Confusion re Statement of Faith

[Anth]

Must this turn into a debate on the Trinity?

Hi Free

Thanks for the comment - the OP was definitely not re: Trinity but how the Trinity was being described - and an offer to move towards a better description regardless of the validity of the concept. I realize that there may be some comments that have strayed a bit but this was the intent.

Best,
Anth

 

[stranger]

Must this turn into a debate on the Trinity?

Hi Free

Thanks for the comment - the OP was definitely not re: Trinity but how the Trinity was being described - and an offer to move towards a better description regardless of the validity of the concept. I realize that there may be some comments that have strayed a bit but this was the intent.

Best,
Anth

Hi Anth,

A definition or formula is not meant to change that which it defines, and so in the case of the doctrine of the trinity it is not intended to change what is expressed in the words 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'. I don't believe you could redefine the language to offer a better expression of the defintion of the trinity because you back away from the rationale to which orthodox Christians adhere. You seem to recognise that the doctrine of the trinity, as it stands, is incompatiable with what you believe about God.

Now if you were to compromise ('regardless of the validity of the concept') the bottom line is: how compatiable is truth with error? The foundation advocated and soberly considered is not one upon which we dare build anything. Agreed?

blessings

 

[Anth]

Stranger,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Admittedly I did not grasp your entire point but made my best effort to respond below

A definition or formula is not meant to change that which it defines, and so in the case of the doctrine of the trinity it is not intended to change what is expressed in the words 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'.

I agree with what I understand you are saying - something to the effect that just because a formula is inadquate or defective, this does not demonstrate that the concept being described is anything other than originally intended.

I don't believe you could redefine the language to offer a better expression of the defintion of the trinity because you back away from the rationale to which orthodox Christians adhere.

You seem to be saying that just because I don't adhere to this theological concept, I necesarily am unable to either genuinely understand and/or genuinely describe it. If I am correct, I would assert this statement to be blatently false. If my understanding of your statement is accurate - you would not be able to understand or describe Mormon/JW theology or the like - however, I strongly suspect you would assert you are able to do so (and I would concur that you are able to do so). The same is true for any other doctrine such as Darwinian evolution.

The fact is that I fully understand the trinitarian theology and the hypostatic union - far beyond the vast majority of adherents to those doctrines (most don't recognize that explicit within these doctrines is the elimination of the Man Christ Jesus via the rejection of the human person of Christ - and the substitution of the human nature).

Let me please correct your statement re: "orthodox" Christianity. That is an assumption without foundation. I offered Tertullian's quote which unequivocably demonstrated that trinitarianism is NOT nor ever was "orthodox" Christianity.

 

[Anth]

You seem to recognise that the doctrine of the trinity, as it stands, is incompatiable with what you believe about God.

It is incompatible with how I understand the consciousness of the Creator primarily because it is incompatible with both scriptural canon, simple history of theology and my experience in Christ.

Now if you were to compromise ('regardless of the validity of the concept') the bottom line is: how compatiable is truth with error?

I am a little lost here. There is no compromise by providing a more adquate description of the concept of the trinity. It would serve us all well to have a comprehensive, cohesive description of the trinity regardless of whether an atheist created this description or the man in the moon. We have to know what we are talking about before we began.

Stranger, please remember that the trinity, as a "reality" is really simply an idea in your mind and the mind of many others - you personally have never seen the trinity, you have never touched the trinity nor have you had a chat with the trinity. This is simply an ideology - nothing more.

The foundation advocated and soberly considered is not one upon which we dare build anything. Agreed?

Again, I am not sure what you are referring to - what foundation??

Best,
In the One Being,

Anth

 

[stranger]

Hi Anth,

Thanks for your response. The older post is included for continuity.

You seem to recognise that the doctrine of the trinity, as it stands, is incompatable with what you believe about God.

It is incompatible with how I understand the consciousness of the Creator primarily because it is incompatible with both scriptural canon, simple history of theology and my experience in Christ.

Yes. The Christian faith has great diversity and it is unfortunate that you and a few others are at odds with what is commonly believed. That is why I had trouble finding you in the theological spectrum – former SDA?

Now if you were to compromise ('regardless of the validity of the concept') the bottom line is: how compatable is truth with error?

I am a little lost here. There is no compromise by providing a more adquate description of the concept of the trinity. It would serve us all well to have a comprehensive, cohesive description of the trinity regardless of whether an atheist created this description or the man in the moon. We have to know what we are talking about before we began.

Stranger, please remember that the trinity, as a "reality" is really simply an idea in your mind and the mind of many others - you personally have never seen the trinity, you have never touched the trinity nor have you had a chat with the trinity. This is simply an ideology - nothing more.
Many of us are lost so for now you remain in good company. I’m not sure but most of the men who have gone to the moon probably believed in the trinity. As for the atheist he disqualifies himself from the task.

Trinity is not foremost in my mind except on these forums and in particular threads like this one. This is how I see the doctrine of the ‘trinity’ - it is a theological term or synonym for ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. This is as close as I can get to what I would call a primary level definition. The trinity also serves as a synonym for God.

In response to ‘you have personally never seen, touched, or chatted with God..’ Allow me to offer the following brief but firsthand testimony: On just two occasions – one day in 1975 and for just over four months in 2001, I entered and subsequently lost His rest.

The foundation advocated and soberly considered is not one upon which we dare build anything. Agreed?

Again, I am not sure what you are referring to - what foundation??

I am referring to the expression: 'regardless of the validity of the concept'. I can’t build 'regardless of the validity of the concept'. It would be to knowingly build with straw.

To finish this post I want to test a theory –this is my personal opinion, so no offence is intended by the following:

You have a prior objection that is merely reflected in the doctrine of the trinity. Given time and a little patience from you I think I can find out what it is.

Take care

 

[Anth]

To finish this post I want to test a theory –this is my personal opinion, so no offence is intended by the following:

You have a prior objection that is merely reflected in the doctrine of the trinity. Given time and a little patience from you I think I can find out what it is.

Stranger - Thanks for your response.

To answer your last first - I am happy to dialogue on any matter - regarding "objections" - I have many....

re: Idea in your mind
By this, I simply mean that you have had no personal experience with God that would necessitate that He was of one or three (or, three thousand) consciousnesses coexisting and embedded in a single essence. Someone told you that these scriptures and this reasoning resulting in this conception, i.e. the trinity - and you were convinced that it was so.

BTW - I had the same problem with coming to rest - I think I experience it genuinely for only a moment from time to time - I feel horrible I cannot maintain it.

best,
Anth

 

[stranger]

Hi Anth,

To answer your last first - I am happy to dialogue on any matter - regarding "objections" - I have many....

So long as your doctrine doesn't contradict the apostolic faith you have nothing to worry about!

re: Idea in your mind
By this, I simply mean that you have had no personal experience with God that would necessitate that He was of one or three (or, three thousand) consciousnesses coexisting and embedded in a single essence.

My experience with God? Here I have to say that I use another language or genre/ gift to express my experience with God. This is quite different to how I would express that experience using classical Christian doctrine. In fact I doubt that I could adequately answer your question using classical Christian doctrine. With the genre/gift I don't recall ever using the word 'trinity'.

Someone told you that these scriptures and this reasoning resulting in this conception, i.e. the trinity - and you were convinced that it was so.

Yes, along the way I heard or read about the trinity. However, I do distinguish between what is in scripture (primary source) and what can reasonably be inferred from scripture which is supposed to be 'theological reflection'.

take care

 

[Anth]

So long as your doctrine doesn't contradict the apostolic faith you have nothing to worry about!

I trust that it does not contradict the Messianic faith - and fully release my mind to Jesus Christ that I might reflect His - releasing all my ideas of any sort - and humbly and fearfully look to Him to provide direction. I trust that I am generally close.

With the genre/gift I don't recall ever using the word 'trinity'.

Not surprising... and I believe you would not be alone... :yes :amen

"reasonably be inferred from scripture which is supposed to be 'theological reflection'"

With distorted exegesis, there are a lot of ideas that might be "reasonably inferred".... humility is my only watch word (along with a good bit of on-going reading, re-reading, re-reading and listening...).

Best,
Anth

 

[stranger]

Anth wrote:

I trust that it does not contradict the Messianic faith - and fully release my mind to Jesus Christ that I might reflect His - releasing all my ideas of any sort - and humbly and fearfully look to Him to provide direction. I trust that I am generally close.

Perfect.

I wrote... 'what can be reasonably be inferred from scripture which is supposed to be 'theological reflection'

With distorted exegesis, there are a lot of ideas that might be "reasonably inferred".... humility is my only watch word (along with a good bit of on-going reading, re-reading, re-reading and listening...

But the distorted exegesis doesn't convince me, nor does exegesis that is actually interpretation. There are a number of value judgments that come into play. To repeat an argument to illustrate what I am saying:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I point out that in Genesis the pronouns 'us' and 'our' are used in the verse 'let us make man in our own image and likeness' and draw the conclusion:

The pronoun reflects 'plurality' in the way God speaks about Himself.

Note:
1. I don't consider this proves the trinity.
2. I do consider that this is a linguistic argument
3. I do consider my conclusion 'safely inferred' from scripture.

The point is what weight or significance do you place upon my conclusion? Why this is important is that God has started to reveal something about Himself. So to repeat my conclusion :

The pronoun reflects 'plurality' in the way God speaks about Himself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I would like you to do is to respond to what is within the dotted lines. Please don't read anything more into it than what is self evident at face value. I look forward to making some progress.

take care

 

[Anth]

The pronoun reflects 'plurality' in the way God speaks about Himself.

I like your approach - it does not read anything more into the text than what MAY be a possible inference.

As long as it is set in context with OTHER possible inferences and issues - I would be satisified with that approach.

One issue is, always, the quality of the text. I am curious whether you have ever looked at the text in the Septuagint or Vulgate? I have not done so. Likewise, other Hebrew texts - or the Syriac, etc.

I am also curious whether you have approached those of the Jewish faith - both current and historically to see how they have perceived this text.

What strikes me, as much as anything, is that this plural usage (although actually I think there are one or two more like this somewhere as I recall) is so totally out of keeping with what is obviously the massive preponderance of Jehovah's references to Himself (note the singular) that it is, at best, shocking.

As a result, what I would do is ask -

1. In what sense is God speaking of Himself in a plurality (which is to extend your inference)

and/or

2. In what sense is God using the plurality (which is how I would have began my effort to understand a passage that, with all due respect, I don't think we ever can - simply because no clarification is give to what is a total anamoly).

Both of the above at least start at the point of legitimacy with respect to the text and clear context of the OT.

Best,
Anth

 

[stranger]

Hi Anth
Thanks for the comments...

One issue is, always, the quality of the text. I am curious whether you have ever looked at the text in the Septuagint or Vulgate? I have not done so. Likewise, other Hebrew texts - or the Syriac, etc.

No, I haven’t worked with OT original languages except looking up occassional word roots.

I am also curious whether you have approached those of the Jewish faith - both current and historically to see how they have perceived this text.

Yes I discovered there is a Messianic church that I knew nothing about. In the Lord’s good providence I met a genuine Messianic Jew and spent the weekend at a conference he was speaking at.

What strikes me, as much as anything, is that this plural usage (although actually I think there are one or two more like this somewhere as I recall) is so totally out of keeping with what is obviously the massive preponderance of Jehovah's references to Himself (note the singular) that it is, at best, shocking.

If Calvin's adage is adopted : one or two exceptions does not abrogate a general rule we would end up with the rule or formula that caters beautifully for God is one. But if a general rule or formula is used to abrogate even one exception - I argue we have forfeited the apostolic standard. So if a piece doesn't fit into a framework - I accept it as eschatological tension , as it were.

As a result, what I would do is ask -

1. In what sense is God speaking of Himself in a plurality (which is to extend your inference)

2. In what sense is God using the plurality (which is how I would have began my effort to understand a passage that, with all due respect, I don't think we ever can - simply because no clarification is given to what is a total anomaly).

Both of the above at least start at the point of legitimacy with respect to the text and clear context of the OT.

My thoughts are that God confers (or takes council) with Himself, before creating man. So while I could not answer Q 1 & 2 directly I could try an indirect answer. When looking at the sun directly it’s too bright, so we look at it indirectly. Using the same approach:

when God says let us make man in our own image and likeness - the anomaly is total when we look directly at God, whose own image and likeness is unapproachable light.

when God says let us make man in our own image and likeness - the anomaly is partial when we look indirectly at God, by looking at man. Man made in the image and likeness of God, in Genesis 2.

take care

 

[francisdesales]

The Bible was obviously a later development of the Church, by the Church, and for the Church...

Not true. God used the Scriptures throughout His dealing with mankind. The term "It is written is found 80 times in the King James Version of Scripture in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Also the preaching of the "Word of God" is essential in the salvation of each and every person born again, born of God.

Sorry, been busy lately and have not been able to answer as quickly as I would like.

Yes, God has used Scriptures throughout His dealing with mankind. You know I agree with you. However, the term "Scriptures" for us means something different than the first Apostles. In addition, the first Christians had a different idea of what "Scriptures" was. The term "developed", as far as the content of the canon was concerned. This is beyond debate, Mike, and that is what I meant by the my comment about the Bible developing. The recognition of "The Word of God" was a developing item for ANYONE who cares to do the research. Some letters were considered Scriptures, others were not - and for quite some time, several hundred years later, to be specific.

The church is not shown in the Word of God as those who LORD over the believers, but as those who serve the believers.

Agreed. However, do you agree that authority can be abused? Does that fact mean that authority is to be dispensed? I have found that even the most beautiful gifts God has given to us can be abused and turned to occasions of sin. Sex comes to mind, for example... My point is I agree with you and we should not be excessively scandalized when members of the Church, pastors, receptionists, lay members, etc., overstep the intent that Christ had for those in authority.

Our faith rests in Christ, not the pastor, receptionists, etc.

The Holy Spirit gives the Word of God to the body of Christ through His body of believers through the gifts of the Spirit. This operation is not implemented or practiced by the works of man; but by the works of God Himself.

We agree there, as well. But let's not toss out the Church in God's plan, since God DID give us the Scriptures THROUGH the Church.

All teachings that contradict the Word of God are teachings of the devil himself.

Are you saying sola scriptura is of the devil, then? The concept contradicts Scriptures.

I am not so willing to say "all teachings that contradict the Word of God are teachings of the devil" in all cases, since man has his own opinions and it is not difficult to get them out of him if you ask... Often, opinions are just that.

Regards

 

[Solo]

The Bible was obviously a later development of the Church, by the Church, and for the Church...

Not true. God used the Scriptures throughout His dealing with mankind. The term "It is written is found 80 times in the King James Version of Scripture in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Also the preaching of the "Word of God" is essential in the salvation of each and every person born again, born of God.

Sorry, been busy lately and have not been able to answer as quickly as I would like.

Yes, God has used Scriptures throughout His dealing with mankind. You know I agree with you. However, the term "Scriptures" for us means something different than the first Apostles. In addition, the first Christians had a different idea of what "Scriptures" was. The term "developed", as far as the content of the canon was concerned. This is beyond debate, Mike, and that is what I meant by the my comment about the Bible developing. The recognition of "The Word of God" was a developing item for ANYONE who cares to do the research. Some letters were considered Scriptures, others were not - and for quite some time, several hundred years later, to be specific.

The key statement made is "The recognition of "The Word of God" was a developing item..."

It is entirely possible to possess the Scriptures without having a "canon".

By 100AD, all 27 books of the New Testament were in circulation (the majority of the books by 70AD) and all but Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation were universally accepted.

• The authority, of specific writings was questioned as early as the second half of the second century. Many older studies of the history of the canon, in my opinion, have drawn the wrong conclusion from this observation. The traditional interpretation asserts that these discussions reflect a debate about which writings should be included in the Christian Bible. But with the uniform manuscript evidence in mind, the critical remarks of the church fathers can be better interpreted as a historical critical reaction to an existing publication. Their debate as to the authorship and authority of the individual writings continues among biblical scholars to this very day, and then, as now, the publication to which they referred was the Canonical Edition of the Christian Bible. (The first edition of the New Testament, David Trobisch, 2000, p 35)

The church is not shown in the Word of God as those who LORD over the believers, but as those who serve the believers.

Agreed. However, do you agree that authority can be abused? Does that fact mean that authority is to be dispensed? I have found that even the most beautiful gifts God has given to us can be abused and turned to occasions of sin. Sex comes to mind, for example... My point is I agree with you and we should not be excessively scandalized when members of the Church, pastors, receptionists, lay members, etc., overstep the intent that Christ had for those in authority.

Our faith rests in Christ, not the pastor, receptionists, etc.

The Authority of the body of Christ is Christ Jesus Himself, and as the body of Christ operates within the gifts of the Spirit given to them as individuals, we serve God by serving each other. Ephesians 4 speaks perfectly of this issue, revealing that the positions of leadership given are for the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, the edifying of the body of Christ until we come in the unity of the faith, and knowledge of the Son of God unto becoming a perfect man measured by the fullness of Christ so that we are no longer babes in Christ, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine and sleight of men, and cunning craftiness used to deceive; but the speaking of truth in love instead.

• 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. Ephesians 4:11-16

The Holy Spirit gives the Word of God to the body of Christ through His body of believers through the gifts of the Spirit. This operation is not implemented or practiced by the works of man; but by the works of God Himself.

We agree there, as well. But let's not toss out the Church in God's plan, since God DID give us the Scriptures THROUGH the Church.

A careful study of the New Testament reveals that the early church had no strong central office. The churches were local gatherings of believes who were the body of Christ and these gatherings of believers were autonomous while being interdependent upon one another. Peter was not considered the leading Apostle, nor does he claim to be the leading Apostle. In fact, Peter was reprimanded by the Apostle Paul in front of the other Apostles for being in error; and the Apostle Paul was the Apostle to those who were not Jewish.

The Scriptures were used as God's Word throughout the region and were written by 40 men inspired by the Holy Spirit over a 1500 year period of time.

All teachings that contradict the Word of God are teachings of the devil himself.

Are you saying sola scriptura is of the devil, then? The concept contradicts Scriptures.

I am not so willing to say "all teachings that contradict the Word of God are teachings of the devil" in all cases, since man has his own opinions and it is not difficult to get them out of him if you ask... Often, opinions are just that.

Regards

All teachings that contradict the Word of God are not teachings of God but of the devil. In fact, the enemy even uses the Word of God to pervert the truth as he did in the wilderness as he tempted Jesus. Unless one knows and uses the entire Word of God to construct ones theology, there is a danger of being deceived into believing a lie from the enemy.

 

[francisdesales]

The key statement made is "The recognition of "The Word of God" was a developing item..."

It is entirely possible to possess the Scriptures without having a "canon".

I agree, the key statement is "recognition". There has to be "recognition" among Christian communities that "x" is Scriptures, otherwise, the said book loses its authority within the universal Church. You can imagine the problems we would have (oops, DO have ) if some Christians disagreed on what was Scriptures and what wasn't Scriptures, a la Old Testament Deuterocanonicals???!!!

Naturally, if one group of Christians, which we will call "Catholic and Orthodox" believed that the OT Deuterocanonicals were Scriptural, it is conceivable that this group may see some revelation from the Lord that He has revealed more forcefully a particular doctrine, correct?

As such, the development of what IS Scriptures certainly is important, and we have a modern day example of what happens when Christians do NOT agree on the canon. "Possessing" Scriptures without the force of recognition is of little help in theological matters. No doubt, this recognition is not necessary for pious reading, just as any non-Scriptural reading can be of virtuous value.

By 100AD, all 27 books of the New Testament were in circulation (the majority of the books by 70AD) and all but Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation were universally accepted.

That is just the NT and between most Christians. But you are also leaving out another category - those books that some Christians DID think were Scriptures - but the universal Church later disagreed, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, for example. And let's not forget about the Gospel additions to John. As I have demonstrated, people who disregard writings as Scripture will disagree with particular doctrines that can be at least partially traced to writings that others believe is Scriptures.

The traditional interpretation asserts that these discussions reflect a debate about which writings should be included in the Christian Bible. But with the uniform manuscript evidence in mind, the critical remarks of the church fathers can be better interpreted as a historical critical reaction to an existing publication. Their debate as to the authorship and authority of the individual writings continues among biblical scholars to this very day, and then, as now, the publication to which they referred was the Canonical Edition of the Christian Bible.[/color] (The first edition of the New Testament, David Trobisch, 2000, p 35)[/list]

I do not agree with that statement, it is anachronistic. There was no bound bible with a table of contents in the first or second century. Letters and writings were not univerally dispersed and read throughout the Church and it took time to recognize whether writings were indeed "Scriptures". Of course, the rule of thumb they used was Apostolic Traditions already given to determine IF a particular writing was indeed Scriptures - which is counterintuitive to your point of view. Writings were tossed out if they did not mesh with what had already been given, orally and in written form.

The Authority of the body of Christ is Christ Jesus Himself, and as the body of Christ operates within the gifts of the Spirit given to them as individuals, we serve God by serving each other. Ephesians 4 speaks perfectly of this issue, revealing that the positions of leadership given are for the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, the edifying of the body of Christ until we come in the unity of the faith, and knowledge of the Son of God unto becoming a perfect man measured by the fullness of Christ so that we are no longer babes in Christ, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine and sleight of men, and cunning craftiness used to deceive; but the speaking of truth in love instead.

Of course. That is the purpose of a God-given authoritative "body". To perfect the saints. Couple this with the Scriptures, also given to perfect the saints, and you have a one-two combination...

A careful study of the New Testament reveals that the early church had no strong central office. The churches were local gatherings of believes who were the body of Christ and these gatherings of believers were autonomous while being interdependent upon one another.

I believe you are largely correct and that central leadership was a development seen even within the settings of the Scriptures. Compare the authority model in the Church between Acts 2-3, Acts 15, and the Pastorals. Note the gradual move towards a centralized model of leadership. I believe that the catholic epistles give us the practical reason - centrality of teaching and the prevention of false teachings.

Peter was not considered the leading Apostle

By whom? After the resurrection, it seems quite obvious that he was. Even to the point of Paul specifically mentioning how he took on Peter, a "who cares" if Peter was considered just another man by the community.

nor does he claim to be the leading Apostle.

I think Matthew 16, a writing by an apostle (supposedly) makes it clear that the Church considered him a leading apostle, since he was given the keys, while no other apostle was. The Church's own writings verify this. It is not necessary for Peter to declare himself leader within Sacred Scriptures, given the model of authority set forward by Christ and the realization that the writings we have tell us only a scanty bit of information on what the first Christians ACTUALLY thought and did. Recall that the letters are just that, letters. Not theological treatises or catechisms.

The Scriptures were used as God's Word throughout the region and were written by 40 men inspired by the Holy Spirit over a 1500 year period of time.

I am not going to argue that the Mormon writings are Scriptures, but what argument will YOU use to say that the Book of Mormon is not Scriptures?

All teachings that contradict the Word of God are not teachings of God but of the devil. In fact, the enemy even uses the Word of God to pervert the truth as he did in the wilderness as he tempted Jesus. Unless one knows and uses the entire Word of God to construct ones theology, there is a danger of being deceived into believing a lie from the enemy.

[/quote]

I understand what you are saying and we believe this, as well - understanding that Scriptures was not the only thing God gave us. This very conversation points out the NECESSITY of having an authoritative body enabled to canonize and interpret that Word of God. We recognize the fullness of what God has given us.

We can't have people running around with totally contradictory beliefs, all CLAIMING to be formulated from the Word of God, now, can we? Authority accepted by the Body ensures that there is one faith.

Regards

 

[Anth]

My thoughts are that God confers (or takes council) with Himself, before creating man. So while I could not answer Q 1 & 2 directly I could try an indirect answer. When looking at the sun directly it’s too bright, so we look at it indirectly. Using the same approach:

when God says let us make man in our own image and likeness - the anomaly is total when we look directly at God, whose own image and likeness is unapproachable light.

when God says let us make man in our own image and likeness - the anomaly is partial when we look indirectly at God, by looking at man. Man made in the image and likeness of God, in Genesis 2.

I don't have a problem with any of that.

Best,
Anth

 

[stranger]

Anth,

Earlier I made the claim that difficulties with the trinity reflect a prior problem or issue. This prior issue departs from orthodox Christian belief about the Father, or the Son, or Holy Spirit. In other words to deny or disagree with a constituent part is necessarily reflected in the rejection of the whole. Similarly, if you were to agree with the constituent parts you would also agree with the whole. So all I need to do is to find out what constituent part you disagree with. Am I right in assuming this?

The only thing that might throw a spanner in the works is the Messianic church - the theology of the natural branch. Your previous posts seem to indicate this as a distinct possibility.

blessings

 

[duval]

The church does not create, provide, invent, originate etc., the truth, rather the church supports the truth, is the pillar and ground of the truth, I Tim.3:15.

God bless,
duval

 

[Anth]

The church does not create, provide, invent, originate etc., the truth, rather the church supports the truth, is the pillar and ground of the truth, I Tim.3:15.

:amen

(no papist will like hanging around you my brother!)

 

[Anth]

Earlier I made the claim that difficulties with the trinity reflect a prior problem or issue. This prior issue departs from orthodox Christian belief about the Father, or the Son, or Holy Spirit. In other words to deny or disagree with a constituent part is necessarily reflected in the rejection of the whole. Similarly, if you were to agree with the constituent parts you would also agree with the whole. So all I need to do is to find out what constituent part you disagree with. Am I right in assuming this?

Lay it on me and I will see if I can track with it.

Other than obvious singularity of Jehovah throughout the OT - the obvious dominance and supreme divinity of the Father in the NT (summed in Jn17:3, seconded in ICor8:6 and thirded in Rev 1:4), the primary defect of the traditionalist theory is the blasphemous and Satanic not just rejection but simply elimination of the Man Christ Jesus (Jn8:40, ITim2:5) and substituting some strange concoction called a an hypostatic "human nature". I have provided the Schaff text for discussion in earlier posts.

This sums up my primary objections - I consider the latter actually more heinous than the former. However, many monarchians consider the former more severe - but I think that is because they don't really understand the latter.

Best,
In the Man Christ Jesus
Anth

 

[stranger]

Earlier I made the claim that difficulties with the trinity reflect a prior problem or issue. This prior issue departs from orthodox Christian belief about the Father, or the Son, or Holy Spirit. In other words to deny or disagree with a constituent part is necessarily reflected in the rejection of the whole. Similarly, if you were to agree with the constituent parts you would also agree with the whole. So all I need to do is to find out what constituent part you disagree with. Am I right in assuming this?

Lay it on me and I will see if I can track with it.

Other than obvious singularity of Jehovah throughout the OT - the obvious dominance and supreme divinity of the Father in the NT (summed in Jn17:3, seconded in ICor8:6 and thirded in Rev 1:4), the primary defect of the traditionalist theory is the blasphemous and Satanic not just rejection but simply elimination of the Man Christ Jesus (Jn8:40, ITim2:5) and substituting some strange concoction called a an hypostatic "human nature". I have provided the Schaff text for discussion in earlier posts.

This sums up my primary objections - I consider the latter actually more heinous than the former. However, many monarchians consider the former more severe - but I think that is because they don't really understand the latter.

Best,
In the Man Christ Jesus
Anth

Hello Anth,

When you say that the 'hypostatic union is a strange concoction' - you will see stranger concoctions than this but not from me!

I'm not quite sure if there is any conspiracy to eliminate the MAN Jesus Christ because I presume that classical Christian doctrine or orthodoxy affirms that Jesus Christ is truly or fully man, truly or fully God.

So the MAN Jesus Christ is the Son of Man, He is also the Son of God. These three primary observations come from revelation. You will have found that the language and vocabulary of revelation (scripture) is of a particular kind. 'Hypostatic union' is more the a second or third level technical theological term. It is where a debate lies that is of significance to me having swam out from deep end.

The 'hypostatic union' is also called the 'mystical union' which I prefer - I think that this expression is better because that scriptures do at least speak of the mystery of Christ ie the mystery of Christ revealed in its totality, person and work.

So what is revealed that is common between the Son of Man and the Son of God? Would the mystical union in its simplest or clearest expression in the MAN Jesus Christ (Son of Man, Son of God) actually be the image and likeness of God? I think this preserves what you fear is being lost, call it the language of the Kingdom (of God).

Do you see any affirmation of divinity in the expression 'the MAN Jesus Christ? '

blessings