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.
True, there is a serious problem with the Trinity if one assumes three separate, unique personalities. There is no doubt in my mind that is tritheism, not monotheism. However, there are other models of teh Trinity. Nicaea never use the term "person," however. Also the term "personna" used at the time didn't necessarily mean "person" in the modern sense of teh term; it meant a role, the mask worn by an actor in a play.Numerals itemized:
1) Three who ARE God are naturally thought of as Three Gods. But the Athanasian Creed prohibits the thought. Trinnies are then BEHOLDEN to two conflicting thoughts. Three are God but are NOT three Gods. Whata CROCK!
2) OUSIA and HYPOSTASIS meant the same thingybobber but must be MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE in meaning for Trinity to be true.
Same with the modern "Person" and "Being." By Merriam Webster (a pretty lass) THESE metaphors are SYNONYM.
3) The Trinity ABROGATES the Shema in true meaning and the First Command of the Ten in true meaning. The BASTIONS of the Hebraic faith. Take away THESE commands from God and what do you have, sir? Confusion to the End of Time? DAWGS and SWINE mucking around wallowing in the mire? BLEEPING IDJITS all the day long? Were EITHER of these two precepts brought up at Nicaea ONE WHIT, sir?
4) Oh I could go on, but what the HAY? Does any of this matter? What am I DOING here, anyhoo?
True, there is a pervasive subrodinationism in Trinitarian formulations. Consequently, it appears that the Father and Father alone is God, the Boss of bosses, with the Spirit and Son mere lieutenants who carry out the Boss' orders.The Spirit is energy but also personality. Primarily of the Father, but also the Son who CONTINUES to be the Servant of God AND considering God's will El Jefe to his own.
RATHER Trinity is based upon "Three in equal (ontological) harmony."True, there is a pervasive subrodinationism in Trinitarian formulations. Consequently, it appears that the Father and Father alone is God, the Boss of bosses, with the Spirit and Son mere lieutenants who carry out the Boss' orders.
In many Trinitarian doctrines, they are not all are considered equal, however. That is the problem. A typical example is Calvin, who argued that the Father did not descend to earth, but He who was sent my him, the Father did not suffer, but He who was sent by Him. In other words, The Father is the Boss of bosses, and Christ is the lieutenant sent to do the dirtily work.RATHER Trinity is based upon "Three in equal (ontological) harmony."
Hey I have a thought. What do you think these red letters mean?
By myself I can do NOTHING.
My Father is greater THAN ALL.
My Father is greater than EYE.
THIS is eternal life that they know YOU the ONLY True God...and also know Christ Jesus whom YOU sent.
Three living beings. One which hath no head, the Holy Spirit. This is a power, force, energy, vehicle of referents, et cetera and half the time I only hear it's voice ifn' I am lucky...not able to describe at all.True, there is a serious problem with the Trinity if one assumes three separate, unique personalities. There is no doubt in my mind that is tritheism, not monotheism. However, there are other models of teh Trinity. Nicaea never use the term "person," however. Also the term "personna" used at the time didn't necessarily mean "person" in the modern sense of teh term; it meant a role, the mask worn by an actor in a play.
In many Trinitarian doctrines, they are not all are considered equal, however. That is the problem. A typical example is Calvin, who argued that the Father did not descend to earth, but He who was sent my him, the Father did not suffer, but He who was sent by Him. In other words, The Father is the Boss of bosses, and Christ is the lieutenant sent to do the dirtily work.
The Holy Spirit has been the least-elaborated member of the Trinity since day one. No doubt about that. Yes, some do view it as an impersonal power. However, there are other options. One need not be stuck with traditional formulations, which may have long ago lo9st their usefulness.Three living beings. One which hath no head, the Holy Spirit. This is a power, force, enery, vehicle of referents, et cetera and half the time I only hear it's voice ifn' I am lucky...not able to describe at all.
Two which hath heads, one the God alone-head, of a form we know not of. One which had a head and now has a glorified head, with halos and angels singing an such. GODHEAD is misnomer and lame. NO SUCH THING in the Bible.
The Holy Spirit is as CLOSE to God as we get, chilluns.The Holy Spirit has been the least-elaborated member of the Trinity since day one. No doubt about that. Yes, some do view it as an impersonal power. However, there are other options. One need not be stuck with traditional formulations, which may have long ago lo9st their usefulness.
The Holy Spirit is as CLOSE to God as we get, chilluns.
It is ENTIRELY personal since it HARBORS two referents. The ORIGINATOR and the one whom it comes in the name of.
You said that before. Why are you bringing it up here?RATHER Trinity is based upon "Three in equal (ontological) harmony."
Hey I have a thought. What do you think these red letters mean?
By myself I can do NOTHING.
My Father is greater THAN ALL.
My Father is greater than EYE.
THIS is eternal life that they know YOU the ONLY True God...and also know Christ Jesus whom YOU sent.
Nevertheless all know priests are lesser beings than God. Just say "theos" and tha...that's IT folks.
Em, methinks you got your own thinking bassackwerds. Trinies say BOTH man and God not NEITHER a man or an angel. The number of times Jesus is SAID to be a man numbers right at 150 times, sir. The number of times GOD is in my book, nada.
So then twice Wong do not a right make, my man. Two Wongs DON'T make a white, and one Wong happens to be Wong aw da way, WHITE?
Yauaw.
TIS guessing, but there aren't many other options, ALL being kings coronated as options.
Nevertheless as a double-fulfillment prophesy, the first option in near-view WAS a man, considered an "elohim," sir.
FULFILLMENT is a manifestation of prophesy. Jesus was not being a PROPHET, here...since he wasn't PROPHESYING anything, genius. Nothing to FULFILL, and heavens to Betsy if Peter DID fulfill being "satan." Instead he got the indwelling Holy Spirit in the upper room and traditionally DIED upside down on his own cross. So then you only exemplify your own confusion once again.
Not exactly. I am SHOWING proof that good elohim who are NOT God exist and have always existed in the minds of the Jews, the People of the Promise, sir.
"Two OTHER members of the Godhead," are normally thought of as two other Gods, sir. I realize that trins don't SAY this, indeed they cannot orthodoxically. However, this would be the first dissonance between common sense and reality, as opposed to imagination and unreality, sir.
The fact is, HE is a HE only and "three members of the Godhead" are a THEY sir. You contradict yourself with aplomb and debonair, having no compunction or sense not to do so.
...and of course you and yours have made a whole THEOLOGY based upon a single verse. One which was probably NOT in the original Hebrew Matthean text. One which is mentioned NOT in eighteen times Eusebius mentions the Great Commission.
One which a PLETHORA of scholars, both trin and non-trin have considered added on laters. NO MATTER that no Koine manuscript doesn't have it, the original has been lost forever, except in the Syriac Sinaiticus and Shem Tov Matthew. Why would they have this to say about it?
1) It does not match up to the Lukan Great Commission.
2) It sticks out like a sore thumb among serene thumbs, sir. NOTHING in NT collaborates or supports.
3) It is simply inconceivable JESUS would have considered a Trinity in his day OR mentioned a God of three "names."
4) It is the only TRIN FORMULATION or actually three in verse together scripture at all, unless you consider the Johannine Comma valid.
5) But most of all, it CONTRADICTS the single Jesus only baptisms of Acts 5 times and more than several verses by Paul.
Or one could say the Father is uncreated. I do. You are completely unorthodox if you say the Father is created, and this I say with confidence.
You don't even realize the EVOLUTION of Creedal thought, sir. Jesus is considered UNCREATED in evolved rationalism.
The "echad" of the Adonai was NEVER a compound unity.
It is the numerical "one" and stands alone and unique. NO OTHER ONE can be God in context of OT said umpteen times and in Mk 12 by the Christ. You are so Wong you are Wong all the way, Wongmeister.
Being created IS being being a being begotten, sir. Why you think God is YOUR "Father" sir? YOU are uncreated or what?
Prove compound unity and I will lick your pink booties, sir. Pink are your booties and pink is the complexion of your pretty face by the time I'm done wit ye.
I don't need to understand kenosis at all, sir. If God made himself a man, then He is no longer God is He? Sir?
Simple common sense trumps the intellectual scintillations of the titillated every time.
Jesus is divine by virtue of the glory or shekinah or radiance or light of God only. This is the Holy Spirit UNITY of the "compound UNITY" which Jesus did mention when he said both that "I and the Father are one," Jn 10, AND "that they may be one as we are one," Jn 17.
BOOLoney. Prove it.
Jesus ALWAYS referred to his God as "the Father," a REPLACEMENT nomos for "YHWH" now too sacred to say out loud. Sir.
Get your facks straight. Ged God Theology. Ged a life and HAVE God Theology.
NO SCRIPTURE says God is plural in Person, OR that God has more than one God-mind but ESPECIALLY one God-will. Correction.
...and they ABROGATE the Shema and the First Command of the Ten, sir. So what? What GOOD THING can I say aboudem?
Show me where any OTHER ONE is in context of Shema also God. Thank you sir. For your support sir.
FIND "three in poifeck harm to thee" I mean harmony and I will lick your fur-topped BOOTIES sir.
BLAH and bleh and bleh. GOSH you got some kinda tootin' beans in your beany or WHAT sir?
Have I said a single thingybobber ILLOGICAL, sir? Shew me where, oh man.
Jesus is credited with walking on water, for example. That would count as a kind of levitation. And then there is the matter of the resurrection.You rook rike a snailman, sir. But do you slime around or walk? What did Jesus do sir? Either/or? Is this logical or not sir?
In other words, did Jesus beam around like Scotty or walk like a man? Did he EVER beam around like a Hindu fakir or holy man? Did he even LEVITATE like a TM meditator, Tom Petty or his Heartbreakers? Em?
What do you mean by "harbors two references"? That it is a power emanating from the two "references"?The Holy Spirit is as CLOSE to God as we get, chilluns.
It is ENTIRELY personal since it HARBORS two referents. The ORIGINATOR and the one whom it comes in the name of.
Peter walked on water until he got self-conscious.Jesus is credited with walking on water, for example. That would count as a kind of levitation. And then there is the matter of the resurrection.
The Spirit has two referents, the Father and the Son. What else could I mean?What do you mean by "harbors two references"? That it is a power emanating from the two "references"?
If they are not beings, then how is there three of them? It is contradictory to say there are three "somethings" but they aren't beings.There's obviously a total of three something if it's a "Trinity." That doesn't make them three beings.
Well, there are all sorts of things you could mean. I'm not a mind reader, I don't know exactly what you mean. You could mean the Spirit is a power or energy emanating from the Father and Son; you could mean the Spirit is a separate being who represents the Father and Son.The Spirit has two referents, the Father and the Son. What else could I mean?
OK, makes sense up to a point. However, the problem is that you are not addressing NT passages, such as the opening of John, which clearly state Christ is God.Peter walked on water until he got self-conscious.
God resurrected Jesus not Jesus resurrecting himself. The statements number over 20 for this and only one in Jn 2 for a self-resurrection. I see it as Jn 10 "by the command of my Father."
The saints healed and Jesus said they would do even greater works than his own. But the Great Work Jesus actually did no man CAN do unless he was anointed TO THE EXTENT Jesus was, even trusting in his God from his own mother's breast.
Shema. The REASON why no man is righteous, no not one. ONE MAN served righteousness to the extent Shema demanded. To love God from the beginning of your life to the end. THIS man was not only man, he was ANOINTED man, anointed even beyond Adam's own elohim status, the one who walked with God. And the miracle is, God did not overcome the World which He hath made. ONE MAN overcame the world so that we as wannabees can have hope, faith and glory everlasting. Amen.
Yes, the concepts are extra-biblical, such as "ousia," which comes from Hellenic substance metaphysics.That means that the explanation is extra-Biblical, not the concept.
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?