Soooo, What's the Difference?

[Asyncritus]

No one is denying this. Please read my post and answer my question on this.

Again, taking things out of context. As has been pointed out to you before, the OT, along with the NT, makes a strong case for the deity of Christ.

I don't quite know which question you want answering.

The OT, as I have shown above, makes no case at all for ANYONE being equal to God. In fact it shouts it so loudly, it's quite deafening: but having ears, you still do not hear:

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

Quite obviously, the answer is, NO ONE AT ALL.

It even goes as far as saying the Holy ONE - not the holy three.

And if the OT is so heavily against your concept, then is it likely that the NT would contradict it? Hardly.

No, it does not. Again, you are ignoring the abundance of evidence against your position.

I ignore nothing. What I do is concentrate on essentials.

The most essential point is the greatest stumbling block to your position, and until you can find a way round it, apart from saying 'it's unanswerable', or 'it's not that simple', then you have no case whatsoever.

John says, in utterly unequivocal manner, that Jesus is come in the flesh. If you maintain, as you do, that He could not sin, then you are denying this simple and ever so plain fact.

And as I pointed out to you, the wilderness temptations are an utter farce, if He could not sin.

The poor 'devil' was wasting his time, and so was Jesus.

But those temptations are placed right at the beginning of His ministry. Why? Because they are so dreadfully important to our understanding of Christ's nature, victory, and sacrifice at the end.

So I repeat the question. If you have no answer, you have no case.

COULD JESUS HAVE SINNED IN THE WILDERNESS, OR AT ANY OTHER POINT IN HIS LIFE?

For someone as intelligent as you are, you make such utter nonsense of these plain scriptures, that it leaves me gasping.

James 1:13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man:

Heb 4.15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Put those 2 passages side by side, and your case is extinct.

How are we tempted?

We are presented with a sinful deed. We CAN do it. We WANT to do it. And we so often DO it.

Jesus COULD do it. Jesus WANTED TO do it. That’s the meaning of ‘in ALL POINTS’

But He never did.
That is the meaning of ‘…yet without sin’. Note the YET!

So you are presented with the painful choice: either we have a God who could sin, or a man who couldn’t, or neither.

As I stated earlier, the problem is with the assumptions behind your question and ignoring the clear statements in Scripture about the nature of Christ. I have simply presented what Scripture states.

You have never even BEGUN to address this most fundamental point in our understanding of the nature of Christ.

Your responses ’it’s unanswerable’ and ‘it’s not so simple’ reveal this with brutal clarity. Your position is totally untenable, and I’m sure you can see it, in truth.

You are clearly favoring interpretations of Scripture which fit your theology and ignoring others which prove it to be wrong. You are putting your own meaning into the text instead of letting the text speak for itself.

You’ve got the cart before the horse, Free. I work the exact opposite way . Scripture tells me what to think.

Your problem is that you don’t do this.

Imagine that you’re reading the NT for the very first time, unencumbered with your current pre-conceptions.

And you come across the 3 temptations in the wilderness. You skid to a halt, and ask yourself, Could Jesus have done wrong? Or not?

Well plainly, since He had to reject the temptations, then He must have been able to turn the stones into bread etc.

WITH your pre-conceptions, you have to turn, wriggle, twist and avoid the extremely plain meaning of the words.

‘It’s unanswerable’ you say, and you’re right. WITH your pre-conceptions, it IS unanswerable.

Since I go docilely where the facts lead me, I have no such problems.

And now you accuse me of putting my own meaning into the text. I think you have a nerve.

 

[Asyncritus]

Ahhh.. guys? I didn't say that. Those are word that did not come from me.

What I said is the incontrovertible truth: I am no expert. The Bible states that the fact that Jesus came in the flesh is the fulcrum upon which we can test the spirits:

Absolutely right.

 

[Free]

Ahhh.. guys? I didn't say that. Those are word that did not come from me.

What I said is the incontrovertible truth: I am no expert. The Bible states that the fact that Jesus came in the flesh is the fulcrum upon which we can test the spirits:

Yes, I know what you were saying. And, of course, no one here is denying that Jesus came in the flesh.

 

[Free]

I don't quite know which question you want answering.

This one: So just what did he inherit from the Father and what did he inherit from Mary?

The OT, as I have shown above, makes no case at all for ANYONE being equal to God. In fact it shouts it so loudly, it's quite deafening: but having ears, you still do not hear:

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

Quite obviously, the answer is, NO ONE AT ALL.

It even goes as far as saying the Holy ONE - not the holy three.

And if the OT is so heavily against your concept, then is it likely that the NT would contradict it? Hardly.

It is not at all against the concept. One can argue that it is silent on the matter but certainly not that it is against the concept. Verses such as the one posted above are claims to monotheism, that God is the only God. This says nothing of the nature of God, whether he is one or three.

I ignore nothing. What I do is concentrate on essentials.

The most essential point is the greatest stumbling block to your position, and until you can find a way round it, apart from saying 'it's unanswerable', or 'it's not that simple', then you have no case whatsoever.

I have hardly even begun to state my case. It would take to long and there are several threads where I have done so already. You were given much evidence in those threads which you so easily dismissed without providing any real rebuttal, and I don't feel like going through it again.

John says, in utterly unequivocal manner, that Jesus is come in the flesh. If you maintain, as you do, that He could not sin, then you are denying this simple and ever so plain fact.

Not at all. Jesus came in the flesh, I do not deny that. Now why would John even need to make that statement? Why would he make a statement about something so obvious?

And as I pointed out to you, the wilderness temptations are an utter farce, if He could not sin.

The poor 'devil' was wasting his time, and so was Jesus.

Is that so? How do you arrive at your conclusion? The important question here is not could Jesus have sinned, but rather, Did he feel the full force of sin?

But those temptations are placed right at the beginning of His ministry. Why? Because they are so dreadfully important to our understanding of Christ's nature, victory, and sacrifice at the end.

It doesn't reveal much, if anything, about his nature. But it certainly shows how close and reliant he was on the Father.

So I repeat the question. If you have no answer, you have no case.

COULD JESUS HAVE SINNED IN THE WILDERNESS, OR AT ANY OTHER POINT IN HIS LIFE?

And I'll repeat my answer: it is unanswerable. And I still have a strong case.

To say that Jesus is God so he wasn't able to sin or that he is man so he was able to sin, is to split the mystery, and that is where your error is. Let me ask you this: if Scripture clearly states that Jesus is God and it clearly states that Jesus is human, why would you default to Jesus being only a man in the face of such a paradox?

James 1:13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man:

Heb 4.15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Put those 2 passages side by side, and your case is extinct.

Not at all. Jesus was the God-man; not just man nor just God. This is what we must reconcile and which you refuse to do.

How are we tempted?

We are presented with a sinful deed. We CAN do it. We WANT to do it. And we so often DO it.

Jesus COULD do it. Jesus WANTED TO do it. That’s the meaning of ‘in ALL POINTS’

But He never did.
That is the meaning of ‘…yet without sin’. Note the YET!

The 'yet' is noted and I deny none of this.

So you are presented with the painful choice: either we have a God who could sin, or a man who couldn’t, or neither.

Or, we have someone who is both God and man, making the question unanswerable.

Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? How can a loving God allow evil to exist?

 

[Free]

You’ve got the cart before the horse, Free. I work the exact opposite way . Scripture tells me what to think.

Your problem is that you don’t do this.

Imagine that you’re reading the NT for the very first time, unencumbered with your current pre-conceptions.

And you come across the 3 temptations in the wilderness. You skid to a halt, and ask yourself, Could Jesus have done wrong? Or not?

Well plainly, since He had to reject the temptations, then He must have been able to turn the stones into bread etc.

WITH your pre-conceptions, you have to turn, wriggle, twist and avoid the extremely plain meaning of the words.

‘It’s unanswerable’ you say, and you’re right. WITH your pre-conceptions, it IS unanswerable.

Since I go docilely where the facts lead me, I have no such problems.

No, you don't. Well, against my better judgement....

If I was to start reading the Gospels for the first time, one of the first things I would read is this:

Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). (ESV)

I would progress through and come to John--the very one whom you quote as though his statement that "Jesus has come in the flesh" contradicts that Jesus is God--and he opens his gospel with:

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)

Here, I would read that Jesus, as the Word, both was with God and was God. I would logically conclude that although he was God in some way, he was perhaps not all that there was to God.

I would then read verse 3 and find that it supports my conclusion about verse 1. If "all things were made through" Jesus, "and without him was not any thing made that was made," I could come to only one logical conclusion: that Jesus could not have been made.

I would then continue on to verse 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)

Here I would then conclude that the Word, who was God, entered the world and "became flesh and dwelt among us." The Word entered creation, entered time. I would then be very right to refer to this God who became flesh as the God-man, as it is never stated whether he is just God or just man.

As I continued reading the Bible, for the first time, I would encounter, among other things, Pihl 2:4-8:

Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

I would immediately see that this is in agreement with John 1:1-14, where Jesus was in the form of God (God in some way), but became human for the purpose of our redemption.

I would continue on to other passages such as Col 1:15-17:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Again, I would see that this is in full agreement with John 1:1-3. The only logical conclusion I could come to is that Jesus was not created; "firstborn" being a reference to his preeminence and position of authority over creation. Indeed, if it were to mean that he was created, it would be a direct contradiction to verses 16-17.

Not only can more be said about the above passages to support my case, there is much more in Scripture which could be added.

What then would I be left with? On the one hand, clearly Jesus is God, but he is clearly human on the other. So when I come to passages that state things such as "God cannot sin" and "God cannot be tempted," and I see that Jesus was tempted, I cannot rightly conclude that Jesus was not God, as that would throw everything I've learned above right out the window. I also cannot conclude that because Jesus was God he could not have sinned, thereby creating tension, as you have rightly pointed out.

So what then? I can only reasonably conclude that as both God and man, the God-man, there is tension between one who both cannot sin and can sin, rendering the question of whether or not Jesus could have sinned unanswerable. And that answer no more proves that Jesus wasn't God than it proves that Jesus was God.

I'm sure you would agree that the question of whether or not God can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it, does no damage to God's omnipotence, just as the problem of evil does no damage to God being love. So Jesus's being both one who cannot sin and can sin, does no damage to his divinity nor his humanity. I can live with that tension, can you? There is much that God does not reveal to us which is beyond our comprehension, in fact, there is much more than he has revealed to us. Why do you need an answer on this point?

So anyone that reads this thread, and this post, can see that it is indeed you that is not letting Scripture speak for itself. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice much of what Scripture plainly speaks about the deity of Christ over a handful of passages which cause tension and present us with a paradox.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm a little confused and wanted to ask ...

The topic started with a question to those people who (like the Mormons and/or Jehovah's Witness) say that Jesus is not God in the Flesh.

Would it be possible to lay out the various possible beliefs regarding this?
I'm thinking a list, like:
"Jesus could be a man and nothing more."
"Jesus could be Lucifer"
"Jesus could be the Angel Moroni"
"Jesus could be God"
"Jesus could be both God and Man"


The confusion comes when I think that I hear sombody make one of those statements but am not really sure. Also, I could be confused because there are other possibilities that I didn't list <---- which I suspect is the case.

What I'm hoping for would be one or two short and precise statements that list beliefs being discussed. The reason I ask is that I'm having trouble seeing what the topic asks, "Sooooo, What's the Difference?" I don't think anybody here thinks that he is an angel (fallen or otherwise) and I also think that everybody declares that Jesus is the son of Man and came in the flesh. Is anybody saying that Jesus isn't the Son of God?

Pardon my confusion about exactly what is being discussed and thanks (in advance) for trying to clear it up.

 

[Free]

I'm a little confused and wanted to ask ...

The topic started with a question to those people who (like the Mormons and/or Jehovah's Witness) say that Jesus is not God in the Flesh.

Would it be possible to lay out the various possible beliefs regarding this?
I'm thinking a list, like:
"Jesus could be a man and nothing more."
"Jesus could be Lucifer"
"Jesus could be the Angel Moroni"
"Jesus could be God"
"Jesus could be both God and Man"


The confusion comes when I think that I hear sombody make one of those statements but am not really sure. Also, I could be confused because there are other possibilities that I didn't list <---- which I suspect is the case.

What I'm hoping for would be one or two short and precise statements that list beliefs being discussed. The reason I ask is that I'm having trouble seeing what the topic asks, "Sooooo, What's the Difference?" I don't think anybody here thinks that he is an angel (fallen or otherwise) and I also think that everybody declares that Jesus is the son of Man and came in the flesh. Is anybody saying that Jesus isn't the Son of God?

Pardon my confusion about exactly what is being discussed and thanks (in advance) for trying to clear it up.

Really, this whole topic has gone off on a tangent. The discussion now has focused on Jesus is God in the flesh versus Jesus isn't God in the flesh.

I believe what orthodox Christianity teaches, that Jesus is the God-man, God Incarnate. Asyncritus is arguing against the deity of Christ, with no specifics on who Jesus is if he isn't God in the flesh. No one here has argued that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, as of yet anyway.

And no one is saying that Jesus isn't the Son of God but there is a difference of opinion on precisely what "Son of God" actually means.

But mcgyver's main point still stands. He is asking just how it is we can determine true Christians from false if all we need to be saved is believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our salvation. As you know, there are a variety of views on the nature of Christ, views which are irreconcilable and contradictory. The very words "Jesus is the Son of God" mean different things to different religious groups, so the claim that all we need to do is believe Jesus is the Son of God fails before it even starts.

So it would seem sensible to me then that it is not nearly enough to be saved by merely claiming that Jesus is the Son of God who died for us, but that salvation is firmly rooted in the nature of Jesus.

As for a list in general, it could probably be quite long. The beliefs that I know of are:

1. Jesus is God (but not the Father nor Holy Spirit-trinitarianism).
2. Jesus is God (and the Father and the Holy Spirit--modalism).
3. Jesus is Michael the Archangel (JWs).
4. Jesus is a literal son of God, brother of Lucifer and us (Mormonism).
5. Jesus is and always has been a man.

We could list more if we went into what Eastern religions think of him but as far as those professing to be Christians, those are the main beliefs about Christ, which is pretty much what you had.

 

[Sparkey]

Free, thank you. That helps.

I think that the book of Hebrews sheds light on this subject. Chapter 1 and 2 especially. I'll pray about this.
~Sparrow

 

[Asyncritus]

This one: So just what did he inherit from the Father and what did he inherit from Mary?

Hebrews 1 clarifies this for us:

4 ¶ Being made so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For to which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

He has inherited a name more excellent than the angels have.

It is not at all against the concept. One can argue that it is silent on the matter but certainly not that it is against the concept. Verses such as the one posted above are claims to monotheism, that God is the only God. This says nothing of the nature of God, whether he is one or three.

Those Isaiah passages are TOTALLY AGAINST THE CONCEPT. How much more against it can you possibly have than:

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

Claims to monotheism? No, it is a scream for monotheism. A thunderclap. A very loud bellow. And you still won't hear. What else could God say that would convince you? I can't imagine.

And it says a huge amount about the nature of God. He has no equal, especially in the matters of possessing immortality, and being unable to sin.

Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy...

He inhabits, lives in, dwells in eternity. NO ONE ELSE does this.

Every other immortal being, be it Christ, or the angels, DERIVES their immortality from Him - and therefore His nature is entirely different to their's.

And again note - the high and lofty ONE. Not three or anything else. ONE.

I have hardly even begun to state my case. It would take to long and there are several threads where I have done so already. You were given much evidence in those threads which you so easily dismissed without providing any real rebuttal, and I don't feel like going through it again.

I think you owe it to me, and to your supporters, some explanation or understanding of the critical point which I reiterate once more:

COULD JESUS HAVE SINNED IN THE WILDERNESS, OR AT ANY OTHER POINT IN HIS LIFE?

A simple yes or no will do, but of course, you can't provide us with that information. It is too ruinous to your case.

Not at all. Jesus came in the flesh, I do not deny that. Now why would John even need to make that statement? Why would he make a statement about something so obvious?

Because there were those denying the fact. You may not put it into the same words, but the net result is the same. If He was God, then He could not sin.

Is that so? How do you arrive at your conclusion? The important question here is not could Jesus have sinned, but rather, Did he feel the full force of sin?

I don't know where you get that from. He bore our sins, true - but that is not the same thing as being tempted AND BEING ABLE TO SIN.

It doesn't reveal much, if anything, about his nature.

I simply do not understand how you can say this. Hebrews again lands you in the soup:

2.16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren...

This tells us that his nature was like that of His brethren i.e. us. 'In all things' is pretty comprehensive, I would say.

v14 is equally impressive:

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The same = flesh and blood. Plainly not the physical components - a dog has flesh and blood too - but the NATURE of the children. Note the 4-fold emphasis:

he (1) also (2) himself (3) likewise (4) the same

It simply could not be more emphatic. He was IN ALL POINTS tempted like as we are. And that carries the unhappy (for you) consequence that He WAS able to sin: or He wasn't like us at all.

And I'll repeat my answer: it is unanswerable. And I still have a strong case.

If the strength of a case is measured by its inability answer the most fundamental question of all, then yes, you do have a strong case.

Unhappily, that's not real life.

To say that Jesus is God so he wasn't able to sin or that he is man so he was able to sin, is to split the mystery, and that is where your error is. Let me ask you this: if Scripture clearly states that Jesus is God and it clearly states that Jesus is human, why would you default to Jesus being only a man in the face of such a paradox?

I default to the position that the writer to the Hebrews takes: He has by inheritance [not nature] obtained a better name than that of the angels. That's what He got from God.

He had to earn it by conquering the sin-nature that we all, as human beings inherit - which He got from Mary.

I repeat the terribly important fact: if He could not sin, then He had nothing to CONQUER.

The very word implies a ferocious battle, and He obtained victory at dreadful cost to Himself: you must recall His battles in Gethsemane, with sweat as great drops of blood rolling off His face. The very thought makes me shudder.

Don't deprive Him of the credit that is due. No, it's not fair.

 

[Sparkey]

In my attempts to comprehend "the difference" that is under discussion I have come across a couple beliefs that may help express what we (today) believe.

Quoting my source:

[Under the heading of Modelism]

Two of the earliest representatives of the modalistic school of thought were Praxeas and Noetus, both of whom came from Asia Minor to Rome toward the end of the second century.

Praxeas taught that the Father and the Son were one identical Person and that the Father Himself became man, hungered, thirsted, suffered, and died in Christ. This view is also known as Patripassianism, from the Latin words pater ("father") and passio ("suffering"), because its practical identification of the Father and the Son lead to the conclusion that the Father suffered on the cross. In the words of the church historian, Philip Schaff, Praxeas "conceived the relation of the Father to the Son as like that of the spirit to the flesh. The same object, as spirit, is the Father; as flesh, the Son. He thought the Catholic doctrine tritheistic." The modalism advocated by Praxeas was for a time prevalent and popular at Rome. Early in the third century, Tertullian, to whom we owe the definition of the Godhead as being "one substance in three persons, " wrote against him in a document entitled, Against Praxeas, accusing him of driving out the Holy Spirit and of crucifying the Father.

Noetus published the same views as Praxeas approximately 200 A.D., teaching that "Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born and suffered and died." Noetus taught that in order for Christ to be God, He had to be identical with the Father. Since, for Noetus, there could be no division in the Godhead, if Christ suffered, then the Father suffered also. According to Noetus, there was only one God, the Father, who manifested Himself as He pleased. The Son is merely a designation of God when He reveals Himself to the world and to men. The Father is called the Son for a certain time in reference to His experiences on earth. To Noetus, the Son is the Father veiled in flesh. Two of Noetus' disciples, Epigonus and Cleomenes, propagated his doctrine in Rome.

Callistus, who later became Pope Callixtus I, adopted and advocated the doctrine of Noetus, declaring the Son to be merely the manifestation of the Father in human form. Callistus taught that the Father animated the Son in the same way as the spirit animates the body. Considering his opponents to be ditheists (those who believe in two Gods), Callistus taught that God in the flesh is called the Son, while apart from the flesh He is called the Father.

In the early decades of the third century, Beryllus denied the personal existence of the Son, teaching that He had no individual existence of His own before coming to reside among men. Beryllus also denied the independent divinity of Christ, claiming that He had no divinity of His own but only the divinity of the Father that indwelt Him during His earthly life. In a sense, Beryllus was a stepping stone between the early schools of modalism and Sabellianism.

​

Source Quoted: Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God

_________________________________

Correct me if I am wrong but It does not appear that any here ascribe to modalism as defined above.

 

[Asyncritus]

Noetus published the same views as Praxeas approximately 200 A.D., teaching that "Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born and suffered and died." Noetus taught that in order for Christ to be God, He had to be identical with the Father.

Praxeas taught that the Father and the Son were one identical Person and that the Father Himself became man, hungered, thirsted, suffered, and died in Christ.

Good grief.

You don't go as far as that. do you Free, Mac?

 

[Sparkey]

Good grief.

You don't go as far as that. do you Free, Mac?

Free believes in the Trinity, not Modelism.

It's an interesting article (to me) because it traces the origins of the various beliefs concerning what might be termed "Christology". I can follow some of the thinking that I hear today when I consider the way it came about. For me to understand something I have to break it down into very small parts (analysis) then work with all the various bits of information and put them (like a jigsaw puzzle) together to form the big picture.

With regard to the Nature of Jesus that means that I need a solid understanding of "Christos" and Messiah.
Saying that Jesus is the Son of God and that he came in the flesh (was encased in a body?) -- that he tabernacled amongst us helps yet I still get confused when I hear people discuss it. That wouldn't happen if I really understood.

 

[Sparkey]

The same article continues from Modelism to Tri-theism.

The Modalistic Concept of the Trinity

According to the modalistic concept of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not equally and eternally co-existent, but are merely three successive manifestations of God, or three temporary modes of His activity.

http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html

Basically, modalists believe that God showed Himself in three different modes - as the Father, as Jesus and as the Holy Spirit and although that sounds reasonable enough on the surface it becomes troublesome when we understand what is meant. That there was no concurrance but each was entirely separate, successive manifestations. Sometimes we hear arguments like, "Can God die?" that are centered on modelistic discussion.

I'm no expert but and cannot speak for the modern modelists. It is my opinion though that they deny that the Father, Son, and Spirit eternally co-exist in the inner being of God.

 

[mcgyver]

I also am a Trinitarian, but this brings up an interesting observation...

To directly answer the question: The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit is not the Father; yet all are one God.

The problem (I think) in the understanding of the Trinity is not with God, but with our western method of thought. We think in linear terms...which causes difficulty because we look and say: "How can God be the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all at the same time?"

Our linear method of thinking, in equating God with the Father (and rightfully so), our focus shifts from God as God; to God as Father, which causes (perceived) contradictions, to wit: "How can Jesus be God if He didn't know when His return is?" or "How can Jesus be God if He was tempted, because God can't be tempted by evil?", etc.

We are stymied by what on the surface appear to be contradictions, and must therefore try to sytematically explain these things to fit within our own thought processes. Anyone who has even given a cursory study of OT prophecy is immediately struck by the non-linear method of the prophets.

On the other hand, to the Jew none of these things present a problem, because in the "near east" the method of thinking is not so much linear as it is Conceptual in nature, they operate from a completely different paradigm.

In this Conceptual method of thought, God is magnificent, Holy, beyond understanding, beyond our ability to grasp. God is without limitation; and He can do whatever He desires to do, and be whom He desires to be...He is, well...God. The Great I Am..."And without controversy, great is the mystery of Godliness..."

This is why Thomas could readily say to Jesus: "My Lord and my God", why Titus can say that we wait for the glorious appearing of: "Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." And not have a bit of problem with it. Why Peter could say: Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit....you haven't lied to men, but to God."

They had no need to try and "fit the puzzle" together (as we do), to them it was enough to simply accept the evidence. Their concept of God did not demand a linear or sytematic approach, as it does with us...or the gnostics...or the early Church Fathers (who were of Greek thought)...or anyone who thinks in "western" thought.

This is why they could accept that the Lord appeared to Abraham and Joshua, and at the same time accept Jesus' words that "no one has seen God at any time"...why they had no problem with the concept of "THE Angel of the Lord" as a manifestation of God.

Perhaps they have a "bigger" God than do we......

 

[Mike]

I'm glad to see this get back on track. Thanks Free and Sparrow!

I used to have a (more) narrow definition of a Christian. Being a Trinitarian, I needed one to hold to this understanding. I still feel that to fully know our God, as much as we possible in this life, accepting this understanding even when it is a mystery is of great importance. However, I've come to understand the person who can accept that Jesus was God Incarnate but not find room to conceptualize 3 distinct Persons in 1 God. They are so close!

I haven't read all the posts, because, frankly I got disinterested in an attempt to dethrone Him. But, I believe someone who has come to embrace the Living Christ will live the life in a response to this experience. To that end, I believe the cross was sufficient for the sins of the confessor, and the confessor will desire to do what He would have him do. But I don't see this as a prerequisite for, as much as evidence of a response to. If someone is not responding with "works", there is a disconnect.

Hebrews 11 seems to speak to this over and over. By faith, these pillars of faith did what they did. Also...

Philippians 3
" 7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead."

 

[warfrog]

The same article continues from Modelism to Tri-theism.


Basically, modalists believe that God showed Himself in three different modes - as the Father, as Jesus and as the Holy Spirit and although that sounds reasonable enough on the surface it becomes troublesome when we understand what is meant. That there was no concurrance but each was entirely separate, successive manifestations. Sometimes we hear arguments like, "Can God die?" that are centered on modelistic discussion.

I'm no expert but and cannot speak for the modern modelists. It is my opinion though that they deny that the Father, Son, and Spirit eternally co-exist in the inner being of God.

That last part you mentioned, then they would be in false doctrine, that they dont co-exist.

Paul addresess this specific thing in 1Corinthians 15:20-28 and specifically in verse 28:

"Now when all things are made subject to Him, the the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

If Christ and God werent the same in co-existance then why would the Son give back all that was given to Him from the Father that He may be made subject to Him.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Asyncritus]

The same article continues from Modelism to Tri-theism.


Basically, modalists believe that God showed Himself in three different modes - as the Father, as Jesus and as the Holy Spirit and although that sounds reasonable enough on the surface it becomes troublesome when we understand what is meant. That there was no concurrance but each was entirely separate, successive manifestations. Sometimes we hear arguments like, "Can God die?" that are centered on modelistic discussion.

I'm no expert but and cannot speak for the modern modelists. It is my opinion though that they deny that the Father, Son, and Spirit eternally co-exist in the inner being of God.

This is really getting totally beyond me.

So now do we have a God, who includes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Is this number 4?

 

[Sparkey]

This is really getting totally beyond me.

So now do we have a God, who includes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Is this number 4?

The list that I made up on the spur of the moment is more like the coloring book edition. The link provided, on the other hand, is more authoritative and cites 85 different sources that were used. It's where I went to try to get a grasp on what was being talked about.

 

[Asyncritus]

That last part you mentioned, then they would be in false doctrine, that they dont co-exist.

Paul addresess this specific thing in 1Corinthians 15:20-28 and specifically in verse 28:

"Now when all things are made subject to Him, the the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

If Christ and God werent the same in co-existance then why would the Son give back all that was given to Him from the Father that He may be made subject to Him.

This is piece of 'exposition' completely ignores the very obvious meaning of what Paul is saying: that Christ Himself WILL BE SUBJECT to God the Father at the end.

[Mike: do you understand this somehow to be a 'dethroning' of Christ? I don't see it that way myself, but I'd like to hear you on the point.]

Here's Weymouth:

27 for He [God the Father] will have put all things in subjection under His [Christ the Son's] feet. And when He [Christ] shall have declared that "All things are in subjection," it will be with the manifest exception of Him [God the Father] who has reduced them all to subjection to Him.

In other words, God the Father is the One doing the subjecting of all nations to Christ, and it is obvious, says Paul, that God Himself will not be subject to Him.

28 But when the whole universe has been made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also become subject to Him who has made the universe subject to Him, in order that GOD may be all in all.

In other words, at the End, Christ will also - in addition to everything else (that's the force of the 'also') - be subject to the Father.

If He is going to be subject at the End, when he has clobbered all enemies including death itself, is now the triumphant victor, then what makes you think He isn't subject now?

This passage is one that I have been asking the guys to explain for me, given their understanding of the 'co-equality' of Christ with the Father.

They have problems, I can see that.

 

[warfrog]

This is piece of 'exposition' completely ignores the very obvious meaning of what Paul is saying: that Christ Himself WILL BE SUBJECT to God the Father at the end.

[Mike: do you understand this somehow to be a 'dethroning' of Christ? I don't see it that way myself, but I'd like to hear you on the point.]

Here's Weymouth:

27 for He [God the Father] will have put all things in subjection under His [Christ the Son's] feet. And when He [Christ] shall have declared that "All things are in subjection," it will be with the manifest exception of Him [God the Father] who has reduced them all to subjection to Him.

In other words, God the Father is the One doing the subjecting of all nations to Christ, and it is obvious, says Paul, that God Himself will not be subject to Him.

28 But when the whole universe has been made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also become subject to Him who has made the universe subject to Him, in order that GOD may be all in all.

In other words, at the End, Christ will also - in addition to everything else (that's the force of the 'also') - be subject to the Father.

If He is going to be subject at the End, when he has clobbered all enemies including death itself, is now the triumphant victor, then what makes you think He isn't subject now?

This passage is one that I have been asking the guys to explain for me, given their understanding of the 'co-equality' of Christ with the Father.

They have problems, I can see that.

Does Jesus sit at the right hand of the throne of God right now? Yes.
Has God given Jesus all? Yes.
Is God still putting all things under Jesus? Yes.
Is Jesus going to subject Himself back to God? Yes. why? Because Jesus and God are One, Jesus does the will of the Father, therefore Jesus will subject Himself to God in will that He may be all in all because Christ fullfills Gods will.

There's no problem here, the Lord Jesus Christ has always done the will of the Father and the Father has given Jesus everything, So Jesus in return will subject Himself to the Father that He may be all in all, not because He has too, but because he has to because Jesus the Christ does the will of the Father, He cannot not do the will of the Father, they are One.

Maybe its just me but i see no confusion in that at all, no contradiction, nothing but Gods will being done.

Grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ.