been here. The content shows he denies Jesus Christ is coeternal with the Father, though
admits He is divine, but figures at some point The Father was alone. And he supports
reincarnation.
I am posting here copies of the original conversations which I saved figuring he would delete
them, too discrediting with the people he wants to impress as a good orthodox (small o)
Christian (and anti Roman Catholic). Bryan and "rayb" and two (?) anons on Constance
Cumbey's blog have claimed I posted an ad for psychic services by mistake there and then
deleted it. This was a total lie. I am not sure all these people aren't the same people.
I wouldn't be surprised if "RayB" is really Dan Bryan wearing RayBan sunglasses.
4 comments:
Dear Christine you wrote:ReplyDelete
John the Baptist is described by Jesus as being Elijah, Matt. 11:13-14, but WAIT A
MINUTE: ELIJAH NEVER DIED. So he couldn't be reincarnated. This would be
about some kind of spiritual influence on John the Baptist. Some minor prophet was
considered by some rabbis as Jeremiah returned because of the similarity but again
this was like a redo not a return.
This is the verse that most articulates reincarnation in the bible, actually the only one.
Let us look at it closely and discuss what it means:
Mat 11:12-15
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias.... Ok what is Jesus not saying here,
This is the one who came in the spirit of Elias?
So if in fact John was and is Elias then there are allot of questions.
1st Elias never tasted death and apparently he must do so as a human? It is Appointed? Is that why he came back?
So if in fact he did come back was he not reincarnated in Elizabeth's womb?
And assuming this is Elias, then what of his carcass as it must remain in heaven vacated?
And what of the spirit of John was it reinstated into the body/carcass of Elias after John's death?
So what of the final resurrection will there be two Elias' to stand before the judgment?
The second part, no wonder Jesus said, 'If you will receive it'
Is it in character for Jesus to speak then leave option for belief?
Elias, Elijah, was taken bodily alive up into heaven. never having died, never having left or lost his body, perhaps having his resurrection body at this point, or maybe not if Jesus is first fruits of the dead, that full change may not happen until the Second Coming for any who are still alive.ReplyDelete
Elijah apparently overshadowed John the Baptist in some way, from childhood, shaping him as his double mentally and spiritually. That is the only explanation.
"spirit" is a peculiar term can mean a person's immortal self, can mean an attitude can mean a spirit person.
There is a theory that The Two Witnesses in REvelation are Elijah and Enoch. But those believers still alive when Christ comes back will not taste death but be instantly transformed into the immortal indestructible resurrection body, though called "spiritual" by Paul it is not spirit but flesh like Jesus said to handle Him and see He has flesh and bones not like a spirit.
a car is a glorified horse cart. the resurrection body is the glorified body. however the analogy is poor, because the horse cart is distinct as an entity from the car its descendant.- Dear Christine,ReplyDelete
It does not say overshadowed. It does not say 'in the spirit of' it says it is Elias/Elijah.
Also see Matthew 17:12 - It DOES say "in the spirit of" Luke 1:16, 17.ReplyDelete
"16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,"
it CANNOT BE ELIJAH IN PERSON BECAUSE HE NEVER DIED so how can he reincarnate? like Enoch, he was taken up alive into heaven, though not the very highest heaven probably where God is.
you have to die to reincarnate.
If a king sends an army somewhere you say he invaded the place. if someone designs pays for and orders construction of a building you say he built it, though he never touched a shovel or hammer.
Elijah is John the Baptist's handler in CIA covert ops talk? Elijah was active in Israel again.
What are the 'incomprehensible mysteries of the Scriptures' anyway?
I hear this from the catholic and other orthodox traditions.
What exactly is mysterious about God or the scriptures?
Dan
In reading the arguments against the heresies written in early times, there is constant reference o the Scriptures, to defend the truth, and Irenaeus shows in detail how the gnostics mishandled Scripture and other anti heresy writers show some of this also.
Additionally you find all kinds of psychological and historical things in Scripture. Some I didn't understand until I went through it and then remembered something I'd read and it got very real to me.
Fr. Seraphim Rose once said that we can't use these things to try to figure out what was going on during the creation process the first six days of Genesis, because those natural laws themselves were being created also.
I do believe man in their own intellect and reasoning have created mysteries that have no basis in God. For example here is a man made mystery.
Trinity
Man using philosophy of the day tried to define God.
Man attributed to God things that could not be proven in the word.
After creating this erroneous definition of God, the only thing man can do is call it a mystery and then expect the laity except it on blind faith, which of course back then, who could own their own scripture much less read it?
The Son and The Holy Spirit do not beget. being begotten is not the same as proceeding or being aspirated. These are different modes. The Father is the ground of being so to speak of The Son and The Holy Spirit.
To think there is nothing mysterious about God, either means that you include in your understanding of Him that He is infinite which by definition means He is beyond full comprehension in His essence beyond what He has revealed in the Bible and you accept that as part of what is not mysterious but plain fact and common sense about Him, or,
you need to read a lot more about Him in the Bible, including in the Psalms.
Jesus said that no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom The Son reveals Him. Jesus is the express image and likeness of The Father if you have seen Him you have seen The Father, but given that the human is finite and Jesus adopted finitude while retaining His divinity without either humanity or divinity being changed or diminished in this union of the two natures, it follows that you have seen such as you can comprehend. In the Transfiguration, Jesus' divinity shown forth.
For starters on the Trinity, note that baptism per Jesus is in the Name (singular not plural) of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.
at Jesus' baptism, all three are evident as distinct beings, present in the same place at the same time, The Father spoke, Jesus was there just out of the water, and The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove.
Isa. 48:16 is another thing to contemplate in CONTEXT the statements being made cannot be made by the human prophet regarding himself, but are by God.
John 1:1-3 shows that The Son is creator with The Father. While the term "God" is often limited to The Father, there is a disk shaped list to present in an argument with a Jehovah's Witness which shows all the verses in the Bible where The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are described in the same terms, that is, that names like shepherd or God or creator or whatever are applied to one, and elsewhere applied to the others. The Shema uses a word for "one" that can be viewed as having plurality in it, such as one bunch of grapes.
While Greek philosophy was applied in some cases this was to make things easier for the educated pagans to understand. IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN CLARIFYING A DOCTRINE, IT WAS NOT USED TO CREATE THE CREED OR ANY DOCTRINE ALL THESE ARE ROOTED IN SCRIPTURE,
BUT GREEK PHILOSOPHY DID PLAY THE MAJOR ROLE IN CREATING ALL THE HERESIES.
The men who fought for this truth, the Trinity, against the heretics who denied the full divinity of The Son and/or of The Holy Spirit, or denied other truths, used Scripture to support it, and were steeped in Scripture. no one read or studied like most do today, chapter and verse, a bit out of context here and a bit out of context there. They read entire Gospels at one sitting, they read the prophets and torah contained in single scrolls later codexes and finally bound in codex form under one cover. you could refer to something without naming it and expect it to be recognized. Chapter and verse were created later for fast search means to locate something, but give a false impression of isolation and most heresies, or failures to understand, or thinking there is contraditictions in the Bible, come from reading it this way, or taking some one partial truth and exalting it as supreme, which of course puts it in conflict with some other partial truth treated as supreme. Think nuance.
Start reading the Bible from Genesis 1:1 and keep going as long as you can, then stop. As soon as possible, the next day or later that day, start again. keep doing this till you get to the end of the New Testament. Don't use modern translations except maybe the NKJV. Check the Septuagint which often clarifies what makes no sense in the Masoretic. The latter was stated by rabbis as flawed when they got it, and the Masoretes merely froze the existing form from additional errors. LXX was from a Temple copy 290 years before that.
The earliest writers after the Apsotles Irenaeus taught by Polycarp taught by the Apostle John, and Ignatius taught by the Apostle John, had no room for the denial of the divinity of any of The Three Who Are God, and complained of heresies, which in their day did this and/or denied the validity of matter and some denied the physical reality of Jesus' body, etc. etc.
So if you accept that The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit a. exist b. are each of them God, divine, same essence, then you are a Trinitarian whether you like the term or not.
I do not believe that the Word was 'eternally begotten' as there is no scriptural basis for that statement.
I do believe that the Word, was begotten, and therefore had a beginning. For instance the first time Father spoke creatively 'Let there Be light' (or some other creative word of what was the first element to be created), he was Holy and alone, the one true God.
To believe the Son was 'eternally begotten' such a thing is to believe in a mystery, created by man's cognition and reasoning.
It is akin to the other mystery of the perpetual indulgence of his flesh and blood ('eternally dying')christ of the Catholic Eucharist.
I am familiar with the scripture and practice of baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
In Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
So your baptismal scripture reference is not a proof set for me.
I do see and believe in the evidence given in the scripture of God the Father, and his Begotten (Word) Son and the Holy Spirit. But I believe in the divinity, of the Son and Holy Spirit, as they came from God.
the phrase eternally begotten is not in Scripture, but John 1:1-3 is. And it is the basis for the idea of eternally begotten. Essentially you are holding to an Arian position, then. that there was a time when Christ was not.
When God said "let there be light" the name used is elohim, a plural some try to explain away as royal plural of excellence. I doubt that any semitic speaking pagan would view it that way, their assortment of els would be elohim, but here this is posited as the ONE plural el (almighty or something like that) and in John is:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
"the same in the beginning with God."
now, what was before the beginning? what is the beginning? the beginning was when God made heaven and earth. Okay, so what happened before that?
Before that, there was no time, no before nothing of what we are used to thinking in terms of. Time itself is a created thing. All laws of nature were created during those six days of creation. (or if you want, at the big bang and worked over for some time after, but I prefer 6 days.)
now prior to "the beginning" The Word already existed. and was already God as well as The Father is God.
Isa. 57:15 "For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, " the Hebrew word is "ad" "perpetuity."
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5703.htm inhabiting perpetuity sounds like "eternity" is a good translation, and how do you inhabit perpetuity unless it is something beyond normal concepts of time and space? http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7931.htm shakan to abide in.
one could say as one translation says, lives forever, but obviously God already existed before "the beginning." elsewhere He says there was none before Him and none will come after like to take His place. So He always existed, and since The Word the Son existed with Him already at the beginning, The Word must also be eternal, but since He is called the Son and The Father is called The Father, He must have been begotten by The Father, yet this happened before the beginning so happened in eternity outside of time, so is itself without beginning or ending.
John 1:3 "ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE." the Him at issue is the Word, and look at Colossians 1:16
"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,....all things were created by Him, AND FOR HIM." The Him is Who? The Father? no, because the preceding verses show this is The Son.
So God The Father was NOT alone when He said, "Let there be light," and the same Genesis section says that The Holy Spirit brooded on the waters.
To be baptized in the name of Jesus is evidently a shorthand for the Trinitarian formula, because in Jesus you have The Father and The Holy Spirit. So when it came to actual baptism, it would have been all Three named, and one was baptized into Jesus' death and resurrection.
We are having a good discussion here, but I please request that you do not start labeling me. You may have a perception that I fit a certain stream of thought and that is ok, but you are not capable of applying the label as you do not know me. If I say 'I hold the Arian position in all things', then you may repeat me, however do not label me as I will respect you in the same manner.
I believe John 1 1-3
There are some key words that do have meaning:
Beginning is not an adjective of God, nor can it be considered that of being 'the noun' of God. We all know God is eternal with no beginning and no end.
So in John 1:1-3, As God and eternity past has no beginning, what is word 'beginning', referring to? Beginning of what?
The other key word in this passage is the word 'was' a word that is past tense. So we see this word in conjunction with the words beginning and Word, 'beginning, was' 'Word was'.
Then it states that the same (Word) was in the beginning with God. We know what God has no beginning so this verse is telling us that the beginning and Word are coincidental. Beginning denotes time, or a finite point in the past.
There was no beginning without the Word first being spoken.
Of course the Word was with God, before he spoke it. Did God from eternity past; muse on that Word for eons prior to speaking that word? It is not worth the efforts of a finite being to begin to contemplate.
All things were created by Father God, as it was a function of him speaking the Word.
Was it a big Bang or a still small voice, that first word in the beginning? Again it is not worth the efforts of a finite being to begin to contemplate.
Isa. 57:15 How is this verse a proof-set to the eternity of the Word?
The 'I' in this verse is Father God, and he dwells with those that are humble and contrite of heart. So if we have humility and are contrite of heart, it is a good thing.
ON THIS ISSUE you ARE expressing the Arian position.
some forms denied Jesus' divinity, others allowed some degree of divinity but held Him essentially to be a creation of God like some kind of super high angel. The JWs are in the former category.
Now, The Word and The Holy Spirit have origin, The Father does not, but they always were produced by The Father always were with Him, always begotten and spirating, so are coeternal.
Arianism denies this, and subsequent variations to the priest Arius' ideas are more extreme than that.
Isa 57:15 speaks of Him dwelling in eternity. THAT is the point in bringing this verse up. I think that should be obvious, maybe you need to read more.
Now "was" is obviously related to "in the beginning" which Genesis says was when God created the heavens and the earth.
as to eons past, you are assuming time (like eons) existed before creation. But time itself is a created thing. so it didn't.
since the Word was in the beginning (when creation started) ALREADY WITH GOD then He must have always been so, outside of and before time.
There was never a time when Christ was not.
some have argued the creation must be eternal also in the sense of without beginning because then how could God be Creator before there was a creation? well, a judge is a judge even if he never hears a case. God is the only one who COULD create, therefore can always be said to be Creator even before there was a creation, because that is part of His nature and ability. an artist paints because he is an artist, he doesn't become an artist by painting (well, that's a bad analogy, lets say a good artist, bear in mind no analogy between God and any creature can be exact).
So apparently you disagree with what I said of John 1:1-3?
I think that is ok.
So yes I believe begotten means begotten. I believe beginning means beginning.
I do not dismiss the divinity of God, his son who was the (Creative Word of God) nor of the Holy Spirit.
I just do not accept man's defining him as a trinity, 3 parts, mystically one!
I believe that all elements in heaven including spirits, the angelic hosts, preexisted, the universe. I believe that the universe preexisted the Genesis creation story. I believe the Word was within God and was not begotten of the Father until such time as God uttered his First creative work (Word).
Col 1:15-17 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
I believe that God prior to any beginning was all-in-all unique and holy. He will in the end be all-in-all.
begotten would imply there was a period before one was begotten, but one could argue 2 things
a. that The Word always existed in The Father so even before He was pushed forward out so to speak, there was still never a time when He was not,
because The Word existed always in the Father even before "spoken" out and likewise The Holy Spirit.
b. the view I usually have is that the begetting is continually going on (think continual speaking if that helps) and the spiration of The Holy Spirit is continually going on and always was.
at the risk of being a bit weird, perhaps a yeast which reproduces by budding though some buds never break fully off might help as a concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budding
there is a better picture of something I had in mind than this. I am afraid I have a sci fi shaped mind to some extent.
"the beginning" first appears in Genesis "in the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth" so since by through and for The Word without Whom nothing was made that was made, everything was made in the beginning, The Word was already with God before anything was made.
Of course it was all at the command of God The Father yet through and with The Father by and for The Son and The Holy Spirit seems to play some role especially in life related situations like brooding over the waters.
So the Word was already with The Father when, in the beginning of the universe, God made the heavens and the earth.
now whether He was with the Father being still in Him and not spoken out till just before everything was created, or was always beside Him as spoken ongoingly is another matter.
Isn't it a tradition (as I can not find evidence in scripture) that the Trinitarians believe that all three components of the trinity are equals? I do know they title them individually as God. I also do note that many in at least the Protestant churches pray to all three?
I suppose as long as you consider that The Son while in The Father (bear in mind that The Word is a Person also, and that The Father was able to speak from heaven to Him or about Him at His baptism, so His speech is not limited to The Son or Word speaking what The Father thinks), still existed, and did so always, that you might not be saying that there was a time when He was not. like The Father was pregnant from before forever and eventually decided to pop The Word out.
I also have a suspicion that the apostolic first church did not have the trinity model in mind what so ever as it is not articulated.
I do not deny the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but here is what is interesting to me:
I do not see the trinitarian view as a salvation-breaking belief, but that of a reflection of the pagan pantheons.
Ancient world religions from the time of Babylon had one form or another of a trinity, or a triad or trinity of gods.
In Babylon it was comprised of Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz.
Egypt’s trinity was Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
The Chaldeans had three manifestations of the Sun; Bel-Saturn, Jupiter-Bel, and Bel or Baal-Chom as a trinity.
The Greek triune was composed of Zeus, Athena and Apollo.
The Romans had for their 3-some Jupiter, Mercury and Venus.
(Interestingly the statue of Jupiter was re-purposed into the statue of Peter in the Vatican.)
Hinduism is very similar to the Catholic trinitarian tradition in that these three are elements of the godhead Saguna Brahman or the 3-in-one.
Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesa constitute the trinity of the Hindu.
Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the preserver, and Siva is the destroyer.
Seemingly, all religious traditions/empires after the flood had this multiplicity of what they considered deity or god, aside from the Monotheistic Hebrew faith.
So one can see in early Rome, they also had this multiplicity of what they considered deity or god, like the proceeding empires as opposed to the Monotheistic Hebrew faith.
One might consider that the early Roman church wanted to avoid the persecution and death penalty of the early church by creating their own triune godhead wrapped in a mystery.
So to end the pagan persecution of the Roman Church Constantine created a Christian Trinity? I think so.
This trinity has definitely blinded the eyes of the Jews.
Additionally 'the trinity' framework has provided for those that come after, saying they too are God but little g?
Romans 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did pre-destinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(ie: if Jesus is God...... so can we?)
Any reference to "the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit" is effectively Trinitarian, since these are all objects of worship yet there is one God. Sometimes "God" is reserved for The Father, and "Lord" for Jesus but all three are worshipped. you don't worship anything but God and whatever anyone worships is ipso facto their god whether it is the right one or not.
There is a degree of unity between The Father, Son and Holy Spirit that makes them more one than three, but enough distinctness to make them three and not a simple one. If you read big chunks of Scripture, AND DON'T LIMIT YOURSELF TO WHAT THE POINT OF SOME STATEMENT WAS, BUT LOOK AT THE INFORMATION REVEALED IN MAKING THAT POINT, you will get it.
The true faith was known before paganism existed, you will note YHWH was being called on a few generations after Creation. paganism would have retained some truths which it had step by step warped in the process of removing the faith in YHWH and shifting to nature, heroes, stars, etc.
The Copeland etc. notion of us being little gods, or capable of becoming such by exercise and development (as opposed to the theosis notion of becoming gods by grace but not nature, recoving the damaged image and likeness of God), this is not based on Romans 8:29 or anything else taken in context.
being conformed the image of His Son is not making one the same substance or essence as. If I shape some lump of clay to conform it to the photograph of someone, I have not made the clay sculpture be that person or be of its same substance. The "HE" that is the firstborn among many brethren is of course Jesus, Who is consubstantial with us in His humanity but consubstantial with The Father in His divinity, and we do not have the substance of divinity but can connect with it participate in the divne nature as PEter puts it somewhere in one of his letters near the end.
You wrote: Any reference to "the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit" is effectively Trinitarian,.... maybe should read;
FOR ME, Christina, any reference to "the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit" is effectively Trinitarian,
There is no distinction in the unity of Father God and his son as he made it clear that he and his father are one.
I do read scripture, completely through, several times each year. I am in Genesis, again this month.
As I said before, I believe there was a point in history past where I believe God was indeed Holy unto himself, and that all proceeded from him, by his word. To deny this is to deny the Word of God in scripture even John 1:1-3 as simply read.
I do not read and study the word to prove a theorem of man, ie trinity, I think that is wrong to do.
God does not cloak himself in occultism and mystery. It he did, we would all be lost as we would never be able to approach him with the simple faith of the children that we are.
Bible could easily read; And Lucifer the light bearer of old preached his first sermon to Eve, that you shall not die, but become wise and like gods. So I beg to differ, the true faith initiated by God with the first shedding of Blood of animal to cloth Adam and Eve's sin, come only AFTER the deceptive doctrine. It was known later and only as a standard instituted by God to refute the lie and atone for Adam's sin of disobedience. The sacrifice was not instituted prior to the fall but after. Man did not invoke the name of God until after the fall. So when the pagans state that their religion is the oldest, they are correct.
The Copeland etc. notion of us being little gods, IS IN FACT based on Romans 8:29 and other texts taken out of context. I came out of the Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God/Jesus Only and of this point I am very certain.
IF HOWEVER you consider that The Word though not always distinguishable from The Father by being (for lack of a better concept) outside of Him having been begotten or birthed by Him at that point, but nonetheless always existed as a distinct being (like an embryo is distinct from the mother) while inside The Father and not yet birthed out, then you are not Arian at all, because you view Him as coeternal with The Father.
So it is up to you to pick the label.
It is not a matter of reading the word to prove a point but to determine the point's validity. so if in Isaiah "the point" of a verse is God's willingness to be with the humble, that doesn't change the fact that in describing Himself and His glory before stating He will be with the humble, God says that He dwells in eternity or in perpetuity which is pretty much the same thing.
" So I beg to differ, the true faith initiated by God with the first shedding of Blood of animal to cloth Adam and Eve's sin, come only AFTER the deceptive doctrine."
I said "few generations after Creation" which obviously means a few generations after Adam and after the sin. I don't see why you thought I meant what you are arguing about. But it is likely that Adam and Eve knew something about God Who after all walked with them in the garden in the cool of the evening and told them things likely?
"The Copeland etc. notion of us being little gods, IS IN FACT based on Romans 8:29 and other texts taken out of context. I came out of the Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God/Jesus Only and of this point I am very certain."
I didn't say otherwise did I? "is not based on Romans 8:29 or anything else taken in context."
it was taken out of context as you noted. Also the verse itself without context has to be twisted to make us be "gods." Similarity is not identity. a likeness is not the original. it does not consist of the same substance as the original (except in Jesus' case, where His divinity is the same substance as The Father's except for His human substance not being that of The Father's but of us.)
now, you confuse me. "There is no distinction in the unity of Father God and his son as he made it clear that he and his father are one."
yet you draw a distinction between them, if I understand you right. So if you believe all Three are Gods or ONE God in three persons, how are you not a Trinitarian?
The so called traditions or theories of men on this point were drawn from Scripture, the only way to reconcile apparent conflicts.
Unless of course you are trying to say that there is One God Who has functions like Word and Spirit, but not three persons, and that He manifests alternately as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. in that case you fit the modalist category.
If so, note that The Father spoke, The Son was coming out of the water of baptism, and The Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove on The Son, so all three are clearly present as distinct beings at the same time.
John 1:1-3 distinguishes the Word from God and also calls The Word "God." all things were made by for and through the Word as Colossians says and as John says. Genesis chapter 1 points to all Three being involved in the creation, but here in the Gospel and Epistles an emphasis is thrown on The Word to emphasize His divinity because He is Creator as is The Father Who created through Him. I think we are on the same page here?
The whole point on Trinity vs No Trinity is that of scriptures lack of support even in its totality. The scripture does not define the Holy Spirit. God is a Spirit, is he the Holy Spirit? Look at Revelation 1:4, 4:5 and 5:6
Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Are these seven Spirits of God, also God? If not why not? Are these of the same substance? How does one know? If so, what of the trinity; is it now Decagon with the Father Son and Holy Spirit along with the Seven Spirits?
I am basically saying there may be a trinity of sorts, but it may not ever fit nicely in the simplest of man's philosophical thought. Yet I do believe as I stated earlier, they proceeded out of God the Father, having a beginning, but it is not for man to deduce the nature of these things and then for God to endorse.
This has been the nature of man to define God, then expect God to endorse, sanction or inhabit that thought, as truth.
As it states let God be true and every man a liar.
This goes to Papal Authority as well as Latter Rain Authority.
Man cannot make things up and expect God to have to sanction or inhabit the construct.
No man knows the substance of God the Father! Can the Son of God in the flesh be of the same substance as the Word? Can the spoken word be of the same substance as the Father? What is that substance? What? Only God knows that answer, we were not there to witness the transaction much less understand the result.
So no, I do not believe in the Trinity as presented by man.
No man has seen God and lived, much less defined him!
Yet I do not deny the worship due Jesus Christ, who's government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Try and unpackage Isaiah 9:6 for me?
Walk in humility before God and remember that the Lord has children in the Latter Rain, that Catholic Church, as well as many others.
If you consider that The Word had a beginning, BEFORE WHICH IT DID NOT EXIST, then you are by definition arian. period.
that's like saying if you are wearing shoes you are shod. its just a fact. If you were born in the USA you are American.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE WORD ALWAYS EXISTED EVEN WHILE IN THE FATHER BEFORE BEING BIRTHED FORTH, THEN YOU ARE NOT ARIAN.
beginning as in came into existence is not the same as origin, if one originates from something that is the larger lump you are a part of for instance the foot originates in embryonic development from the rest of the developing embryo, but was always there in the DNA code.
" but it is not for man to deduce the nature of these things and then for God to endorse."
no one is trying to do that, and the issue is not "authority" of this or that human group, but what The Bible says.
As for Isa. 9:6 notice "the mighty God" and "the everlasting Father" are two of the things that The Word The Son is, yet He is not The Father as He says, the Father is greater than I, but also I and the Father are one, or more likely identical in kind and behavior. Cleary separate beings.
So how can He be The Everlasting Father? Jesus is sometimes called "the Father of the age to come" based on one LXX translation actually there are about three ways to render that so its rather confusing.
again, you need to deal with ALL the verses on a subject not just cherry pick them, put them ALL together. that is how people either find bible contradicting itself, OR they realize there is picture that is not self contradictory but includes these all. And that is how the Trinity doctrine came to be spelled out.
http://johnthebaptist.info/Wheel_of_Prophecy.pdf
I do not believe in God defined by man's best knowledge and philosophy. I am not conflicted by my faith, and I am sure I am not infallible as are some? Thanks for the links, but I do not wish to take time to read apologetic writings about perceived heresies? Does that make sense? I really do not care to be labeled, although you insist, I stand-down as this is your blog.
I think I need to read the Bible and study it for my next 60+ years. I really have enjoyed the discussion.
Christine, I would like to talk to you about reincarnation as written in the Bible. Is this a good place or do you have a page about this in your many blogs where we should discuss this?
Thanks,
dan
as for man's best knowledge and philosophy, that isn't the basis for the Trinity. The basis is the biblical picture of the divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. unlike the arians you don't denigrate that, only raise issues of the second Two not having always existed like the first One.
In that you are quite unique. apparently you view them all as same substance, while the typical arian even semi arian viewed the second Two as some kind of hybrid or creation out of nothing like everything else is.
what do you think of my pregnancy analogy?
Your pregnancy analogy lacks an insemination?
Every one talks of substance or essence, yet none can articulate what that is, rightfully so.
When one speaks a word, dies that word leave their being and maintain that same substance as that of the speaker?
The only mystery here is why can't man define his maker?
The Word isn't just something The Father spoke, because with The Word incarnate and coming out of the River Jordan, The Father still spoke from heaven saying "this is My beloved Son" so The Word and the typical spoken words of The Father are distinct. The Word is the personal embodiment of the (for lack of a better term) nature of The Father's speech.
]
"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
Hebrews 7.3
THIS WAS SAID ABOUT MELCHISEDEC, who may have in fact had parents etc., but because nothing of the sort is said about him become a type of the eternality of The Word, The Son.
The context is Jesus' High Priesthood after the order (manner) of Melchisedec. This is based on Ps. 110:4
context is
"1{A Psalm of David.} The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath."
Notice this is the Psalm that says,
6He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
7He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head."
Note this is the psalm that says "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."
David says, "YHWH said to my Lord...."
Jesus quotes this "44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? " Matt. 22:44, 45
context of Jesus quoting the Psalm 110
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."
This connection by Jesus to this Psalm, and Hebrews pointing to the apparent eternality (without beginning without end) of Melchisedec being a typological descriptor of Jesus The Word Incarnate, shows that The Word always was, coeternal with The Father, originates from the Father, but without a time when He was not.
Thanks,
I will need to study this Melchizedek connection, but it does not settle some contrived trinity, that is not found in scripture.
I am very concerned that throughout the Old Testament 'the Lord thy God is Holy, One, Unique. Additionally it was not thought of by the Jews that the Messiah was God, just that God would send.
Thanks,
dan
IF you admit that The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit are of the same essence which is not the essence of creatures, then you are effectively Trinitarian. the arian categories all compromised the divinity of the Son and/or of The Holy Spirit.
There are a lot of traditions of men cropped up in the past centuries, that pretend to be fighting traditions of men but in fact are themselves human creations and not biblical exact, or biblically based. anti Trinitarianism is one of these.
The Trinity is in Scripture, not the word but the CONCEPT, the CONTENT OF WHAT THE WORD MEANS. The Father, The Son Who became Incarnate, died for our sins and came back physically and permanently to life, and The Holy Spirit. This is what the Trinity IS. this is what IT REFERS TO.
What the Jews thought doesn't matter. the OT gives hints, such as Micah 5:4 saying that the Messiah's goings forth have been "from the beginning."
one bunch of grapes is still ONE cluster, more united than the typical pagan pantheon.
God had NO BEGINNING, so what beginning is Micah referring to?
the Word is not the beginning of OUR existence, He made us to exist, but we are not the same essence as He is, being creatures not the Creator.
The same was in the beginning with God."
since God existed before "the beginning," obviously the Word was with God already, before "the beginning."
The word beginning is your problem, not mine?
Beginning means a starting point.
God preexisted everything that came from him, would you not agree?
You have a difficult time contemplating the preexistence of EVERYTHING, I do not. Of course once Jesus was and is different than the Father, but it does not mean he preexisted eternally with the father. You're doctrine will not allow the word beginning, when God had no beginning.
The Word was with God, but not yet spoken.
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
But The Father could still speak while The Word was in the world could He not? twice He spoke audibly to bystanders with Jesus present and not speaking at the moment.
Though the term "God" is often reserved to The Father, Jesus also is GOD, so says John's Gospel. So Jesus says when He said "Before Abraham was, I AM."
If The Word came to be outside the Father at some point before creation began (before the beginning) He still preexisted that point, because He was in The Father already.
We are talking about events before time. this is not something the finite mind can comprehend.
What is the difficulty in seeing that since Jesus, and The Father, and The Holy Spirit are all YH or I AM or The Existing One, yet distinct persons, that they must, by virtue of being parts of the Holy Trinity and having the same essence as The Father be coeternal with The Father? How can The Father have ever not had The Word in Him, even if He had not yet begotten Him forth, and how could He not have His Holy Spirit in Him, even if He had not yet breathed Him forth (not same as begetting)? If an eternally pregnant Father will help as a concept, before these were begotten forth and breathed forth, they nonetheless existed eternally with and in The Father.
The bible does not say that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are of the same substance. (No one has defined 'substance'?)
The Bible does not sat that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are 3 persons, of a Godhead.
The Bible does say that God is a Spirit.
The Bible also says that before the incarnation of Jesus, he was the Word. The Son of God (physical) did not precede the 'Word' The Word did not precede God.
Unlike our words, God's 'Word' is creative? Yes the 'Word' was in him before it was spoken, but it existed as 'Thought'. Once they are spoken are thy still the substance as was the thought?
Your last paragraph is difficult to comprehend as it is man's depiction and reasoning of who God is.
You said: "If an eternally pregnant Father will help as a concept, before these were begotten forth and breathed forth, they nonetheless existed eternally with and in The Father."
That would be closer to my view, than the reasoning of man putting together some type of Godhead. That does not diminish in my mind the divinity of the Holy Spirit and Jesus, the Son.
The Bible does not sat that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are 3 persons, of a Godhead.
The Bible does say that God is a Spirit.
The Bible also says that before the incarnation of Jesus, he was the Word. The Son of God (physical) did not precede the 'Word' The Word did not precede God. "
it says all these things. substance, essence how can you read the Bible through every year in less than a year if I recall right and you don't see this? are you putting the narrowest construction possible on every word?
already you talk about what happened before time began, which is absurd.
a person is not automatically finite, it is a conscious being who is distinct as individual from others whether it is aware of itself or not.
The Father spoke, the Son was coming out of the water of Jordan, The Holy Spirit descended as a dove THREE PERSONS
The Word was with God and the Word was God the same was in the beginning with God - "God" obviously involved a divine essence or nature, something no creature has. The Father is God, the Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God, but they are distinguishable one from another.
yes the incarnation physicality did not precede the Word Who is also God The Son before He was son of Mary He was already Son of God.
YHWH is ONE God, yet YHWH is three so there is one Godhead consisting of three Persons, with The Father as basis/origin of the other Two.
you are looking for explicit statements of this kind that can only be put together to begin to understand this mystery, and which could only be hinted at in OT or risk giving excuses for polytheism, which is a whole other thing.
you seem to reject the descriptions that come from putting all the Scriptures together, yet you believe pretty much what they say. are you looking for a formulaic statement in the Bible? its like a jigsaw puzzle.
I have read all the historical controversies leading up to the Trinity doctrine. It was/is a mess. People arguing the nature of God until they settled on a formula.
Does God have to conform to man's belief or concepts?
The only mystery is the one created by man in trying to define God! Trying to believe and conceptualize that is the mystery.
Thanks,
dan
1- there was a point in eternity past where Father God was with in himself unique and Holy the One true Spirit God. At that point there was none other to even recognize this condition.
2- God Spoke and his word came forth The Beginning of time and Space
3- All creation at the throne of God and in the natural world took shape, AFTER the Beginning, including the 7 Spirits before the throne, the angels etc.
I believe that Jesus is divine, as is the Holy Spirit, but both point us toward Father God. Jesus the Messiah to reconcile us in full communion with the Father. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.
There is no reference in the Word of the Holy Spirit being God.
Jesus did not say he was God in the flesh, but he did say I and my father are one.....
I believe the relationship of Father God, His 'Begotten' Son and the Holy Spirit are complex and cannot be defined as was argued by the early church theologians contrived Trinity.
Origen is one of many fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.
His work, On First Principles, Origen establishes his main doctrines, including that of the Holy Trinity; the pre-existence and fall of souls; multiple ages and transmigration of souls; and the eventual restoration of all souls to a state of dynamic perfection in proximity to the godhead. Here he defined the Holy Trinity based upon standard Middle Platonic triadic emanation schemas).
Origen of Alexandria (185 - 254 A.D.)
Origen and Origenism
The Catholic faith will refuse Origin's hierarchical concept of the Trinity, however the Church developed her own terminology with notions from origin of philosophy - used to signify an ineffable mystery.
http://www.scborromeo.org/mobileccc/para/251.htm
the anathemas against him are at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html and the rejection of these notions are precisely because they don't fit Scripture though Scripture isn't cite it is taken for granted by the bishops there steeped in Scripture.
Historically, the fathers used philosophy where it was Christianity compatible in order to make Christianity more respectable to the educated, but often redefined some terms and concepts. their use of philosophy was subordinated to Scripture and teachings from their childhood received from those who studied and copied Scripture and were taught by likewise back to the Apostles, who were still then more recent than now.
Pagan philosophy had more to do with challenges to the Trinity (whether in the form of denying Christ's divinity or His humanity or other things) in other words, with heresy, than it did with formulating doctrine. Modern anti RC writers have way overemphasized philosophy's role in the church.
Some of those at the Nicea I council objected to the term homoousios of same substance (as The Father) precisely because it is not a term in Scipture, though they agreed with the concept, but accepted it as the only phrasing that would rule out arian word games and subterfuges
Obviously these men saw something in Scripture you are missing.
If The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father, then He is same substance as The Father like Jesus the Word is, so He is also God.
I apparently hold a different position from them that were.
And I believe by now you understand my belief/position.
Let us talk about your trinity.
Are all entities in your trinity equal?
Do they all contain the same power?
Do they all contain the same knowledge?
Father reserves to Himself. There is apparently a rank order in the Trinity, but it is more loving than dominant.
They are equal in most ways. They are of the same divine essence, "consubstantial" "of same substance" or essence, something no creature of any kind shares with them.
They are one God, so in some sense never fully separated. Perhaps this is because they are equally infinite. Jesus being permanently human is finite in His humanity, but infinite in His divinity.
Begetting and proceeding are not the same thing. As St. Photios the Great put it, and I think some others did also, they are distinguishable by certain functions and capabilities. The Father both begets and spirates, while neither The Son nor The Holy Spirit does either of these (as distinct from begetting us into new life by an adoption). This is the problem created by the filioque, that RC now defends by saying it doesn't mean double procession, but it did mean that originally. St. Augustine garbled things when he defined The Holy Spirit as the love between The Father and The Son, reducing Him to a function or energy or attitude.
Jesus describes The Holy Spirit as doing things, in terms that point to Him being conscious with will. Paul refers to Him as distributing gifts as HE wills, so this is a person like The Other Two.
I think St. Cyril of Alexandria said something like inquiring too much into the relationship between members of the Trinity will drive you mad.
God has revealed some things to us, for us and our children to keep, and other things He has kept to Himself, Moses said. Proverbs also says it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to find it out or similar words. So some things can be deduced sort of from what is revealed.
The earliest writers, themselves the product of the teaching of the church and in at least two cases themselves taught by Apostles, shows that the worship of The Trinity goes back to earliest times.
The Father did not cease to be a spirit or lose something of Himself when He breathed out The Holy Spirit, the same regarding The Son the Word, The Father did not become wordless. So these PErsons in some way embody these things about The Father, yet He is not reduced by having begotten and spirated these.
There is a great mystery here, remember our minds are finite but God is infinite and we cannot comprehend everything. (we can't even comprehend that much about the known universe, which isn't entirely known anyway. how much less can we expect to understand its Creator?)
Jesus said it is the will of The Father that The Son be honored even as HE The Father is honored, so obviously we are talking divinity of the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father so is divine also.
an angel is not divine. they are called sons of God even as Adam is, because they are direct creations (as distinct from things created by God out of other things or producing things at His order as in some phases of creation in Genesis 1).
perichoresis is a term developed in the west I think, to describe that where one is all of them are.
this is of necessity a bit disjointed but then you might think of God as being like a multifaceted jewel, and you only can see part of it.
"The early Christian writer, Tertullian, coined the word "Trinity" around the year A.D. 200. Although he coined a new word, Tertullian introduced no new teachings about the Trinity. Rather, he explained and defended what the entire church had believed from the time of the apostles up through his day. " http://earlychurch.com/trinity.php
https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes
"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: " John 14:11 even while on earth, Jesus was not separated from The Father in an absolute sense but their unity was maintained.
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm does better job than I can
That tells me everything about this doctrine. Be it a mystery or the contemplation of the same drives one insane?
I have read all these things and quotes of the early church leaders. (they are not my fathers)
For the most part all agree that they proceeded out of and from God.
"So some things can be deduced sort of from what is revealed."
Deducing or reducing, using human reasoning to define God is flawed as man is fallen. Some things? How about the Copeland saying that Jesus being the first fruits/sons of many, being God, means we too are also gods as we are made in his image?
"They are equal in most ways. They are of the same divine essence, "consubstantial" "of same substance" or essence, something no creature of any kind shares with them."
There is no biblical basis for this statement is is conjecture.
You did not answer my questions, plus one new one.
Are all entities in your trinity equal?
Do they all contain the same power?
Do they all contain the same knowledge?
Can the clay pot give an account of the life and times of the potter?
"Are all entities in your trinity equal?"
yes and no. they have the same essence like all humans are of the same essence. They are all one God since YHWH is One God, yet they are distinct the second Two are rooted in the first One, no full separation. (think a yeast budding but the buds not breaking loose and not capable of budding more themselves.) So there is ONE GOD.
Jesus said "before Abraham was I AM" which is the meaning basically of the name YHWH, and the Jews recognized this, and His claiming God as His personal Father, as making Himself out to be God, because in the first case, He claimed to be YHWH and to have existed before Abraham did (way before but that's another matter), and in the second case like begets like.
When so accused, Jesus did NOT say, "you misunderstood Me, I didn't meant it like that." He also said that it was the will of The Father that all honor the Son the same as they do The Father, yet YHWH has made it clear He will not share His honor with another. Contradiction? or consubstantiality without full separation. (eternally pregnant Father, but the unity of the Son and Holy Spirit with The Father YHWH is much more exteme than that of mother and child, the child being a totally separate temporarily parasitic being from the mother, and at conception not even attached.
There is a kind of order of rank, The Father takes priority, but they are basically equal.
"Do they all contain the same power?"
yes.
"Do they all contain the same knowledge?"
mostly. The Father reserves to Himself at least the knowledge of when The Son will be sent back. Perhaps there is more He reserves to Himself.
Some argue that Jesus spoke about only the Father knowing the Second Coming timing from the standpoint of being Incarnate, but He didn't become discarnate after The Resurrection.
"Can the clay pot give an account of the life and times of the potter?"
no, except insofar as the potter has revealed specifics.
some specifics have been revealed, some contradict each other, some resolve the contradiction.
God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. Is He going to suddenly change His tune and allow worship of His Son, unless there is some degree of unity that is beyond that of polytheist "gods"? Thomas addressed Jesus as "my Lord and my God," something reserved only to YHWH in Psalms. Jesus did not rebuke him or any who worshipped Him, but when John overwhelmed fell at an angel's feet the angel said to not do that, for he was only a fellow servant with John.
Copeland's statement cannot be deduced, because it presupposes an actual or possible consubstantiality of creature with creator which is not possible. This sort of thing is totally against theism in general. Even the pagan Greco Romans drew a distinction between "gods" and men that they considered unbridgeable except in the case of hybrid "heroes," showing they had some sense of the total distinction between man and deity (whatever errors they entertained about the latter).
you question about the clay pot is pretty much what St. Cyril was driving at.
now, if I understand you correctly, you consider all Three to be equally divine, by nature, only that the second Two came into existence at some point after the First One had been around since before forever. But they will exist forever.
Now, in that you (if I understand you correctly) do not deny or limit Jesus' divinity, that puts you closer to orthodox than to Arianism.
"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
okay, what happened before the beginning? nothing. God just IS, self existent derived from nothing and no one. The Second Two are derived from The First One but also as He does have life in themselves.
"
"They are equal in most ways. They are of the same divine essence, "consubstantial" "of same substance" or essence, something no creature of any kind shares with them."
There is no biblical basis for this statement is is conjecture."
to be able to say this, you clearly aren't reading the Bible carefully. it is exactly what everything in it about God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit adds up to. It is not conjecture.
If they are not the same essence, then it is not proper to worship any but the first One. if they are not the same essence, then The Word was not God after all, but a created secondary being.
"in the beginning was the Word, and The Word was with God and The Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."
this is exactly the biblical basis for what you say there is no biblical basis for.
Does God contradict Himself? Does God change and say okay worship a creature alongside of Me?
When Jesus said "I AM" He claimed the name of YHWH. When He accepted Thomas' worship of Him as "my Lord and my God" He claimed Godhood by not repudiating this address.
Do you hold to the Athanasius depiction of the Trinity?
If not can you send me a statement of faith defining the trinity that you do believe? (Your Church Doctrine)
Thanks,
dan
I have already explained the Trinity, but here is a page that gives Scripture to support all the points in the Nicene Creed.
http://www.prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm
"And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal."
This statement is not true, we already discussed to ad nauseam that to be begotten infers a beginning.
Biblical references prove that they are not co-equal.
We have also discussed ad nauseam that to be begotten only implies (the writer implies the reader infers) an origin, not necessarily a beginning.
I agree they are not co equal exactly among each other, clearly The Son came to do The Father's will, they all work together they all hinge on the Father Who is for lack of a better term their ground of being.
however, compared to us they are co equal, and in the sense that they are same essence they are co equal, they are equally divine, just like all humans from the king to the serf are same essence and equally human, though because of the unity of the Persons of The Holy Trinity since they are all Three infinite where one of them is there is all of them.
being begotten may imply a beginning, but you are applying to the uncreated things that apply to the created, you are applying to the eternal which is outside of time things that apply to the temporal, and laws of nature that themselves did not exist until created.
Anyway, co eternality is what all the creeds state or imply, and comes from the Bible references of from the beginning, etc. at the beginning of everything including time and all natural laws, at the beginning of the existence of the material that blew up in the Big Bang if you go by that theory, or in the beginning of the existence of some plasma ether whatnot God made everything out of, whatever, all Three of the Holy Trinity already existed.
Before that we cannot speculate.
Anyway, co eternality is what all the creeds state or imply, and comes from the Bible references of from the beginning, etc. at the beginning of everything including time and all natural laws, at the beginning of the existence of the material that blew up in the Big Bang if you go by that theory, or in the beginning of the existence of some plasma ether whatnot God made everything out of, whatever, all Three of the Holy Trinity already existed.
You imply as well as does this Athanasian Creed that the beginning means eternity past. It does not. Eternity past has no beginning. So when the Word states beginning it has meaning. It is a starting point of creation. Creation did not preexist the beginning any more than did the Words of God preexisted prior to Him uttered them.
All analogies aside, the creed as affirmed by you is incorrect as the three are not co-equal.
I contend Eternity Past does not equate to the Beginning as Eternity Past had no beginning.
This I disagree with those that espouse the trinity.
It does not say in scripture that Jesus or even the Word was from all eternity past. If it would have the word beginning would not have been used as eternity past has no beginning.
I have already linked to a site that shows Scripture support for all points of the Creed. did you read that?
"It does not say in scripture that Jesus or even the Word was from all eternity past. If it would have the word beginning would not have been used as eternity past has no beginning."
you are shifting ground. first you seem to argue that if the Word was there in the beginning then He wasn't there before that, now you argue that since they don't say it the way you want to see it the Bible doesn't say it.
TO BE THERE IN THE BEGINNING (the beginning comes AFTER all eternity past, the beginning of our time our universe, etc.) ONE HAS TO BE THERE BEFORE THE BEGINNING. and that is eternity past.
you seem to be arguing from a preset of no way can you accept the Trinity, yet you accept all points of its doctrine, the divinity and personality of all three of The Trinity you only waffle on the co eternality.
I think you got heavy duty anti RC baggage lurking somewhere in your subconscious maybe?
The Bible does support the Trinity, you just won't face it.
and I find it odd that you say "Jesus or even the Word" are you drawing a distinction between these? there is none. JEsus is merely the name given the Word made flesh. one person, two natures divine and human.
*** I agree that the word was in the beginning with God....The Word was the beginning.
TO BE THERE IN THE BEGINNING (the beginning comes AFTER all eternity past, the beginning of our time our universe, etc.) ONE HAS TO BE THERE BEFORE THE BEGINNING. and that is eternity past.
*** Father God was preexistent and Holy himself prior to the beginning.
Please do not attribute any RC bias to me without asking? I would do the same for you.
Jesus is the second after the word. To not say is to imply that Jesus, made flesh, that the flesh also preexisted?
Again I say God preexisted his first spoken Word, and the Word (as the Angel of the Lord in the OT) preexisted his fleshly temple.
You agree with the creed but you do not agree the trinity is co-equal? Co-equality is the underpinning of this doctrine itself.
you seem to be arguing from a preset of no way can you accept the Trinity, yet you accept all points of its doctrine, the divinity and personality of all three of The Trinity you only waffle on the co eternality(sp).
I do not accept all points of this doctrine. I believe the Holy Spirit of God is not the Father or any equal to the Father, but proceeded from the Father by his WORD.
I have read every thing you've sent and doesn't prove anything to me. I do not see any trinity. I do sense from scripture a duality of Father and Son.
Interesting is the phrases placed within these scriptures, as being valid because someone typed them there, but isn't scripture.
Like:
"who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets."
There is no place in the Word, Old and New that says that the Holy Spirit is to be worshiped. Nor is it said that the Holy Spirit was glorified, only Jesus. The Holy Spirit did not speak by the prophets but the prophets spoke by the Holy Spirit. There is a difference.
What did I say that remotely resembled that? you are so afraid of RC that anything similar to their teaching you reject out of hand regardless of Biblical evidence or the testimony of way pre Constantine writers from the early Church, not to mention the fact that the characteristic deviations of RC don't begin to appear until several centuries after Constantine and only in the west and north Africa which spawned a lot of trouble.
I do not say Jesus' flesh preexisted the incarnation only that it is the same PERSON pre incarnate or incarnate.
"You agree with the creed but you do not agree the trinity is co-equal? Co-equality is the underpinning of this doctrine itself."
of course I agree they are co equal, but that is of their essence, the RC and original EO (which made the Creed, RC had only a representative or two there) hold co equal in that sense but that the Second Two are based in/originate from the First One and there is obviously some kind of rank however mild within them. monarchy in heaven being reflected in monarchy on earth, roles in heaven being reflected in social and political roles on earth, has been an argument used all along regarding monarchy and social work stratification being legitimate.
"There is no place in the Word, Old and New that says that the Holy Spirit is to be worshiped. Nor is it said that the Holy Spirit was glorified, only Jesus."
If The Holy Spirit is divine He is worthy of worship. However He points to The Son so is not properly the object of nearly as much attention as The Father and The Son.
being glorified here refers to being given glory "we glorify you" sort of thing, not about Jesus being glorified by God with the glory He had with The Father "before the world was." John 17:5.
" The Holy Spirit did not speak by the prophets but the prophets spoke by the Holy Spirit. There is a difference. "
The prophets spoke "by" the Holy Spirit in that they spoke as told and at His incentive. The Holy Spirit spoke "by" the prophets in that He used them as human messengers instead of using angels or speaking audibly from Heaven.
Prophecy doesn't come by private interpretation (figuring things out and saying "God told me" when all you did was figure something out and worse yet maybe got it wrong) nor by human choice and determination using The Holy Spirit like some power you can tap and direct to do so. That is charismatic error.
But speaking "by" the Holy Spirit assuming that phrase is in the Bible and a quick search with bible added doesn't show anything but being led by The Holy Spirit, would involve speaking His words and in His power and wisdom and fearless because of that. empowered to address as prophet people the prophet might be scared of. Or, not prophecy but empowered by The Holy Spirit to do ministry, to speak boldly.
"*** Father God was preexistent and Holy himself prior to the beginning."
of course, BUT, since in the beginning The Word was already with God and was also God, John's Gospel first few verses, obviously the Word existed before the beginning, with The Father. and how can The Father not have had His SPirit as well? Genesis shows The Holy Spirit brooding on the waters, so He was there at the beginning AND NO MENTION OF THE SON OR THE HOLY SPIRIT BEING CREATED. "in the beginning" they were already there. They are first mentioned after those words, but as if a foregone conclusion taken for granted they were already there because it does not say that God created The Holy Spirit and then He brooded on the waters.
If God breathed forth His Holy Spirit then His Holy Spirit was already existing but inside Him in order to be breathed out.
Same logic regarding The Son. They all co eternally existed, even there was some unpacking done just before the beginning.
and where did you get the latter idea from? this is RC filioque That The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father AND THe SON filioque in Latin. This idea was kept in the west by the REformers who didn't access much from Orthodoxy. And was accepted unquestioned along with human traditions the REformers made and others made later like altar calls.
But Jesus, in the promise of the Comforter three times has the chance to say this, and doesn't. He said The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, full stop.
He said He would send them The Holy Spirit FROM THE FATHER. The Son is the connection to The Holy Spirit for the Church, the supplier of Him, but The Holy Spirit also operates in the world convicting of sin and judgement Jesus says.
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -Colossians 1:15-17
If you put this together with John 1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3
This is what I believe: The Word of God did not exist until God spoke the Word. The first time God spoke at some point in eternity past, that point was 'The Beginning'. Prior to that there was no Word, it is really simple to me. With no word, there was no creation or beginning.
YS: But Jesus, in the promise of the Comforter three times has the chance to say this, and doesn't. He said The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, full stop.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I WILL SEND HIM UNTO YOU. John 16:7
YS:"Please do not attribute any RC bias to me without asking? I would do the same for you."
YS:What did I say that remotely resembled that?
YS:I think you got heavy duty anti RC baggage lurking somewhere in your subconscious maybe?
February 7, 2016 at 5:10 AM
YS: Prophecy doesn't come by private interpretation (figuring things out and saying "God told me" when all you did was figure something out and worse yet maybe got it wrong) nor by human choice and determination using The Holy Spirit like some power you can tap and direct to do so. That is charismatic error.
I say Ditto!
read ALL of it not just one part you miss things. He says He will send Him FROM THE FATHER and that He PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER.
the filioque (despite modern RC denials) is not about action in time but origin in eternity. The Son is begotten from The Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father.
read the Bible like any other book, chapter after chapter several chapters at a time. check back for detail when things get complicated.
If He is already there in the beginning (was not came into existence) then He was ALREADY THERE WHEN THE BEGINNING BEGAN, therefore HE WAS THERE BEFORE THE BEGINNING and whatever is before the beginning is in eternity outside of time.