- May 28, 2015
- 15,873
- 7,590
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Don't hold your breath....I understand you when you do this. I asked why you insist upon asking for a clearminded discussion...and then persist in going out of your way to insult those who believe in the Trinity.
Illogical and untrue. It's standard usage you can find in any history book.
Then do it...and add the word "the" in front of it.
You are quite welcome. As to whether the Holy Spirit (also called the Holy Ghost) is indeed God, let's examine Acts 5:1-11 (KJV) which is a very solemn warning to Christians:Quite right you are. I suppose by the way since this thread is now tilting towards pneumatomachianism we should bring out the verses in defense of the divinity of the Spirit. In so doing, I expect the non-Trinitarians will attempt to use some references, for example, in Proverbs, to attempt to reject the divinity of the Lord, which they attempted unsuccessfully to use previously.
That really isn't the point, although I think it's quite normal for people to lose interest in debating with some other member who deliberately insults them in every post.So the manner that I post isn't 'nice enough' to be considered worthy of consideration.
I understand you when you do this. I asked why you insist upon asking for a clearminded discussion...and then persist in going out of your way to insult those who believe in the Trinity.
So, not using a capital T is INSULTING to 'trinitarians'? And then you accuse me of INTENTIONALLY insulting 'trnitarians' by NOT using a capital "T"? If I thought for ONE second that you were serious I'd probably rupture something laughing. I guess you really DON'T understand me as you assume.
This reminds me of those that would insist that I MUST dress like they do in order to be considered 'worthy' of speaking. Or that I MUST wear a particular perfume. Silly me, I always thought we were suppose to be free to express ourselves in OUR OWN manner so long as we abide by the TOS.
If you find insult in such triviality, I suggest 'anger management' or some other form of counseling. For I have certainly made NO attempt to elicit such hostility in my posts.
Illogical and untrue. It's standard usage you can find in any history book.
I don't know how the usage of capitalization can be shown to cause offense in ANYONE so far as history is concerned, EXCEPT in those that insist that EVERYONE must accept it or be labeled UNCHRISTIAN. Sorry if I'm not 'standard' according to YOUR standards or anyone else's.
Then do it...and add the word "the" in front of it.
You are quite welcome. As to whether the Holy Spirit (also called the Holy Ghost) is indeed God, let's examine Acts 5:1-11 (KJV) which is a very solemn warning to Christians:
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying herforth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
QUESTIONS
1. Who was lied to? The Holy Ghost. (v 3)
2. Who is contrasted with men? God the Holy Ghost. (v 4)
3. What is another name for the Holy Spirit? The Spirit of God. [to "tempt" is to test] (v 9).
We are told in the creation account that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). So the Holy Spirit is both the Spirit of God as well as God. If this boggles the mind, then it is as it should be. We are dealing with the Mystery of God.
So the manner that I post isn't 'nice enough' to be considered worthy of consideration.
Over the years, the only people that have ever commented on my 'style' are those that take offense to it due to disagreement.
I already pointed out, I'm not here to play the game of 'political correctness'. I'm not a politician and I'm not looking for VOTES. I try my best to be honest and offer what I'm able in the manner that I'm able.
But, I can certainly understand that when one's back is against a wall, whatever they can do to try and 'get away' is usually what they will do. You know, like attack the messenger rather than the message.
Once again, let me offer, if the interpretation of the beginning of the Gospel of John doesn't FIT the rest of scripture, the obvious answer is that it is being misinterpreted.
You say it points to 'trinity'. I say it does no such thing. And you say that the scriptures are against 'non trinitarians. But it wasn't scripture that created 'trinity'. It was MEN. There have ALWAYS been those that deny 'trinity' since it was invented.
God NEVER instructed us on 'trinity'. Not a single prophet even MENTIONED it. Nor His own Son or the apostles. It's history is clearly revealed. A group of men with more power than others basically 'took it to court' and won their case. Not unusual for a decision to be improperly concluded through the COURTS of men. We see it every day.
And then let us consider the method that was used to instill it into the minds of those under their control. Threats, torture, murder. All these in the name of the NEW Christ created through 'trinity'. History speaks for itself.
And then what about Martin Luther? While he pointed out a ton of false teachings and behavior by 'the church', what he never seemed to figure out was the SOURCE of the deceptions. HOW the 'church' was able to create and perpetuate such atrocities against the congregation, in the NAME of Christ............
I would offer that if you build upon a faulty foundation, anything is possible so far as corruption is concerned. We see the examples throughout history.
Even those that 'created trinity' openly admit that there is no where in scripture that it is actually revealed. That it is ONLY through 'divine revelation' that it can be revealed and even then it cannot be comprehended. It STILL remains a mystery. Yet you insist that scripture can not only REVEAL IT, but can plainly show that refusal to accept it can be revealed as 'false understanding' as well.
And after I JUST got through offering you praise on your understanding, you then try and attack ME rather than the topic? Typical. For I have discussed this issue for YEARS with those that profess to believe in and follow 'trinity' and it always seems to work the same way. Once myself and others point out the basics that DISPROVE any possibility of 'trinity', then they go after the individuals instead of the topic. It would seem a recurring tactic that goes back to the beginning. I guess those of us who refuse to accept it should be thankful that the 'churches' no longer possess the authority to torture a confession out of us and then burn us alive. For it seems at times that the same 'spirit' exists today that was born the day it was decided to make 'trinity' LAW. Just saying.........
I believe these words sum it up more precisely than any words I could ever offer:
The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle and other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, knowing the importance of names, they have assumed that of Christians, while they are mere Platonists, or anything rather than disciples of Jesus.
and then:
No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant in the Eastern States; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States. The Eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestley's learned writings on it are, or should be, in every hand. In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
Let me offer this CLEARLY. I am much more inclined to accept 'trinity' as OFFERED by those that created it rather than the confused offerings that so many offer. Christ is CERTAINLY of similar essence to the Father who created Him, (begat Him). But He is certainly not EQUAL to The Father: GOD. Nor IS HE: God. He is the Son: exactly who He revealed Himself to BE. And it has been THROUGH the Bible that I have come to accept what I believe is CLEARLY offered in TRUTH.
I would like to offer that Christ came to REVEAL His Father TO US. And the idea that what He revealed is a MYSTERY is, to me, absurd.
I mean REALLY? Isn't a mystery an UNKNOWN? And if God was revealed as a 'mystery' then Christ would have been unsuccessful in revealing God if He remained a 'mystery' once revealed.
Yet Christ stated that those that had seen HIM had SEEN the Father. Obviously not a reference to His PHYSICAL SELF, for God is NOT physical but SPIRIT. So the obviousness is: Those that Christ revealed the Father TO, KNEW that which was REVEALED. I do not believe Christ revealed God to be the God that is defined in 'trinity'. If it had been such a God revealed, then there would have been MENTION of 'that God'. There is NO such mention.
But what IS offered is God being the Father of Christ. That means that The Father IS God Himself. And He revealed Himself, NOT as God Himself, but as the Son of God. No mystery there.
Blessings,
MEC
What you have offered isn't NEARLY as boggling as 'three persons in ONE God'
For we KNOW that The Spirit of God would be that part of God that has been the means by which we have been introduced to God Himself. Much like we are 'spirit' contained within a vessel, there is indication that there is an actual existence that IS the Glory of God, or, for a lack of better expression: God Himself. That part of God that remains in heaven even when His very Spirit is able to dwell among those here on earth.
And this isn't really a mystery to me. It is quite fathomable to me that God's Spirit is able to be present without the actual presence of His GLORY. Yet still not be a SEPARATE entity.
It would be kind of like the idea of a person being OUTSIDE of their vessel. We've heard accounts from MANY offering the same possibility. While operating from a separate platform, it is STILL ME, but outside of my own body.
I certainly don't SEE The Spirit of God as it's OWN entity. It is merely a separate emanation of HIMSELF that is used when coming in contact with US. But certainly not literally SEPARATED. It's that PART of Himself that He uses to communicate. Kind of like 'the part of God that He is able to SHARE'. Like the Sun being the SOURCE of light but that light not REALLY being SEPARATE from the Sun. The light is a PART of the Sun that is shared by all around it.
Like if we could transfer THOUGHTS or communicate without literal speech. A sort of TELECOMMUNICATION if you will. The communication is not a SEPARATE entity, just a DIFFERENT FORM.
Just an idea to ponder. I won't SWEAR that it's true or even encourage others to follow. Just offering an alternative prospect other than the Holy Spirit as a PERSON or 'third person' that makes up ONE God. Perhaps in no way, shape or form should we even CONSIDER that the Holy Spirit is SEPARATE or a PERSON. Just a 'part of God' that God is able to SHARE with His 'creation'.
Blessings,
MEC
We can understand God in His essence according to what the divine essence is not, roughly speaking, whereas a cataphatic explanation is more elusive.
There is one God, precisely one God, in three persons. This is the view taught by the Nicene Fathers, this is the view expressed in the creed, this is the view believed in by all of the ancient Christians, and not on account of either St. Augustine or the so-called Athanasian Creed.
The Creed itself rejects your crypto-pneumatomachianism by referring to the Spirit as "Lord." See also the writings of St. Ephraim the Syrian, et cetera.
Athanasian theology is Nicene Theology; the most definitive exegesis of the original creed of 325 AD is his work De Incarnatione. St. Athanasius also defined the NT canon we now use in his 39th Paschal Encyclical. Whether or not Quincunque Vult was authored by him, or not, is another matter.
The Athanasian Creed as it is used in the West, with the exception of the filioque, accurately conveys the Nicene position.
In providing a history of the creed, I have sought to demonstrate how your position that the Nicene Fathers are less important in understanding it than their predeccessors, is misguided. In one case, a doctrinal shift did occur; St. Irenaeus and several other ante-Nicene fathers were chiliasts, whereas the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed specifically rules out chiliasm.
I feel obliged also to point out that ousia is commonly translated as "being." In the sense that ousia is understood this way, we can refer to it as "the being of God."
Which being is God?
Since there is one ousia, there is One God, in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
There's not one ousia. The word can be used of many things. However, you answer has three not one. You didn't answer my question, it just yes or no. Do you believe in one God, the Father?
It's not hard to understand. We're told that there is one God the Father. Not one God in three persons.
No, it's not the view that held by all Christians. The Nicene Creed does not say there is one God in three persons. That would be the "Athanasian" creed. The Nicene creed doesn't call the Holy Spirit a person.
No it's not. It goes way beyond the Nicene creed. The authors even go so far as to claim that anyone who doesn't believe as they do cannot be saved. The Athanasian creed calls the Spirit a person, the Nicene creed doesn't. The Athanasian creed also conatains contradictions. It also says that all three are co equal when Jesus said otherwise. They are co-equal in essence only.
Maybe if one reads it back into the Nicene creed. However, it's not there otherwise.
How exactly do you see it ruling out chiliasm? In addition my point that the Ante-Nicene writers are more important is not misguided, but correct. It's not logical to look at history that took place after the event to see what caused the event. Likewise, we don't look at what was believed later to see what was believed before.
What you are seeking to do is entrap me into either appearing to reject Nicea or reject the doctrine of the Trinity which you claim Nice does not contain. In response I can only say that I believe in the entire undivided Nicene Creed, in the entirety of sacred scirpture as received by the Holy Orthodox Church, and in the entirety of Orthodox sacred tradition. I do not believe this is the sort of thing that can be subdivided against itself in the manner you seem to favour.
On the contrary, the Nicene Creed and the Nicene fathers do tell us there is one God in three persons.
A non-person cannot hold a personal title like Lord.
Here you confuse the Athanasian creed with the theology of St. Athanasius. That said, I do not believe that St. Athanasius would deny a coequality in terms of dignity, honour or worship.
If we read the Nicene Fathers who ratified the creed, we will see a doctrine expressed which the Athanasian Creed does not contradict except in terms of the filioque.
The revised creed was written to rule out chiliasm with the phrase "Whose Kingdom shall have no end." This was in response to the heresy of Apollinarius, who was among other things a chiliast. This is also a matter of fact, which can be verified through a study of the Patristic thought relating to the Council of Constantinople, which also proves the importance of reading the works at the participants of the councils and the acts of the councils in order to understand their position.
Why would we study people who are wrong in their theology? Their attempt to rule out Chiliasm should be enough to show you that they were rewriting things to suit their own beliefs rather than what the Church taught.
Up until that last post I hadn't addressed it. I have been defending the Nicene creed. However, if the creed of 381 is in fact an attempt to refute chiliasm, then yes, it is wrong. I affirm the creed of 325.Ah, so you admit you regard the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed as wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?