ECT Our triune God

[fzappa13]

Thesis... Antithesis... Synthesis. Rinse, Repeat Ad Infinitum.

You forgot lather.

 

[fzappa13]

Nope. The Son is the Logos OF the Father, ultimately manifest in the flesh. I'm not a Unitarian, Arian, Sabellian, Adoptionist, or any other heterodox view for Theology Proper.

I challenge the minutiae of the historical Trinity formulation, and I also recognize that many modern professing Trinitarians are functional Tritheists; but I'm fully a Trinitarian and can delineate every aspect of the historical doctrine and its many various internal alternatives throughout history.

To some that would be the equivalent of picking gnat dung out of pepper … to others it is the difference between loss and salvation … and I guess that would be one of my points.

Well... To begin, that again comes back to Greek word definitions, noun forms, and other grammatical considerations in translation.

Doctrine is rendered in English from three Greek words in various passages: Didaskalia, Didasko, and Logos.

Didaskalia is "that which is taught". Didasko is the verb form as "teaching". Logos requires a fairly extensive treatise to delineate, but should be basically understood as all the faculties and functionalities of inward thought and outward expression.

At the risk of being repetitive, the guys whose hands God used to pen the Bible were all Hebrew. If you want to understand what they said from a linguistic perspective the Koine only gets you half way there.

Salvation includes an inaugurating event, but is a being and becoming from that initiation until completion.

My study of the Bible would lead me to agree with you but most that post here would likely have you on a cross for suggesting such a thing if the internet allowed such access.

There is a qualitative sense to what is salvific, but English minds can't comprehend that because that's an anarthrous construct and English has no equivalent for nouns (while Greek nouns can always have that construct relative to the designation of an articular).

See above ...

Right doctrine (teaching, and the resulting renewed mind by God's Logos) is necessary to some degree for salvation. One cannot hear that which is not spoken about by God, and He hath spoken unto us in these last days by His Son.

But wrong doctrine can preclude or deter or supplant faith. So right doctrine may not be necessary in an extreme; but wrong doctrine is a huge concern. In that sense, it's very important to know what NOT to know.

A certain quality of doctrine is vital. A certain lack of quality as false doctrine can be eternally fatal.

While considering this notion you might want to consider this as well …


Mark 10: 13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

1 Cor 2: 1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.


1 Cor 13: 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.


P.S.


You blow up my spell checker.

 

[Lon]

I don't agree. It has been a prostitute and in business for itself to the degree it worships itself and continues in that vein as we speak, taking into itself the things of the world to augment it's failures in performing as the body of Christ you claim it to be. Why do think Jesus addressed the churches as He did in Rev 2 and 3, especially Laodicea?

As you say below, a subject can be argued to death. Since this isn't the thread for it, it makes it doubly-ended I think.

Don't you believe all that can be said has been said re you OP? Who can argue theology without knowledge and everyone here believes they have it all. So what is the point in repeating performances unless rectification can be attained? And what prevents that? Indeed, lets move on.

No, else we'd not have a TOL offense for it. There is something to be said for a thread to actually cover the OP. We are all capable of starting our own threads. This thread has spring-boarded to about 10 other threads that I know about. It think it better to go to threads specifically covering the topics indicated by title and opening post. When a person starts a thread, I think they should be able to at least partially guide where their thread goes.

 

[Cross Reference]

To some that would be the equivalent of picking gnat dung out of pepper … to others it is the difference between loss and salvation … and I guess that would be one of my points.




At the risk of being repetitive, the guys whose hands God used to pen the Bible were all Hebrew. If you want to understand what they said from a linguistic perspective the Koine only gets you half way there.




My study of the Bible would lead me to agree with you but most that post here would likely have you on a cross for suggesting such a thing if the internet allowed such access.

Who authored your study Bible?

 

[chrysostom]

Who authored your study Bible?

who authorized it?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Who authored your study Bible?

Scribes.

Some of who's hands were not what would be called inspired.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

who authorized it?

Are you too, like Arsenios, under the impression that Mary is the mother of all us Christians?

 

[Cross Reference]

Scribes.

Some of who's hands were not what would be called inspired.

Did they have to be to transcribe? No!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Did they have to be to transcribe? No!

Of course not.

God allowed it, for several reasons.....

In keeping with the Opening Poster maybe this would fall under the heading of
economy?

 

[fzappa13]

Who authored your study Bible?

What is a study Bible?

 

[Lon]

What is a study Bible?

:doh: (I thought you said "Bible Study!" )

 

[Lon]

Bright Raven - the Lord Jesus Christ HAD to be God

Bright Raven - the Lord Jesus Christ HAD to be God

Being part of the creation there is no way that He could be a sin sacrifice. The sacrifice for sin had to be without blemish, perfect. Only God is perfect.

Luke 18:19

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
Being part of the creation there is no way that He could be a sin sacrifice. The sacrifice for sin had to be without blemish, perfect. Only God is perfect.

Luke 18:19

So are you indicating Jesus was condoning the guy for calling him good?

Or to rethink why he was calling him good?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You forgot lather.

Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis IS the lather.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

To some that would be the equivalent of picking gnat dung out of pepper … to others it is the difference between loss and salvation … and I guess that would be one of my points.

Yeah, dialectic is diabolical when it's not founded on the didactic. There's no equivalence whatsoever to picking gnat dung out of pepper. There's a profound distinction between truth and untruth.

At the risk of being repetitive, the guys whose hands God used to pen the Bible were all Hebrew. If you want to understand what they said from a linguistic perspective the Koine only gets you half way there.

No. The langauge of divine inspiration for the New Testament was Greek. And there's a reason for that.

My study of the Bible would lead me to agree with you but most that post here would likely have you on a cross for suggesting such a thing if the internet allowed such access.

Yeah, and it would be from those on opposing sides of a false binary of belief, just like almost every doctrine.

See above ...

You miss the significance of what I said.

While considering this notion you might want to consider this as well …


Mark 10: 13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

This has nothing to do with dumbing down words in English for adults who are already not child-like. This is about the disposition of the heart and the quality of faith being as pure as that of a child.

I have a more child-like faith every day. It's the greatest blessing of God imaginable. And it came from lexicography in constant communion with God. The word is sacramental as the administering of grace to the heart of man. We have access BY faith INTO the grace wherein we stand.

1 Cor 2: 1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Yeah, if anyone knew half the depth, breadth, and height of what many of those words mean, there wouldn't be any false criticism of what I say.

That last phrase is important. But we have the mind of Christ. Most don't believe that or know what it means.

1 Cor 13: 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Yeah, that knowledge is gnosis. Love (agape) abounds in epignosis. Huge difference. Epignosis is a synonym for faith. And here everyone has always misapplied 1Corinthians 8:1 according to 1Corinthians 13 to insist knowledge is bad. These passages point us away from gnosis TO epignosis, which love abounds in and is a synonym for faith.

P.S.
You blow up my spell checker.

Of course. If all things were carried forth and are being perpetually upheld by the word of His power, then that power should at least play havoc with such things as spell checkers.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I don't agree. It has been a prostitute and in business for itself to the degree it worships itself and continues in that vein as we speak, taking into itself the things of the world to augment it's failures in performing as the body of Christ you claim it to be. Why do think Jesus addressed the churches as He did in Rev 2 and 3, especially Laodicea?



Don't you believe all that can be said has been said re you OP? Who can argue theology without knowledge and everyone here believes they have it all. So what is the point in repeating performances unless rectification can be attained? And what prevents that? Indeed, lets move on.

Third Wave Charismaticism and The New Apostolic Reformation, etc. is the spiritual whoredom with its prostitutes.

 

[Lon]

So are you indicating Jesus was condoning the guy for calling him good?

Or to rethink why he was calling him good?

I think Bright Raven was showing, by necessity, that if Christ paid for our sins, by this verse, Christ must necessarily have been God because "only God is good" and "only one good can atone for our sins."

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I think Bright Raven was showing, by necessity, that if Christ paid for our sins, by this verse, Christ must necessarily have been God because "only God is good" and "only one good can atone for our sins."

Not so.

A righteous man without spot or blemish atoned for mans sin.

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Third Wave Charismaticism and The New Apostolic Reformation, etc. is the spiritual whoredom with its prostitutes.

You have never been filled with the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:38 have you.

You are not qualified to make such a judgment.

LA

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I think Bright Raven was showing, by necessity, that if Christ paid for our sins, by this verse, Christ must necessarily have been God because "only God is good" and "only one good can atone for our sins."

Actually I think he was making a two fold point.

One that Jesus was not created.

After some reflection this evening I am convinced that the son of God was not created.

His second point is Jesus is God.

While in the past I have asserted that Jesus is not God, I have come to believe that is not entirely the case, by the same token one cannot say Jesus is God and be totally correct.

If it were that cut and dried there would be no controversy over the trinity.

There has to be a father and son relationship involved.

Exactly how that figures in is tough to put in words.

Evidently Augustine tried and was not entirely successful.

I may read some of his writing, as father and son, is I believe, the "our image" God was talking about to his son when he said let us make man in our image.