ECT Our triune God

[godrulz]

Is our Father a disembodied spirit?

Mormons say the Father has flesh and bones. They are rank heretics.

Jn. 4:24 is an ontological statement. God is spirit (metaphysics, being, stuff, substance, essence). He is not embodied, but can take on a form on the throne, etc.

Jesus is the glorified God-Man who was Deity who added humanity. He is different due to the incarnation not experienced by the Father or Holy Spirit.

 

[jamie]

The Father has no inherent finite form, including a body.

Since God's invisible attributes are clearly seen by the things that are made, what are some examples of amorphous blobs in creation?

We are a mirror image of God how can we have a body if he doesn't?

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)​

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Since God's invisible attributes are clearly seen by the things that are made, what are some examples of amorphous blobs in creation?

We are a mirror image of God how can we have a body if he doesn't?

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)​

You miss the entire context of that passage being the Theiotes (Godhead), which is His externally observable demonstration of power. We observe His power in/by creation. It's not about His outward appearance. It's about the outward demonstration of His eternal power in temporal creation.

Every time the wind blows or we take a breath, it's because of the life of the Spirit (Pneuma/Breath). Same thing as the above.

Mankind was made in God's image, but since sin onset we are in the image of Adam. Nothing tells us we're a "mirror image" of God in a literal bodily sense. You've inferred this somehow.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Wow, God has tiny hands and mooned Moses.

I'm fine if you and others want to maintain Anthropomorphitism. It's as silly as the DyoHypoTrinity doctrine.

 

[godrulz]

'phusioo'=Greek=pride....puffed up like a pregnant jelly bean...shoe fits....wear it.

 

[keypurr]

I'm surprised you are not familiar with this term. I am aware that you complained to the moderators about my use of the term, but the term is used in 48 verses of the Bible. Here is one example.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. (Hebrews 7:1)​

I realize trinitarians don't like the term because it clearly indicates Jesus Christ is subject to his Father's authority rather than being co-equal.

You probably ought to complain to the moderators about the letter to the Hebrews using the term Most High God since you don't believe there is such a thing. Co-equal? Not even.

So go ahead and complain about my continued use of the term. Maybe I should complain about your complaining. If I am banned for using the term Most High then I shouldn't be here to begin with.

Why don't you post a list of all the biblical terms to which you object. At least that would give a more fair playing field. As it is I had no reason to believe you would be offended by the use of the term Most High. There, I've said it again, so complain again.

Someone should complain about frivolous complaints. It won't be me because I'm not a complainer nor a tattle tale. Maybe you should be the one to complain about your frivolous complaint since you've had practice complaining.

I am very familar with the terms friend and I NEVER have complained to the moderators about any one. You must have me mixed up with someone else. Jamie, I agree with most of your words. I was trying to tell GR that theire is someone higher than Christ but he refuses to listen. Again Jamie, your the last person I would complain about.

Can you show me where and why you think I complained about you.

I am not a Trinity believer friend.

 

[keypurr]

The Most High is the one to whom Jesus prayed and to whom he instructed the Jews to pray, specifically our Father in heaven.

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)​

The Most High is Christ's God, the one who resurrected him from the dead.

AMEN, and thank God that he raised him from the dead.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Psalm 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

 

[godrulz]

I am very familar with the terms friend and I NEVER have complained to the moderators about any one. You must have me mixed up with someone else. Jamie, I agree with most of your words. I was trying to tell GR that theire is someone higher than Christ but he refuses to listen. Again Jamie, your the last person I would complain about.

Can you show me where and why you think I complained about you.

I am not a Trinity believer friend.

The ontological trinity has equality among Father/Son/Spirit because of their common eternal spirit nature.

The economic trinity has different functions/roles within the triune relations, but still from an ontological oneness (cf. roles of husband/wife despite equality of human nature).

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

'phusioo'=Greek=pride....puffed up like a pregnant jelly bean...shoe fits....wear it.

LOL. No, it's your gnosis that puffs up. (1Cor. 8:1)

My love has abounded yet more and more in epignosis (Phi. 1:9), and I have oida (1Cor. 2:11-12). Neither of those puff up like your gnosis. You can't "know" that, though.

It's unfortunate you and most others aren't aware of the differences in the various types of knowledge and how they're contrasted to each other and to other related terms.

The phusioo is yours and your peers'. You can't "know" that, either.

 

[keypurr]

The ontological trinity has equality among Father/Son/Spirit because of their common eternal spirit nature.

The economic trinity has different functions/roles within the triune relations, but still from an ontological oneness (cf. roles of husband/wife despite equality of human nature).

Most of the time you are very mixed up my friend. This is one of thoes times. The father is not the son and the Son is not the father.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

LOL. No, it's your gnosis that puffs up. (1Cor. 8:1)

I'm more familiar with the minutiae of the Trinity and its formulation than possible anyone who's ever lived.

Well, we would not want to get puffed up now would we? :AMR:

I believe your fifteen minutes are up now. :wave2:

AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, we would not want to get puffed up now would we? :AMR:

Of course you would... and have.

I believe your fifteen minutes are up now. :wave2:

AMR

LOL. It doesn't even take fifteen seconds to out the false Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine.

I've only just gotten started. Perhaps it's your own fifteen minutes you're referring to.

Ask Mr. Religion. Nothing puffed up with THAT screen name. Nossiree, that's pure humility right there.

My epignosis and oida can't and don't puff up. It's your gnosis that doesn't know the difference.

 

[godrulz]

Most of the time you are very mixed up my friend. This is one of thoes times. The father is not the son and the Son is not the father.

I am NOT a modalist. I agree with you that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father or Holy Spirit. In addition to one God, this is a basic trinitarian truth.

You keep mixing the triune view with Oneness (Sabellian error) and polytheism (Mormon error).

Your condemned error is called Arianism, Christ as creature.

The Father and Son are God by nature, but personally distinct in a different sense (you think in terms of same sense showing you do not understand what you reject).

 

[moonbeam]

My epignosis and oida can't and don't puff up.

Thats sounds like quite a problem you have with your tyres....perhaps I can help ? ... (I am a mechanic by trade)


I would qualify as a traditional three persons one being kind of guy (I believe so)

In your view is there independence of thought between those named as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit ?

By independent, I mean the ability or capacity for the generation of original thought...a thought that is exclusively the possession of one deity, until revealed to the other deities.

 

[Lon]

Of course you would... and have.



LOL. It doesn't even take fifteen seconds to out the false Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine.

I've only just gotten started. Perhaps it's your own fifteen minutes you're referring to.

Ask Mr. Religion. Nothing puffed up with THAT screen name. Nossiree, that's pure humility right there.

My epignosis and oida can't and don't puff up. It's your gnosis that doesn't know the difference.

Great.
Moonbeam asks a good question, so I think a post or two to clarify, but then....
Take a moment and read the OP. It is not my intention that we do much but discuss scriputure and post references for why we trinitarians believe as we do. Your agenda, by self-proclamation, has been and is a bit different than this specific thread's intent, but I was trying to accomodate your claim to be triune and concern. Thanks for your input, I think it a good reference in the event we need traverse the topic but I wish it was a bit more direct and helpful as other reference work. This one kind of has a mishmash feel but it isn't the first time in this thread.

Thanks, and please allow us to get this thread back to scriptures and reference work.

-Lon

 

[jamie]

Can you show me where and why you think I complained about you.

I'd be glad to, this was reported to the Woodshed where complaints are lodged. Maybe it was from a different keypurr.

keypurr has reported a post.

Reason:
Quote:
Amen, they Refuse to see the words most high God.

Post: Our triune God
Forum: Exclusively Christian Theology
Assigned Moderators: N/A

Posted by: jamie
Original Content:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
...is sufficient to refute your view.

And two words refute your view, Most High.​

I don't understand the purpose of the complaint. The term "Most High" is a biblical term so why was I reported to the Woodshed?

 

[jamie]

You've inferred this somehow.

Yes, I "inferred" from Jesus saying that those who had seen him had seen the Father. But I did not infer from Jesus' comment that those who "saw" him saw him as an amorphous blob or some kind of dynohippostatus trinity thing. But I guess you can't believe everything you read, especially if someone can spiritualize it away and say it was all just a metaphor.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thats sounds like quite a problem you have with your tyres....perhaps I can help ? ... (I am a mechanic by trade)

No. It's all the Monster Truck tractor tires of the DyoHypoTrins that are quite the problem.

Are you aware of the differences between gnosis, epignosis, and oida; and the results of the first? That's also part of the problem.

The puffed-up-ness is from the DyoHypoTrin's gnosis.

I would qualify as a traditional three persons one being kind of guy (I believe so)

How very tragic that you have been duped and indoctrinated into ideology over theology, and you unwittingly believe God couldn't and didn't create ALL and that God has his inherent existence in a realm He created.

In your view is there independence of thought between those named as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit ?

No. And in the original Creedal Trinity doctrine, that's the case as well. Multiple minds (/wills) would be multi-psuchos. Multiple souls.

By independent, I mean the ability or capacity for the generation of original thought...a thought that is exclusively the possession of one deity,

"One deity"??????? LOL. Now you consider F/S/HS multiple deities?

until revealed to the other deities.

There aren't "other" deities. No Trinitarian view represents multiple deities. Your Tritheism masquerading as Trinitarianism is sad.

F/S/HS do NOT have individuated eternal centers of sentient consciousness. God doesn't have multiple souls.

And your reference to the alleged "persons" (hypostases) being multiple deities puts you squarely in the Tritheist camp.

There is ONE Deity, and that one Deity is F/S/HS. F/S/HS are all distinct, uncreated, eternal, non-modal, concurrent, conessential, consusbstantial, ontological Deity. But they're not individuated hypostases; and the One Deity doesn't have multiple souls comprised of multiple minds/wills.

The ability or capacity for the generation of independent thought is Logos. God only has ONE Logos, and it was embodied in flesh as Jesus Christ the Righteous.

God is not multi-souled, nor does He have multiple Logoi.