How Are They All "ONE"? It's NOT How You Have Been Taught! (Jehovah, Revelation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You who claim to be a Ph.D cannot understand the use of technical terms by Theologians??? Scientists use technical terms. I assume you have no problem with that. Engineers use technical terms. I assume you have no problem with that. Physicians use technical terms. I assume you have no problem with that. But when Theologians use technical terms suddenly it becomes esoteric jargon. 'Hypostatic Union' and 'Kenosis' are technical Theological terms.
Hypostatic Union is a technical term which refers to the fact that Jesus Christ is God as stated in John 1:1 and Phil. 2:5-6 and that at the incarnation He became man as stated in John 1:14 and Phil. 2:7-8, and is therefore both God and man. The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union explains the relationship between Jesus' human nature and His divine nature.
Kenosis is a technical term derived from the word kenoó in Phil. 2:7 which refers to the fact that during His First Advent Jesus refrained from using His deity independently from the Father's will in order to benefit Himself.
HELP'S Word-studies
Cognate: 2758 kenóō – properly, to empty out, render void; (passive) be emptied – hence, without recognition, perceived as valueless (Phil 2:7). See 2756 (kenos). Strong's Greek: 2758. ????? (kenoó) -- to empty
But Jesus did not, and could not actually empty Himself of His deity, He simply refused to use His deity to benefit Himself during the First Advent as Satan tried to get Him to do when He tempted Jesus to turn stones to bread to ease His hunger (Matthew 4:3-4).
In John 17:21
that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Jesus was requesting that there might be a unity of love between all future believers, just as there is a unity of love between the Persons of the Godhead.
John 13:35 ''By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.''
The manifest oneness or unity of believers in love would give public confirmation both of their relationship with Jesus and of His with the Father.
Your misunderstanding of the verses you posted is typical of those who don't understand the Hypostatic union and kenosis of Jesus Christ. Jesus is both eternal and infinite God, and true humanity in one person. As God, Jesus has eternally existed and has always been omniscient - all knowing. When He came into the world as a man He did not stop being God, but He refrained from independently using His deity to benefit Himself apart from the Father's plan for the First Advent. And that's the kenosis of Jesus. His voluntary refrain of the independent use of His deity. The Hypostatic union of Jesus means that the two natures of Christ, His deity and His humanity, are inseparably united, but without any mixture or bleeding over of the attributes of His deity with the attributes of His humanity. Therefore, Jesus Christ is fully God, and fully man.
This is why as a man Jesus did not know the day or hour of His return. But as God He did. The fact that He didn't mention the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit didn't know. Jesus, speaking from the standpoint of His humanity was simply pointing out that only God knew the time of His return. And as man, Jesus has been given all judgment. It was the humanity of Jesus that died, not His deity. That is one reason why Jesus had to become a man. Deity cannot die. But as a man, Jesus was able to die.
The Bible plainly states that Jesus is God and that it was He who did the actual act of creation. John 1:1-3, Phil. 2:5-6, Col. 1:16-17. Only false teachers claim that Jesus Christ is not God.
As for The Holy Spirit, He is said to be God in Acts 5:3-4. He is shown to have the attributes of personhood - He can hear, He can speak as mentioned in John 16:13-14. He is shown to be distinct from both the Father and the Son in John 14:26.
For example, a χαρακτηρ / Character pressed into wax by a seal was NOT the seal itself, but rather it represented the seal and was a close enough representation that whoever made the Character,also had access to the seal and was seen as authorized. The Character represented the seal. Some of the early papyri also do refer to Characters as people of a certain type.
You may like this translation:
3. Who, being a beam (radiance; effulgence; outshining) from the Glory, and an exact impress (as from a stamp or die) of His substructure (the substance standing under as a foundation) and continuously bearing (carrying) the whole (all things; everything; or, as a masc.: all men) by the thing which is spoken belonging to His power (the saying pertaining to His ability; in the spoken word of His power), making a cleansing (purification) of failures (of the misses of the target; pertaining to the sins), seated Himself within the right part of greatness resident within high places.
It is these verses etal. that caused me to question whether I was attempting to cram what I read into the preconceived box that I was taught was Truth...
And this leads us directly back to where we were pre-Nicaea I. The scriptures leave many possibilities open. Unitarianism, Arianism, Tritheism, Bitheism, Binitarianism, Modalism, the Jehovah's Witness formula for God, the Latter-Day Saint formula for God, every non-trinitarian view ever held and the various iterations of the Trinity itself.
All can easily be reverse engineered as "the most Biblical." Don't believe me? Every one of those beliefs has their own expert scriptorians who can put it all together for you. I know the scriptures used by the various parties and you will note I'm avoiding the grand Biblical debate on the matter. I have the utmost confidence that each theory can establish itself via extensive references to Biblical passages -- very often the very same passages. So how do we do it better than Nicaea establishing eternal truth by political degree and vote?
Simple: We have to do better than "is it Biblical" and go to the source. God knows exactly what God is like and only He can settle the matter once and for all.
[SIZE=1]
I only had a second to comment before I become busy at my work but wanted to make a comment.
I always seems that we interact as antagonists. One of Godofthunder9010's posts reminded me that I like a large portion of some of your theories and I feel ambivalent that we tend to only discuss our differences. I am sorry for this and will try, in the future to point out areas of agreement as well. Also, discussions tend to lose focus and evolve away from the original point. I hope you are able to keep in mind that my disagreement centers on your prior claim that Hebrews 1:3 clearly shows that God and His son are somehow the same being.
I do NOT think your pastors should stop making theories nor am I suggesting that you should stop promulgating their theories, but hope you will allow them to distill and change according to your own thoughts and your own feelings and allow them to evolve and change as you accumulate differing data sets in this life.
You who claim to be a Ph.D cannot understand the use of technical terms by Theologians??? Scientists use technical terms. I assume you have no problem with that. Engineers use technical terms. I assume you have no problem with that. Physicians use technical terms. I assume you have no problem with that. But when Theologians use technical terms suddenly it becomes esoteric jargon. 'Hypostatic Union' and 'Kenosis' are technical Theological terms.
Hypostatic Union is a technical term which refers to the fact that Jesus Christ is God as stated in John 1:1 and Phil. 2:5-6 and that at the incarnation He became man as stated in John 1:14 and Phil. 2:7-8, and is therefore both God and man. The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union explains the relationship between Jesus' human nature and His divine nature.
Kenosis is a technical term derived from the word kenoó in Phil. 2:7 which refers to the fact that during His First Advent Jesus refrained from using His deity independently from the Father's will in order to benefit Himself.
HELP'S Word-studies
Cognate: 2758 kenóō – properly, to empty out, render void; (passive) be emptied – hence, without recognition, perceived as valueless (Phil 2:7). See 2756 (kenos). Strong's Greek: 2758. ????? (kenoó) -- to empty
But Jesus did not, and could not actually empty Himself of His deity, He simply refused to use His deity to benefit Himself during the First Advent as Satan tried to get Him to do when He tempted Jesus to turn stones to bread to ease His hunger (Matthew 4:3-4).
In John 17:21
that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Jesus was requesting that there might be a unity of love between all future believers, just as there is a unity of love between the Persons of the Godhead.
John 13:35 ''By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.''
The manifest oneness or unity of believers in love would give public confirmation both of their relationship with Jesus and of His with the Father.
Absent the theological mumbo jumbo to "explain" the inexplicable and absurd contentions of the Trinitarian theologians . . . THIS post (I assume inadvertently) hits on the real unity of God that Christ and God share . . . pure Agape Love for all life (even the least of His creatures which is the Holy Spirit of God's consciousness). This is what we CAN share by practice and effort under the guidance of Christ's Holy Spirit (Comforter) to the truth God has "written in our hearts." Christ abides with us and His Holy Spirit (Comforter) anoints us with His love for us all (agape love) and will teach us to "love God and each other" daily and repent when we don't.
Then we should ALL think that we are equal with HaShem...
No, because there are different meaning for equality depending on the context. The Holy Spirit is the very nature of God and when given to us we more and more reflect the nature of God but with lots of mercy for our continuing failings. Unlike Christ who was born with, grew with and always retained the nature of God in which it was impossible for Him to sin either by commission or omission because unlike us who have limited free will He had no other will but that of God's.
Once again you make unwarranted assumptions about what I mean orwhat I assume. Mike #38
Mike555, keep in mind that myinitial post was in response by another poster describing how you and otherstended to use the word “substance” and “essence” without adequate; simple;and understandable explanation as to what was meant. If posters havedifficulty understanding your theory and use of words, you must take someresponsibility for confusion.
Once you DOf inally explain in simple and clear terms the difference between the“substance” of God the Father and the “substance” of his son, thenwe can determine if I owe you an apology or if you owe me an apology for askingfor an apology; especially if this turns out to be just another rhetorical gameor another “bait and switch”. If I end up owing you an apology, I willcertainly give it very willingly and very sincerely.
I am not interested in an apology, and did not ask for one. You simply made a false claim in post #37 by saying that I believe that God's essence is bodily, chemically or materially based. The following is your exact statement;
'Regarding Mike555’s assumption that υποστασεο in this instance means “substance” or “essence” in a “bodily” or “chemical” or “material” sense of characteristics of “sameness” '.
And apparently, according to what you say in this post, you made that statement based on what someone else said, rather than what I said in my very first post on this thread which is post #5. And what did I say about God's essence in post #5? I said the following;
As to the question which asks, 'How are they one?', the answer is that the three Persons of the Trinity are one in their essence, nature, or substance. They all have the attributes of Sovereignty, Perfect righteousness, Perfect Justice, Love, Eternality - they have eternally existed, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Veracity, and immutability.
Now you tell me how the attributes of Sovereignty, Perfect Righteousness, Perfect Justice, Love, Eternality, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Veracity, and Immutability could possibly be chemically, bodily, or materially based?
You have not acknowledged that you made a false statement about what I 'assume'.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have the same essence, or nature, or substance. There is no difference in their natures as you apparently want me to say.
[quote]
Mike mentioned
Quote:
“FranklyI do not even particularly like the word 'substance' but it is a part of thedefinition. “ [/quote
Mike, you are confused. “Substance” is not “part of the definition”.It is instead, ONE of several potential definitions. You mustlearn to understand this simple point or you will continue to make mistakesregarding interpreting languages you do not read nor understand.
For example, READ Thayer's SEVERAL (i.e. plural) potential Definitions in your ownexample:
Hypostasis can be :
1) a setting orplacing under a. thing put under, substructure, foundation
2) that which has foundation, is firm a. that which has actual existence 1. asubstance, real being
3) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
4) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
5) confidence,firm trust, assurance
While you aretrying to apply one of the other definitions (e.g. #3) to υποστασεω in Hebrews1:3, my point has been that #5 is closer to the sense of how the word wasactually used in this ancient context by the ancients themselves. Infact, “Definition” number 5 (five) IS the definition used for how υποστασισ /hypostatis is used in Hebrews 11:1.
LOOK at theexamples I gave you regarding other of the most common uses of the termυποστασισ in other common papyri of the time. I could not FIND a single onethat used the term in the way YOU are using it. Ask your pastor friends ifthey can find a single usage in the peri-c.e. era papyri/manuscripts thatuse your definition in Koine in reference to the Son “whom he has appointedheir of all things” (which context is created within six words of the text youare trying to take out of that context and place into the context of some sortof “substance” (which you have not explained so that anyone can understand it).Why not simply leave it in context and let the text say what it wants to say?Why not allow the ancient christians to use the word the way they used it?
The word 'substance' is indeed part of the definition of hupostasis, and is translated as such in a number of Bible translations. As I said though, I don't really like the word, and prefer the term essence, or nature, both of which are also used in Bible translations.
Nor have I taken the word out of context or failed to exlain. Once again, I explained it at the bottom of post #5.
Dr. John D. Hannah in 'Our Legacy, The History of Christian Doctrine' states;
Tertullian used the term ''substance,'' referring to that which the persons have in common. As later developed, it implied the community of equally shared attributes in the Godhead. God, being spirit (John 4:24), is without body or parts, so that the word can be misleading. ''Substance'' implies not corporeality, but His divine character or attributes (God is known to us through the medium and manner of His dealing with us). With all this stated, however, scholars believe that Tertullian's explanation of the Trinity contained hues of Subordinationism. The language of analogy or illustration betrayed him as it does all those who seek to describe the infinite with finite words and illustrations. God has revealed Himself truly to His people, though not completely. ['Our Legacy, The History of Christian Doctrine, pp.78-79]
And those equally shared attributes again are, Sovereignty, Perfect Righteousness, Perfect Justice, Love, Eternality, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Veracity, and Immutability.
Quote:
Regarding yourdefinition of υποστασισ / hypostasis you said :
[/
Mike555, CompareYOUR personal interpretation to Thayers and/or Strongs. You are MUCH furtheraway from and adding to Thayers and Strongs than I am.[/
Your “definition”of “substance / υποστασισ” goes way, way, way beyond Thayers OR Strongsdefinition of “substance”. This is what I mean by adding your owninterpretation to the text. You have the tendency to add to the text ofdictionaries and bibles what is not there. It is not your theories themselveswhich cause the constant “hits” to credibility, but rather it is these sorts of“redefinitions” and “rewording” that causes the constant hits to credibility.
God's essence is certainly the sum total of His attributes (see post #5, as well as earlier in this post) which are listed in Scripture. And yes, it goes beyond what Thayers and Strong's says.
Quote:
Your tendency toplug texts into your pastors non-historical model creates these untenabletheories. For example : you offer us a scripture :
Jer 23:24 ...Is it not I that shall fill the heaven and the earth says the Lord...
...μη ουχι τον ουρανονκαι την γην εγω πληρω λεγει κυριοσ...
If you INSIST that this word for fill, MUST refer to omnipresence, then this must refer to Adam's omnipresence since God uses the same word commanding Adam to ...Multiply and fill the earth (Gen 1:28) using the SAME word ]“... Πληρωσατε την γην,...”
ONE MUST allow the words to mean different things to the ancients than they mean to you within yourpersonal theory. It makes no sense to declare a single and unchangeable meaningto a word simply because it can be wedged into supporting your theory ratherthan considering much more reasonable and more logical and more obvious meanings.
You talked about taking things out of context, but that is what you are doing here. You also referred earlier to words having different potential meanings but fail to allow for that here.
God is certainly omnipresent or everywhere present.
Jeremiah 23:23 ''Am I a God who is near,'' declares the LORD, ''And not a God far off?'' 24] ''Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?'' declares the LORD. ''Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?'' declares the LORD.
This is clearly a reference to the fact that God is omnipresent. And not only does God fill the heavens and the earth, but the heavens cannot contain God.
1 Kings 8:27 ''But will God indeed dwell upon the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built.
While the theological term 'Omnipresence' is used for the fact that God fills the heavens and the earth, the term 'immensity' has been used to describe the fact that the heavens cannot contain God.
You cannot escape the presence of God.
Psalm 139:7 Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? 8] If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
If you don't believe that God is omnipresent, that is your opinion. But don't be so dishonest as to imply that these things which are clearly stated in the Bible, and which the church believes, are my 'personal theories.'
Quote:
Thus, when yousay things like : readersrealize that your pastors that are telling you these things are notparticularly good translators; not particularly logical or reasonable religioustheorists and you should learn to think for yourself.
While your“knowledgeable pastors” are able to refer you to a dictionary usage ofυποστασισ ‘ hypostasis, I gave you almost a dozen examples from earlyperiod-appropriate koine papyri that showed how υποστασισ / hypostatis was usedin koine greek. I quoted from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri II; The papria PaririFlorintini; The Greek Papyri in the London Museum (P Lond IV. 1343); theFlinders Petrie Papyri (Petr III 69); the Tebtunis Papyri Tebt 1:61 (twooccurrences); the Elephantine Papyri (P Eleph 15:3); the Greek Papyri ofCornell University (P. Cornell) 50:6; from Oxy II 237:8, 26; and fromDittenbergers translation
I LOOKED for yourusage but did not find it in the context you are using it. ASK your“knowledgeable pastors” to find an example for you in the context of the son’sinheritance that uses your definition.[/
I think it is very very good for your pastors to theorize and to come up with models as to what God is likeand what his purposes are for us. However, constant, immoveable yet illogical and unreasonable theories must be allowed to evolve and become more correct andwe must be able to drop small errors (rather than holding onto error at allcost) while accumulating small bits of truth so that the theories graduallyimprove and become more full of probabilities rather than remain static andirrational.
Regarding F.F.Bruces statement regarding the word χαρακτηρ or Character. F.F. Bruce iscontaminating his personal description with his theology. Anyone can LOOK at astamped coin of Caesar from that era and see what sort of “exactness” theancients were capable of. (Thus how poorly a reflection or stamped coin orother likeness might have resembled the actual person)
Though I think MysticPhD’spoint regarding whether one can “trust these early . . . let's just call them "lessknowledgeable" . . . leaders over the accumulated knowledge that existstoday???”(Mystic PhD in post #60) is true only as a principle, since the accumulation ofmore knowledge allows merely clever translators access to more and betterknowledge than any early theist from prior centuries. Anyone with internet willhave access to more and better data than early theists.
Let us know if your knowledgeable pastors find any early papyri from ANY of the early papyri from the earliestjudeo-christian era that supports your usage of υποστασισ / hypostasis. I think that, if you are going to support this theory of your pastors, you will need to find some early data where your interpretation appears in the early literature.
In any case mike555; I honestly and sincerely hope that you find satisfaction in this life. I think you are very diligent and creative and I admire this quality in you. Good luck mike555.
Clear
You accuse F. F. Bruce who was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchestor, England of contaminating the meaning of hupostasis with his personal theology in spite of the fact that he is in agreement with the definition provided by Strong's, as shown in post #50, which I repost immediately below.
''You are in error in claiming that it is improper to translate the word charaktér as exact representation. The word charaktér certainly carries the meaning of an exact representation, a precise reproduction, the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing. These descriptions are given here, Strong's Greek: 5481. ???????? (charaktér) -- a tool for engraving
The late F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. Concerning Hebrews 1:3, he writes of the phrase 'and He is the exact representation of His nature' (as translated in the NASB). Bruce used the RSV.
He is the very image of the essence of God--the impress of his being. Just as the image and superscription on a coin exactly corresponds to the device on the die, so the Son of God ''bears the very stamp of his nature'' (RSV). The Greek word charaktér , occurring here only in the New Testament, expresses this truth even more than eikōn, which is used elsewhere to denote Christ as the ''image'' of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Just as the glory is really in the effulgence, so the being (Gk. hypostasis) of God is really in Christ, who is its impress, its exact representation and embodiment. What God essentially is, is made manifest in Christ. To see Christ is to see what the Father is like. [The Epistles to the Hebrews, F. F. Bruce, p. 48]
To the above which was posted in post #50, I will now add what the Expositor's Bible Commentary says concerning the word charaktér in Hebrews 1:3.
''The exact representation of his being'' is the fourth of the statements about the Son. ''Exact representation'' translates charaktér, a very unusual word (here only in the NT). Originally it denoted an instrument for engraving and then a mark stamped on that instrument. Hence it came to be used generally of a mark stamped on a thing, the impress of a die. It might be used figuratively, for example, of God as making man in his own image (1 Clement 33:4). In its literal sense it was used of the impression on coins; RSV's ''bears the very stamp of his nature'' brings out something of this meaning. Here the writer is saying that the Son is an exact representation of God. The word hypostaseōs, rendered 'being,'' is difficult. Its etymological equivalent in English is ''substance,'' viz., that which stands under a thing, that which makes it what it is. The Son is such a revelation of the Father that when we see Jesus, we see what God's real being is. [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 12, p. 14]
And so we see the F. F. Bruce, the Expositor's Bible Commentary, and Strong's definition of charaktér are in agreement with each other, and refute you.
Dr. John D. Hannah writes concerning Tertullian (c.160-c.225);
In his polemic Against Praxeas (12), he wrote:
Everywhere I hold one substance in three cohering . . . . All are of one, by unity of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity onto a Trinity, placing in their order the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; three however . . . not in substance but in form, not in power but in appearance. [Our Legacy, The History of Christian Doctrine, Dr. John D. Hannah, p. 78]
The first part of the quote is from chapter 12 of Against Praxeas, while the rest is from chapter 2.
This is a bit more of the quote;
As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson)
Tertullian in chapter 13 then speaks of ''the Unity (of the Divine Nature)'', and ''two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.''
Tertullian then, distinguished between the different Persons of the Trinity, and the unity of the nature or substance between the distinct Persons.
It seems that you regard everyone who disagrees with you of having their own 'personal theories' and of contaminating the text with their own theology. But you are in error Clear Len's. You are merely stating your own personal opinion.
[SIZE=1]
I only had a second to comment before I become busy at my work but wanted to make a comment.
I always seems that we interact as antagonists. One of Godofthunder9010's posts reminded me that I like a large portion of some of your theories and I feel ambivalent that we tend to only discuss our differences. I am sorry for this and will try, in the future to point out areas of agreement as well. Also, discussions tend to lose focus and evolve away from the original point. I hope you are able to keep in mind that my disagreement centers on your prior claim that Hebrews 1:3 clearly shows that God and His son are somehow the same being.
I do NOT think your pastors should stop making theories nor am I suggesting that you should stop promulgating their theories, but hope you will allow them to distill and change according to your own thoughts and your own feelings and allow them to evolve and change as you accumulate differing data sets in this life.
Good luck.
Clear
[/SIZE]
Once again, you make a false statement concerning what I believe.
God the Father and God the Son are two distinct Persons within the Godhead. The Son is not the Father. The Father is not the Son. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. There are three distinct but not separate Persons within the Godhead. God is ONE in His nature or essence, but three in Persons.
Your opinions about what my pastor's should or should not do is of no interest to me.
When you are uncertain as to what someone has said, you should ask for clarification instead of making unwarranted claims about what was said.
Last edited by Michael Way; 08-30-2013 at 01:07 PM..
You seem to like to quote that scripture quite a lot, but you always leave out the critical part. The word used in that and every other "one God" Old Testament passage makes use of the word Elohim. Elohim means "Gods" not "God". This serves the Trinitarian well sometimes and works against him at other times. The ancient prophets to Israel kept referring to being that was a plurality. What does it mean? The possibilities are endless. Does "There is one Gods" mean "The Gods are one?" Was the strict monotheism of Judaism at the time of the apostles a new phenomenon? Was it a corruption of the original belief? If so, wouldn't be the only case of Jewish corruption of original truth. So what was the original belief? I don't think that anyone can say for certain based entirely upon Biblical scholarship.
No, the possibilities are not endless. The fact that God is said to be One, and that Elohim is used of God means that plural or multiple 'god's' are not being referred to, but rather plurality in the Godhead. That is why Deut. 6:4 says,
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD (Yahweh) is our God (Elohim), the LORD (Yahweh) is one (Echad).
Elohim is One. What kind of One? Echad!!! A united One. Not a singular One. Echad is used to express the fact that Adam and Eve are a United One. They are two people, but they are a united one. And this is true of God as well. But with God there are three who are a United One.
Quote:
What you and all other absolutist defenders of the Catholic Trinity fail to realize: You're working backwards. You are not reading the scriptures and trying to discern the nature of God. You are taking the Trinity as a foregone conclusion -- before you even begin to read the scriptures. Then you search the scriptures through that lens of presumed absolute truth, then cherry pick scriptures that seem to support that notion of truth. It is the error that I've wasted a great deal of energy on myself -- and not just on the nature of God. All doctrinal conclusions are the same. We draw unfounded conclusions because we've decided that X doctrine (generally the one we are raised with, but no necessarily) is undeniable eternal truth. That is precisely what you are describing below:
People who make assumptions about other people and accuse them of cherry picking when they refer to verses which specifically address the issue.
Quote:
And bear in mind that we disagree only slightly. I think you've got the reality of the Trinity nailed perfectly, at least right up until you insert the whole "one in substance" bit. We do know for certain that they are one in the same manner that God and Christ want to be one with all believers. United. In total agreement. One. None of them has any disagreement on anything with any of the others. Infinite beings infinitely united. That is a unity that is beyond our comprehension. But "one in substance" is where you lose me. That is the one piece of the Trinity that I can't find anywhere in scripture.
Heb. 1:3 tells you straight out that Jesus is one in essence or nature or substance with the Father.
Refer to post #77 which I posted before reading this post and which goes into some detail about the fact that God is one in nature, essence, or substance. Read the entire post.
Quote:
In the end (and using the verbiage of the prophets), we know this much: The Gods are one. There is only one Gods. Perhaps Godhead is a better term, I don't know. But we can say for certain that the scriptures say that The Gods are one and that there is one Gods. Drawing additional conclusions beyond that and imposing those conclusions upon others -- that is not something that any human being has any right to do. That is the purview of God alone.
No. God is one. Elohim while plural does not mean the the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different god's. They are One God united by the attributes of their nature.
Quote:
The way in which the Council of Nicaea proceeded is powerful evidence the ancient Church had strayed away from God. Instead of having a man of God seeking revelation from the only reliable source of truth -- God himself -- we see a committee convene a massive political debate. They couldn't seem to settle their differences on the matter of the nature of God, so Emperor Constantine intervened. Constantine was not even Christian at the time, but he intervened anyways. He had assassinated his own son, was a conquering warlord and was more likely to be motivated by politics than anything else that day. So Constantine intervenes on the side of the Trinity and against other theories. The most popular opposing theory was Arianism -- and just to show how much one side or the other actually mattered to him, Constantine solicited his deathbed Christian baptism at the hands of an Arian-Christian priest. Constantine died a year later, received a Christian burial and by his own orders, he was dug up and reburied in the imperial purple in the pagan Roman style as god on earth. Constantine seemed more interested in covering all of his bases that anything else apparently. And this man picked the Trinity and demanded it's acceptance at Nicaea I. How very strange.
That is a far cry from Exodus 3. This is not "God has spoken." This is "the committee has voted." What's worse, the committee was being threatened and bullied by a warlord-politician to boot. Is this how eternal truth is established as absolute??
Actually, the Nicene Counsel didn't resolve the Arian controversy which continued. Regardless of the various counsels, and regardless of Constantine, the Bible says what it says. And it states that God is One, and yet identifies three as God.
This post, just as ALL of my posts, is for all those that believe in the true and living God, the one who became known as God the Father. This post is for those that believe the word's given to us in the pages of the bible (Gen. to Rev.), are the words of God (The Father) Himself, given to His Son, Jesus Christ (God the Son), written down by man, but inspired by the Holy Spirit.......just Holy Spirit!
If they are ONE as man claims, how can the Son judge WITHOUT the Father and the Holy Ghost?
If they are ONE as man claims, how can the Father know the time and the hour, but NOT the Holy Spirit or the Son?
If they are ONE as man claims, how can you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and not the Father or Son?
If they are ONE as man claims, who was God while Jesus was dead for 3 days and 3 nights?
If they are ONE as man claims, who raised Jesus from the dead?
It is not mans understanding, it is certain religious peoples beliefs that is misconstrued. One cannot lump all of mankind into a certain belief. Mankind has a lot of different beliefs.
All three have the name in common.
"The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will instruct you in everything and remind you of all that I told you."
"Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are. .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
