SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 Next Page )
PosterThread
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Robert,

Quote:
So when I quote from Isaiah 6 that God is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY are two of the Holy's for two of the angels also? How many three's will I have to demonstrate to make the point?


Holy x3 is not specifically speaking to the Word, Father, and Spirit. It is only repeating itself for emphasis. In the Hebrew language when someone wanted to emphasize something they would repeat themselves.

As to how many 3's must you mention. I said that there are 3 the Word, Spirit, and Father but these are not 3 persons but 3 parts. You probably ask, "well then why would God speak to His parts as Us?". I don't know. Maybe because they each have such significant roles. I dont know maybe the human analogy that He has used is not complete and there are other things about Him that are not fully expressed within this limited analogy. And once again maybe He is speaking about Him and the angels as He did when He was about to destroy Sodom.

Thank you for the illustration but that is all it is is an illustration. I am not being cynical.

 2008/11/19 7:25Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I was saying that Jesus was not always the Son until he was begotten as a man by God. I was saying that He was always and eternally the Word. I was using John 3 as a proof text that He was not always the Son but was always the Logos. I said in John 3 it does not say He was the Son eternally but it does say He was the Logos.


So what was the nature of the 'thing' which became the 'Son'. Was the Word a conscious being or an aspect of another being? That is, was 'the Word God' or was the word 'an aspect of God'?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 7:28Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
To 'love love' would be to worship a virtue which is in itself idolatry.


God is love. All the virtues which we have stem from God. Just as we have life but God is life so it is with love. God is the source of life. As the sun is the source of heat God is the source of love. The sun made out of fire and God is made out of love "I know the sun is gas". So love is not merely a virtue in the deepest sense of the word but it is God. However there is love that is separate from God and has only originated from Him just as there is life that is separate from Him. He who is love said let there be love and creates it as He created man.

 2008/11/19 7:29Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
God is love. All the virtues which we have stem from God. Just as we have life but God is life so it is with love. God is the source of life. As the sun is the source of heat God is the source of love. The sun made out of fire and God is made out of love "I know the sun is gas". So love is not merely a virtue in the deepest sense of the word but it is God. However there is love that is separate from God and has only originated from Him just as there is life that is separate from Him. He who is love said let there be love and creates it as He created man.


There is so much philosophical speculation in this that I hardly know where to start. God is 'made' out of anything, not even love. God is love but not made out of it. God is also Light but he is not made out of that either.

I can part answer my own question from a more recent answer of yours. So you believe that a 'part' of God became the Son in incarnation. God is One, without parts. This is the ancient revelation trusted to the Jews. God has no parts. Anyone who thinks he has does not understand the teaching of Trinity.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 7:33Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
So what was the nature of the 'thing' which became the 'Son'. Was the Word a conscious being or an aspect of another being? That is, was 'the Word God' or was the word 'an aspect of God'?


The Word is not a thing the Word is God. I would not call God a thing but a person. So the word is a person the same person that the Father is. I have explained this before. Jesus is the [b]expression[/b] of God. He is the exact express image of His person, He is the glory of God, He is the expressed thoughts of God in that He is the word of God, when you behold His face you see the glory of God, if you have seen Him you have seen the Father, as in Revelation it says and the glory of God and of the Lamb will be the cities light. So He is the emanation of God. He is what comes forth from God. Kinda like as I express myself toward you and you receive my personality that is what Jesus is. He is the expression of God. To be the Word is no little demeaning thing it is by that that He has created the worlds and upholds them, by which He splits the cedars, it is like a hammer, it is the way in which He communicates to us, it is living and active and sharper then and double edged sword, when Jesus speaks and says I am crowds fall over seas still...

 2008/11/19 7:37Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
There is so much philosophical speculation in this that I hardly know where to start. God is 'made' out of anything, not even love. God is love but not made out of it. God is also Light but he is not made out of that either.


Well I am trying to keep it simple but in order to answer your questions I have to be specific and speak these philosophical things though I believe my philosophy to be derived from Scripture. God is love and light. He is not made out of anything because He was not created but He is in essence love and light. These things and virtues which you see are from what He is. You might debate the original language but for example in 1John it says that God is love and light:

1John 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. [b]God is love[/b], and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that [b]God is light[/b], and in him is no darkness at all.


Quote:
God is One, without parts. This is the ancient revelation trusted to the Jews. God has no parts. Anyone who thinks he has does not understand the teaching of Trinity.


Well, God has a Word and a Spirit. So, obviously He has distinct operations within Himself whatever you want to call it. I am not saying He has parts in the sense that He is broken and separate but as we have parts and yet are one in harmony like out heart, mind, and such. It is hard to explain since God is spirit. Once again that is an extra biblical source and you cannot solely base your reasoning upon it "Jewish tradition".

 2008/11/19 7:46Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
The Word is not a thing the Word is God. I would not call God a thing but a person. So the word is a person the same person that the Father is. I have explained this before. Jesus is the expression of God. He is the exact express image of His person, He is the glory of God, He is the expressed thoughts of God in that He is the word of God, when you behold His face you see the glory of God,...


I used the word 'thing' to give you space. I can express myself but my expression of myself does not talk to me. My character can have no separate life of its own as an emanation; that is dangerous territory BTW.

In the thread on 'Godhead' I tried to show how carefully the Greek expresses the separate identity of the Word. The Word communes with God; this is only possible if there are, at least, two separate consciousnesses. Please take a look... I prefer not to post sections of it here. Here is the original thread...

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=7893&forum=36&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0]The Godhead[/url]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 8:08Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Well I am trying to keep it simple but in order to answer your questions I have to be specific and speak these philosophical things though I believe my philosophy to be derived from Scripture.


Do you think I would derive my philosophy from any other source?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 8:11Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
I can express myself but my expression of myself does not talk to me.


You can talk to yourself. David talked to Himself.


Quote:
My character can have no separate life of its own as an emanation


I am not saying that the 3 are seperate. Your arm has a different function and it is different in a way from other parts of your body but they are all one as you.


Quote:
the separate identity of the Word...The Word communes with God...this is only possible if there are, at least, two separate consciousnesses...


I don't know if I would separate identity. I would just say He is the Word of God. You word does not have a separate identity from yourself. Now that the Word has taken on flesh He has a different identity in that as far as His humanity goes.

The Word communes with God. God is therefore communing with Himself. You don't have to have another person in order to commune. God loves Himself. For an example though surely not the best you you can bless your belly by giving it food. You can speak truth to yourself and encourage yourself.

 2008/11/19 8:28Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
Do you think I would derive my philosophy from any other source?


The previous quote was in reference to me. I was saying that I did not want to delve too far into philosophy. I was saying that I wanted to be scriptural. I was not making any remark about your philosophy only that you were asking me all these philosophical things. I also mentioned earlier that I am not fully advanced in these philosophical depths of the Triunity because I have only thus far kept it simple from what the Bible says about the Triunity. I have read it and accepted it but I have not really chased down all the thought chains that result from it. I have not thought about all these specific questions. Most of the questions asked of me of late have been well how can this be and that but the main question is what does the Bible state. And, I believe I have given significant complete evidence scripturally. People are not starting with what does the bible say but with how can that be. This is somewhat understandable since these things are foreign and new to many and therefore can create tension because of the seriousness of the matter but I still encourage all to first start with the Scriptures and then ask what not how. But how is an okay question too but not in unbelief or intellectual disaproval. I will lastly remark that intellectually questioning outcomes can be viable if you find the text to be hard to understand. What I mean is if you cant understand the text then you can try to reason it out....

 2008/11/19 8:35Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy