Mary, the mother of the Lord

[LeviR]

It's called context. You seem to think that words have only one meaning, but many words have multiple meanings, which depend on context. I take it you have never looked up each instance of "Son of God" to look at the context, correct? I highly recommend doing so. You'll see things such as:

Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (ESV)

Mat 27:54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (ESV)

Or, even just "Son":

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

It really goes without saying that "Son of God" applied to Christ has a different and more significant meaning than when applied to anyone else.

Certainly. Jesus is a unique son. He is the only man who came into existence by the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowing a woman.
Just because he is a unique son conceived by the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessitate having two natures.
God simply caused the promised child of Abraham and David to be born miraculously.
God’s own son is the son of Abraham and David.

 

[Runningman]

Animal sacrifices atoned for sins. The only thing they couldn’t do was give the people whom they atoned for eternal life. That’s why they had to continue always to offer the sacrifices.
All that’s needed is for the sacrifice to be accepted by God as a once for all time sacrifice whereby the sacrifice continues himself to live and can act as a mediator between God and man.
So, there was a man who was without fault or blame who offered himself as that sacrifice. God accepted his sacrifice and raised him from the dead to be a once for all time sacrifice.
And the reason this was done is so that death could be conquered. The death that Adam’s sin brought upon all man.
That’s just how simple it is.

Yes that's true. According to scripture they were literally getting their sins against God forgiven with the animal sacrifices. There are also examples of God forgiving sins without an animal sacrifice in the Old Testament. Sin forgiveness also happened in the New Testament, even before Jesus was sacrificed, because God gave that authority to the men according to Matthew 9:4-8.

 

[Runningman]

How is it that you're still not understanding what I stated? Yes, Trinitarianism is monotheistic--there is only one God--as I stated, but it is not the same as monotheism. Trinitarianism, as Unitarianism, are concepts about the nature of God as he exists in and of himself. But, neither are equivalent to the concept of monotheism, that there is only one God as opposed to multiple gods.


https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...n-and-essence-in-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/


It absolutely is not. Again, you're erroneously equating monotheism with Unitarianism. The doctrine of the Trinity is that the one God is tri-personal; Unitarianism teaches that the one God is uni-personal.


It certainly does; that is precisely the reason the Athanasian Creed states what it does.

But Trinitarianism says there is one God in three persons. The Bible says that the only true God is the Father. See the difference between Trinitarian philosophy and what the Bible says? God isn't an essence in persons, but rather an actual person known as the Father. God's "essence" (if you insist) can be in people, but that doesn't make someone become God. Jesus isn't the only one who was a partaker of the divine nature.

And you quote from Reformed material again. Did you know that Calvin never said anything about needing to believe in the Trinity?

 

[Runningman]

It's called context. You seem to think that words have only one meaning, but many words have multiple meanings, which depend on context. I take it you have never looked up each instance of "Son of God" to look at the context, correct? I highly recommend doing so. You'll see things such as:

Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (ESV)

What's your point though? Elijah also controlled the weather. 1 Kings 17:1.

Mat 27:54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (ESV)

The resurrected Jesus is the Son of God.

Acts 13​

33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.​

Resurrected people also become sons of God. No difference in the context you provided between Jesus and others.

Luke 20​

36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.​

Or, even just "Son":

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

It really goes without saying that "Son of God" applied to Christ has a different and more significant meaning than when applied to anyone else.

Jesus is God's only begotten Son, the firstborn among many brothers. He's one of many. You're going to be amazed what God has planned for His sons and daughters. Jesus will be our leader and we will be co-heirs with him.

 

[Free]

It’s interesting that your link refers to Ligonier Ministries.
I studied under the teaching of the late Dr. R.C. Sproul for many years. Read most of his books and most of the ones he recommended to me. I actually accumulated and read about 300 books while studying under him.
He was an orthodox Trinitarian and Calvinist.
He was the one who got me interested in philosophy, the church fathers and the reformation.
He also held a high regard for logic.
I must say, the most important thing I gained while studying under him was the ability to think logically.
Perhaps that’s why I get a bit annoyed when Trinitarians claim that reason and logic aren’t required to believe something as true.
IOW, they say the Trinity is true in spite of reason, Logic or comprehension.
The Bible was a closed book to me until I opened my mind to what others outside of the mainstream had to say.
I say it was a closed book because you don’t know it’s a closed book until it becomes an open book.

Then clearly you haven’t actually read anything from theologians on the Trinity, nor anything I have written. Everything I have written on the matter is based on reason and logic.

 

[LeviR]

Then clearly you haven’t actually read anything from theologians on the Trinity, nor anything I have written. Everything I have written on the matter is based on reason and logic.

Yeah, ok.

 

[LeviR]

But Trinitarianism says there is one God in three persons. The Bible says that the only true God is the Father. See the difference between Trinitarian philosophy and what the Bible says? God isn't an essence in persons, but rather an actual person known as the Father. God's "essence" (if you insist) can be in people, but that doesn't make someone become God. Jesus isn't the only one who was a partaker of the divine nature.

And you quote from Reformed material again. Did you know that Calvin never said anything about needing to believe in the Trinity?

Here’s a fun fact.

The three persons share the same nature. That’s why (they?) are the One God.
The three are not three individual persons in the sense of being three Gods.
It might be explained by saying that each person is IN the other.
The Father is always in the Son and the Son always in the Holy Spirit and so on, etc.
If the Son would separate Himself from the unity of being One with the others, it would create a separate God.
The unity of the three in One could never be broken else there would be more than one.

However, it was only the son who died.

“My God, My God, why hast thou abandon me?”

Just another fun fact.

 

[LeviR]

Try this out for size.
The son was well aware that the Father was dwelling in him by the Spirit of the Father which the Father gave to him in his human nature.
The fullness of the Spirit enabled Jesus to say and do the things he did. He was given wisdom and knowledge and prophecy and the ability to perform miracles of healing.
None of that changed his human nature.
When Jesus was on the cross, just before he died, he realized that the Spirit of the Father had left him. He was helpless at those last moments.
The man and single person who was the Christ, the son of the living God died there on that cross.
God raised him from the dead. Praise God.

 

[LeviR]

Another fun fact.

The second person of the Trinity has always been in the first person and the third person. It’s an eternal unity of the three.

The first person gave to the second person the full measure of the third person.

Just another fun fact.

 

[Free]

Certainly. Jesus is a unique son. He is the only man who came into existence by the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowing a woman.
Just because he is a unique son conceived by the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessitate having two natures.
God simply caused the promised child of Abraham and David to be born miraculously.
God’s own son is the son of Abraham and David.

And, yet, the NT is replete with implicit and explicit claims that Jesus is also divine.

 

[Free]

Yeah, ok.

I have posted this numerous times and have yet to receive any reasonable response or attempt at rebuttal:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

First, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Yet that would contradict what Paul writes in many passages, such as1 Tim. 6:15. It would also contradict numerous other passages in the NT, such as Luke 10:21.

Second, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son. And this is confirmed in John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, 6, 10-12.

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, is also God in nature, being of the same substance as the Father. Yet, he clearly is distinct from the Father and is not a separate God. Logic and reason don't get much simpler than that.


I have also posted this numerous times and have yet to receive any reasonable response or attempt at rebuttal:

1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
...
1Jn 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (ESV)

God is love is a statement about his essence, his nature, and not merely the idea that he is loving. And, of course, we cannot ignore what John wrote in the prologue to his gospel:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

That supports what he says in 1 John 1:2. That "with" is very important. As I have stated regarding John 1:1, pros indicates "direction towards," that is, relational intimacy, interpersonal union and communion. To say that the Father was alone prior to all creation simply cannot account for and make sense of the fact that God is love. However, it does make sense when speaking of at least two persons.

Look at what Jesus says:

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

That is exactly why John says what he does in John 1:1--the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God. Everything John says about the Son and the Father is based on Jesus's own words.

Looking once again at what Jesus says:

Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
Mar 12:31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (ESV)

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (ESV)

So, what then is love? In its highest and fullest sense, it is both a healthy love of self and an outward expression towards others. We should fully expect then, that if God is love, that his love must have the highest and fullest expression and necessarily includes love of others from before creation of all time and space, from eternity past. However, if God is a monad, then to say that “God is love” means 1) that God loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love” and leaves His love incomplete and deficient. In short, a uni-personal God cannot be the God of the Bible.

When we consider the Trinity, however, it all works. There are three persons each being truly and fully God, equally possessing the full and undivided essence (one being that is God), having been in and intimate and loving relationship and communion for "eternity past." Only now we can truly say that God is love, showing diversity within the unity.

Again, very basic logic and reason.

 

[LeviR]

I have posted this numerous times and have yet to receive any reasonable response or attempt at rebuttal:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

First, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Yet that would contradict what Paul writes in many passages, such as1 Tim. 6:15. It would also contradict numerous other passages in the NT, such as Luke 10:21.

Second, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son. And this is confirmed in John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, 6, 10-12.

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, is also God in nature, being of the same substance as the Father. Yet, he clearly is distinct from the Father and is not a separate God. Logic and reason don't get much simpler than that.


I have also posted this numerous times and have yet to receive any reasonable response or attempt at rebuttal:

1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
...
1Jn 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (ESV)

God is love is a statement about his essence, his nature, and not merely the idea that he is loving. And, of course, we cannot ignore what John wrote in the prologue to his gospel:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

That supports what he says in 1 John 1:2. That "with" is very important. As I have stated regarding John 1:1, pros indicates "direction towards," that is, relational intimacy, interpersonal union and communion. To say that the Father was alone prior to all creation simply cannot account for and make sense of the fact that God is love. However, it does make sense when speaking of at least two persons.

Look at what Jesus says:

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

That is exactly why John says what he does in John 1:1--the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God. Everything John says about the Son and the Father is based on Jesus's own words.

Looking once again at what Jesus says:

Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
Mar 12:31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (ESV)

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (ESV)

So, what then is love? In its highest and fullest sense, it is both a healthy love of self and an outward expression towards others. We should fully expect then, that if God is love, that his love must have the highest and fullest expression and necessarily includes love of others from before creation of all time and space, from eternity past. However, if God is a monad, then to say that “God is love” means 1) that God loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love” and leaves His love incomplete and deficient. In short, a uni-personal God cannot be the God of the Bible.

When we consider the Trinity, however, it all works. There are three persons each being truly and fully God, equally possessing the full and undivided essence (one being that is God), having been in and intimate and loving relationship and communion for "eternity past." Only now we can truly say that God is love, showing diversity within the unity.

Again, very basic logic and reason.

Jesus was not always Lord. If he were, then The Lord would not need to make Jesus Lord. Just as he was not always the Christ. The Lord made Jesus the Christ.
The Lord made the person who the Jews crucified both Lord and Christ.
If the Lord is the Lord then the Lord does not make Himself Lord. He is Lord . He isn’t made Lord by anyone. He is what He is.
When the One God and Father gives all things to the son, the son becomes the Lord of all.
The Lord of all has a God who is the One true God and Father of all.

 

[Free]

Jesus was not always Lord. If he were, then The Lord would not need to make Jesus Lord. Just as he was not always the Christ. The Lord made Jesus the Christ.
The Lord made the person who the Jews crucified both Lord and Christ.
If the Lord is the Lord then the Lord does not make Himself Lord. He is Lord . He isn’t made Lord by anyone. He is what He is.
When the One God and Father gives all things to the son, the son becomes the Lord of all.
The Lord of all has a God who is the One true God and Father of all.

Please address the actual argument and show where my reasoning is faulty.

 

[LeviR]

Please address the actual argument and show where my reasoning is faulty.

Your reasoning is faulty on so many levels, where should I begin?

 

[Free]

Your reasoning is faulty on so many levels, where should I begin?

Just try. This is one verse and I've made two arguments using basic logic. It should be very simple and straightforward.

 

[LeviR]

Just try. This is one verse and I've made two arguments using basic logic. It should be very simple and straightforward.

How bout we start with your definition of “person”?
The Catholic definition comes from philosophy.
The Bible definition of person means “face”.
The word person comes the the Greek word prosōpon

If the definition of Trinity were to be Biblical rather than philosophical it would mean “One nature, three faces”

Or more correctly One physis , three prosōpon

 

[Free]

How bout we start with your definition of “person”?
The Catholic definition comes from philosophy.
The Bible definition of person means “face”.
The word person comes the the Greek word prosōpon

If the definition of Trinity were to be Biblical rather than philosophical it would mean “One nature, three faces”

Or more correctly One physis , three prosōpon

Okay, so what does any of that have to do with my two logical arguments from 1 Cor 8:6?

 

[LeviR]

Okay, so what does any of that have to do with my two logical arguments from 1 Cor 8:6?

I thought it might be helpful to realize the Catholic doctrine of Trinity is a philosophical theory rather than a Biblical doctrine.
Their wording is philosophical, not Biblical.
Some of us are Biblical Theologians and trust the Bible doctrine rather than the philosophers theories.

1Co 8:6 - yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

The Bible explains that. The Father has given all things to His son.

 

[Free]

I thought it might be helpful to realize the Catholic doctrine of Trinity is a philosophical theory rather than a Biblical doctrine.
Their wording is philosophical, not Biblical.
Some of us are Biblical Theologians and trust the Bible doctrine rather than the philosophers theories.

1Co 8:6 - yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

The Bible explains that. The Father has given all things to His son.

You're still avoiding addressing my arguments. Why?

You stated:

"I must say, the most important thing I gained while studying under him was the ability to think logically.
Perhaps that’s why I get a bit annoyed when Trinitarians claim that reason and logic aren’t required to believe something as true.
IOW, they say the Trinity is true in spite of reason, Logic or comprehension."

And, yet, you can't seem to follow the flow of a simple discussion or just don't want to address the very logic and reasoning you seem to think doesn't exist in Trinitarianism. Once again, if there is something wrong with the basic, straightforward logic of my two arguments regarding 1 Cor 8:6, then, please, address them and show precisely where my reasoning is wrong.

 

[LeviR]

You're still avoiding addressing my arguments. Why?

You stated:

"I must say, the most important thing I gained while studying under him was the ability to think logically.
Perhaps that’s why I get a bit annoyed when Trinitarians claim that reason and logic aren’t required to believe something as true.
IOW, they say the Trinity is true in spite of reason, Logic or comprehension."

And, yet, you can't seem to follow the flow of a simple discussion or just don't want to address the very logic and reasoning you seem to think doesn't exist in Trinitarianism. Once again, if there is something wrong with the basic, straightforward logic of my two arguments regarding 1 Cor 8:6, then, please, address them and show precisely where my reasoning is wrong.

I already answered you.
If you are saying that The Father is the one Lord, and Jesus is the one Lord, then both must be the one Lord.

As I already explained, the Father has made Jesus Lord over all. It’s as simple as recognizing that the Father has given all things to the son. It is all put in his hands.
Have you missed the fact that Jesus himself has a God?