Matthew 28:19 is not corrupt. That's enough.
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Wow, I've thought of you many times in your absence. I was on hiatus myself for several months.
I certainly don't disagree; and none of those hyper-literalistic narrative details should be part of a hermeneutical technique and process.
The foundational approach must be epistemological and etiological. As much of a gripe as I have with modern false conceptualization of most Trinitarians yielding a pervasive functional Tritheism, the Logos of God is eternal, uncreated, and divine.
I've migrated to a place of maintaining a more rigorous sense of orthodoxy, and staying within the validity of the reformed tradition. I still challenge the multi-hypostatic Trinity formulaic; but I do so meticulously within the parameters I just mentioned, and from "within".
Without the divinity of the Son, there is no proper means of man partaking of God's divine nature as promised. But no (professing) Trinitarian I've encountered can demonstrate it from the text.
All historical models and formulaics for Theology Proper are inaccurate, each/all sharing the same foundational omission with various compensatory solutions.
Of course Theanthropos was human, just as He was/is divine. All the Unitarian points are true in that regard. And you are correct that such technical pedanticisms are an over-reach in apologetics.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
But the arthrous substantives in Matthew 28:19 do not automatically indicate "persons" (oh, how I despise that English word), but individuated nouns.
Name (onoma) is not an individuated hypostasis by default. And any grammarian that would insist it is by applying Granville-Sharp is merely asserting fallacious pre-supposition.
And that passage needs a witness to not stand alone.
Krsto
Well-known member
Yeah, I like that one. Jesus says to go and immerse the nations in the name (read that, knowledge, teaching, understanding) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Paul was a good example of following this when he was accused of "filling up" Jerusalem with teaching about Jesus. "Filling up" and "immersing" are two ways to say the same thing if you can picture it in your mind. The verse has nothing to do with water baptism, as is commonly assumed. Neither does it teach or imply a God in 3 persons. You would have to read that into such a non-specific statement.
We are to believe that the Church had become so corrupted so early, that something as dire as a radically false and blasphemous teaching about the very nature of our Creator, immediately sunk in its hooks and hasn't let go, for essentially the whole of Church history?
This thread isn't even about the Trinity. This thread is about the Holy See, which is where, we know, both Apostles Peter and Paul were murdered/martyred. We know they both lived in Rome.
Once you reject the notion that there is a human institution that continually throughout the ages and ages of the Church is charged with and discharges the duty to define religious, spiritual, doctrinal, moral and theological truth; then that vacuum is filled up with the next best thing, which is the Scripture.
You're just being . . . Protestant, here.
Protestantism is the only place where we find the notion that the Trinity is false, and Protestantism is by definition rejection of the Holy See.
This thread isn't even about the Trinity. This thread is about the Holy See, which is where, we know, both Apostles Peter and Paul were murdered/martyred. We know they both lived in Rome.
Once you reject the notion that there is a human institution that continually throughout the ages and ages of the Church is charged with and discharges the duty to define religious, spiritual, doctrinal, moral and theological truth; then that vacuum is filled up with the next best thing, which is the Scripture.
You're just being . . . Protestant, here.
Protestantism is the only place where we find the notion that the Trinity is false, and Protestantism is by definition rejection of the Holy See.
Krsto
Well-known member
You Catholics and a lot of Protestants are under the false notion that our salvation depends on our orthodoxy (right belief). There are benefits to right belief, to be sure, but God doesn't use it as a litmus test to see who is acceptable in his sight. The kind of salvation Jesus brought was to empower people to orthopraxy (right living) so they would no longer be wicked (and thus saved from death), and to then mold people into the image of Christ so as to transform the world through people doing the right thing (orthopraxy).
If I am not mistaken, being in the form of god means that God had given him a form which belonged to God, not him.
That's not what I believe, nor what the Holy See teaches the Church to believe.
I agree up to but not including the Magisterium, who must believe and teach rightly to be acceptable as bishops.
Versus this world is passing away and will be destroyed by fire and will be replaced utterly and we shall live in the new word (heaven and earth, God's eternal kingdom) forever. I agree with you, I just find eternal life to be a very important part of the kind of salvation Jesus brought.
keypurr
Well-known member
Consider that he was a type of God, a god.
He was given the fullness of his creator. Heb 1.
This thread is for Triune believers, go to your anti-trinity threads
keypurr
Well-known member
Wonderful thing about freedom, all are invited to post on ANY thread. I have been off this thread for a long time. But once in a while I like to let folks know I am still around. If you do not like my posts just put me on ignore.
JosephR
New member
Lon, could you please address or re post,if you already have, your interpretation of Philippians 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
start please with , Let this.....
let to me means a choice, a thing we choose to let happen..
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
start please with , Let this.....
let to me means a choice, a thing we choose to let happen..
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Obviously, I am not Lon, but...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4287442#post4287442
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2232479#post2232479
There are a range of exegetical issues tied up with this passage, and many of them are interlocking. If the perspective of Christ refers to His Person before He became man (the classic view), "robbery" or a similar sense is required because equality with God is understood to be already in possession. Others suppose it is speaking from the perspective that Christ has already become man, and then the idea is that as man He did not stand on His divine dignity. This suggests the idea that equality is something not in possession and therefore yet to be attained or "grasped."
Another issue concerns “form” (morphe), which is classically understood to refer to essential attributes of divinity. ESV following RSV translates "was," so one must either deny that “form” (morphe) means essential attributes, or one has to suppose Christ divested Himself of these when He became man. If the former, a clear testimony to the divinity of Christ is erroneously lost. If the latter, the erroneous theory of kenosis is established, hence the classical understanding is correct.
AMR
It was the man who laid aside His rights of Kingship, Him being Gods son by birth through Mary.
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Christ did not take the path of King Saul, but of David.
If You can not find what you claim in the OT then it is falsehood..
LA
No, this is when he was a man and empt[ied] himself, meaning his name's reputation and his efforts.
Last edited:
keypurr
Well-known member
I do not need YOU to tell me where to go Patrick.
If you do not wish to discuss ideas maybe your on the wrong site.
Lon
Well-known member
Yet, this is a discussion thread, not a debate thread and is in ECT because the Triune doctrine is ECT. Questions? Fine. Debate? :nono:
Lon
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Colossians 1:16-18