ECT Our triune God

[Catholic Crusader]

Your insults do not prove your threeology......

And you don't think saying "threeology" is an insult? Mocking what Christianity has taught for almost 2,000 years and what almost ALL of today's Christians believe is pretty insulting I'd say.

God is Trinity. That is the truth of our existance. Whether or not someone accepts that truth is neither here nor there.

 

[Lon]

John 1:1,14; 8:58; 20:28

I do not believe one can come away from the gospel of John without understanding Christ as God. It is the most ridiculous self-delusion to say that "the Word was with God and the Word was God" is an idea. Never, ever has an idea ever been identified as a person/being. John 1:1

It cannot be any more clear that John is talking about Christ the Word because He became flesh John 1:14 and He is both with and God at the same time.

John 20:28 and John 8:58 are affirmation that we are reading and understanding correctly. Anybody who says otherwise is lying to themselves or didn't get further than the 3rd grade. You just cannot come away from John with anything but a triune view.

I would simply repeat this to any arian, unitarian, or JW. They have to be stupid, prideful, willful to tell God His business. There really is no other way to read John 1:1. It cannot be read any other way.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

John 1:1,14; 8:58; 20:28

I do not believe one can come away from the gospel of John without understanding Christ as God. It is the most ridiculous self-delusion to say that "the Word was with God and the Word was God" is an idea. Never, ever has an idea ever been identified as a person/being. John 1:1

It cannot be any more clear that John is talking about Christ the Word because He became flesh John 1:14 and He is both with and God at the same time.

John 20:28 and John 8:58 are affirmation that we are reading and understanding correctly. Anybody who says otherwise is lying to themselves or didn't get further than the 3rd grade. You just cannot come away from John with anything but a triune view.

I would simply repeat this to any arian, unitarian, or JW. They have to be stupid, prideful, willful to tell God His business. There really is no other way to read John 1:1. It cannot be read any other way.

I get to agree AND disagree. LOL.:juggle:

The Logos was not one of three hypostases in all this. Divine, absolutely. One of three hypostases, absolutely not.

Where've ya been hidin'?

 

[Lon]

I get to agree AND disagree. LOL.:juggle:

The Logos was not one of three hypostases in all this. Divine, absolutely. One of three hypostases, absolutely not.

Where've ya been hidin'?

We cannot 'correct' John 1:1 so it must stand as it is. I know that throws a monkey in your wrench, but it is important that this scripture seeks to convey both with and at the same time was. Nobody gets to read it any other way. Nobody.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

We cannot 'correct' John 1:1 so it must stand as it is. I know that throws a monkey in your wrench, but it is important that this scripture seeks to convey both with and at the same time was. Nobody gets to read it any other way. Nobody.

Egg-zactly. It cannot be corrected to be "Son" (Huios) instead of "Word" (Logos). I'm glad you agree. LOL.

Peace.

 

[Nang]

The Logos was not one of three hypostases in all this. Divine, absolutely. One of three hypostases, absolutely not.

I truly do not understand how you can make this denial . . .

John very clearly identifies the Logos in John 1:14; 18

The Logos is the Son of God come in flesh.

Further identified by John in John 1:17, as the Man, Jesus Christ.

All that John testifies to, reveals the Trinity*, as well as the hypostatic union that existed in Jesus Christ who was fully Man and fully God.

* The Father vss 14, 18

The Son vss 1-5, 8-12, 14-18

The Holy Spirit vss 13, 17

 

[Lon]

Egg-zactly. It cannot be corrected to be "Son" (Huios) instead of "Word" (Logos). I'm glad you agree. LOL.

Peace.

Er, John 1:14 John 8:58, and John 20:28, remember? Try Revelation 19:13 as well. Such isn't a 'correction.' It is John being very clear. You are triune so I don't have a problem with you on this point, for the most part.
I think you deny some of God's physical revelation given in scripture but I'm not uncomfortable leaving you to read those scriptures. Ultimately, we are arguing the simplicity of God, I think. On that, I must assuredly agree with you.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The Logos is the Son of God come in flesh.

God have mercy.

LA

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Er, John 1:14 John 8:58, and John 20:28, remember? Try Revelation 19:13 as well. Such isn't a 'correction.' It is John being very clear. You are triune so I don't have a problem with you on this point, for the most part.
I think you deny some of God's physical revelation given in scripture but I'm not uncomfortable leaving you to read those scriptures. Ultimately, we are arguing the simplicity of God, I think. On that, I must assuredly agree with you.

I've grown to appreciate you very much. You search for and diligently represent truth. It honors God.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I truly do not understand how you can make this denial . . .

John very clearly identifies the Logos in John 1:14; 18

The Logos is the Son of God come in flesh.

Further identified by John in John 1:17, as the Man, Jesus Christ.

All that John testifies to, reveals the Trinity*, as well as the hypostatic union that existed in Jesus Christ who was fully Man and fully God.

* The Father vss 14, 18

The Son vss 1-5, 8-12, 14-18

The Holy Spirit vss 13, 17

Because no matter how you posture and gesticulate, Father/Son/Holy Spirit are not multiple hypostases, though all are God.

It's all about the simplicity of God. God is much more one than three.

And if you understood the created eternity, you would understand that the Logos and Pneuma were a singular procession out of/from the hypostasis of the one God and Father. They are His own literal Logos and Pneuma, not two additional hypostases.

None of this is any form of Sabellianism, Arianism, or Semi- variants of either. God is a Monohypostatic Trinity.

You're stuck at the same late starting point for formulation that most are, mistaking God's processed Logos and Pneuma as two individuated hypostases of an alleged three. God is one hypostasis underling one ousia, from which proceeded forth/proceedeth His own Logos and Pneuma.

 

[godrulz]

One nature/substance/essence/being with 3 personal distinctions. Unity/plurality in one being regardless of the nuanced philosophical speculations.

Just as there is mystery in the eternity of God, so there is some mystery in the trinity (we understand truth about it, but not exhaustively).

 

[Nang]

Because no matter how you posture and gesticulate, Father/Son/Holy Spirit are not multiple hypostases, though all are God.

Presenting scripture as rebuttal to your claims is hardly "posturing or gesticulating."

Why do you avoid and refuse to give answer to the scriptural explanations I presented in exhibition of my faith?

It's all about the simplicity of God. God is much more one than three.

Nothing in the scriptures I presented denies the simplicity of God.

And if you understood the created eternity, you would understand that the Logos and Pneuma were a singular procession out of/from the hypostasis of the one God and Father. They are His own literal Logos and Pneuma, not two additional hypostases.

None of this is any form of Sabellianism, Arianism, or Semi- variants of either. God is a Monohypostatic Trinity.

If belief that eternity was created according to your teachings, would only lend credence to the suspicion that your views are somehow off kilter and ultimately/essentially Arian.

You're stuck at the same late starting point for formulation that most are, mistaking God's processed Logos and Pneuma as two individuated hypostases of an alleged three. God is one hypostasis underling one ousia, from which proceeded forth/proceedeth His own Logos and Pneuma.

Emanation.

Monarchism.

Subordination.

Heresy.

No amount of denial on your part, excuses you from such various accusations of error.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Presenting scripture as rebuttal to your claims is hardly "posturing or gesticulating."

You didn't present any scripture for three hypostases. There isn't any. You've presumed F/S/HS to be hypostases, so you assume all references to them are as such.

You bear the burden of proof to specifically present three hypostases from scripture. You cannot.

Why do you avoid and refuse to give answer to the scriptural explanations I presented in exhibition of my faith?

You didn't give any explanations for three hypostases. You just declared that mentioning F/S/HS somehow automatically makes them multiple hypostases. It doesn't. You haven't. You can't.

Where are the scripturally designated three hypostases?

Nothing in the scriptures I presented denies the simplicity of God.

Nor represents it.

If belief that eternity was created according to your teachings, would only lend credence to the suspicion that your views are somehow off kilter and ultimately/essentially Arian.

Ummm... nope. But it does mean you have an impotent and immanent god.

Created eternity does not equal created ontology for God, His Logos, or His Pneuma.

Fail.

Emanation.

LOL. Nope. No Pantheism. Instantiation (ex nihilo to most). Fail for you.

Monarchism.

You must mean Monarchianism. Nope. The Father is not the Son is not the Father (are not the Holy Spirit). And the Logos is Divine. Fail for you.

Subordination.

Nope, not a hint. No Semi-Arianism. Absolute ontological equality between God, Logos, and Pneuma. Homoousios. Epic fail for you.

Heresy.

In the true meaning of the word, of course it is. I have a school of thought. It's against the general teaching (because Orthodoxy is heterodox).

As a pejorative or ad hominem, heresy isn't a very effective term.

No amount of denial on your part, excuses you from such various accusations of error.

No amount of accusations of error excuses you from the factuality of my denial of your failed attempts to misrepresent me and the truth I espouse over your prefered prelest of Triadism.

I've never been quite sure why you're so vile and nasty at every turn. Perhaps it's from being a weaker vessel given to deception.

 

[Nihilo]

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you" (2nd Corinthians 13:14, or 2nd Corinthians 13:13 in Catholic Bibles).

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20).

You don't see a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, not even from St. John's account?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you" (2nd Corinthians 13:14, or 2nd Corinthians 13:13 in Catholic Bibles).

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20).

You don't see a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, not even from St. John's account?

Of course. They're just not three hypostases/one ousia. Feel free to provide specific scriptural reference to F/S/HS being three hypostases without sheer presumption and inference from indoctrination and ideology.

You might want to also account for the many references to the one God and Father, since God is allegedly an ousia and the Father is allegedly one of multiple hypostases.

Odd that the only 6 examples of water baptism in scripture were all done utilizing some form of Lord Jesus Christ instead of the alleged "formula" from Matthew 28:19. Hmmm.....

And notice the verse you quoted says "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God (NOT the Father) and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit...".

And it's one of many references to God (NOT the Father) and Jesus Christ. That always gets glossed in favor of presumption of multiple hypostases.

That's because God is a Monohypostatic Trinity rather than a Multihypostatic Trinity.

 

[Nihilo]

You don't see a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, not even from St. John's account?

Of course.

So what is the distinction's purpose? It has led us to believe that there are three persons in the one Holy Trinity, and it has duped most every Christian, alive and dead. What are your thoughts? Or, am I misunderstanding?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So what is the distinction's purpose?

To know the truth of God's constitution.

It has led us to believe that there are three persons in the one Holy Trinity,

No. The indoctrination of men according to shallow conceptualization has led to that belief. Nobody sat down with scripture apart from formulated doctrine and said, "Hey, look. Scripture says God is three hypostases/one ousia. It doesn't.

Indoctrinates believe what they're taught, and every facet of further study is just to affirm and confirm it without searching out the truth beyond such dogma, especially when it's so close.

and it has duped most every Christian, alive and dead.

Yep.

What are your thoughts?

That there was a singular omission of misunderstanding, upon which a doctrinal foundation was built to compensate for that omission.

Or, am I misunderstanding?

No, you're not misunderstanding. Scripture gives us one ousia (by grammatical extraction) and one hypostasis for God; and one prosopon for the express image OF that singular hypostasis.

Scripture clearly refers to the one God and Father, and His Logos and Pneuma. And the Word became flesh as the Son.

God is a Monohypostatic Trinity. The truth is obscured by the omission of created eternity as the time property of the third heaven.

 

[Nihilo]

To know the truth of God's constitution.



No. The indoctrination of men according to shallow conceptualization has led to that belief. Nobody sat down with scripture apart from formulated doctrine and said, "Hey, look. Scripture says God is three hypostases/one ousia. It doesn't.

Indoctrinates believe what they're taught, and every facet of further study is just to affirm and confirm it without searching out the truth beyond such dogma, especially when it's so close.



Yep.



That there was a singular omission of misunderstanding, upon which a doctrinal foundation was built to compensate for that omission.



No, you're not misunderstanding. Scripture gives us one ousia (by grammatical extraction) and one hypostasis for God; and one prosopon for the express image OF that singular hypostasis.

Scripture clearly refers to the one God and Father, and His Logos and Pneuma. And the Word became flesh as the Son.

God is a Monohypostatic Trinity. The truth is obscured by the omission of created eternity as the time property of the third heaven.

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand" (John 10:29). Surely this verse indicates a distinction between the Father and the Son, because the Father "is greater than all" (including the Son). There are other passages which indicate same. Why would Christ say that the Father is greater than he, if there is no distinction between them? I still feel as if I'm not understanding you....

 

[George Affleck]

It's all about the simplicity of God. God is much more one than three.

Ok, I can't let you get away with this one without calling you on it! :sherlock:

How is it possible to talk about God being much more anything than anything else?

 

[George Affleck]

So what is the distinction's purpose? It has led us to believe that there are three persons in the one Holy Trinity, and it has duped most every Christian, alive and dead. What are your thoughts? Or, am I misunderstanding?

PPS is doing us a great service by challenging us to, if not necessarily agree with him, at the very least, not slip into Modalism which we agree is heresy.

It is all too easy (I find this of myself) to elevate the 'distinction' between the Persons of the Trinity when (Biblically) 'between' is a Modalistic term.

I am convinced that a real problem is in the understanding of the English word 'Person' when applied to the Trinity. It is, after all, only a best choice of a single word. If we could add a percentage of the words "jurisdiction" "administration" "protocol", and some others, to our definition of the word Person it would help immunize against lazy thinking.