Jesus created old wine, why not old earth?

[Critias]

Of one essence and one ontologically, yes. One person? That means that the person of the Father was Incarnated on earth. That the Father was no longer omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. Blasphemy.

That means God was incarnated on earth. And at the same time God was in heaven and God was moving as He wished elsewhere. He IS omnipresent.

You seem to not be able to understand that God is truly omnipresent and that His omnipresence is not based on our limited understanding of it.

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. God is One. God is not three separate people that all share as being God. God is One.

The blasphemy that is being preached here is your support for polytheism, that God has separated Himself as three separate and different people who share the responsibility of being God.

The Father is God. The Son is God. The Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son. The Father is not the Spirit. The Son is not the Spirit.

God is the Father. God is the Son.
The Father is God. The Son is God.

I am a brother, a son, and a father. The brother is me, the son is me, the father is me. My role as brother is not the same as my role as the son, but I am both.

What you seem to not be able to grasp your mind around is that God is all three and all three are God. They are not separate from God, they are not offsprings of God, they are not separate gods with God. Each is God, and God is each. It is how He has shown Himself to mankind. And in the case of Jesus Christ, God was also showing His omnipresence of walking on earth and being the Father in heaven.

You are confusing Mormonism for Trinitarianism.

Not really. You are trying to teach that the Father, Son and Spirit are three different and separate people that make up God.

What I am trying to teach is that God is the Father, the Son and the Spirit. The Father, Son and Spirit don't make up God, God makes up them and is how He reveals Himself to us.

You teach 3 gods to make 1 God.
I teach 1 God who has revealed Himself in 3 persona's to mankind.

Then what is he?

Asking what is He, is the wrong question. Who is He?

YHWH

Jesus equates himself with the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Wisdom of the Father. He never calls himself the Father. He is "true light from true light, very God from very God".

Jesus didn't equate Himself with logos. John spoke of Him as the Logos. Yet, so many people haven't grasped what John was truly saying about Jesus. Instead, too many get hung up on the word logos.

Jesus never outright said, 'I am God.' Yet, Jesus allowed Himself to be called Lord, Son of God, and even He Himself said He was "I AM". Terms reserved only for speaking of God.

You seem to continue to resonate your belief and teaching that it is 3 gods that make up 1 God.

Even humans (Elijah) had raised the dead through God's power. This has nothing to do with a human's "ability" to avoid sin, death, etc. If Jesus "manipulated" these aspects of his Divine nature then he "cheated" his way through life.

Nice to see that you changed my statement, by shortening it and adding the question mark where it wasn't. Thanks.

Is this stance because you don't understand how God can be fully man and fully God at the same time? Humanity and choice, pain and suffering, needs to sustain the body, these are what Jesus experienced as being a man. Yet, He contained the completness of being God, bodily, as Paul teaches.

Because your human mind cannot comprehend how it is possible that Jesus could contain being completely God with his divine attributes and still be fully man doesn't then render this Truth false.

You are trying to dimish Jesus to nothing more than a prophet. Yet, the Bible teaches He was fully God, completely God, bodily. Complete means complete. Fully means fully. Yet, He could be tempted, He could have sinned, He felt anguish and pain, hunger and everything else we feel.

Why do you choose to dimish who Jesus Christ is and then call yourself a Christian?

 

[ebia]

You don't seem to have understood what Scholar in training has said, because most of your objections are not objections to what he has said (which is standard Orthodox teaching as summarised in the ancient creeds and similar), but to your mistaken interpretation of that.

 

[Scholar in training]

The blasphemy that is being preached here is your support for polytheism

You are a charlatan to promote patripassionism, a teaching that heaps insult against the Father and completely alters one's understanding of who the Son is.

that God has separated Himself as three separate and different people who share the responsibility of being God.

We first of all have to define the word "separate". I do not believe in three gods as the Mormons do. I believe in the three persons of the living God. A hypostasis of Wisdom (or any of God's attributes, for that matter) is not a problem for monotheism.

You teach 3 gods to make 1 God.

You are attacking a strawman.

I teach 1 God who has revealed Himself in 3 persona's to mankind.

The persons of God are not mere roles.

Asking what is He, is the wrong question. Who is He?

YHWH

You are avoiding the question. What word would you use to define "who" God the Father is? Is he a person?

Does God have attributes?

Jesus didn't equate Himself with logos.

Yes, he did. Many times:

John spoke of Him as the Logos. Yet, so many people haven't grasped what John was truly saying about Jesus. Instead, too many get hung up on the word logos.

This is a bullish argument. The word "Logos" indicates a differenciation between God the Father and God the Word.

Jesus never outright said, 'I am God.'

Whether he ever "outright" said anything about his Divinity is no of importance if he did say something about his Divinity as the Father's Logos.

Yet, Jesus allowed Himself to be called Lord, Son of God, and even He Himself said He was "I AM". Terms reserved only for speaking of God.

I am not denying that Jesus is God. It is necessary to say that he is God because he is ontologically coequal with the Father and the Spirit. What I am denying is that he is the same person as the Father.

In that regard Jesus' titles as Lord and Son of God are not a problem (though one wonders why Jesus called himself the Son of God if he were the person of the Father). As for the title of "I AM", Jesus was using it to contrast his eternal existence to that of Abraham's "coming into" existence. It is very similar to God's answer in Exodus, contrasting God's eternal existence with that of the non-existence of the idols in Egypt.

That said, there are examples of Wisdom representing the authority of the Father in the OT ("Wisdom cries aloud in the street. . . ."). It is what we would expect from a culture that sees the "speech" of God in living form. It doesn't mean that Wisdom is the same person as God.

Is this stance because you don't understand how God can be fully man and fully God at the same time?

I have understood more than you will forget.

Humanity and choice, pain and suffering, needs to sustain the body, these are what Jesus experienced as being a man. Yet, He contained the completness of being God, bodily, as Paul teaches.

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col 2:9-12; emphasis mine).

Your interpretation of verse 9 does not make sense in context. By saying God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, Paul is clearly differenciating between the Father, "who raised Jesus Christ" from the dead, and Jesus himself. Was Paul a polytheist as well?

You are trying to dimish Jesus to nothing more than a prophet.

I am hardly "dimishing" Jesus to the status of prophet by calling him the Logos, God the Word, eternally begotten of the Father (i.e. uncreated, without beginning). These are titles of honor infinitely more weighty than that of "prophet".

Yet, the Bible teaches He was fully God, completely God, bodily. Complete means complete.

What the Bible teaches, or more correctly what the Apostles and disciples of the Apostles taught in accordance with Jesus' testimony and written in the Bible, is that Jesus is God's Wisdom, not the person of the Father, and that this same Jesus "put on flesh" and "tabernacled" among us.

Fully means fully.

Jesus is fully Man and fully God. But "fully" does not mean "the same person as the Father". Do you know what the word "person" means?

Why do you choose to dimish who Jesus Christ is and then call yourself a Christian?

You are the one "dimishing" who Jesus is by confusing the persons of the Father and the Son and misunderstanding what St. John meant when he said that the Word became flesh.

 

[Critias]

You are a charlatan to promote patripassionism, a teaching that heaps insult against the Father and completely alters one's understanding of who the Son is.

Show me the error of my ways to state this:

God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God.

Show me where I am wrong.

We first of all have to define the word "separate". I do not believe in three gods as the Mormons do. I believe in the three persons of the living God. A hypostasis of Wisdom (or any of God's attributes, for that matter) is not a problem for monotheism.

Are these persons separate from each other? Do they have not connection to one another except that they share being God?

I believe in God who has revealed Himself in three persona's to mankind.

You are attacking a strawman.

It is your continued argument that God is some how splintered Himself into three separate and different people.

The persons of God are not mere roles.

Is Jesus God?
Is the Spirit God?
Is the Father God?

Is God the Father?
Is God the Son?
Is God the Spirit?

If God is all, God is One, not three different and separate people.

You are avoiding the question. What word would you use to define "who" God the Father is? Is he a person?

Does God have attributes?

God the Father is YHWH.

Yes, God has attributes.

Yes, he did. Many times:

Quote a verse where Jesus says He is the logos. The argument is not whether Jesus is the logos, but your claim that Jesus said He is the logos. As you say, He said it many times. So, you should have many verses where He is quoted saying He is the logos.

This is a bullish argument. The word "Logos" indicates a differenciation between God the Father and God the Word.

I agree about the logos, but too many get hung up on just the logos and don't really hear whatelse John is stating. That Jesus is eternal, the One spoken about in prophecy and God who walked among men.

Whether he ever "outright" said anything about his Divinity is no of importance if he did say something about his Divinity as the Father's Logos.

Is the Father God?
Is the Son God?

Is God the Father?
Is God the Son?

I am not denying that Jesus is God. It is necessary to say that he is God because he is ontologically coequal with the Father and the Spirit. What I am denying is that he is the same person as the Father.

God is the Father.
God is the Son.
God is the Spirit.

They are all equal because they are all One.

If you are denying that the Son and Father aren't both God, then you are denying their Deity and unity as God.

"Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" John 14:9

In that regard Jesus' titles as Lord and Son of God are not a problem (though one wonders why Jesus called himself the Son of God if he were the person of the Father). As for the title of "I AM", Jesus was using it to contrast his eternal existence to that of Abraham's "coming into" existence. It is very similar to God's answer in Exodus, contrasting God's eternal existence with that of the non-existence of the idols in Egypt.

Son of God was often understood as God by the Jews in those days. Just as Adonai was reserved solely for God, yet Jesus was called Adonai.

Jesus was stating that He is eternal.

That said, there are examples of Wisdom representing the authority of the Father in the OT ("Wisdom cries aloud in the street. . . ."). It is what we would expect from a culture that sees the "speech" of God in living form. It doesn't mean that Wisdom is the same person as God.

Now, we are finally getting a clear picture of what you are teaching. Your statement here, 'It doesn't mean that Wisdom is the same person as God' with the reference to Jesus as this Wisdom, you make the claim that Jesus is not the same person as God.

Since you clearly state Jesus isn't God, who do you say Jesus is?

I have understood more than you will forget.


"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col 2:9-12; emphasis mine).

Your interpretation of verse 9 does not make sense in context. By saying God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, Paul is clearly differenciating between the Father, "who raised Jesus Christ" from the dead, and Jesus himself. Was Paul a polytheist as well?

'For in Christ, all the fullness of the Deity (state of being God) lives in bodily form.' Yet, you state this doesn't support Jesus containing the fullness of being God bodily...

Was Jesus wrong to state that He would raise Himself? 'Destory this temple and in three days I will raise it up.' John 2:19

'No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.' John 10:18

I am hardly "dimishing" Jesus to the status of prophet by calling him the Logos, God the Word, eternally begotten of the Father (i.e. uncreated, without beginning). These are titles of honor infinitely more weighty than that of "prophet".

Not dimishing Jesus when you made the claim that Jesus isn't the same person as God?

What the Bible teaches, or more correctly what the Apostles and disciples of the Apostles taught in accordance with Jesus' testimony and written in the Bible, is that Jesus is God's Wisdom, not the person of the Father, and that this same Jesus "put on flesh" and "tabernacled" among us.

What the Bible teaches is that Jesus is God. You claimed Jesus isn't the same person as God. The Bible says the Father is God. The Bible says the Spirit is God. The Bible doesn't state that God is really three separate and different people.

Jesus is fully Man and fully God. But "fully" does not mean "the same person as the Father". Do you know what the word "person" means?

God is the Father.
God is the Son.
God is the Spirit.

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Spirit is God.

Was Thomas wrong to bow down to Jesus and say, 'My Lord, My God'? Was Jesus wrong to allow Thomas to worship Jesus as God? Yet, you state Jesus isn't the same person as God.

You are the one "dimishing" who Jesus is by confusing the persons of the Father and the Son and misunderstanding what St. John meant when he said that the Word became flesh.

Yes, I dimish Jesus because I claim He is God, because I claim the Father is God, and the Spirit is God.

 

[ebia]

I thought the Athanasian Creed might help, since Critas doesn't seem to understand what Scholar in Training is saying:

Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally.





Now the Catholic Faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. 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 infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spiritinfinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated,and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like s we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, nod made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is noting before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity. But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the God Head in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father,from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation. AMEN


The Athanasian Creed is one of the Creeds of the Ancient Faith, dating back to the fourth or fifth century. While it was not written by St. Athanasius, himself, it captures the essence of his expressions and ideas.

 

[Critias]

"Three Persons" does not mean "three people," since we are speaking of God. It does not mean three "parts," either. Each Person is himself God, not part of God. Each Person of the Trinity is a party to God's activity. Scholar said Jesus, God's Wisdom, is not God.

 

[ebia]

"Three Persons" does not mean "three people," since we are speaking of God. It does not mean three "parts," either. Each Person is himself God, not part of God.

But they are distinct persons. The Son is not the Father, is not the Spirit. And they are not just modes, facets, or personas - that is an ancient heresy.

Each Person of the Trinity is a party to God's activity. Scholar said Jesus, God's Wisdom, is not God.

I don't think he did. IIRC you infered it from what he said, but infering things from what people say is a dangerous game when one is discussing a paradox such as the orthodox understanding of the Trinity:

I am not denying that Jesus is God.

 

[Critias]

Scholar stated that Jesus is God's Wisdom. He backs it up with a quote from tecktonics. Then he states this:

'It doesn't mean that Wisdom is the same person as God.'

Essentially, he is saying that Wisdom(Jesus) is not the same person as God.

Yet, John, in John 1:1 says the Logos was God. We understand this as Jesus is God. That is what I accept, so show me where I am wrong if that is what you feel.

 

[California Tim]

How did this thread morph into a debate on the Trinity and what does it have to do with the OP?

 

[ebia]

Scholar stated that Jesus is God's Wisdom. He backs it up with a quote from tecktonics. Then he states this:

'It doesn't mean that Wisdom is the same person as God.'

Essentially, he is saying that Wisdom(Jesus) is not the same person as God.

Yet, John, in John 1:1 says the Logos was God. We understand this as Jesus is God. That is what I accept, so show me where I am wrong if that is what you feel.

I suspect that was a typo, and he mean to say 'It doesn't mean that Wisdom is the same person as the Father.'

Hopefully he will be along soon to sort it out.

 

[ebia]

How did this thread morph into a debate on the Trinity and what does it have to do with the OP?

Not a lot, but then the OP seemed to have exhausted itself anyway.

 

[Scholar in training]

I suspect that was a typo, and he mean to say 'It doesn't mean that Wisdom is the same person as the Father.'

Hopefully he will be along soon to sort it out.

It was not a typo, but taken in the context of everything else I have said on the subject, I think that Critias should have been able to see that I was referring to the person of God the Father, not the Godhead itself. The word "God" is used in modern English as either a title for the Father or for the Godhead itself. In fact a quote of what I said earlier on the subject was:

I am not denying that Jesus is God. It is necessary to say that he is God because he is ontologically coequal with the Father and the Spirit. What I am denying is that he is the same person as the Father.

(Emphasis added). I have said that Jesus is God the Son, the Word, the eternal Logos of the Father, not to be confused with the persons of the Father or the Spirit. I have said that Jesus is fully God and fully Man. I have said that although there are three persons in the Trinity there is but one God. I have not said that Jesus is a mere prophet. I have not said that Jesus is only a Man.

If God is all, God is One, not three different and separate people.

It is a statement like this that strikes me as denying the three persons of the Godhead, as well as this troubling statement:

I believe stating that Jesus, the Son, and God, the Father not being One person is polytheism, not monotheism.

The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all God, but they are not one person. There are three persons in the Trinity who are one God, and those three persons are not to be confused with one another.

I interpreted Critias as saying that the person of the Father had been Incarnated, rather than the person of the Son, and so I emphasized the differences between the Father and the Son, the Wisdom of the Father. Are you saying, Critias, that the person of the Father was Incarnated, or that God alternates between persons (i.e., that he does not exist as all three persons simultaneously and eternally)?

Each Person is himself God, not part of God.

Each person in the Trinity is himself God, not a part of God, but the persons of the Son and the Spirit are not the same person as God the Father. Are we in agreement?

Quote a verse where Jesus says He is the logos. The argument is not whether Jesus is the logos, but your claim that Jesus said He is the logos. As you say, He said it many times. So, you should have many verses where He is quoted saying He is the logos.

Are you insisting that Jesus is not the Logos OR that he never said he was the Logos, but he is?

As for Jesus saying that he is the person of God the Word, there are many parallels between Jesus' words and wisdom/intertestamonial literature. These parallels are listed on the Tektonics web page I linked to earlier.

 

[Critias]

It was not a typo, but taken in the context of everything else I have said on the subject, I think that Critias should have been able to see that I was referring to the person of God the Father, not the Godhead itself. The word "God" is used in modern English as either a title for the Father or for the Godhead itself. In fact a quote of what I said earlier on the subject was:

I am not denying that Jesus is God. It is necessary to say that he is God because he is ontologically coequal with the Father and the Spirit. What I am denying is that he is the same person as the Father.

(Emphasis added). I have said that Jesus is God the Son, the Word, the eternal Logos of the Father, not to be confused with the persons of the Father or the Spirit. I have said that Jesus is fully God and fully Man. I have said that although there are three persons in the Trinity there is but one God. I have not said that Jesus is a mere prophet. I have not said that Jesus is only a Man.


It is a statement like this that strikes me as denying the three persons of the Godhead, as well as this troubling statement:


The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all God, but they are not one person. There are three persons in the Trinity who are one God, and those three persons are not to be confused with one another.


I interpreted Critias as saying that the person of the Father had been Incarnated, rather than the person of the Son, and so I emphasized the differences between the Father and the Son, the Wisdom of the Father. Are you saying, Critias, that the person of the Father was Incarnated, or that God alternates between persons (i.e., that he does not exist as all three persons simultaneously and eternally)?

The Father does is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit, but God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Spirit. My problem is with the phrase 'separate persons'. They are not separate as you and I are. That is the mystery of the Trinity.

Each person in the Trinity is himself God, not a part of God, but the persons of the Son and the Spirit are not the same person as God the Father. Are we in agreement?

As you phrase the above that each are God, but the Spirit is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, then we are in agreement.

Are you insisting that Jesus is not the Logos OR that he never said he was the Logos, but he is?

As for Jesus saying that he is the person of God the Word, there are many parallels between Jesus' words and wisdom/intertestamonial literature. These parallels are listed on the Tektonics web page I linked to earlier.

Jesus is the logos. He never stated Himself to be the logos.

My apologies for derailing this thread and if I have misunderstood your stance Scholar.

 

[ebia]

The Father does is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit, but God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Spirit. My problem is with the phrase 'separate persons'. They are not separate as you and I are. That is the mystery of the Trinity.

They are not separate as you and I are separate, but the description "separate persons" is the terminology used to describe the relationship since the concept of Trinity was thrashed out in the ecumenical councils of the 1st half of the 1st millennium. One essence. Three persons.

As you phrase the above that each are God, but the Spirit is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, then we are in agreement.

 

[Scholar in training]

My problem is with the phrase 'separate persons'.

However there are three persons in the Trinity who exist simultaneously and without beginning.

As you phrase the above that each are God, but the Spirit is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, then we are in agreement.

Jesus is the logos. He never stated Himself to be the logos.

I believe that the site I linked to demonstrates otherwise. If you need to find the specific section I am referring to look for the words "John 1".

My apologies for derailing this thread and if I have misunderstood your stance Scholar.

Apology accepted. I am sorry if I misunderstood you as well.