth that the very same God is in Christ, and that Jesus Christ is seated in Heaven, raised and glorified. This also doesn’t negate the fact that God was, is, and always will be our creator, the Father of the Son of God…yet another mode of existence.
All a “mode of existence” is, is a way in which something exists. I have a human mode of existence. However, if I were Jesus, I’d have not only a human mode of existence, but a divine mode of existence. It’s not the mode one has a relationship with. It’s the one who is manifest in that mode.

 

[cybrwurm]

"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." -- John 8:44 / NKJV

On March5 Ronald say: God emptied himself and became a man.

wurm say: Can a star "empty" itself and become a candle-flame? Can an elephant "empty" itself and become a fly? Of course not. All things are what they are because that's what they are. How then can the-god cease to be god and become something else? The very idea is not only utterly ridiculous, but down-right blasphemous. It makes the-god look like a fool.

R: The book of John starts with: "In the beginning was the Word (who is Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So Jesus is God.

Wrong, Ronald. John didn't say 'and the Word was God', he said 'and divine was the Logos'. This text was very *deliberately* changed by trinitarian a-holes just like you in order to justify their vile episcopal heresy. 'Don't believe everything you read' applies as much to the scriptures as it does to everything else.

R: "He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." Jesus is the creator, who made all things! (Col. 16,17)

That's almost right: the-god made all things through the Logos, who acts on the-god's behalf.

R: "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him." "And the Word became 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, 2, 10, 14 NKJV

None of which means that "Jesus is God". The Logos does NOT have to be equal to the-god in order to be the Logos, and to do all that the Logos does. In the same way, the Spirit does not have to be equal to the-god in order to be the Spirit, and to do all that the Spirit does. You can tell trinitarians the truth about these things, but with them it's in one ear and out the other. They much prefer their glorious theology to the true teachings of the scriptures, and will simply ignore the overwhelming testimony of the NT in order to focus upon the tiny fraction of corrupted texts that seem to support their vile episcopal heresy (as we shall see below).

Jesus had two natures, He is the God/Man.

Nowhere in the NT does it say that JC is a hybrid monstrosity called "God/Man"!

His humanity prayed to and submitted to the Father as a humble servant. He did not regard his equality with God as something to be GRASPED by man, that wasn't his primary intention, he was humble. (Phil. 2:6)

And yet trinitarians are constantly grasping after "equality with God"; trying to force JC to be God, because they foolishly suppose that a non-god JC is just not good enough. Trins are utterly oblivious to the fact that they deny the very meaning of the Christos by insisting that Jesus is God. Thus the prophet asks: "Who is a liar? Who else but the person who rejects Jesus as the Messiah?" (1Jn.2:22 / God's Word) And who is it that rejects Jesus as the Messiah? ... That's right; trinitarians! By claiming that Jesus is God they *necessarily* deny his status as the Anointed One. The reasoning behind this truth is really quite simple; but obviously far beyond the capacity of trinitarians to understand.
.
Here's how it goes: the Jewish concept of the Messiah was basically that of an uber-prophet. Now this super-prophet was conceived in various ways (eg. a military leader like unto Alexander the Great who would free the Jews from the oppressive yoke of Roman rule), but the fundamental idea was that the Messiah was the Mediator between God and humankind. By saying that Jesus is God, you are saying that the Mediator between God and Man is God; which is utterly absurd. In fact, now that Jesus is made God (by trinitarian theology) a *new* mediator between the triune-god and humankind is thus required. And can you guess who that might be? That's right; the wise and glorious overseers become the mediators by default (since they also reject the prophets along with the Anointed One (who is essentially a prophet)).
.
Do I really need to spell this out for you? These overseers are the very liars that the prophet warns us about. They are, in fact, false prophets who have stolen the authority and ministry of the prophets, and taken it upon themselves to be the mediators between humankind and the fabulous Trinity of their own creation. This then is the true motivation behind the entire vile structure of trinitarian theology, which is empowered by a reckless piety mated with ignorance and stupidity. Therefore ALL those who claim that Jesus is God are liars and loyal sons and daughters of these same ancient overseers; even those who foolishly imagine that they are free of the romish yoke!

Yet, when He ascended to heaven, He was glorified as he was before in heaven and given all authority in heaven and on earth. He can't have all authority unless you are God, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, nor could you create all. His is the fullness and radiance of the Father. "The Father and I are one." You cannot be full of grace unless you are fully God.

This is a clear denial of the teachings of the prophet John, who says that JC is indeed full of grace and truth. It is only ignorant trinitarians who suppose that this can't be true "unless you are fully God". As for me, I'll believe what the inspired prophet says, even if it contradicts what these foolish trinitarians say.

There are many verses that reveal the Triune God! Matt. 3:16, 17; 1Pet.1:2; 1John 5:6, 7; 1Pet. 3:18; Eph 2:18; John 14:16, 17, 26 <snip remainder>

Let us see if the Trinity is indeed witnessed to in this grab-bag of "proof-texts":

Matt. 3:16,17 > When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Well, not only is there no Trinity present here, but there is not even the slightest hint that there might be such an absurd creature. Which only goes to prove one thing; namely, that trinitarians are people who love to project their vile episcopal heresy into texts that are obviously not built to hold it.

1Pet.1:2 > ... elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ

Silvanus here refers to God as 'the Father', but foolishly neglects to specify that the Spirit is 'God the Spirit' and that JC is God the Son. On the other hand, the mere mention of these three in the same sentence is considered to be "proof" of the Trinity ... by trinitarians who see every text through their distorting theological spectacles.

1John 5:6,7 > This is He who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Well, verse seven is indeed a trinitarian statement; one might even say that it is a carefully crafted dogmatic formula. Unfortunately for the trins this verse was NOT written by the inspired prophet, but was added to the text much later. And this is a literary fact widely recognized by bible scholars, which is why most modern versions only mention it in a footnote. That the NKJV still uses it only proves that the makers of this version care nothing for the integrity of the text, and consider their theological biases sufficient to justify their violent treatment of John's writings.

1Pet.3:18 > For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit

Here again Silvanus makes a clear distinction between the-god and the other two divine beings. There is no hint of equality, no confusion of these three being the same one God, and hence no proof of the Trinity.

Eph 2:17-18 > And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

Once again an awareness of three beings does NOT constitute proof of the Trinity.

John 14:16,17,26 > And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. ... But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Once again an awareness of three beings does NOT constitute proof of the Trinity. What trinitarians can't seem to get through their thick skulls is the plain and obvious fact that the trinitarian theology is a post-biblical development that began in the second century and continued for several more centuries. Somewhere along the way it was decided (by various overseers, no doubt) that the scriptures had to be brought into harmony with this vile theology, and so the redactors changed, adjusted, and added to the texts with this goal in mind. And these corrupted texts are usually the ones that trins point to as their beloved "proof texts"; and they do this immediately after ignoring the historical realities just mentioned above. The vile episcopal heresy of trinitarianism therefore relies upon stupidity and ignorance in equal measure, and also requires a profound contempt for the basic integrity of the sacred-texts.
.
- one who can never be too hard on these liars ~ cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. Yes, trinitarians "have exchanged the Truth about God for a Lie" (Rom 1:25).

 

[Christopher0121]

cybrwurm , I disagree with both you and Trinitarianism.


Jesus was one with his Father. That mans that the man Jesus Christ was a man who was one with God. Therefore, in him we see a person who is both man and God. While Jesus is fully human, Christ's human nature is in union with the very Spirit and divine nature of the Father. Therefore Christ partakes in the divine nature, and has from conception. This is why Jesus, although being a man, can also be said to be God.

The attached diagram best explains Oneness from my perspective. I'll define some terms as found on the diagram:

God = God, the only divine being, the Almighty, the Father
Man = The Son of God, the man Jesus Christ
​

I hope it helps.

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one. (KJV)

John 14:7-10
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)

​

Jesus is both man and God. Hense:

John 15:23
He that hateth me hateth my Father also.


1 John 2:23
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

​

This is the "doctrine of Christ":

2 John 1:9
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

​

Who was "in Christ" reconciling the world unto Himself?

2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

​

 

[cybrwurm]

On 8March Aquila0121 say: cybrwurm, I disagree with both you and Trinitarianism. Jesus was one with his Father. That means that the man Jesus Christ was a man who was one with God. Therefore, in him we see a person who is both man and God.

wurm say: Not so. You, just like the trins, mistakenly understand John 10:30 ('I and my Father are one') to be an ontological statement, which is a distortion of a spiritual truth. According to John's teachings we can say that Jesus was a divine man (and therefore the-god is revealed in him), but we can't say that JC is "both man and God" for the simple reason that such a statement necessarily violates the oneness of the-god. So the reason why Jesus can say that 'the Father and I are one' is precisely because he is the manifestation of the divine-Logos who is "facing" the-god. Of course the divine-son is one with the Father; for the divine-Logos is the very instrument of the-god's will. What the-god wants, the divine-Logos also wants. What the-god wills, the divine-Logos also wills. And this is precisely why the Cosmic-Father is revealed in and through Jesus Christ. I really don't see that Oneness theology adds anything of value to the prophet's teachings.
.
Moreover, when we say that Jesus is a "divine-man" we do not mean to imply that he is somehow more than human (man+plus), as this would necessarily compromise his humanity. Jesus is not different from us in kind, but only in *degree*. He is human-being taken to its maximum potential; and this is why the prophet urges believers to "walk as that one walked". And this we cannot do if we hold to the unbiblical notion that Jesus is God; unless you are willing to say that all people are also little-gods. But the prophet does not say that! Instead he says that we have the power to become the "children of god". Now these teachings are perfectly consistent with the prophet's Logos-theology, and are (in fact) based squarely upon the truth revealed in the third gospel: "The true light that enlightens *every* man coming into the world" (Jn 1:9). In other words, we *all* have (in varying degrees, of course) the Way of Love & Reason within us; in our minds and in our hearts. The divine-Logos lives in all of us! ... This is the good-news according to John.

A: While Jesus is fully human, Christ's human nature is in union with the very Spirit and divine nature of the Father. Therefore Christ partakes in the divine nature, and has from conception. This is why Jesus, although being a man, can also be said to be God.

Wrong again, Aquila0121. Christ partakes in the divine nature because he is the incarnation of the divine-Logos, who is NOT the-god, but a unique divine person in his own right. The prophet John does not confuse the divine-son with the one and only true God. But you do so deliberately ... just like the trinitarians do. Therefore you are not so different from them as you seem to think you are. If you can say with John that 'Jesus is fully human', why do you immediately contradict yourself with the absurd claim that Jesus "can also be said to be God". You can't have it both ways. You can't be a trinitarian and a non-trinitarian at one and the same time. Indeed, your theology is just as screwed up as the vile episcopal heresy.

A: The attached diagram best explains Oneness from my perspective. I'll define some terms as found on the diagram: God = God, the only divine being, the Almighty, the Father. Man = The Son of God, the man Jesus Christ. <snip>

Aquila0121, you use the words of the prophet John as proof-texts of the Oneness theology, but it is apparent (at least to me) that your understanding of John is severely flawed and seriously skewed, which makes your interpretations and conclusions highly doubtful. For example, you say that the-god is "the only divine being", but this idea certainly does NOT come from John, whose teachings revolve around the reality of the only-begotten-one, who is the divine-Logos. So there's one very fundamental error right there.

A: John 14:7-10 > If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)

Once again we have to intrepret these statements within the context of the Logos-theology. ANY other approach will *necessarily* distort John's teachings, and lead to confusion and misunderstanding. So, strictly speaking it is the Way of Love & Reason that "dwelleth" in Jesus. But since the-god is the ultimate source of both the divine-Logos and the holy-Spirit, Jesus is certainly not wrong to say "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father". What IS wrong is to jump from this spiritual truth to the (unjustified) ontological conclusion that

A: Jesus is both man and God. <snip>

As to Paul's statement that 'the-god was in Christ' ... we understand this according to the Logos-theology whereby God was in Christ by way of the divine-Logos. Of course, Paulos himself might not agree with this interpretation, but I see no serious problems in thus filtering Paul's teachings through the superior theology of the prophet John. Indeed it is by far the best way to approach Paul's teachings, as it allows us to embrace the truth therein, while also deflecting Paul's errors and mistakes.
.
As to the Oneness theology itself, is it not obvious that it is far closer to the trinitarian theology than to the Logos-theology? It is certainly NOT in harmony with the superior Logos-theology of the prophet John; which does NOT compromise the oneness of the-god; whereas the Oneness theology does exactly that ... just like the vile episcopal heresy of trinitarianism! So I think that you, Aquila0121, have a rather tough choice facing you. If you want to be faithful to the biblical teachings, then you will have to dump this Oneness theology in the trash, and embrace the teachings of the inspired prophet without prejudice and preconception ... *OR* admit that your unbiblical heresy is a close second cousin to the vile teachings of trinitarianism.
.
I'm praying that you'll see the light, and make the right choice ...

 

[Leto Atreides]

Perhaps the simplest answer is the one that requires a perspective that sits outside of both Trinitarian & Unitarian 'camps'.

I think we can agree that the term 'person' being taken literally has caused a great deal of misunderstanding, but we're only human -- we have a limited understanding of the world around us, and can only interpret the Word with that same amount of understanding. I believe that there's an amount of intuition required for the interpretation as well.



Trinitarians are right.



Unitarians are right, also.

The reason? Because God is one being/spirit/person/subsistence, etc. -- but God also has three parts which, together, are the complete God. Each part has a function or role, but works in synergy to form the whole.

Just like the human body is made up of several parts and systems, all with various forms and functions -- but each one works together to complete and sustain the whole. To identify a single part as being the sole important part, and neglecting the others is foolish.

Also, we don't simply address or identify ourselves by our parts -- we have always been known as human beings (identified by our names), rather than 'walking, toothed organisms' or 'short-haired, flesh-and-bone, idea carriers' (although, in distinguishing our species from others on this planet, we have done exactly that, i.e. 'homo sapien', 'mammalian biped', 'Texan', etc.). We know it comes together to form the human being (not like Voltron, but still pretty amazingly when you think about it).

So, what I'm getting at is this: if we have all, at one point or another, wrapped our intellects around the fact that all human beings have working circulatory, digestive, endocrine, immune, lymphatic, muscular, nervous, reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, and urinary systems all in one package, I'm sure there's room for understanding what/how a triune God could be...