PneumaPsucheSoma
Member
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
farouk
Member
If you read the Scriptures referred to, you will see that the divine Persons are not forces but those who have feelings and personality. Ephesians 4.30 says: 'Grieve not the Holy Spirit'. In other words, a force, an influence or an idea is not a sufficient concept: the Spirit is a Person with feelings that can be grieved. In Psalm 139, the Psalmist says he cannot flee from God's Spirit. An idea would not be a sufficient concept; He is a Person.
PneumaPsucheSoma
Member
I've never said the Son or Spirit are "forces". Anyway, I'll be on my way. This forum is not the place for me. No exegesis. Just opinions.
Be blessed.
farouk
Member
PPS:
Sorry, but you are most welcome to engage with the Scripture references I gave you; if you don't want to, then this is a matter for you.
PneumaPsucheSoma
Member
I've asked for an exegesis of "persons" from the sacred text. It won't and can't be forthcoming. Trinity is inference and error. I wanted to discuss the text, not concepts and opinions from indoctrination of orthodoxy. I received an infraction for my directness. This is too sensitive a forum for me. No need to discuss with those who think they have all the answers for the mystery of God in a little box from the Council of Nicea.
Since I hold spiritual authority in high regard, I will move along. Blessings to everyone.
You do realize how presumptuous this is and how completely arrogant is sounds, yes? Perhaps such statements are the reason for your infraction.
You are free to discuss the Trinity, just refrain from such forms of argumentation.
farouk
Member
PPS:
Sorry, but you are wrong with your own inference that those who hold to God in Three Persons derive their authority from Nicea, as if the truth began there. Read the Bible passages already cited. The Father interacts as a Person, not a force or idea; the same can be said of the Son, and of the Spirit. Whether you stay or leave is your choice, but the authority of Scripture wasn't established by the church; rather, it was more of a matter of people in the church recognizing Biblical truth that was already there.
PneumaPsucheSoma
Member
I've never indicated Father, Son, or Holy Spirit are "forces" or "ideas". The authority of scripture doesn't include "persons". It's inferred and superimposed. Nothing will ever change that. Trinity is error and propagated by indoctrination. I was a Trinitarian Pastor for 12 years.
I've requested for my account to be deleted. This forum is too sensitive for discussion.
PneumaPsucheSoma
Member
Presumption and arrogance have been Trinity's calling cards for 1700 years, not mine. Perhaps indoctrination is the reason for my infraction.
Please delete my account or forward this to whomever can or does. This forum is much too sensitive and restrictive for actual conversation. Thanx.
farouk
Member
PPS:
Sorry but it won't do to suggest that people are failing to engage with you, when repeatedly we do try to discuss Biblical evidence for the Trinity.
PneumaPsucheSoma
Member
There has been no discussion of Biblical evidence for Trinity, just basic inference.
Just cut to the chase... exegete "person/s" from the sacred text and let scripture speak. Let God be true and every man a liar... me, you, or anyone.
"Persons" is inferred. Period.
Davies
Member
Pneuma has been a one horse drama regarding the Trinity since he arrived. The teaching of the Trinity is an essential doctrine if we Christians are going to have unity. This kind of discussion probably should have been left in the debate forum. I'm not going to miss what he was proposing about the Trinity! 
- Davies
- Davies
PneumaPsucheSoma
Member
Pneuma has been a one horse drama regarding the Trinity since he arrived. The teaching of the Trinity is an essential doctrine if we Christians are going to have unity. This kind of discussion probably should have been left in the debate forum. I'm not going to miss what he was proposing about the Trinity!
- Davies
Yep. Eternal life is to know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent. Since it's vital, I make it a priority. God is not siamese triplets. Trinity doctrine won't bring unity. Only truth will bring unity.
I'd gladly defer my departure briefly if someone wants to debate one-on-one in an appropriate forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
PneumaPsucheSoma
Member
farouk
Member
Re: Who is Jesus
PPS: You said: "God is NOT three "persons". In fact, God is not "person(s)" of ANY quantity. "Person(s)" is a creedal term that unprecedentedly manufactured an alternate definition for an existing term and superimposed it upon scripture by inference."
You are not minded to accept that Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Bible refers to the Person of the Father, the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit.
This is very clear.
Very clear indeed, from many of your posts.
So, you came here with an agenda to argue against this fundamental Biblical truth.
The Persons of the Godhead are not mere ideas or influences but Persons, capable of thought and feeling; read the many verses cited, included numerous verses in John 13 to 17.
I wonder why you came here in the first place, frankly.
PPS: You said: "God is NOT three "persons". In fact, God is not "person(s)" of ANY quantity. "Person(s)" is a creedal term that unprecedentedly manufactured an alternate definition for an existing term and superimposed it upon scripture by inference."
You are not minded to accept that Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Bible refers to the Person of the Father, the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit.
This is very clear.
Very clear indeed, from many of your posts.
So, you came here with an agenda to argue against this fundamental Biblical truth.
The Persons of the Godhead are not mere ideas or influences but Persons, capable of thought and feeling; read the many verses cited, included numerous verses in John 13 to 17.
I wonder why you came here in the first place, frankly.
Drew
Member
Others have seen this argument before. It is long, but so be it. If there is a font problem, please let me know:
One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:
Ezekiel 43:1-7:
Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east[ And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…
Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.
Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.
This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.
These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “humanâ€. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:
And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.
I want to be clear: this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.
This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son†of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.
As I argue below, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divineâ€, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.
Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.
This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.
I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.
Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble†will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.
Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:
"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:
Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'
Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:
Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.
The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitationâ€. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.
This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since tey are built on a model of the “boundaries†between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.
teddy trueblood
Member
Before I attempt any more discussion concerning the trinity, I need to know if 'theLords' is still deleting such posts.
wayseer
Member
Unless you understand how the Early Church Father's identified the difference between 'persons' and 'essences' then you will be doing little more than banging your head against a rather hard wall. There are three 'persons' of the Trinity but all share the one 'essence'.
In all - the whole concept of the Trinity is our rather feeble attempt to explain the Divine. Sometimes you have to let it be.
In all - the whole concept of the Trinity is our rather feeble attempt to explain the Divine. Sometimes you have to let it be.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit. (Trinity)
The NT covers and announces or speaks of all 3. (They exist) Yet the OT and Jesus announce the Father is the One true God. The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord (God's Spirit) is seen in the OT as well. Jesus is somewhat hidden in the OT on purpose by Gods will. Hence the NT explains the Mystery of the Son that was revealed to the whole World at God's appointed time. Jesus of Nazareth, Son Of God.
The early church tried to explain the 3 into One God. There was a split on whether Jesus "always was". To this day many ask "Can anyone explain the Trinity?"
Its not like anyone is stating Jesus isn't the Son of God who was born of the virgin Mary or denying the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It is also clear that Jesus is all that the Father is in being and in Him is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Now how did He become the Son? For Jesus states He remains in the Fathers love by keeping the Fathers will in the same context that we are to remain in His love by obeying Jesus's commands. Jesus states He gave us the gift the Father gave Him. The Father in Him and Jesus in us. Jesus states the Father is greater then Him. Jesus calls the Father His God. All that fits with a Son. It doesn't fit with a God who always was and always was God. Jesus calls the Father the One true God. If Jesus always was and always was God then how does that theology hold to One God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit". Jesus has His own Spirit. That would be two Gods. If that Spirit isn't God then what part of Jesus was God?
Is Jesus God?
Yes, He is all that the Father is. "The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him"
No, He has always been the Son. "The firstborn all of creation"
He never dies. "He lives by the Living Father"
A Jesus apart from the Father doesn't exist. Jesus clearly taught it was the Father in Him doing His work. How is that not "God with us"
The Father states "He will do all that He pleases" Not so with the Son who works within the Framework of the Fathers will and remains in the Fathers love. Jesus received all authority from the Father. It was the Father who gave Jesus a name above all other names but His. That fits with a Firstborn Son not a God who always was.
Randy
wayseer
Member
Indeed and it's a study of it own. I have found it easier to accept it rather trying to analyze it.