ECT Our triune God

[Wednesday Addams]

"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone" Mark 13:32.

Jesus according to the product of the unknown oral transmitters and the writer of Mark, stated this.

Jesus doesn't believe the Son is all-knowing, Jesus doesn't believe the Holy Spirit is all-knowing. Therefore only the Father is omniscient. Omniscience is a part of the nature of God. Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not God.

Matthew?
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Matthew 24:36

Ok, Luke..
Dealt with. Saying omitted.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Your view is rank heresy. Posting some Scripture and declaring you have met the burden of answering a question is not exegesis of the Scripture, nor considering the full counsel of all Scripture.

Read, study, pray for understanding:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

Afterwards, post some questions about the readings if you need clarification.

AMR

"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone" Mark 13:32.

Jesus according to the product of the unknown oral transmitters and the writer of Mark, stated this.

Jesus doesn't believe the Son is all-knowing, Jesus doesn't believe the Holy Spirit is all-knowing. Therefore only the Father is omniscient. Omniscience is a part of the nature of God. Therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not God.

Matthew?
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Matthew 24:36

Ok, Luke..
Dealt with. Saying omitted.

See above. Sigh.

AMR

 

[nikolai_42]

What a hoot.

That's the problem in a nutshell, Arse.

You and yer religion think you can ascend into heaven to bring Christ down.

Got some news for yuh.......

None of yer perverted emulations of my faith will get it done.

I'm not all that familiar with Orthodox services (I know they are liturgical, but do they have a Mass?) but the essence of what he says rings true to me....

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you
Galatians 4:19

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 6:53-37

And remember what He told the unbelieving Jews :

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:37-39

And the only gospel some will hear...

Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
2 Cor 3:2-3

 

[Wednesday Addams]

See above. Sigh.

AMR

Yay, thanks for the response.
Thanks for the links, I'll have a better read when I can, I just had a glimpse. Already from the second link, I notice a line of reasoning that I don't agree with. I.e the dance of 'if it's problematic, refer to the quote in this gospel' i.e in this case John 1:1.
In reality, it only makes sense to read the passage in the situation that Jesus was in, at that particular time. Let Jesus speak for himself. Then, with this sentiment, you see where it fits with what he says in the same gospel that relate to it, providing they are consistent, and then later, see what it said in other gospels to get a fuller picture.
It's not right to take verses from one thing, and then match it to another thing that IS unrelated, that's agenda.

With regards to the first link, I really don't see what you're getting that. I took that into consideration in my original post that's why I said Jesus is saying that the Son is not omniscient. You really can't dance around this one, especially since Jesus put the padlock on it by saying the Father alone. By saying the Father alone, he is ruling out the fact that the Holy Spirit and the Son doesn't know.

Jesus was adding increasing emphasis by starting off with man, then angels in heaven, then the Son.

The trinitarian God should not be presenting the trinity in such a way, it's just all too human. Look at the lengths you went to in the first article to explain the trinity (before the summary by the other guy), it does make you doubt. Trinitarianism can't really be understood by almost all Christians today even after 2000 years, trinity as presented by the trinitarian gospel approach, is just not practically understood by most self-confessed trinitarians.

 

[Wednesday Addams]

P.S Trinitarian Christians have more reasonably come to admit 'Jesus's knowledge was veiled at that particular time'. But this creates more problems:
a. God allowed Jesus to say something that is untrue about the nature of God in that case. Why would God veil knowledge here when this quote would directly result?
b. Jesus just spoke his own mind and passed it off as fact, how can we trust what Jesus is saying is inspired or not? This verse has single handedly proven we cannot.
c. Who's knowledge exactly? Was God the Son's knowledge transmission inhibited by Jesus's human brain. Inhibition on the part of God the Son makes God the Son cease to be God.

 

[Lon]

P.S Trinitarian Christians have more reasonably come to admit 'Jesus's knowledge was veiled at that particular time'. But this creates more problems:
a. God allowed Jesus to say something that is untrue about the nature of God in that case. Why would God veil knowledge here when this quote would directly result?
b. Jesus just spoke his own mind and passed it off as fact, how can we trust what Jesus is saying is inspired or not? This verse has single handedly proven we cannot.
c. Who's knowledge exactly? Was God the Son's knowledge transmission inhibited by Jesus's human brain. Inhibition on the part of God the Son makes God the Son cease to be God.

For one, the Father is NOT the son. It doesn't say "nobody but God" but "nobody but the Father."
Second, it is a fairly over-used sentiment from Muslims and has been addressed on a bunch of different levels over several websites. The 'plain' reading of the text doesn't allow for anything other than Jesus Christ, the Son is not the Father, but both are God. A tri-une (Trinitarian) understanding is that there are three, and yet in a way only God can accomplish, "they" are "one." Many scriptures repeat this refrain, so it is a Muslim hang-up for its denial that they need to deal with themselves. There is a difference between the Quran's image of Christ, and the Old and New Testament portrayal of Him. Scripture is clear Jesus is God, regardless if you conceive this passage or not.

Hello Wednes, It seems you discovered the search feature.
This particular thread is more for seeking truth than debating it, it is in a section called 'exclusively' Christian (it is a TOL section that encourages more discussion than debate, and seeking rather than opposition). Seeking is however, encouraged, so I'm glad you are reading AMR's links (I've had to remind a few others with bad habits not to debate the triune view in this thread but I'm fairly long-suffering). It is the only section that has this specific restriction, however, and it just asks that others not be disruptive and combative in it, if I remember correctly.

-Lon

 

[Wednesday Addams]

For one, the Father is NOT the son. It doesn't say "nobody but God" but "nobody but the Father."
Second, it is a fairly over-used sentiment from Muslims and has been addressed on a bunch of different levels over several websites. The 'plain' reading of the text doesn't allow for anything other than Jesus Christ, the Son is not the Father, but both are God. A tri-une (Trinitarian) understanding is that there are three, and yet in a way only God can accomplish, "they" are "one." Many scriptures repeat this refrain, so it is a Muslim hang-up for its denial that they need to deal with themselves. There is a difference between the Quran's image of Christ, and the Old and New Testament portrayal of Him. Scripture is clear Jesus is God, regardless if you conceive this passage or not.

Hello Wednes, It seems you discovered the search feature.
This particular thread is more for seeking truth than debating it, it is in a section called 'exclusively' Christian (it is a TOL section that encourages more discussion than debate, and seeking rather than opposition). Seeking is however, encouraged, so I'm glad you are reading AMR's links (I've had to remind a few others with bad habits not to debate the triune view in this thread but I'm fairly long-suffering). It is the only section that has this specific restriction, however, and it just asks that others not be disruptive and combative in it, if I remember correctly.

-Lon

If you're a truth seeker and are not interested in debate, please ignore this following comment of mine.

I know the Father is not the Son, that's some Modalist talk.
It does say except the Father only, and it's also used as 'The Father alone'. You're assuming trinitarianism rather than letting the text speak for itself. It's clear as night and day that Jesus is talking about the Father holding the omniscience. God the Father cannot 'carry' the omniscience for God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. By giving God the Father the attribute of omniscience, it doesn't mean the Holy Spirit and the Son immediately have it, too. Especially when Jesus says The Father alone knows when the hour will be. Jesus is ruling out the idea that the Holy Spirit knows for example.

The key point is that omniscience is pertaining to the nature of God. Three persons, yet one nature. The Father is omniscient. The Son isn't, therefore the Son cannot be God.

It's not just from muslims tbh, unitarian Christians and Jews, also.

Oh I see, I'm impressed that the forum has been divided as such. Sorry for my newbie error. I won't post these things here anymore.

 

[Lon]

If you're a truth seeker and are not interested in debate, please ignore this following comment of mine.

I know the Father is not the Son, that's some Modalist talk.
It does say except the Father only, and it's also used as 'The Father alone'. You're assuming trinitarianism rather than letting the text speak for itself. It's clear as night and day that Jesus is talking about the Father holding the omniscience. God the Father cannot 'carry' the omniscience for God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. By giving God the Father the attribute of omniscience, it doesn't mean the Holy Spirit and the Son immediately have it, too. Especially when Jesus says The Father alone knows when the hour will be. Jesus is ruling out the idea that the Holy Spirit knows for example.

This is called proof-texting btw. It has the earmarks of arian/muslim agenda rather than a holistic approach to scriptpure. For instance, it would behoove you to be way more interested in reading much of this thread, than simply to read the one verse of interest to you. There is no possible way a Christian can simply cave in on one verse when the entire bible is the goal and concern. A muslim agenda can never disrupt that, as necessity. You might 'stump' one or two initiates and get unqualified "amen's" from the Unitarian peanut gallery, and truly, that is all many of them here on TOL are interested, but if you are after enduring difference, you'd need to address a Christian from his/her overall concern. This thread does a nice job of spelling it out, and note, it isn't after the short answer or the shallow. The "Father" knows the hour. AMR, again, gave two great links as well as MANY other ones that should be read for anyone seeking inquiry and/or debate on that level. In such case, this thread is actually a better tool to even Unitarians if they leave it alone from inane banter and try to understand it as well as use it for their own reference work. -Lon

The key point is that omniscience is pertaining to the nature of God. Three persons, yet one nature. The Father is omniscient. The Son isn't, therefore the Son cannot be God.

It's not just from muslims tbh, unitarian Christians and Jews, also.

Oh I see, I'm impressed that the forum has been divided as such. Sorry for my newbie error. I won't post these things here anymore.

Within Christian circles is discussion of what 'coming in the flesh' may or may not have inhibited, such that even a faulty idea of kenosis as well as accurate one (Philippians 2) yet leads to an understanding that Christ Jesus our Lord and God, may have been restricted in His human sense but had access to His divinity at all times, thus, at that time, not accessing that information, it would have been just the Father who was. It is much more indepth than the Muslim's cursory reading. I am familiar with the overall debate between a few in the spotlight, but it is still but a cursory reading. Theologians and scholars would convey something to you and them, very near to what I've given you here. -Lon

(Cursory reading is why there are arians and Unitarians, I believe. They simply don't bother reading their bibles and creeds as much as is needed to understand God is clearly portrayed triune in the Old and New Testaments. It is shallow theology off of first-impressions and shallow whims)

 

[Arsenios]

See above. Sigh.

AMR

Well, on the positive side, you did yank the covers from what was being masked by them...

Mocking is confession of defeat...

And being mocked is confirmation of victory...

Mocking is pride...

We are not unfamiliar with its source,

Nor with its end...

A.

 

[Arsenios]

I'm not all that familiar with Orthodox services
(I know they are liturgical, but do they have a Mass?)
but the essence of what he says rings true to me....

As well they should - The Latins were once Orthodox, and in their persecutions suffered less sins than the Orthodox, for to become a Pope in Rome the first 1000 years of the Faith of Christ was to virtually embrace martyrdom... Popes did not die of old age in those years...

We celebrate the Divine Liturgy as it was handed down from the Apostles through St. John Chrysostom in the 4th century, together with the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. James, and the somewhat longer Divine Liturgy of St. Basil... When the Latins attend our Divine Services - Which they call a Mass - they tell us that they are much like the High Mass they have when visited by a Bishop...

The pre-Vatican II Catholics look on us with fond remembrance for the Spiritual discipline we are still managing to at least somewhat maintain... The praxis of the Orthodox Faith is, in this degenerating culture in which we find ourselves in the West, getting more and more difficult to keep and pass on to our children.

That discipline is much akin to the physical training wherein professional athletes keep themselves in training when cotending... When they stop competing, their training falls away... But we, as Christians, are called to contend to our last breath... So that if we are not overcoming noetic adversaries, we are training in ascetic struggles for the day when they launch their next attack, and in this, we pray and fast and labor and give alms, and call on the name of the Lord, partaking of the Cup of Salvation in daily services before the Altar of our Lord, and lifting our hands in prayer in the watches of the night...

This is your Faith too, my Brother...

Where...

IF you are willing...

You can be ALL in...

For the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven...

The Body of Christ...

On earth...

Here and Now...

In the praxis of self-denial...

Unto the acquisition of the Holy Spirit...

Christ within you...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

P.S Trinitarian Christians have more reasonably come to admit 'Jesus's knowledge was veiled at that particular time'. But this creates more problems:
a. God allowed Jesus to say something that is untrue about the nature of God in that case. Why would God veil knowledge here when this quote would directly result?
b. Jesus just spoke his own mind and passed it off as fact, how can we trust what Jesus is saying is inspired or not? This verse has single handedly proven we cannot.
c. Who's knowledge exactly? Was God the Son's knowledge transmission inhibited by Jesus's human brain. Inhibition on the part of God the Son makes God the Son cease to be God.

The Person of Christ Incarnate has two natures, Divine AND human, and IF you fail to keep them differentiated, you will, as you have here, find yourself making His human nature a denial of His Divine Nature...

You see, since the Fall of the first Adam, we have lost the vision, and do not any longer have the remembrance, of what it means to be human AS GOD CREATED MAN...

Hence to say that man is less than God, and Christ was a man, therefore Christ is LESS THAN God, while syllogistically and philosophically sound, falls short, because philosophy cannot encompass the Mystery of the Person of God becoming man by nature while retaining His atemporal Divine Nature...

Philosophy, and the fallen, darkened and blinded human intellect from which it arises, simply CANNOT encompass the original human nature from which it fell in Adam; and in Christ, the second Adam, we enter into the Mystery by encountering God, and then see how puny our little syllogisms actually are, and turning from them, we ascend by the Faith Christ gave to us, from Glory to Glory...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The Person of Christ Incarnate has two natures, Divine AND human, and IF you fail to keep them differentiated, you will, as you have here, find yourself making His human nature a denial of His Divine Nature...

You see, since the Fall of the first Adam, we have lost the vision, and do not any longer have the remembrance, of what it means to be human AS GOD CREATED MAN...

Hence to say that man is less than God, and Christ was a man, therefore Christ is LESS THAN God, while syllogistically and philosophically sound, falls short, because philosophy cannot encompass the Mystery of the Person of God becoming man by nature while retaining His atemporal Divine Nature...

Philosophy, and the fallen, darkened and blinded human intellect from which it arises, simply CANNOT encompass the original human nature from which it fell in Adam; and in Christ, the second Adam, we enter into the Mystery by encountering God, and then see how puny our little syllogisms actually are, and turning from them, we ascend by the Faith Christ gave to us, from Glory to Glory...

Arsenios

Indeed, my Brother. This is true profundity.

And it includes the silly syllogism of multiple hypostases. Such is but a description from the darkness that cannot and does not define (de- -finite) God.

 

[Arsenios]

Indeed, my Brother. This is true profundity.

And it includes the silly syllogism of multiple hypostases.

Such is but a description from the darkness

that cannot and does not define (de- -finite) God.

Indeed, God is not defined...

By three Hypostases...

He is revealed...

Definitional thinking cannot embrace God...

"A heart that is broken and humbled...

God will not despise..."

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Indeed, God is not defined...

By three Hypostases...

Exactly my point for years and years.

He is revealed...

YES! Exactly. Not dogmatized and defined through indoctrination and declaration as definition for an undefinable God.

Are you saying God has revealed Himself to you and others as three concurrent and simultaneous eternal hypostases?

No. There is not one historical record of anyone encountering three hypostases in any manner at any time.

Definitional thinking cannot embrace God...

Right again. Exactly. So God cannot be defined as three hypostases; and God has not revealed Himself as three hypostases to anyone in the history of the Christian Faith.

"A heart that is broken and humbled...

God will not despise..."

Arsenios

Your constant and continuous judgment of my heart is sadly disappointing and grievous.

God has revealed Himself as a singular hypostasis, multi-phenomenally re- -presented to and in creation.

 

[Arsenios]

Are you saying God has revealed Himself to you and others as three concurrent and simultaneous eternal hypostases?

Concurrent and simultaneous are temporal terms...

There is not one historical record of anyone encountering three hypostases in any manner at any time.

Two Biblical cases come to mind - The Baptism of Christ in the Jordan... And the coming of the Kingdom of God in Power on Mt. Tabor with the three disciples... How can Christ pray to the Father if the Father is not Someone and Christ someone?

A person is an hypostasis, but not all hypostases are persons...

Right again. Exactly. So God cannot be defined as three hypostases;

God cannot be defined period...

He can only be encountered...

and God has not revealed Himself as three hypostases to anyone in the history of the Christian Faith.

See above, and many Saints have encountered the Triune God...

Your constant and continuous judgment of my heart is sadly disappointing and grievous.

I was not judging your heart - I was contrasting definitional thinking with repentance...

God has revealed Himself as a singular hypostasis, multi-phenomenally re- -presented to and in creation.

Such is not the witness of any Orthodox God-bearing Saints...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Concurrent and simultaneous are temporal terms...

But this sidestep would just imply God is indeed not three hypostases in created temporality.

What I'm referring to, as you likely know, is that God has not revealed Himself in temporality as multiple hypostases on any one occasion in history.

Two Biblical cases come to mind - The Baptism of Christ in the Jordan...

No. A voice, a schema, and an Incarnate Logos as Theanthropos are not automatically three eternal hypostases. That's deductive eisegesis at its pinnacle of presumption and presupposition.

And the coming of the Kingdom of God in Power on Mt. Tabor with the three disciples...

No. Same dilemna, slightly different scenario. No multiple hypostases implied. Only eisegetically inferred.

How can Christ pray to the Father if the Father is not Someone and Christ someone?

They are. They're multiple phenomenalities as the same hypostasis with distinct prosopoa.

A person is an hypostasis, but not all hypostases are persons...

Person is an English word that didn't even exist until about a millennia after Nicea, so it's use in modernity is fallacious.

God cannot be defined period...

Exactly. Agreed.

He can only be encountered...

And no one has ever encountered Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

See above, and many Saints have encountered the Triune God...

Not one Saint has ever seen God at any time. And none have encountered Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together. For all anyone knows by such encounters, the Modalists could be right (they're not).

I was not judging your heart - I was contrasting definitional thinking with repentance...

But you've made many such references to me in the context of me never being pure enough in heart to even be a true theologian.

Such is not the witness of any Orthodox God-bearing Saints...

Arsenios

A witness would have to testify of seeing all three alleged hypostases. And my faith is not in the Saints. My faith is toward God alone.

There is no time or space within God for Opera Ad Intra filiation and procession; and such would be economy rather than ontology anyway (not to mention being some form of Panentheism).

The paradox has been resolved, even if you cannot recognize that paradox. The Saints encountered multiple phenomenalities of the same hypostasis. They didn't know any better than to falsely define God in such limited dimensionality from their human perspectives.

 

[Lon]

Found a gem from Spitfire

Found a gem from Spitfire

Don't forget Luke 8:39...

:up:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

:up:

But Modalists will just superficially claim that Jesus is God (the Father) "in work clothes", or whatever. Even Unitarians will have some fabricated and convoluted inference to purport; especially those of JW ilk.

 

[Lon]

But Modalists will just superficially claim that Jesus is God (the Father) "in work clothes", or whatever. Even Unitarians will have some fabricated and convoluted inference to purport; especially those of JW ilk.

• However, Luke uses Christ and God interchangeably. Bullets hit marks, wherever this one hits, it is one of many
• and I appreciate your contributing bullets in thread as well.
• Lon

 

[Lon]

Musterion give a short Triune scripture quiz

Musterion give a short Triune scripture quiz

Musterion posted this in another thread and I thought it could help one quickly see the Biblical presentation of the Triune view