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
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
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.


Of course you have to have two for communion. That is what the word means 'a common union'. Singularity cannot have communion. If there is no separate consciousness within the Godhead there is no communion, no fellowship.

Quote:
You can talk to yourself. David talked to Himself.


David spoke to his own soul in meditation. The record of the communion between the Father and the Son that we have recorded in scripture are not meditations.

When I speak to myself I don't wait for an answer. I know fully well that I am acting out a metaphor. I have never been under the delusion that another me was talking back to me.

Did you read the Godhead thread?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 9:07Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
Of course you have to have two for communion. That is what the word means 'a common union'. Singularity cannot have communion. If there is no separate consciousness within the Godhead there is no communion, no fellowship.


What verse about communion are you referencing?


Quote:
David spoke to his own soul in meditation.


This was not merely in meditation he was giving himself council.


Quote:
When I speak to myself I don't wait for an answer. I know fully well that I am acting out a metaphor. I have never been under the delusion that another me was talking back to me.


Yes well you also are not God who took on flesh. You also cannot do the miracles that God can. I dont think you understand. When does the Holy Spirit talk to the Father? When does Jesus talk to the Father? He talks from His humanity. He talks from His Deity sometimes. Your arms relates to you mouth by giving it food and so God relate to Himself except it is with words no one ever said that the analogy is totally the same you can stretch any analogy to these types of outcomes. Have you ever been deluted to think you have 3 personalities? Anyways this is not the main thing these reasonings the main thing is the Scriptures. It is easy to have confusion and fall away into obscure intellectual ideas and move away from the simplicity of the Bible. I believe I have answered you questions philosophically. We have posted multiple threads and I have answered one after another and you have only come up with more questions and it seems you have not acknowledged it. Show me the Bible. I have been questioned many times so far and I am giving answers and verses and no one is giving any responses that discredit me. Again I am not being hard headed/ hearted or being unreasonable. One person asked me about "today I have begotten you only referring to the resurrection and I corrected that". Another asked me "how do you explain John 17 and I answered that with John 14". The list goes on and no one seems to accept it and are just trying to tear apart my theology with all these intricate philosophies which I have also answered like about God loving Himself or God loving Himself not being Satanic or the list goes on. So what is the outcome? Where is the reason? The clear answers and question? What I am trying to do is promote edification and a clear sound discussion. I have often spoken with cults where they will jump from topic to topic and will bring all these smaller reasonings and ignore the vast evidence which is the majority. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. So once again specifically you are asking me questions I am answering them and then you move on to the other without acknowledging that your post has been corrected. This is not a thing where I am trying to show that I have won or anything but that it should be acknowledged that what I am saying is reasonable and that I have answered all the question that have been asked of me.


Quote:
Did you read "godhead"?


I looked over it. I am not ignorant to the mainstream teaching of the Triunity I am well versed in it. I would rather you point me to what you are trying to say.

 2008/11/19 9:24Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Father:
Is called God the most and is the Head from which the Spirit and the Son come forth.

Spirit:
God is spirit therefore Gods Spirit is synonymous with God as the Father since the Father is God and is the Spirit.

Logos:
The Logos is the word of God/ Father. He is the expression of God. He is God. Now that He has been born a man He is the Son of God.

Conclusion:
What is so hard about that. It is Scriptural. Can you challenge that by Scripture? Can you show by Scripture that God has 3 personalities? Can you show by scripture that Jesus was always the Son?

I know your response to the personality question. You say that God talks to Himself therefore He has to have 3 consciousness and personalities. Where does God talk to Himself? When does the Spirit talk to the Father? Jesus speaks to the Father from His humanity. And at times He speaks from His divinity but many times it is more so that the people around will hear. Other times he is making statements. And he does sometimes talk to Him communingly but God can do that. God can be at more then one place at a time. God can talk to Himself just as He can relate to Himself. Saying that God cannot talk to Himself does not prove anything. You have to show by Scripture. All you are doing is questioning Scripture because I have shown by Scripture that the things I say are true this is not meant with offense.

I am having a hard time bringing clarity here. I think the teaching that Jesus did not become the Son til He was born has been established and everything else. I think the only thing that has not yet been cleared up with you is this question of how can God talk to Himself. You say your spirit cannot talk to you but it can you can council yourself. You say you word cannot talk to itself but Jesus is more generally the expression of God. So generally you can talk to yourself. You can love yourself. You can act toward yourself. I am trying to break confusion here please try to reason with me.

 2008/11/19 9:43Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
I looked over it. I am not ignorant to the mainstream teaching of the Triunity I am well versed in it. I would rather you point me to what you are trying to say.



That is what we have been doing, but it is becoming an exercise in futility. But I (for one) and I'm sure the others also, continue in the dialogue because there might be impressionable minds reading these things that are under the similar impression that essential Christian doctrine is somehow up for grabs. This is how heresy and cults get started. Starting this thread now seems more to be the propagation than a discussion.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/11/19 9:47Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Robert/ Phil,

Quote:
That is what we have been doing,


True. I am speaking specifically in light of the article though.


Quote:
but it is becoming an exercise in futility.


I feel the same way at this point to some extent. That is why I just wrote Phil. I am trying to make this to where we are getting somewhere. That is why I am trying to ask you specifically what you are asking me. And I also stated that I am the one who has brought substantial proof and not the other way so the burden is on the other side at this point.


Quote:
But I (for one) and I'm sure the others also, continue in the dialogue because there might be impressionable minds reading these things that are under the similar impression that essential Christian doctrine is somehow up for grabs. This is how heresy and cults get started. Starting this thread now seems more to be the propagation than a discussion.


Well originally I posted to receive wide counsel and I have taken it. I also posted to express something I believe to be truth. If this is wrong and is heresy then I encourage there to be proof. I am not unreasonable and it seems clear scripturally that what I am saying is true. As for propogation my main aim is for someone to correct me or admit that they cannot prove that I am wrong I am looking for the truth to be established on this thread. I also think that people were posting not just for that reason but also to share counsel with me and dialogue on the topic for themselves.

 2008/11/19 9:54Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Robert,

I don't think that these things are becoming futile. It is not as if we have gone over the same things repeatedly we have been making progress. I think that the last couple posts have become a bit unclear and that is why I am trying to sharpen them. I do think though that this thread is coming to an end in that I have answered all the question that there are to answer. I feel as if you saying that is not fair. I think that I have given correct and satisfying answers scripturally to your questions and now I feel as if you are making this statement with no reason behind it. Maybe because you dont have any thing else to argue within reason.

p.s. this is not written in animosity.

 2008/11/19 10:00Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Show me the Bible.



The order of the words in Biblical Greek is not primarily to convey meaning but emphasis. So e.g. in our illustration if the full story was 'a boy and a girl were playing with a dog; the boy bit the dog'. If the case ending showed that 'the dog' was the subject then this would have the effect of saying "both were playing with the dog, but the dog bit the boy".??However in a sentence like 'god was the word' something else gives us the meaning. In these "equation" statements e.g. "the dog is an animal" the same case ending would be used for both; the nominative. This would make it impossible to know who bit whom, but the Greeks had a way around that too. The subject noun would be given the definite article 'the'. Now the word order of the sentence can be used to give the required emphasis but we can still identify the subject.

The Greek for John 1:1 is "and god was the word". This is an "equation sentence" so how can we know which is the subject? Easy, the subject has the definite article. So why not write "the word was God"? Simply because the writer wants to emphasize something else. It is a way of saying "what God was, the Word was". Everything that God was, the Word was. The lack of the definite article stops us from confusing the identify and person of 'the Word'(Jesus) with the identity and person of 'God' (the Father). The word order tells us that the Word has all the divine attributes of the Father; the word order tells us that the 'the Word' is not 'the Father'. Martin Luther once wrote that the lack of the definite article disproves Sabellianism and the word order disproves Arianism. Here's a little more Bible algebra. If it had said

"and the Word was the God" -> Sabellianism (Jesus-Only/Oneness)
"and the Word was a god" -> Arianism, hierarchical trinitarians (and JWs etc)
"and god was the Word" -> orthodox trinitarian.


So to have used the Greek word order ‘the word was the God’ would have said something quite different. It would have said that there was no difference between the Word and God which is an error still taught by some religious groups. To say the Word was a god would have indicated that the Word was less a ‘god’ than God was. To say, as the Greek order does, says exactly what John wanted to say. There is no confusion of identities, no setting of one above another; and yet perfect union. And to eliminate any possible of an ordered hierarchy we have the final statement. The same was in the beginning with God.

In these two sentences we have distinct identity, eternal fellowship, perfect union. As the old creeds used to say One God in Three Persons – Trinity.

edit: the phrase 'was with God' is "John 1:1 En archeœÇ eœn ho logos, kai ho logos eœn [u]pros ton theon[/u], kai theos eœn ho logos. "

We might have expected 'meta' here but we have 'eis' which is a preposition of movement and can be translated 'towards' or 'into'. In the pre-incarnation era we have here a clear intimation of 'towardsness' fellowship.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 10:45Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

I am not sure what you mean. The language is a bit difficult. I believe that the Word was God. Can you clarify/ sum up more simply? I believe that all 3 are equal. I do believe though that the Son is under the Father or at least on the right hand since He ultimately hands over the Kingdom and other things.

 2008/11/19 10:56Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Maybe you mean...

Quote:
In these two sentences we have distinct identity, eternal fellowship, perfect union. As the old creeds used to say One God in Three Persons – Trinity.


I believe distinct identity in the sense that there is distinction between the Word, Father, and Spirit just as my arm is different then my leg. But, I dont see this identity as being a distinct person.

I believe they had eternal fellowship as you have with you parts. You are intimately related to your arms and legs.

Perfect union is agreed upon.


Quote:
We might have expected 'meta' here but we have 'eis' which is a preposition of movement and can be translated 'towards' or 'into'. In the pre-incarnation era we have here a clear intimation of 'towardsness' fellowship.


Since when does towardsness mean fellowship. I am not saying that there is no relation between the 2. Is that the best verse you can come up with "not sarcastically"?

 2008/11/19 11:10Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
I think that I have given correct and satisfying answers scripturally to your questions and now I feel as if you are making this statement with no reason behind it. Maybe because you dont have any thing else to argue within reason.



A cursory search should confirm that the above is not true. It has become evident to me that no amount of evidence no matter how persuasive will alter your view. You then take the additional step of suggesting I am befuddled. At this point I am mainly concerned for those who may not have a firm grasp of the issues.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/11/19 11:41Profile





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