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









 Re:

Hi David,
I asked you who died for you on the cross. What I'm pointing at is that it is the Word who became flesh. It is the Word who was born and shepherds and wise men came to worship him. It is the Word who was baptized by John and walked, talked, ate, slept, cried, prayed, breathed, suffered, died on the cross, was buried, and rose again. The complete, whole, undivided Word did all of these things. Jesus is that Word. Jesus is not the Word plus a body. Every pronoun in the gospels that refers to Jesus Christ is referring to the Word. There are not some pronouns that refer to one nature or quality of the Word and other pronouns that refer to another nature or quality of the same Word. His two natures are indivisible. Therefore he did not divide them when He said "Me", "I", "He", "the son of man", etc. When Jesus refers to himself as "the son of man" he is referring to himself, the Word. When Peter called Jesus the Son of the living God, Peter was saying that to Jesus, the Word. There is no Word who is not Jesus Christ the Son of God and no Man Jesus Christ who is not the Word. That is why I was so concerned about you dividing the pronouns. When Jesus refers to himself there is only one "I", "Me", "He", "son of man", etc. Not four or two or however many.

Now regarding the trinity:
What you're saying is that there USED TO BE a Word, the Word, that was NOT Jesus Christ the Son of God but in the incarnation that former Word BECAME Jesus Christ the Son of God. You seem to be basing this on "today I have begotten you"? Is that correct. I do not think that I have said anything to thoroughly refute what you're saying about the trinity. You remember that I said I didn't like how it sounds and you yourself even said that God was always a Father, though it seems you amended that to exclude God before creation. If someone else has completely refuted you, I haven't seen it myself but there's a lot to read here and I've only read half and skimmed through the rest.

I don't think trying to imagine what it is like to be God and talking about personalities has been very fruitful. However, someone mentioned that "love does not seek it's own" which I thought was more than fitting for the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

You were talking about God loving himself and ideas about what God does and doesn't do "with" or "to" or "for" himself have been popping up throughout but I can't think of any scripture that encourages us to attempt to fathom the trinity through such ideas, phrases, etc.
Ben

 2008/11/19 17:41
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Logic on 2008/11/19 21:50:58
pLEASE define "the Word" Because, when I think of "the Word",it is not some intangible verbage that God utters, I see "it" as Jesus before He was called Jesus.


The Word is the second person of the Godhead who 'became' man and took the earthly name of Jesus.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote: Angels do not 'have bodies' but that does not prevent them from 'appearing' and behaving as human. The Word did not 'have flesh' until the Word became flesh.

Are you implying that when He ate with Abraham, He didn't have glorified flesh, but something else than when He ate with the disciples after His resurection?


No I am not implying it, I am stating it as plainly as I know how. His resurrection body was the resurrected body that he originally took in incarnation. In the same way that our resurrection bodies will be the resurrected bodies that we had here; glorious but with a specific provenance. (not providence)


Quote:
Do you think that jesus a "man" still, now that He is resurrected and in heaven? Do you think that He still all human & all God or all man & all God?


I am not sure why you are distinguishing between 'human' and 'man'? But as far as I understand your question... he is what be became by incarnation and resurrection... theoanthropos, the God-Man. He is perfectly God and perfectly man united in perfect harmony in one person. He is a real 'resurrected flesh and blood' man and eternally God. Co-equal, co-substantial, co-eternal. Holy, Holy, Holy.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/20 5:12Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

davidt

I am still awaiting an answer to my questions regarding the Philippian passage in my post of "philologos on 2008/11/19 17:25:57"

There are, to my mind, 4 supreme passages which bear special witness to this subject.

John 1:1-18
2 Cor 8:9
Phil 2:5-11
Col 1:15-18

When we have discussed Philippians 2 we can move onto the Corinthian and Colossian passages... probably after the Revival Conference in Scotland...


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/20 5:15Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
It is one of the fundamental expressions of the Godhead in the scripture. If you know of a verse which is more comprehensive please let me know.


Well, in regards to the topic we were talking about I didn't really see the relevance. It was hard to know what you were talking about as well so I am not sure I got it. And in reference to prove fellowship I think this is a weak reference to some point. I dont see why you would have to dig into the greek and pull out an obscure word just to make one small point (not meant irritatingly). I do respect the study of greek and bringing those things up but it is not always my favorite things to do. I have taken classes in greek and I have often found my teachers to just get so specific and intricate that it is confusing and many times weird interpretations come out of these things because people are trying to hard. I dont think the main focus should be in digging into the Bible like a scribe scientist but I think the Scriptures are to be received simply and clearly and the main focus should be on receiving revelation on them and that is when they become deep not when you can dig deep into their wording. This is only a rabbit trail about my attitude toward greek. I am not saying I hate it nor that I love it I only take it in balance and reason. And in this respect I think it is too much. If you points are true then you should be able to provide texts that dont take this much work and obscurity to attain.


Quote:
As regards 'towardsness' the word clearly implies that the relationship is not static but fluid. This is a dynamic relationship and not a spacial one.


If you are trying to prove fellowship I think there are probably more clear passages like john 17. And I am still not so sure about this one.

 2008/11/20 8:57Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Well, in regards to the topic we were talking about I didn't really see the relevance. It was hard to know what you were talking about as well so I am not sure I got it.


I was making the point that there is a specific statement about fellowship in the Godhead before the incarnation. Is that simple enough?

Now,don't go off on the rabbit trail of your legs and arms again. I do not have fellowship with my arms and legs and neither do you. You tell them what to do and they do it. They are not self-conscious and have no means of self-expression or choice. Self-consciousness, self-expression and choice are elements of personality; a personality which was clearly in existence before the incarnation.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/20 9:02Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Robert,

Thank you for replying to this. I just was not clear about it I thought I had answered it satisfactorily.

Quote:
These are all personal pronouns describing the Holy Spirit. If the 'I' and 'you' are understood to be persons how can one rationally think that 'He' is not a person?


I just believe that He is talking about Himself. Since He is personal though they are not 3 different persons they are all 3 personal as the same person. So he can reference Himself as a person since He is. God unlike us can be more places then once. He can be in 2 forms at once and therefore can talk to Himself. I cannot clearly explain what spirit is but I know it is like wind but can also take form like a dove, a man who eats, and so forth. So God can be in different places at once and so can talk to Himself.


p.s. for a minute do not question me but answer me and do not answer me with a question. Allow me to turn it around and ask, "does your word and spirit have a separate personality? I don't think so and since God's other expressions are His word and spirit and words and spirit don't have personalities you can say that they do not have distinct personalities but one together as yourself. I think that once you prove that the Son has not always been the Son but only the Word that the conception of a distinct personality is erased. For a Son may have a distinct personality but a word does not.

 2008/11/20 9:03Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
my leg has no independent power of action.


I have already explained that this analogy is obviously not complete it is only used in part. You can tear any analogy apart by taking it too far.


Quote:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Phil 2:5-8 NKJV


It does not say "being in the form of the 2nd person of the Trinity" it says being in the form of God.


Quote:
It was the Word who 'emptied himself' and 'took the form of a servant'.


The Word and God are no different essentially. The word is the glory of God. Gods glory is not another person.

 2008/11/20 9:09Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Robert,

Quote:
This is only a partial analogy that should be obvious and apparent. You making this statement seems to me that this is the only argument that you have left. (not written in anymosity)

Are you having fun?


I can assure you that that was not my motive. This is why I tried to say that it was not in anymosity. I was trying to find the right way to say it but I also wanted to be direct. I wrote "it seems" since I was not sure. It was however a logical conclusion. However you recently showed me there were still some things you had to say. For me to say that you have no argument is not surely a mean spirited comment I just meant it literally and rationally trying to speak of the truth and bring forth discussion.

 2008/11/20 9:12Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Ben,

Quote:
Are there any hard feelings from yesterday?


Absolutely not brother I just want to do my best to promote clear and sincere discussion unto edification.


Quote:
Who died on the cross for you?


God took on the form of a man and died for me as a human. He suffered and died in His humanity yet His divinity was unscathed. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to die. If hypothetically He wanted to I would say by His nature He couldn't but He would never even want to for how could life itself die.

 2008/11/20 9:15Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
He says 'pros' not 'en', with God, not in; showing the Word's Eternity,


In regards to with not in. Jesus Himself said I and the Father are one. Jesus is not only the word but He is the glory of God the expression of God. The expression of God is not essentially different from God Himself it is His radiance. One could not be more the same them to be ones radiance.

 2008/11/20 9:19Profile





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