Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Hoghead1]

Just exactly what do you want to do here, Wgw? You told me you were interested in hearing about my approach, about process. OK, I have shared that with you. You do not agree with much of it. OK, this is a discussion group and therefore I am interested in hearing your objections and offering you my rebuttal. That is what we're supposed to be doing here. Now you say you want no further discussion unless I engage with the Orthodox. What do you mean here? Do you mean agree with the Orthodox? I reserve the right to disagree with you or anyone else here. I also honor the fact that you or anyone else here has the right to disagree with me. That is what makes dialogues interesting. Conflict is always a positive opportunity for both sides to sharper up. Hence, I welcome controversy. The purpose of a discussion group is that it is expected you will; debate with others who may very well disagree with you to the hilt. So you have to have everyone agree with you, I'd suggest you stay out of discussion groups. Do you mean you want me to read more about the Orthodox? OK, fair request. Only thing is, I don't have the time. Anyhow, since you claim to represent that approach, that is what you should be doing in your emails. You should be saying, "Her is what the Orthodox say. What is your response to that?" Also, note that you have responded with more than just the Orthodox approach; you have also brought up points from your understanding of science, time, etc. OK by me, by the way. You raised a number of important issues yesterday, and I spent time answering them, exercising my responsibility to provide the best rebuttal I can. Now you imply you want to stop. That's very disrespectful of the myself and the time I have put in responding to your email. I thought a bright guy like you would want to continue. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe this is too much for you to handle. Maybe you feel it threatening to encounter dimensions of Christianity different from your own. OK, I respect the fact that if you can't handle the heat, you need to get out of the kitchen.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

No one has ever seen the invisible Yahweh, not even the Angels in heaven.

How do you know that the Angels have not seen the Father? - Speculation.

If you were to consider the Invisible Father having a physical image for a human like Daniel to see and comprehend, then you should not see another witness saying the following......
John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,

Jesus is talking directly to the Pharisees, that THEY have never heard his voice nor seen his form. If anything this verse is saying that the Father HAS a form.
As for "no one has seen the Father", like I said earlier “the word is G3708 and it can also mean "to discern clearly, to experience"

Daniel projects the characteristics of the visible Yahweh (The Son) to the invisible Yahweh (Father).If we try and impose our human ways on God by picturing an earthly King sitting on a throne because we desire to see a physical being, who is paraded before our eyes delight, then it's not going to happen with God. God reigns supreme without needing to have a throne on display to his creation, for people to say look his throne, or a book in his hand to say look the book.
God is the Creator and so as the Creator the purpose is him. I repeat the purpose is him, so he doesn't need the tools of the trade like a literal throne or a literal book. In effect as creatd beings we need a chair and we need a book to write on as material beings. We need created tools to function. The word is to function, that is to be seated, we need a chair or some type of flat flooring or something flat to sit on. We need a book to write on as a function of keeping notes. For God the Creator to use materials outside of his being, in order to function is a no no. In fact God would be lowering himself if he created a throne for him to sit and a literal book to write on. It would even be an idol if it was placed on display as such.
In short God doesn't need tools to function, he just is, the I Am. He makes tools for us to function and it would be incorrect of thinking that God needs a literal throne to sit on or a literal book to write on.

Once again, just because you THINK that “the Father doesn’t need a throne or a book “ that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have both. It is just your opinion. The scriptures say otherwise. Forgive me if I choose to believe what the scriptures says instead of your interpretation/opinion.

Why are you so set on the idea that the Father cannot have a form?

 

[Hoghead1]

Good question, YHWH. The issues here are very complicated, so I'll try and simplify as best as I can. The classical or traditional images of God as he is in his own nature argued that God is a wholly immaterial being, void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, totally independent of creation, standing in no need of creation, without even the shadow of movement, the supreme cause and never the effect, wholly unmoved by creation. When I say classical, I mean as found in the writings of the church fathers and also the major creeds and confessions. Many Christians today sample take that for granted, as it has been so deeply rooted in the church. However, modern theology has raised a number of questions here. Although many Christian laity automatically assume the model came directly from the Bible, it actually does not. This model comes largely from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. The reason is that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built, so to speak. Hence, as the church worked its way into the educated upper classes, Hellenic metaphysics were freely adopted by the early church. Now, the Greeks had much difficulty with the whole concept of an ever-changing material world. Some schools argued motion or movement in any form (change) was totally illogical and false If you haven't, you might want to take a look sometime at the famous paradoxes of movement, according to Zeno. In addition, Plato argued that the whole world of time and change was a total illusion. What was really real and truly divine was a wholly immutable and immaterial world. In Addition, Aristotle argued that God or the gods are eminently Unmoved Movers, wholly unaffected by the world largely because it is beneath the dignity of the Unmoved Mover to think of inferior things. As a consequence of these philosophies being freely incorporated into the early church, the notion of God as a wholly immaterial being was born. Hence, what is called the via negative (negative way) was born. Basically, it stated that we cannot know what God is, only what God is not. Finite, creaturely attributes cannot be applied to God. In certain major schools of contemporary theology, this view has been challenged on any one of a number of solid grounds: It seems too far from our understanding of reality to be true, it presents an indifferent God, it is based on an overly negative view of the material world, it does not explain why God created, it denies we can really know anything at all about God, etc. I can go into more detail here, if requested. OK, so what about the Bible? Contemporary theology would empathize, as I just said, that the Bible is not at all a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about the basic structure of reality and how God is built. However, there are some very clear implications that place the Bible at direct odds with the classical view. The Bible never talks about anything that does not have a physical dimension. The Bible champions the goodness of the temporal, material world. The Bible attributers about every body part to God. In addition, the Bible attributes change to God, in at least 100 passages. All of this suggests that the biblical authors thought of God as somehow embodied. In addition, the Bible presents strong pantheistic implications, as fund in 2 Cor. 15:28 and Jeremiah 23:23, as well as others. So maybe, just maybe, the biblical writers were thinking of the universe as the body of God. The prohibition against making images would fit well here. If the universe truly is the body of God, then no one of us could ever see the whole of God. Who can see the entire universe? So any image we would make would be far less than the real thing. Furthermore, God's major revelation is the Incarnation. Now if this truly reveals God, then it must reveal God's general MO with creation. As such, God is truly incarnate throughout the universe, which is best thought of as the body of God. However you slice it, the Bible in why claims that God is some sort of passionless, indifferent Unmoved Mover.

 

[Wgw]

Are you saying that you believe that that Ancient of Days is "an appearance, or non-physical manifestation, of Christ" ?
Then the scripture would be saying in the book of Daniel that the Son of Man (Christ right?) in given dominion and glory and kingdom, from Ancient of Days (Christ?)

I think it would be fairer to say it would reflect the subordination of the human nature to the divine nature.

I would love to hear the general argument of this. Any links you could share ? Or would it be possible to post a little about it?

By the way, thankyou brothers for your thorough and edifying posts on the Holy Trinity. They have been most helpful and instructive, truly appreciate being in the company of those who can help me understand more. God bless.

You are very welcome. You might find this useful:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/summary/v007/7.1mckay.html

 

[Wgw]

Just exactly what do you want to do here, Wgw?

Discrete paragraphs might be nice as a start.

You told me you were interested in hearing about my approach, about process. OK, I have shared that with you. You do not agree with much of it. OK, this is a discussion group and therefore I am interested in hearing your objections and offering you my rebuttal. That is what we're supposed to be doing here. Now you say you want no further discussion unless I engage with the Orthodox. What do you mean here? Do you mean agree with the Orthodox?

No, rather, I mean that as of you are a PhD in theology it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to have at least a cursory knowledge of Orthodox theology, given that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox comprise the second largest grouping of Christians after the Roman Catholics, and are the predominant form of Christianity in much of the world; for that matter, it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to understand what the word "engage" means in modern theological discourse.

I reserve the right to disagree with you or anyone else here. I also honor the fact that you or anyone else here has the right to disagree with me. That is what makes dialogues interesting. Conflict is always a positive opportunity for both sides to sharper up. Hence, I welcome controversy. The purpose of a discussion group is that it is expected you will; debate with others who may very well disagree with you to the hilt. So you have to have everyone agree with you, I'd suggest you stay out of discussion groups. Do you mean you want me to read more about the Orthodox? OK, fair request. Only thing is, I don't have the time. Anyhow, since you claim to represent that approach, that is what you should be doing in your emails. You should be saying, "Her is what the Orthodox say. What is your response to that?"

You might have a valid point if the Orthodox were some obscure fringe group. However, the Orthodox outnumber the Anglicans, the Preabyterians and the Methodists; we outnumber the Unitarians to an extreme degree. So my view is that one should reasonably expect a doctor of theology to be willing to personally acquire knowledge on us, owing to the erudition of his office.

Also, note that you have responded with more than just the Orthodox approach; you have also brought up points from your understanding of science, time, etc. OK by me, by the way. You raised a number of important issues yesterday, and I spent time answering them, exercising my responsibility to provide the best rebuttal I can. Now you imply you want to stop. That's very disrespectful of the myself and the time I have put in responding to your email. I thought a bright guy like you would want to continue. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe this is too much for you to handle. Maybe you feel it threatening to encounter dimensions of Christianity different from your own. OK, I respect the fact that if you can't handle the heat, you need to get out of the kitchen.

I am happy to continue, if you will undertake to acquire a knowledge of Orthodox theology commensurate with your academic station.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

I think it would be fairer to say it would reflect the subordination of the human nature to the divine nature.

So Yes? you believe that the verse in daniel is the Son of Man (Christ) is given glory, dominion and kingdom from Ancient of Days (Christ)?

 

[Wgw]

So Yes? you believe that the verse in daniel is the Son of Man (Christ) is given glory, dominion and kingdom from Ancient of Days (Christ)?

I have no opinion on the matter, frankly.

 

[Berean777]

I can see two vastly different renditions of God's character. One camp has him being described as having attributes to the very creatures he created and the other has him portrayed as formless, immaterial and timeless.

The appearance from one camp to the other differes from symbolic and language modelling in understanding his character to those who are so caught up in visual physical appearance and aesthetic, that they need something that is material for them to see to identify and grasp so to project their worship to.

Many ancient false religions have gods many that were crafted by man using timber and stone and they unwittingly created the first form of idol worshipping.

The God of the Bible throughout the Old Testament showed distaste to these false gods and called them their idols. Just like the Israelites who fashioned a calf of gold, the God of the Bible cited the commandment though shalt not make onto thee any graven image and though shalt not bow before it.

One camp wants to know the mechanics of God certainly are persuaded to make a graven image whether in their minds or physical in the world as a material object, non the less the common theme is material and where God is being projected as a material being, then that camp has unwittingly broken the commandment that states not to make any graven image to bow down to and to worship. Some may say we are not doing such a thing, yet by holding an image of God in their minds they are doing just that.

That is why God doesn't have a physical throne because that would be along the lines of fashioning something outside of himself as an object of glory, which again is along the lines of idolatry, for those who look up to the throne in reverence.

Jesus summed up what God is in three words, our Lord said.....

God is Spirit (John 4:24)

The camp that has the support of the church fathers who believe that God is formless in all his purety as the one God of the Bible. God doesnt need extensions of objects to function or to make himself better in that respect. God is perfect in his formless state where everything that is projected by the Old Testament prophets are characterstics pictorial queues rather than garnishing an object with literal appearance which is defined by scripture as a idol.

So that is why we can know why God is one being having three persona's but not know what the mechanics of God is in how he is three in one. If we did know how then the result is again a fashioning of an idolic image which would be against God's commandment.

That is why God is Spirit and those who truely worship him, worship him in spirit and in truth as our Lord declared. So the question of why God who is Spirit is three in one is therefore unknowable as many apologetic Christians have correctly stated.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is my contention, after participating in several debates in this forum, that the rejection of the Trinity in general,

Generally I don't accept the label except as a learning device.
No different from the "ten commandments" also not mentioned
anywhere by that name.

 

[SkyWriting]

Nothing in Scripture says non-trinitariamism is wrong.

Good analysis.

 

[Wgw]

Good analysis.

Only if by "good" one means "completely erroneous in light of John 1:1, Matthew 28:19, and so forth"

Really, the main point of this thread was proven rather decisively.

 

[Hoghead1]

I should have a cursory knowledge of Orthodox theology, Wgw? I do. Anyone doing graduate work in theology studies the Orthodox Now, from what I have learned, I certainly would classify it as classical theism. Whether that is still the case or not, I do not know, as many contemporary theologians from very different schools of thought are questioning classical theism. In process, there are Catholic scholars, Protestant scholars, Jewish scholars, etc. I would not be surprised to find some Orthodox among them, though I don't know of any offhand.

In graduate work in theology or any other field, especially when you are working on your dissertation, you have to considerably narrow it down. That's why they say Ph.D.'s know more and more about less and less. Working on a dissertation is like digging a hole. The deeper you go, the narrower the hole becomes. You have to specialize and that means no one is expected to be an expert in everyone else's specialty. Theology is to huge of a field for any one theologian to completely master. For example, no school looks to hire faculty in theology. They look to hire faculty with expertize in a certain area of theology. Hence, schools are very specific about the AOS they are looking for. For example, a school may state is looking for a professor of early Christianity. I would not bother to apply, since that is not my AOS. Yes, I do have a background in early Christianity, but it is not my specialty. If the school advertises for a professor in contemporary theology, then, yes I would apply, and the scholar of early Christianity would not, even though she or he would have graduate education on the contemporary scene. Actually, American graduate education is assumed to be far more general and well-rounded that European, especially the British. In England, you stay in your specialty form day one in graduate school. If your AOS is Puritan England, then largely that is all you study. How do I know this? My encounters with a number of European scholars, including one of my professors who was British and an expert on Puritan England. Did he know much about contemporary process theology? By his own admission, no. Did anyone feel he was therefore inferior? No, as he had a much more specialized education and also was hired because the school needed an expert in this period of history. So if you feel I lack some knowledge of the Orthodox vial to the issues at hand, don't waste time trying to indict me for being a loudly scholar. Get busy and feel me in on what you think I need to know. Anyhow, you who have never worked on a doctorate, really aren't qualified to set up standards for Ph.D.'s in theology or any other field.



Now, from anything I have studied about the Orthodox, I view it as being historically dominated by classical theism as well has having real problems with the Trinity. I do not know about today, as I said. Now, if you fell I have the wrong image of the Orthodox here, then it is your responsibility to email me a suitable rebuttal.

I shouldn't disagree with the Orthodox because you are so large in numbers? Nuts. In theological discussion and thinking, numbers don't not mean a thing. The fact large numbers believe in such-and-such in no way says they are right or wrong ,. for that matter. Here, again, you claim I should be willing to gain knowledge of the Orthodox. What makes you think I am not? As I have said countless times, if you feel I am lacking in knowledge on some vital issue here, then it's yurt responsibility to educate me.



Furthermore, in my last email, I went carefully through the list of problems you sent to me and did the best I could to answer with a solid rebuttal. So I think it is only fair for me to request that you return the favor and go down through the list of rebuttals I made, one by one, and state your rebuttal to anything you disagree with here. I add that you have often introduced issues from way outside the Orthodox, such as your understanding of science. In so doing, please respect my right to disagree, as you have no real credentials n these areas and are certainly not appointed to be a major spokesperson for the Orthodox. And that means you need to spell out your case if I am to take it seriously.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is true, Berean777, that the classical or traditional Christian picture of God as he is in his own nature stressed God is an immaterial being. Hence, God was said to be without body, parts, passion, compassion, holly immutable, without even the shadow of movement. However, it is highly questionable if this is what Scripture had in min or not. The biblical god is a highly anthropomorphic God, hence, attributes about every part, as well as change and emotion. The prohibition against idols fits well here. If God is incarnate throughout the entire universe, if the universe is the body of God, as the Incarnation suggests, then any image would b e false, as none of us can see the whole universe. And there are a number of other problems with the classical model: It is actually rooted in certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. These schools viewed the world of time and change as a big illusion. The "really real" is assumed to be wholly immaterial and unchanging. In addition, this classical model features a God who is indifferent, insensitive, and unrealistic. A God too much like us certainly does appear less than transcendent. However, a God vastly different from us, the antithesis of creation, seems unrealistic and downright antagonistic. For centuries, the who concept of a wholly immaterial being has been challenged. I could easily beat out this kind of God any day. How? Simply. Challenge God to a bicycled race. Since God has no body or physical appendance, he would be unable to pump the bike pedals. F =MA. One of the great champions of the immaterial was the father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes. The problem he immediately ran into was how can mind ( the extensionless immaterial) interact with the material order, whose prime characteristic is extension. He was never able to solve this problem. And if it cannot be resolved on the small scale, just in terms of minds, it is even a bigger problem with God, on the large scale. His ardent followers tries to shore things as best they could by arguing for what is called the two-clock theory, the notion that mind and matter cannot interact, cannot ever affect one another, so the reason they appear to go together is simply because somehow our subjective experience is programmed to be in unity in what our body does wholly independently of the former. As you can well guess, this really doesn't work either. So, as far as many are concerned, especially myself, the notion of a wholly immaterial God is out the window, whereas I would accept the notion of a wholy material God.

 

[Hoghead1]

To me, YWHY, the truly interesting matter to me is the way many will argue that Christ is at work in the OT, that God may be exclusively identified with Christ, that the Ancient of Days was Christ, and leave it go at that. Well, what happened to the other members of the Trinity? Why is not the Ancient of Days said to also be the Father and the Spirit? Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, pick the one you like the most. That is the approach here and it troubles me because it short changes the full reality of God.

 

[Berean777]

I should have a cursory knowledge of Orthodox theology, Wgw? I do. Anyone doing graduate work in theology studies the Orthodox Now, from what I have learned, I certainly would classify it as classical theism. Whether that is still the case or not, I do not know, as many contemporary theologians from very different schools of thought are questioning classical theism. In process, there are Catholic scholars, Protestant scholars, Jewish scholars, etc. I would not be surprised to find some Orthodox among them, though I don't know of any offhand.

In graduate work in theology or any other field, especially when you are working on your dissertation, you have to considerably narrow it down. That's why they say Ph.D.'s know more and more about less and less. Working on a dissertation is like digging a hole. The deeper you go, the narrower the hole becomes. You have to specialize and that means no one is expected to be an expert in everyone else's specialty. Theology is to huge of a field for any one theologian to completely master. For example, no school looks to hire faculty in theology. They look to hire faculty with expertize in a certain area of theology. Hence, schools are very specific about the AOS they are looking for. For example, a school may state is looking for a professor of early Christianity. I would not bother to apply, since that is not my AOS. Yes, I do have a background in early Christianity, but it is not my specialty. If the school advertises for a professor in contemporary theology, then, yes I would apply, and the scholar of early Christianity would not, even though she or he would have graduate education on the contemporary scene. Actually, American graduate education is assumed to be far more general and well-rounded that European, especially the British. In England, you stay in your specialty form day one in graduate school. If your AOS is Puritan England, then largely that is all you study. How do I know this? My encounters with a number of European scholars, including one of my professors who was British and an expert on Puritan England. Did he know much about contemporary process theology? By his own admission, no. Did anyone feel he was therefore inferior? No, as he had a much more specialized education and also was hired because the school needed an expert in this period of history. So if you feel I lack some knowledge of the Orthodox vial to the issues at hand, don't waste time trying to indict me for being a loudly scholar. Get busy and feel me in on what you think I need to know. Anyhow, you who have never worked on a doctorate, really aren't qualified to set up standards for Ph.D.'s in theology or any other field.



Now, from anything I have studied about the Orthodox, I view it as being historically dominated by classical theism as well has having real problems with the Trinity. I do not know about today, as I said. Now, if you fell I have the wrong image of the Orthodox here, then it is your responsibility to email me a suitable rebuttal.

I shouldn't disagree with the Orthodox because you are so large in numbers? Nuts. In theological discussion and thinking, numbers don't not mean a thing. The fact large numbers believe in such-and-such in no way says they are right or wrong ,. for that matter. Here, again, you claim I should be willing to gain knowledge of the Orthodox. What makes you think I am not? As I have said countless times, if you feel I am lacking in knowledge on some vital issue here, then it's yurt responsibility to educate me.



Furthermore, in my last email, I went carefully through the list of problems you sent to me and did the best I could to answer with a solid rebuttal. So I think it is only fair for me to request that you return the favor and go down through the list of rebuttals I made, one by one, and state your rebuttal to anything you disagree with here. I add that you have often introduced issues from way outside the Orthodox, such as your understanding of science. In so doing, please respect my right to disagree, as you have no real credentials n these areas and are certainly not appointed to be a major spokesperson for the Orthodox. And that means you need to spell out your case if I am to take it seriously.

Reading all this excerpt makes me wonder as to whether you have a degree in law. Knowing God isn't about learning about him or the Christian religion at university. Take for example the legalistic Pharisees of their time, who as Paul labelled himself as...........

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee of Pharisees. (Philippians 3:4-5)

Knowing God especially his identity comes down to revelation that opens the eyes to the text. It is not an exercise in comprehension or historical church studies, which although is good, but it falls short in identifying with the God of the bible.

Philippians 3:7-8
What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ.

Paul thought of all his knowledge about God and the Jewish religious system, the church of his time was utter garbage.

So upon reflection you have the cream of the crop of Jewish society the Pharisees and Sadducees who were educated on par to the level of university doctorate we have today. Yet what did they know about the identity of God or the church for that matter?

Hmmmm...........well let us hear it from the Lord's mouth......

John 5:37-40
37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

As to the identity of Christ these Pharisees and Sadducees having equivalent university doctorates were told what they knew about the Messiah was lacking and that they got it all wrong and that goes for all the scriptures which really points to the old covenant church age.

How on earth is a university degree or doctorate in theology give done one the knowledge about Christ, let alone God, who, the Christ revealed. Now I can say that without revelation from God that the disciples, inclusive of Paul received opened their eyes to the true identity of Messiah and God.

Otherwise how on earth can fishermen, who were literally the bottom crust of the Jewish educated echelon of the society of those days, put the most educated Pharisaical echelon to shame, not once but every single time.

Here is a witness to the fact from the mouths of those high ranking educated amongst the Jewish society.

Acts 4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

So the zeroes of the Jewish society taught the most educated a thing or two.

I conclude that a doctorate although good for worldly purpose is not an expert witness as to testifying to the identity of God and so scholars like fairytale comprehension readers and writers should not be considered as witnesses.

Revelation revelation revelation!

If there is no revelation, then theologians are just laity when it comes to the identity of God and his church.

When we compare Pharisees to the firshermen we can discern who were laity and who were the expert witnesses of fact.

People the identity of God isn't a riddle, either Christ has manifested to you and revealed to you his identity or he hasn't.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them."

In the inter linear with reference to Strong's Greek we have th following definitions of the word manifest or to show.

Strong's Concordance
emphanizó: to exhibit, appear (in person), to declare
Original Word: ἐμφανίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: emphanizó
Phonetic Spelling: (em-fan-id'-zo)
Short Definition: I make visible, report against, appear before
Definition: I make visible (manifest); hence: I report (inform) against; pass: I appear before.

1. to manifest, exhibit to view: ἑαυτόν τίνι, properly, to present oneself to the sight of another, manifest oneself to (Exodus 33:13), John 14:22; metaphorically of Christ giving evidence by the action of the Holy Spirit on the souls of the disciples that he is alive in heaven, John 14:21. Passive to Show oneself, come to view, appear, be manifest: τίνι (of spectres, Wis. 17:4; αὐτοῖς Θεούς ἐμφανίζεσθαι λέγοντες, Diag. Laërtius prooem. 7; so of God, Josephus, Antiquities 1, 13, 1), Matthew 27:53; τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦΘεοῦ, of Christ appearing before God in heaven, Hebrews 9:24; (of God imparting to souls the knowledge of himself, Wis. 1:2; Theophilus of Antiochad Autol. 1, 2, 4).

Revelation people not theology!

 

[Berean777]

To me, YWHY, the truly interesting matter to me is the way many will argue that Christ is at work in the OT, that God may be exclusively identified with Christ, that the Ancient of Days was Christ, and leave it go at that. Well, what happened to the other members of the Trinity? Why is not the Ancient of Days said to also be the Father and the Spirit? Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, pick the one you like the most. That is the approach here and it troubles me because it short changes the full reality of God.

Firstly throughout the Old Testament the symbolic language used in depicting the Father's character, is projected from the Son. In the New Testament the Son is depicted as the projection of the Father.

The reason why Daniel says the Son of Man approached the Ancient of Days is to highlight that there are two personalities interacting with one another. This in it self is evidence that the Son and the Father (Ancient of Days) are the visible and invisible persona's of Yahweh. The Nicene Cree has the Holy Spirit proceeding from the invisible Yahweh and so we have a third personality who also advocates on behalf of the two.

That is why Isaiah writes.......

Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him? (Isaiah 63:11)

The remark where is He alludes to the invisible Yahweh, the Ancient of Days. So the author is projecting the Son's visible image as the Angel of Yahweh's presence, in establishing the identity of the invisible Yahweh. Where is he? The author says, where is Yahweh, if not this visible Son is his very character presented before us.

So distinctions are made in contrasting two personalities without having to form two beings or two gods so to speak. So where is he who put his Holy Spirit within Him (visible Yahweh).

 

[Berean777]

It is true, Berean777, that the classical or traditional Christian picture of God as he is in his own nature stressed God is an immaterial being. Hence, God was said to be without body, parts, passion, compassion, holly immutable, without even the shadow of movement. However, it is highly questionable if this is what Scripture had in min or not. The biblical god is a highly anthropomorphic God, hence, attributes about every part, as well as change and emotion. The prohibition against idols fits well here. If God is incarnate throughout the entire universe, if the universe is the body of God, as the Incarnation suggests, then any image would b e false, as none of us can see the whole universe. And there are a number of other problems with the classical model: It is actually rooted in certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. These schools viewed the world of time and change as a big illusion. The "really real" is assumed to be wholly immaterial and unchanging. In addition, this classical model features a God who is indifferent, insensitive, and unrealistic. A God too much like us certainly does appear less than transcendent. However, a God vastly different from us, the antithesis of creation, seems unrealistic and downright antagonistic. For centuries, the who concept of a wholly immaterial being has been challenged. I could easily beat out this kind of God any day. How? Simply. Challenge God to a bicycled race. Since God has no body or physical appendance, he would be unable to pump the bike pedals. F =MA. One of the great champions of the immaterial was the father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes. The problem he immediately ran into was how can mind ( the extensionless immaterial) interact with the material order, whose prime characteristic is extension. He was never able to solve this problem. And if it cannot be resolved on the small scale, just in terms of minds, it is even a bigger problem with God, on the large scale. His ardent followers tries to shore things as best they could by arguing for what is called the two-clock theory, the notion that mind and matter cannot interact, cannot ever affect one another, so the reason they appear to go together is simply because somehow our subjective experience is programmed to be in unity in what our body does wholly independently of the former. As you can well guess, this really doesn't work either. So, as far as many are concerned, especially myself, the notion of a wholly immaterial God is out the window, whereas I would accept the notion of a wholy material God.

The God of the Bible is a personal God. We see him walking in the garden as a Christophany (Angel of Yahweh's presence). The impersonal and unknowable god that you have presented has no Christian origin. If you study deeper it forms the belief amongst the Gnostics, in regards t their Gnostic god, that is void of personality and matter. In fact they convey him as ethereal, existing as the matter of the universe. Also in false mythological religions they call her Mother Nature like Gaia.

What you say in the following falls within the guidelines of a false god that is not the God of the Bible...

If God is incarnate throughout the entire universe, if the universe is the body of God, as the Incarnation suggests, then any image would b e false, as none of us can see the whole universe.

Also you stated the following.........

One of the great champions of the immaterial was the father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes. The problem he immediately ran into was how can mind ( the extensionless immaterial) interact with the material order, whose prime characteristic is extension. He was never able to solve this problem.

The answer to this is quite simple and trivial. Not only does this question give credence to the trinity doctrine, but it opens a door to give the only answer to the question that supports both the Old and New Testament texts.

The answer is that the personal invisible Yahweh has his mind and characteristics extended into the material order through the visible Yahweh, who is the one to one designated interpretor the LOGOS. This is why there are two personailites of the one being extended from the immaterial (invisible) to the material (visible) world as the one mind, one will, one charactistsics of the one being/substance who is the Godbeing.

So when Colossians 2:9 writes.......in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, it is declaring that the visible Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Hebrews 1:3)

The Emmanuel is invisble Yahweh with us projected through the Son.

That is why the Angel of Yahweh's presence when dining with Abraham and then going to the two cities would identity him as visible Yahweh calling down fire from invisble Yahweh.

This not only answers the question that you presented but it also makes the remaining paragraph following your statement null and void.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have no idea where you are trying to go with all this. You have been dwelling on Orthodox theology, yet now want to argue theology is totally unimportant to you. I suspect you are being somewhat hypocritical here.

You wonder if I have a degree in law? The universities are full of Pharisees? Oh. c'mon, you can do better that this, than dishing out very disrespectful anti-intellectual propaganda abut universities. Anyhow, you never had a graduate education in theology, so what masks you an authority of what life is like in the universities? On my end of it, one of the reasons why I sought out a graduate education so that I could think critically abut the churches, not get hooked into anti-intellectual prejudices and Pharisees that exist in many churches, people who insist that the letter of the law must be obeyed for you to be saved, and that the law just happens to be the dogmas, which are to be accepted without question. I like questioning any and all dogma and the place to go to do this is in fact the university.



Knowing God is not a mater of church studies? I agree that there is more to it than that. However, you first need to get a foundation, which is a solid education in theology. Again, I point to the fact you conterminously follow the Orthodox position and continually argue that I should become more familiar with it. Again, I have to say I find your remarks hypocritical. Granted, Paul said that the churches of his time were garbage, what makes you think this isn't true of churches today, especially yours? Again, that is why I sought a higher education so that I wouldn't get snookered into believing in any garbage promoted by the churches. As you have implied, , we all need a built-in BS detector when around the churches. And I can't think of a better one than advancing your education.



When it comes to the question of ultimate authorities, Christendom have provided three: There is church-type Christianity, which stresses the church is your conscience. Frankly, I see you as falling into that approach. There is sect-type Christianity, which stresses that the Bible is the ultimate authority, although sect type can easily slide over into church type. There is also what some call the mystical approach, which stresses one's personal experiences are the ultimate authority. I tend to favor that over the former two approaches. However, different persons have different spiritual needs, so every approach is valid and every approach has problems, depending on the individual. Also, what makes you automatically assume that university people haven't had a personal revelatory experiences? Both Charles Hartshorne and John Cobb claim that they did and this his is what directed them toward process. In fact, process centers on the notion of personal experience over dogma. in process, God is a concretely felt entity in any and all experience. All of us have direct revelations of God, though subconsciously. Often, we have been blocked from accessing these, because the church or the Bible has been taken to be an ultimate authority, thereby excluding ourselves and or experience.

I view this email as interesting but off the topic. Here, we are dealing with a separate issue, form the Trinity, etc. That issue alone deserves a whole thread.

 

[Berean777]

I have no idea where you are trying to go with all this. You have been dwelling on Orthodox theology, yet now want to argue theology is totally unimportant to you. I suspect you are being somewhat hypocritical here.

You wonder if I have a degree in law? The universities are full of Pharisees? Oh. c'mon, you can do better that this, than dishing out very disrespectful anti-intellectual propaganda abut universities. Anyhow, you never had a graduate education in theology, so what masks you an authority of what life is like in the universities? On my end of it, one of the reasons why I sought out a graduate education so that I could think critically abut the churches, not get hooked into anti-intellectual prejudices and Pharisees that exist in many churches, people who insist that the letter of the law must be obeyed for you to be saved, and that the law just happens to be the dogmas, which are to be accepted without question. I like questioning any and all dogma and the place to go to do this is in fact the university.



Knowing God is not a mater of church studies? I agree that there is more to it than that. However, you first need to get a foundation, which is a solid education in theology. Again, I point to the fact you conterminously follow the Orthodox position and continually argue that I should become more familiar with it. Again, I have to say I find your remarks hypocritical. Granted, Paul said that the churches of his time were garbage, what makes you think this isn't true of churches today, especially yours? Again, that is why I sought a higher education so that I wouldn't get snookered into believing in any garbage promoted by the churches. As you have implied, , we all need a built-in BS detector when around the churches. And I can't think of a better one than advancing your education.



When it comes to the question of ultimate authorities, Christendom have provided three: There is church-type Christianity, which stresses the church is your conscience. Frankly, I see you as falling into that approach. There is sect-type Christianity, which stresses that the Bible is the ultimate authority, although sect type can easily slide over into church type. There is also what some call the mystical approach, which stresses one's personal experiences are the ultimate authority. I tend to favor that over the former two approaches. However, different persons have different spiritual needs, so every approach is valid and every approach has problems, depending on the individual. Also, what makes you automatically assume that university people haven't had a personal revelatory experiences? Both Charles Hartshorne and John Cobb claim that they did and this his is what directed them toward process. In fact, process centers on the notion of personal experience over dogma. in process, God is a concretely felt entity in any and all experience. All of us have direct revelations of God, though subconsciously. Often, we have been blocked from accessing these, because the church or the Bible has been taken to be an ultimate authority, thereby excluding ourselves and or experience.

I view this email as interesting but off the topic. Here, we are dealing with a separate issue, form the Trinity, etc. That issue alone deserves a whole thread.

The fathers of faith came by faith through revelation. Today the learnered in our society call them theologians. But in actual fact they were no different to the 1st century fishermen. The Greeks of this world are wanna be theologians who invisage God as a material being and therefore develop the mentality of the statute with no name and placard their experiences on it.

Faith is not choose your own adventure Novel. Faith is consistent and stands the test of time, regardless of your experiences or my experiences for that matter.

The church claims that it has stayed the course and has stood the test of time. So who are we based on our approximate 40 to 100 years give or take experience to argue with that.

 

[Berean777]

I don't follow university, my experience, my church doctrines. I follow Jesus and the revelation that he gives me. This revelation has never contradicted church doctrine especially on that of the trinity doctrine. However at times I may have strayed according to my own experiences and eventually I would come back to the realisation and understanding of what the church fathers were saying all along.

The church is the chronological second witness of the founding apostles and if we really have experiences that are to be tested as valid, then it must compliment the church and not oppose it. I see a sea of confusion of people bringing in their experiences to the formulation of faith. This my friend is not how the apostles built the first century church and if this is how it would have operated, then I doubt you would have the church doctrines that have stood the test of time.