ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Misunderstanding the forms of the word Theos (Theios, Theon, Theion, Theotes, Theiotes), and the articular and anarthrous constructs of them, leads to MANY fallacies.

The landscape of pseudo-Christian movements and individual beliefs is littered with a wide variety of these false understandings, with most proponents fighting to the death for their heterodoxy.

 

[Cross Reference]

This is mostly a form of Third Wave Charismaticism's (unfinished) "Finished Works" Soteriology; and it's strongly based on Barthian subtle fallacies and dilutions and/or tangents of/from it.

Again, I ask which part?

 

[Cross Reference]

Misunderstanding the forms of the word Theos (Theios, Theon, Theion, Theotes, Theiotes), and the articular and anarthrous constructs of them, leads to MANY fallacies.

The landscape of pseudo-Christian movements and individual beliefs is littered with a wide variety of these false understandings, with most proponents fighting to the death for their heterodoxy.

As you are . . and for the same reasons, I add.

 

[Cross Reference]

No. Virtually, as in, most of it (if not all).

. . .is correct. Which don't you understand?

 

[Cross Reference]

Why not define what is a Charismatic as you define everyone and everything else by your understanding? How 'bout it?

Give it a shot. . .I won't laugh.

 

[Cross Reference]

". . . the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, . . . .
. . . . . He [God][first] wrought in [Jesus the] Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Eph 1:19-23 (KJV)

I think this sortta says it all if we can keep in our thinking that Jesus had to be completely of Adam's race while at the same time persuading others of His Heavenly Father to the satisfaction of the heavenly host who were observing His life and mission.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Again, I ask which part?

It's Hegelian Kenoticism layered with Barthian Univeral Atonement. Every part. It's heterodox, which is why so many don't know and are taken in by it. It can sound good because it's so close to the truth in so many ways.

In the end, distilling the errors comes down to the fact that Greek articular and anarthrous nouns have been misunderstood and misrepresented in various doctrinal formulations.

The main culprit is Third Wave Charismaticism's misrepresetation of hamartia (sin) singular articular and anarthrous for a subtly false Atonement doctrine from a subtly false Hamartiology understanding and application.

Everyone wants formulate all their own autonomous doctrinal perceptions and rag on those who have language knowledge of the subtlties that make these doctrines wrong. If you really want to know, and are willing to embrace that you (and many others) could be subtly wrong in a way that affects ALL of the other doctrines you adhere to, then a conversation might be productive even if lengthly and laden with minutiae of linguistic details.

Most just adhere to whatever they're convinced is the truth by a scant skim reading and the concepts they've embraced. If you knew how and why it happened from a linguistic and epistemological perspective, you'd be appalled and incensed (including at yourself and those you currently consider peers).

 

[Cross Reference]

It's Hegelian Kenoticism layered with Barthian Univeral Atonement. Every part. It's heterodox, which is why so many don't know and are taken in by it. It can sound good because it's so close to the truth in so many ways.

In the end, distilling the errors comes down to the fact that Greek articular and anarthrous nouns have been misunderstood and misrepresented in various doctrinal formulations.

The main culprit is Third Wave Charismaticism's misrepresetation of hamartia (sin) singular articular and anarthrous for a subtly false Atonement doctrine from a subtly false Hamartiology understanding and application.

Everyone wants formulate all their own autonomous doctrinal perceptions and rag on those who have language knowledge of the subtlties that make these doctrines wrong. If you really want to know, and are willing to embrace that you (and many others) could be subtly wrong in a way that affects ALL of the other doctrines you adhere to, then a conversation might be productive even if lengthly and laden with minutiae of linguistic details.

Most just adhere to whatever they're convinced is the truth by a scant skim reading and the concepts they've embraced. If you knew how and why it happened from a linguistic and epistemological perspective, you'd be appalled and incensed (including at yourself and those you currently consider peers).

What has convinced you they didn't research sufficiently that they might have arrived at your conclusions?

 

[Lon]

That isn’t me.

I believe one of my professors was very close to your view. In turn, he had me accepting quite a bit of the kenosis theology yet endeavoring, as you, to skirt away from the heresy that Jesus was only man at incarnation.

Since then, a few godly professors have pulled me aside and explained patiently problems with the Lord Jesus Christ not being fully God while man.

 

[Cross Reference]

I believe one of my professors was very close to your view. In turn, he had me accepting quite a bit of the kenosis theology yet endeavoring, as you, to skirt away from the heresy that Jesus was only man at incarnation.

Since then, a few godly professors have pulled me aside and explained patiently problems with the Lord Jesus Christ not being God while man.

A few "godly professors" explained things to you? What were the first professors if not godly?

Does that mean you won't be addressing my last to you?

 

[Lon]

Does that mean you won't be addressing my last to you?

No, just that I have a bit of study to make cogent and orthodox points. I'll need patience. I know pretty much what I want to say, I just want to say it right. In light of that, if you have a couple of links for more background reading on your understanding and view, please provide them for my readings and thank you ahead of time. -Lon

 

[Cross Reference]

No, just that I have a bit of study to make cogent and orthodox points. I'll need patience. I know pretty much what I want to say, I just want to say it right. In light of that, if you have a couple of links for more background reading on your understanding and view, please provide them for my readings and thank you ahead of time. -Lon

Thank you and no, I don't have commentaries to offer up in addition to my own.. Sorry.

However, not that he would agree with me, I do like Oswald Chambers who I have come to understand. If he were alive today, I would thank him for speaking into my life. Bonhoeffer would be another one I admire and credit for filling in some gaps of my understanding, though I don't believe he has ever addressed this issue.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

LA, You speak as one who is "Jesus Only"; "Apostolic Holiness". Are you?

No.

What made you think that from what I have written?


LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Heterodox Unitarian/Adoptionist error.

The divinity of Jesus is the Father Himself, so of course His divinity was uncreated.

You do not see the union of man with God. You deny the gospel record and prefer the writings of blind men.


I missed a page.

To PNEUMA--

Your problem is that you think the Word was a separate living conscious person with the Father before Jesus was born and made by His word.

RCC heresy.




LA

 

[Cross Reference]

The divinity of Jesus is the Father Himself, so of course His divinity was uncreated.

You do not see the union of man with God. You deny the gospel record and prefer the writings of blind men.


I missed a page.

Your problem is that you think the Word was a separate living conscious person with the Father before Jesus was born and made by His word.

RCC heresy.

LA

Why is it heresy when Moses saw Him?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The divinity of Jesus is the Father Himself, so of course His divinity was uncreated.


Your problem is that you think the Word was a separate living conscious person with the Father before Jesus was born and made by His word.

RCC heresy.

LA

Who was walkin' around in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshak, and Abedneggo?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Why is it heresy when Moses saw Him?

He also stopped by for dinner with Abraham.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Why is it heresy when Moses saw Him?

Moses saw the Angel of the Lord, not Jesus.

Jesus was a man made in the image of God by the word spoken, who was resurrected and glorified with the Fathers Glory.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Who was walkin' around in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshak, and Abedneggo?

The Angel of the Lord.

 

[Bright Raven]

The Angel of the Lord.

And who might that be?