|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/15/2008 8:45:46 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am sure you can read persons into this passage, but it is not literally there.
Yes, yes it is. I don't see how you can say otherwise! Jesus mentions Himself, He mentions His Father, and He mentions the Helper separately. I don't understand how this cannot be seen as mentioning three separate persons.
quote:
Also, in Deut. 6 "Adonai Elohiem, Adonai is one." is literally there.
Again, yes, it is, but in this case "one" does not necessarily mean that God is stonily unified. Another legitimate idea of the word used for "one" here is "unique" (indeed, the NASB translates the same word as "unique" a number of times), or another similar word. I believe God here is declaring Himself unique, separate from and higher than all other gods.
quote:
how seeing Adonai as representing Himself in multiple ways to increase understanding is dangerous.
Well, I'm still not sure what you mean by this, so let me ask you this - Was Jesus Christ God Himself, come in the flesh?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 12:35:53 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3490
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
I think one of the most important distinctions to make here is that, when speaking of the Trinity, "person" does not mean what we usually make it mean. That is to say, the persons of the Trinity are not, as Dictionary.com so conveniently puts it, "1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child" but rather, "13. Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Or perhaps even, in a very broad sense, "4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being." So when the persons of the Trinity are mentioned, it is certainly not in such a narrow way as to imply They are just like us (though of course, in some ways, we are blessedly like God; we can love, we are creative, we are moral, other such things).
Also, your views on God the Father (in your post, G-d) are fascinating. Could you elaborate further on what you believe in this area? : )
Well, I don't have a dictionary from the time that these creeds were written and accepted. Bummer. And you know how living languages changes over very short periods of time. I'm just not ready to trust a modern dictionary with regard to these ancient creeds.  ...You know....
To me, our Messiah took on humanness or personhood and will retain that for all eternity, ye He is G-d. His choice. Easy to call Him a "person," then.
But in the trinitarian teaching, when did the G-d and the H Spirit take on humaness or personhood?
Mr. Fribbles (what a funny, cute name! Where did it come from?), I don't know what you want me to tell you re my limitedunderstand of G-d. Would you mind being specific? 
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, you are the one that loses." ~~Gianna Jesson, 1977 LA, CA, saline abortion survivor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 12:40:12 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3490
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JesKlu
The Trinity is kindof hard to explain, but it is revealed in the scriptures. God is Trinity, but still only one God. Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity. I do have a couple of ways to explain.
St Patrick, when he went to Ireland to convert unbelievers, he explained the Trinity using a three-leaf clover. There is only one clover, but three leaves. There is only One God, but three divine persons.
Another, more modern example is H2O. H2O exists in 3 states, liquid (water), solid (ice), and gas (steam). But they are all H20. Same goes with the Trinity. All three persons are One God.
About those who do not confess the Trinity, they are unorthodox, and I wouldn't even say they are Christian. It is a heresy called Modulism. If I spelled that right.
Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica
Jess, Messiah was real good with analogies, but when common folk try to use them, for me, I get a glassed-over gaze, my eyes start shutting, and I fall into a disturbed sleep.  I used to try to use all those little comparisons when I taught Sunday school, and I knew better then as well.
I'm sorry, honey! It just doesn't work.
Married to Peter yet?
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, you are the one that loses." ~~Gianna Jesson, 1977 LA, CA, saline abortion survivor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 1:02:17 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, I don't have a dictionary from the time that these creeds were written and accepted. Bummer. And you know how living languages changes over very short periods of time. I'm just not ready to trust a modern dictionary with regard to these ancient creeds. ...You know....
Good point. Heh, I actually wasn't thinking of the creeds when I was trying to define "person," since, while I do appreciate the value of creeds, I don't believe something just because it's in one.
So yeah, I definitely accept that it is possible the writers of the creeds may have meant something different than our use of "person," but whenever I use the word in this discussion, it will most often mean the definitions I provided before. That is, person does not equate to human. There are human persons, angelic persons, demonic persons, one Satanic persons, and I believe three Godly persons. And of course by all that, I don't mean persons who share characteristics of their descriptive adjectives, but rather persons who are, in their very essence, human, angelic, etc.
quote:
o me, our Messiah took on humanness or personhood and will retain that for all eternity, ye He is G-d. His choice. Easy to call Him a "person," then.
But in the trinitarian teaching, when did the G-d and the H Spirit take on humaness or personhood?
Now, from my above definition of person, Jesus always had "personhood," but as you rightly said, only took on his humanness when He became incarnate (incidentally, I also believe He will retain that humanity for all of eternity).
Similarly, God the Father and the Holy Spirit have possessed personhood for all eternity, but have not (and I believe, will not) ever take on humanness.
quote:
Mr. Fribbles (what a funny, cute name! Where did it come from?), I don't know what you want me to tell you re my limitedunderstand of G-d. Would you mind being specific?
quote:
It appears to me to be G-d, Spirit, and Person who are G-d.
Heh, thanks! My name is from a British comedy/sci-fi show called Red Dwarf. It's a bit difficult to explain without seeing the show, but basically Mr. Fribbles is a stuffed penguin that shows up for one episode.
The quote I put down there was what especially intrigued me. You seem to refer to "G-d" twice, but, if I'm reading it right, seem to be referring to two separate... I don't know. That's what I would enjoy elaboration on. : )
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 1:19:03 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3490
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
quote:
It appears to me to be G-d, Spirit, and Person who are G-d.
I'm sorry. I am likely very dense tonight. May I use the excuse that I have been working today from 10:25 a.m. until 9:15, with only one 1-hour break? (Don't feel sorry for me -- I run the office, and if I do something stupid, it's my own fault.)
Would it help if I wrote that G-d, H Spirit, and Person (Messiah) are all G-d at the same time?
The thing is, I cannot explain G-d, I cannot define Him, and I don't try. I that he is too great, too far above me to try, so I don't, except in minor ways.
I will tell you this much: From the time I was a toddler until I was 14, I hated G-d passionately. Vehemently. With every bone in my body. The church I was in strongly separated Messiah from G-d, and I saw Messiah as an abused child whose wiched Father lied to Him and allowed people to abuse Him, so I felt sorry for Messiah. Although I changed my mind about Him at 14, I never had one single inkling of the love of G-d until I was in my twenties and close to delivering my own first child. Since then, I have been learning about the love of G-d, and I am not even close to completing the lessons.
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, you are the one that loses." ~~Gianna Jesson, 1977 LA, CA, saline abortion survivor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 5:04:15 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drussell52
Over the past couple years my view of God and faith have changed somewhat. I am not so comfortable to say God in 3 persons,i.e.,
blessed Trinity, (see hymn titled Holy Holy Holy) but God more as someone that cannot be explained into human terms, because than God ceases to be God in the truest sense. I don't think Scripture lets us get pass the idea of one God yet three persons. In Scripture God uses the pronoun "he" for the Holy Spirit indicating "person". He has a name as does the Father and Son(Mat 28:19). He is called the Advocate, the Helper, one who is sent by Christ.
And, hopefully, there's no disbelief that Jesus Christ is God. If not, He certainly is a "person". I absolutely agree God cannot be explained; but, He did reveal certain things about Himself so that we can understand. Other than what He has revealed, I don't worry about or try to come up with explanations which must by necessity fall far short.
quote:
Are their "believers" who may not define the trinity in such defined strictures, and if so are they regarded as unorthydox? How then are you defining God if not One God - Three Persons?
quote:
So a conscious decision has to be made to exercise standing firm, not just something one does like snapping their fingers. I agree, our faith is always consciously exercised. We are called to "stand firm" in the faith in 1Corinthians 16:13 "Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong." and in 1Thessalonians 3:8 "for now we really live, if you stand firm in the Lord."
quote:
You think that one who takes their faith serious is allowd to have wiggle room? Do you mean by "wiggle room" that we should not automatically accept everything that is considered "orthodox"? If so, then yes, I would say we are called not to simply agree but to study and learn for ourselves.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 4:50:54 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2171
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
I know that the idea of "persons" comes from one of the creeds both the R. Catholic doctrines and most of the protestant doctrines accept. Does anyone know how they came up with the word "persons"? G-d is G-d; the H Spirit is a spirit but G-d; Messiah, while eternal, is now a man or a person but G-d. So how did they come up with "persons"? It appears to me to be G-d, Spirit, and Person who are G-d. What am I missing here? I just don't think He is that easy to quantify.
As far as I know, the term "person" is a kludge, "a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem." There is no word in English, or any other language most likely, that perfectly describes anything about God. We need some word when discussing theology to talk about how scripture talks about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so we use the word "person" for lack of a perfect term.
One thing you need to realize is that when discussing Christian theology, the word person does NOT refer to humanity in any way. While common usage of the word person may usually mean a human, that is not the way it is used when discussing Christian theology. This is not an uncommon occurrence. The word grace is in a similar position. The primary secular usage of the word grace is "elegance or beauty of form, manner, motion, or action." To many people, the word grace has nothing to do with the unmerited favor of God, but is something vaguely to do with being able to walk with books balanced on one's head.
As I have said before, the way that scripture talks about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is different than it talks about the various ways that God has manifest to humanity. That is why there is a need for a convenient term to use in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
quote:
Jess, Messiah was real good with analogies, but when common folk try to use them, for me, I get a glassed-over gaze, my eyes start shutting, and I fall into a disturbed sleep. I used to try to use all those little comparisons when I taught Sunday school, and I knew better then as well.
You know what, I hate analogies as well. I avoid them whenever possible. I still use them when someone wants proof that a certain concept isn't illogical, but I never use them as proof or primary explanation. If you read one of the numerous other threads on the trinity, you'll see I'm quick to point out where analogies don't line up with scripture, and that I prefer to stick to scripture to show that God is triune.
On that note, lets get going with some scripture and some questions about that scripture. The first section will be verbatim quote from several other threads. Very few people who reject the triune nature of God are willing to answer these questions, and that's because any answer that is contrary to trinitarian doctrine is inevitably heretical.
Here is my question: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
Daniel 7:13-14
13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.
Read this passage and tell me who the Son of Man is. Please be detailed, and make sure that any terms you use in your reply are clearly defined by your answer. Also, answer these questions: Who is the Ancient of Days? Does the Son of Man deserve what He receives in this passage? Why or why not? Do you see any parallels between this passage and Revelation chapter 5?
We'll move on with more questions I've asked many many times before, rarely receiving an answer from those who reject the triune God, let alone one that is consistent with scripture.
John 6:38-40
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
So, who came down from heaven, and who sent him? Whose will is being done, and whose will is not being done? Who will be raising up believers on the last day?
John 8:16-19
16"But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. 17"Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. 18"I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me." 19So they were saying to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also."
Who testifies in this verse? Who are the two witnesses that Jesus Christ is talking about?
Luke 23:46
Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.
Whose spirit is being committed here and who is being addressed?
John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Who had glory with the Father before the world began?
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 4:56:17 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2171
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
If this is the case, then why is a general understanding and conceptualization of Adonai as one being manifesting Himself in several ways that we can relate to so repugnant?
Because that view is incompatible with what scripture has declared. Just for a start:
John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God.
Here, the Word is both WITH God, and is God. The Word was with God in the beginning, before there was anything to manifest to! If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were just God's manifestations, then the Word would not have been with God in the beginning. Lets be sure of something here, the definition of manfiestation:
Manifest
1. readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest error.
3. to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding; show plainly: He manifested his approval with a hearty laugh.
manifestation
1. an act of manifesting.
2. the state of being manifested.
3. outward or perceptible indication; materialization:
God does have many manifestations in scripture. God manifest as a burning bush to Moses, but God existed before and after that burning bush. The Holy Spirit manifest as a dove and as tongues of fire, but the Holy Spirit has existence far beyond the times when those manifestatations were present, the Holy Spirit is eternal. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are treated by scripture in a completely different manner than any of the manifestations of God in scripture. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are revealed by scripture to be something more than just ways that God interacts with humanity. In fact, they are clearly defined by scripture as relating to each other before creation. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were merely manifestations of God, then they would only have idenity in relation to something in creation. However, scripture tells us that Father, Son and Holy Spirit existed in relationship with each other before anything was created at all!
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 5:06:12 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2171
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
The Shema(Duet 6) clearly states thatAdonai is one and Yeshua(Jess) clearly says, "The Father and I are one." So what is wrong with seeing Adonai in this way?
There is no problem in viewing God as one. However, there is a problem with viewing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit merely as different ways that God has acted in relation to creation. Actually, there are many many problems. There are so many passages in scripture that are incompatible with such modalistic views that there are already dozens of threads going on the subject. Threads in which you have refused to answer my questions and deal with the truth of scripture.
Just to focus on one of those issues though, the Sonship of Jesus Christ. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, but your doctrine (whatever you choose to call it) denies that. You believe that the Son only became the Son when He became human. You believe that the Only Begotten Son of God is human flesh. The problem with that is what the Bible says about the nature of begetting. Each kind begets after it's own kind. It makes as much sense to say that the God begat human flesh as it would to say that a trout begat an apple tree. Divinity begets divinity. The Son of God is God, and must be to truly be the Son of God. Without being the Son of GOD, God from God, then the Son has no rights to all the things that scripture says the Son has as part of His inheritance from the Father. This is a pivotal issue, because our inheritance as Christians is dependent on the Son's inheritance. We are only Sons of God because of the Son's sonship, a sonship of divinity holding rights to what only divinity has inherent rights to (like eternal life and an eternal kingdom).
Furthermore, we know that the Son of God, being God from God, is eternal because God does not change. God cannot change from being not-a-father to being Father and Son. The eternal nature of God is to be unchanging. For the Son to truly be the Only Begotten Son of God, His nature as Only Begotten must be an eternal nature.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 5:11:58 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2171
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
But in the trinitarian teaching, when did the G-d and the H Spirit take on humaness or personhood?
Just to be clear, the word person is not the same as human. The Father and the Holy Spirit never became incarnate as the Son did.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, and always have been, distinct from each other. God has eternally existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is eternally the Only Begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit has eternally proceeded from the Father. Before anything in creation was made, God existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son had glory with the Father before the world was. "Person" is not the perfect word to describe what the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, but no human words are perfect in their description of anything about God. However, the truth remains that it is God's eternal nature to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit, independent of any involvement with creation.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 5:16:39 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1161
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
figmentPez:
Very few people who reject the triune nature of God are willing to answer these questions, and that's because any answer that is contrary to trinitarian doctrine is inevitably heretical.
Since, it would probably be more accurate for the above statement to say, Very few people who reject the triune nature of God are able to answer these questions, and that's because figmentPez has defined any answer that is contrary to trinitarian doctrine as heretical., I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/16/2008 5:40:46 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2171
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Since, it would probably be more accurate for the above statement to say, Very few people who reject the triune nature of God are able to answer these questions, and that's because figmentPez has defined any answer that is contrary to trinitarian doctrine as heretical., I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me.
No, not just by my definition. Any answer given that is contrary to trinitarian doctrine will conflict with scripture, to the point of making grievous error about the revealed nature of God. Use your fear as a cop-out if you want to, but running from the issue will not lead you to truth. Peter didn't run from answering the question "Who do you say that the Son of Man is?" even though that answer had to be revealed to him by the Father.
If your beliefs about God are true, then they should be able to stand the test of being compared with scripture. If what you believe about the nature of God is truly based on scripture, then you should be able to answer questions about scripture, especially those questions actually posed in scripture.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/17/2008 12:55:26 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Would it help if I wrote that G-d, H Spirit, and Person (Messiah) are all G-d at the same time?
OK, let me see if I can be clear... I will post your quote again with a few modifications to help clarify.
quote:
Would it help if I wrote that G-d(1), H Spirit, and Person (Messiah) are all G-d(2) at the same time?
Now, my question is, in your mind is G-d(1) and G-d(2) the same? That is, when you used G-d twice in one sentence, did you mean it the same way both times, or did you mean something different? If you meant something different, then what did you mean? If you meant the same thing, are you saying that, using trinity language, that the Son and the Spirit are really just part of the Father?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/17/2008 1:39:44 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3490
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
But in the trinitarian teaching, when did the G-d and the H Spirit take on humaness or personhood?
quote:
ORIGINAL: figmentPez
Just to be clear, the word person is not the same as human. The Father and the Holy Spirit never became incarnate as the Son did.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, and always have been, distinct from each other. God has eternally existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is eternally the Only Begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit has eternally proceeded from the Father. Before anything in creation was made, God existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son had glory with the Father before the world was. "Person" is not the perfect word to describe what the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, but no human words are perfect in their description of anything about God. However, the truth remains that it is God's eternal nature to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit, independent of any involvement with creation.
What confuses me, then, is what good does the use of person do, if no one understands it? That is VERY confusing to me. If person doesn't mean person, there is no Hebrew or K. Greek word we can look up to clarify it, and there is no 4th century dictionary we can refer to learn what was intended, does that not render the use of the word person basically useless, since it refers to something completely unknown and non-understandable in 2008?
G-d is G-d, and He is beyond comprehension. That is not only enough for me, but I like that! The "Angel" asked, "Why do you ask me to tell you my Name, seeing it is wonderful?" I don't want to be able to explain G-d! I have no desire to explain G-d! When I can explain Him, He has become too small. When I can explain Him, I have recreated Him in my own image. Hey, it is pretty cheeky to think one is able to just explain Him like one explains an egg.
In spite of the fact that you are now 30% nerdier than when we had this conversation before, it's just not working for me, Pez.
quote:
Original: Abiyah
Would it help if I wrote that G-d, H Spirit, and Person (Messiah) are all G-d at the same time?
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
OK, let me see if I can be clear... I will post your quote again with a few modifications to help clarify.
quote:
Original: Abiyah
Would it help if I wrote that G-d(1), H Spirit, and Person (Messiah) are all G-d(2) at the same time?
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
Now, my question is, in your mind is G-d(1) and G-d(2) the same? That is, when you used G-d twice in one sentence, did you mean it the same way both times, or did you mean something different? If you meant something different, then what did you mean? If you meant the same thing, are you saying that, using trinity language, that the Son and the Spirit are really just part of the Father?
Mr. Fribbles, I simply cannot explain Him. Bottom line. And I don't believe anyone else can either.
The Father manifested Himself in the Creation. The H Spirit hovered over the waters. The Bible, in these Scriptures, clearly called G-d Elohim at that time. G-d manifested Himself upon the mountain at the giving of Torah. G-d wrote Torah on the tablets and upon the hearts of believers. He showed Himself to be the giver of children. He showed Himself as the Shekina. In the Scriptures, He is called the Creator, as is Messiah. He is called the Mighty G-d, as is Messiah. He is called G-d the Father in the Scriptures. Messiah is called the Son of G-d in the Scriptures. The H Spirit is called the H Spirit of G-d in the Scriptures.
But the creeds appear to be trying to "put words in the mouth" of the Bible when they change the language, re-explaining what the Bible has already said.
The Bible is enough. God says everything clearly enough that we (in my opinion) do not need creeds to try to redefine "what G-d was trying to say." That I cannot define G-d does not bother me, and it must not bother G-d either, because He knows that He is clearly too wonderful, too far above my imagination, too intelligent for me to try.
I don't know, Mr. Fribbles -- I simply do not have the intelligence to define Who G-d is. Simple as that.
< Message edited by Covaan_Meshuga -- 5/17/2008 1:47:15 AM >
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, you are the one that loses." ~~Gianna Jesson, 1977 LA, CA, saline abortion survivor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/18/2008 3:43:45 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
But the creeds appear to be trying to "put words in the mouth" of the Bible when they change the language, re-explaining what the Bible has already said.
The Bible is enough. God says everything clearly enough that we (in my opinion) do not need creeds to try to redefine "what G-d was trying to say."
If the Bible is clear enough, then why do we have so many disagreements? If it's really just a matter of reading Scripture, then why have Christians fought amongst themselves for centuries over various doctrinal issues?
I do agree that the Bible is enough - but we must be extremely diligent in its study. We cannot, must not, read it lightly, and assume that we have come to a sufficient understanding of what is being taught. And I believe that creeds (and other similar concepts - doctrinal statements and such things), though certainly not necessary, make things much simpler for those believers who are not gifted in the area of studying Scripture.
quote:
That I cannot define G-d does not bother me, and it must not bother G-d either, because He knows that He is clearly too wonderful, too far above my imagination, too intelligent for me to try.
I would disagree. God wants to be known. God loves to be known. He has shown Himself in so many ways to us, and I refuse to believe that He does not want us to be constantly digging deeper into a knowledge of who He is. I see nothing in Scripture that suggests we can ever know enough about Him and who He is.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/18/2008 3:59:06 PM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3490
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
Then we disagree. I have disagreed with others here, and we have remained friends, so I hope that will be the same case between us.
As far as the churches disagreeing, of course they do, but that does not mean I must fall in step with them. They are having to contend with tradition that was built upon an entity with which they may always be at war, but I don't embrace their traditions, so I don't believe that is also my fight. Thus, their creeds are also irrelevant to me. However, some of their words, while I reject the creeds, still demand my attention, because most Christians do accept them as relevant and necessary truths.
When it comes to knowing G-d, of course, I know Him, and I know Him as much as He wants me to know Him. However, to claim to be able to define Him leads to disregarding the fact that He is above human knowledge. He has given us His words, which reveals everything He wants us to know in this life. To claim that we have more knowledge than what is in that Book is to add to the Scriptures, and that is unlawful. I will not have more knowledge than what the Word clearly says until I am with Him, and I am satisfied with that.
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, you are the one that loses." ~~Gianna Jesson, 1977 LA, CA, saline abortion survivor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/18/2008 7:48:47 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have disagreed with others here, and we have remained friends, so I hope that will be the same case between us.
Oh, certainly. : ) That's my hope as well.
quote:
To claim that we have more knowledge than what is in that Book is to add to the Scriptures, and that is unlawful.
Heh, again, I would disagree. Now, obviously, if someone were to, say, write another "holy" scripture (like, the Book of Mormon), or claim to have a direct revelation from God that contradicts Scripture, than absolutely, they would be trying to add to Scripture in a way that is contradictory to God's will. However, I feel that there are many ways that God shows Himself to people in ways outside of Scripture. Romans 1 indicates as much, especially verses 18-21.
Also, on a very basic level, of course there is more knowledge than is revealed in Scripture - the Bible never mentions cars, but obviously, heh, cars exist. It also never mentions Christian internet forums. ; )
quote:
I will not have more knowledge than what the Word clearly says until I am with Him, and I am satisfied with that.
See, there are a lot of things that Scripture does not clearly teach. For example, it never explicitly says that Christ is deity. Now of course, I believe it teaches it - anyone who says it doesn't cannot rightly claim to be a Christian. However, Scripture never comes right out and says it. The deity of the Spirit is even less explicitly taught.
The idea of canonical New Testament books are not clearly taught at all. Again, obviously true, but it's not something that is clear in Scripture. Some truths must be dug out - they are not merely waiting on the surface for us to find and pick up, easy as that.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/18/2008 8:43:55 PM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3490
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Abiyah
I have disagreed with others here, and we have remained friends, so I hope that will be the same case between us.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
Oh, certainly. : ) That's my hope as well.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Abiyah
To claim that we have more knowledge than what is in that Book is to add to the Scriptures, and that is unlawful.
There is a HUGE difference between having knowledge and having understanding or supposition or assumptions that are based upon Scripture. When it comes to the Bible, one can legitimately say, "The Bible clearly states ___ ___ and ___," if, indeed, the Bible does state "___ ___ and ___." But when it comes to those things we deduce from the Bible, we must be very careful! To tell them as though they are biblical truths is, in my opinion, wrong and presumptuous.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
Heh, again, I would disagree. Now, obviously, if someone were to, say, write another "holy" scripture (like, the Book of Mormon), or claim to have a direct revelation from God that contradicts Scripture, than absolutely, they would be trying to add to Scripture in a way that is contradictory to God's will. However, I feel that there are many ways that God shows Himself to people in ways outside of Scripture. Romans 1 indicates as much, especially verses 18-21. Would you explain how this Scriptures proves your hypothesis?
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
Also, on a very basic level, of course there is more knowledge than is revealed in Scripture - the Bible never mentions cars, but obviously, heh, cars exist. It also never mentions Christian internet forums. ; )
Are we having fun? I am so far! It's a dance! Turn on the music! I'm dancing with Mr. Fribbles! hee-hee!
But seriously, this, to me, is like comparing alphabet blocks to horses! What are you writing here?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Abiyah
I will not have more knowledge than what the Word clearly says until I am with Him, and I am satisfied with that.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mr. Fribbles
See, there are a lot of things that Scripture does not clearly teach. For example, it never explicitly says that Christ is deity..
Mr. Fribbles, then you and I are reading different Bibles. My Bible clearly states that He is G-d, Eternal, and Creator.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mr. Fribbles
The idea of canonical New Testament books are not clearly taught at all. Again, obviously true, but it's not something that is clear in Scripture. Some truths must be dug out - they are not merely waiting on the surface for us to find and pick up, easy as that. Now, this is a little too obvious. To accept that the Apostolic Writings are a true and legitimate account must be taken first on faith, just as we must first accept the first Scriptures. My faith that the Scriptures are all true, however, does not legitimize what people assume about the Scriptures, whether the one who assumes is me or anyone else.
< Message edited by Covaan_Meshuga -- 5/18/2008 8:50:08 PM >
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, you are the one that loses." ~~Gianna Jesson, 1977 LA, CA, saline abortion survivor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/18/2008 10:39:52 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2171
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
What confuses me, then, is what good does the use of person do, if no one understands it? That is VERY confusing to me. If person doesn't mean person, there is no Hebrew or K. Greek word we can look up to clarify it, and there is no 4th century dictionary we can refer to learn what was intended, does that not render the use of the word person basically useless, since it refers to something completely unknown and non-understandable in 2008?
This is absurd. I have never said, nor even insinuated, that the word "person" is not understood within it's theological usage. That you and others refuse to even attempt to understand it does not mean that there is not a solid definition. That definition has already been hinted at here, with it's lacking dictionary definition given by MrFribbles in Post #18. One which you ignored and went right on talking about "person" being the same as "human" (which it is not). Now, the dictionary is not a good place to get theological words defined.
On the note of misunderstanding words let me give a couple of examples. First, there is the case of Nicodemus, who didn't understand what Jesus meant when He said that one must be born again to be saved. Nicodemus wondered how a man could enter into his mother's womb when he was old. However, being born again has nothing to do with coming out of a womb. A second example would be Muslims denying that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God because they think that the word begotten means that sex was involved. However, there was no sex involved in the begetting of the Son of God, there wasn't even a mother involved in the begetting of the Son of God. Two examples of words used in scripture, but misunderstood because of preconceptions about their meanings.
Back to the topic at hand, the word person comes loosely from the Latin word persona, meaning role. However, in philosophy and theology, the term is closely identified with the essential self of an individual. One definition of person from the American Heritage Dictionary is "The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self." When Christians say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "persons" we mean that scripture shows them to have the qualities necessary to be classified as each having their own self. Let's look at that:
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
Matthew 26:39
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."
The Son has His own will.
Luke 23:46
Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.
The Son has His own spirit.
John 8:13, 17-18, 24-28
13So the Pharisees said to Him, "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true."
17"Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. (Deut 17:6, 19:15)
18"I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me."
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
25So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning?
26"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
28So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
The Son and the Father provide two testimonies, each is a witness in their own right.
- John 15: 26
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
- Romans 8:16, 26-27
16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
26In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;
27and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
The Spirit can testify as well, and intercedes for us. The Holy Spirit has a mind of His own, as well.
These verses, among many others, show that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each posses the qualities necessary to be called "persons" after the theological definition. They each think their own thoughts, have their own will, have the ability to give testimony, have their own spirit. They are distinguished from each other in scripture, even though never seperated. The Father speaks about and to the Son, the Son speaks about and to the Father. The Son is presented before the Father, and sits at the right hand of the Father. From the beginning the Son has been with the Father.
The term person is not perfect because it implies to humanity to many people. The same can be said of the term "born again" because the word birth causes many people to think of coming out of a mother's womb. This potential confusion does not mean that either term is inapplicable, or cannot be understood. The term person is also not perfect because it is used in a specialized way that goes beyond it's origin. That's true for many other terms as well, possibly including the Greek/Hebrew words for spirit, which also double as wind or breath. Just as a person's spirit is more than just air, and not all uses of the word wind are actually talking about spirit, so too a "person" in theological terms is something else than just a human. Regardless of any confusion caused by the overlap of terms, the words still have meaning, and are still completely correct to use.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: shifting beliefs - 5/18/2008 10:44:52 PM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3490
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: figmentPez
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
What confuses me, then, is what good does the use of person do, if no one understands it? That is VERY confusing to me. If person doesn't mean person, there is no Hebrew or K. Greek word we can look up to clarify it, and there is no 4th century dictionary we can refer to learn what was intended, does that not render the use of the word person basically useless, since it refers to something completely unknown and non-understandable in 2008?
This is absurd. I have never said, nor even insinuated, that the word "person" is not understood within it's theological usage. That you and others refuse to even attempt to understand it does not mean that there is not a solid definition.
I am sorry, Figment, but when you start a post to me with this attitude, when I am making an honest effort to understand where people are coming from, and you simply to not like that you can explain a concept so that others understand it, it creates a chasm between you and me.
Maybe I am dim-witted, even stupid, but this was unnecessary.
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, yo | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
