 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
slaveOFchrist
Little Guppy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 30
Location: NY
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Where to even start on that reply, I have no idea. There are so many errors in the false dichotomy you just erected between Jesus and Paul. But I'd hate to have the entire thread hijacked to be a discussion of whether or not Jesus and Paul are harmonious.
Essentially what you have done is to deny the atonement. This is a valid solution to the conundrum I surfaced as the initial post. It works logically and I commend you for that. Unfortunately, it is a solution that requires a whole other doctrine (let's call it the doctrine of the renegade Paul).
What does everyone else think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | Where to even start on that reply, I have no idea. There are so many errors in the false dichotomy you just erected between Jesus and Paul. But I'd hate to have the entire thread hijacked to be a discussion of whether or not Jesus and Paul are harmonious.
Essentially what you have done is to deny the atonement. This is a valid solution to the conundrum I surfaced as the initial post. It works logically and I commend you for that. Unfortunately, it is a solution that requires a whole other doctrine (let's call it the doctrine of the renegade Paul).
What does everyone else think? |
My post was no attempt to "hijack a thread". Thank you for noting my intent to point out that the atonement was not taught to the twelve, that idea came afterward.
I took a look at your website, it's very nice. I see that you are part of a Christian faith that is very vibrant and intent on carrying your message to others. I applaud you for that.
I hope your not offended at by my pointed declaration of the gospel of Jesus. It is after all "the rock" and will eventually subdue the world after this material age is over.
I'm different but I don't bite.
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slaveOFchrist
Little Guppy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 30
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm really quite surprised that this message board allows discussion of the Trinity. May I commend the moderators for allowing freedom of inquiry. That is indeed the only way we will all find truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 881
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | Inevitably we are told to use the language of "mystery" in order to side step the imposing force of reason. |
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | I am not suggesting we can even understand 1% of who God is. |
Ah yes, quite inevitable.
Now let me make a distinction.
We cannot know 1% of the infinitude of God, however we can know 100% of what God has revealed of Himself. Thus the Father/Son/HolySpirit concept (the Trinity), as revealed through the God inspired writings of several authors (the Holy Bible), is quite relevent to a discussion on the Trinity, and atonement. As the Word is everything God has revealed of Himself......
.....and the Word became flesh.....and, subjecting to the will of the infinite God/Father, that is, God in/from His infinitude, provided atonement for His kids here on earth.
Note: The above terms, in parenthesis, are not found in the Bible, but serve accurately as headings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slaveOFchrist
Little Guppy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 30
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Howdy Dust,
I'm not quite sure what the incarnation has to do with the atonement. We all believe that the word became flesh. The only difference is that you assert that the word "word" means a person (which of course it does not mean until verse 14 when the word becomes a person). Anyhow, that is irrelevant to our discussion. The issue at hand in mortality. Is your God mortal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 881
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | I'm not quite sure what the incarnation has to do with the atonement. |
Well, I think it's rather obvious that it is by the death of the incarnate Word that our sins are atoned for, and thus forgiven. I mean.....no incarnation, no new covenant, and thus no real heavenly atonement.
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | The only difference is that you assert that the word "word" means a person (which of course it does not mean until verse 14 when the word becomes a person). |
That's not really the difference, because I agree with you here. The real difference (and this is where the rubber meets the road) is....you see the Word as an idea of God....whereas....I see the Word as a detectable/knowable emanation of God from out of His otherwise unknowable infinitude. I Am that I Am. I will be what I will be.
Your view, slaveOFchrist, is a view of a finite god. A god that Moses could look upon in his entirety, but may have been just a little to bright for his eyes to do so.
My view is of what God has revealed of Himself.....His knowable self. A God which is detectable, even knowable, to the extent He reveals Himself, but utterly impossible to see in His infinitude. A God Moses could not see in His entirety.....as.....infinitude has no entirety.
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | Is your God mortal? |
My God is incorporal and infinite.
The very revelation of God...i.e....'The Logos/The Word' (much more than just an idea) became, and experienced flesh for a couple really good reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slaveOFchrist
Little Guppy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 30
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
So what I hear you saying is that you do not believe in the Trinity. Rather you believe in the Gnostic notion that God "emanates" aeons or intermediary beings to communicate with mankind (in your scenario the logos is an aeon). It is plain that you are not a trinitarian because if you were then the logos would have to be much more than an emanation, but God himself co-equal, co-essential, co-eternal. By very definition an emanation emanates which is to say "there was a time before the word existed." This sounds like Arianism. Am I way off here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 881
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | Am I way off here? |
Well, yes you are a ways off, but of course you know that.
The groups you mention (along with their doctrines) do not define the term 'emanation'. They may use the term, but their use of it does not define it.
Both Gnostics and Arians are not included in the tracable main-body-of-Christ (the Chruch). The body-of-Christ can be traced by it's NT prophesied growth. This growth didn't die-out or drop-off in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or any century, and then resurrect here in these end times. No, the body-of-Christ growth has been sustained for 2000 years and continues....and will continue until the 'full number' of Gentiles has come in.
Any Gnostics and/or Arian contribution to the body-of-Christ is more-or-less contained to helping the body-of-Christ develop, establish and excercise doctrines which counter the false doctrines brought forth by these groups.
But hey....
slaveOFchrist, I am going to ask you to step away from your apologetic stance for a moment or two, and truely consider what I said in my last post. I think it poses a challenge for you. A challenge that you should not just set aside in an apologetic manner. I think you should consider that here is a devout trinitarian, dust (me), who, at least on this one particular point, has somewhat untwisted the Gnostic and Arian teaching of this familiar subject, and has rather harmonized it with the trinity teaching. I think you recognized something in my last post.....you need to meditate on it my man, and not bury it under....whatever it is you might bury it under.
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | there was a time before the word existed |
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
God is infinite, and the Word is what is revealed of God.
So let me rephrase your statement which you try to impose on me......
There was 'a time' (we use this term strictly for discussion purposes) before there was knowledge of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slaveOFchrist
Little Guppy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 30
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not quite sure what I missed here. I just read your last post and re-read the one before. You surely do not sound like a trinitarian. They would say that Jesus is infinite because he is fully God. You say that the pre-incarnate Jesus was essentially the finite expression of an infinite God. I honestly don't see how this is orthodox. Either way, I don't "get" what your comment to me is about how you have mysteriously untangled Gnosticism and Arianism in some new provocative way. Please explain.
My issue on this thread centers on the CONTRADICTION between the Trinity and the Atonement. Classical incarnation theology does not have much to do with this in my opinion (of course I invite you to show me why it does). The fact of the matter is that Jesus did die for our sins. According to the Trinity Jesus had to be God in order for our sins to be paid for. But it is the very thing that makes Jesus God (his divine nature) which didn't die on the cross! So we are left with a half dead being who really only shed his human shell (yikes!). Yet all along the Bible clearly states that God has immortality. Thus by definition if someone is God then that person cannot die nor can they die for others. This is my conundrum.
With regard to your comment about church history, I would love to engage you on this at some point but this thread is not the place to do it. Suffice it to say that the church that murdered thousands of Muslims and Jews in the name of Christ is not the true Church. Nor is the church which uses torture to extract "confessions" from heretics the bride of Christ. Our lord is not married to a w.h.o.r.e. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 881
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | They would say that Jesus is infinite because he is fully God. You say that the pre-incarnate Jesus was essentially the finite expression of an infinite God. |
Actually I say what they say. God from His unknowable infinitude reveals Himself to a knowable degree. I Am that I Am. I will be what I will be.
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | by definition if someone is God then that person cannot die nor can they die for others. This is my conundrum. |
Allow me to provide you with a couple definitions that may help illuminate the NT revealed Father/Son portion of the Father/Son/HolySpirit concept as trinitarians view it....
| Quote: | nou·me·non - 1. the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.
2. a thing in itself, as distinguished from a phenomenon or thing as it appears.
3. Kantianism. something that can be the object only of a purely intellectual, nonsensuous intuition.
phe·nom·e·non - 1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.
2. something that is impressive or extraordinary.
3. a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder.
4. Philosophy. a. an appearance or immediate object of awareness in experience.
b. Kantianism. a thing as it appears to and is constructed by the mind, as distinguished from a noumenon, or thing-in-itself. |
The very image of the nou·me·non is the phe·nom·e·non.
Based on the above definitions, it could properly be said....'In the beginning was the phe·nom·e·non, the phe·nom·e·non was with the nou·me·non, and the phe·nom·e·non was the nou·me·non'.
Also the nou·me·non is not dependent upon the phe·nom·e·non, but the phe·nom·e·non emanates from, and is dependent upon, the nou·me·non, yet they are one-and-the-same.
With any awareness of the nou·me·non it can properly be said that the nou·me·non is in the phe·nom·e·non, and the phe·nom·e·non is in the nou·me·non, they are one!
And so, based on the above definitions, it could be said that the nou·me·non cannot/could-not become flesh (seeable/viewable/knowable flesh), but the phe·nom·e·non could.
So as it pertains to your above quoted statement.....
By definition if the phe·nom·e·non is the nou·me·non, then that phe·nom·e·non can become flesh, and be tempted, suffer, and die in the flesh, all the while the nou·me·non does not change, and remains inaccessable except by/through the phe·nom·e·non, even if the phe·nom·e·non is no longer in-the-flesh.
The phe·nom·e·non declares the nou·me·non.
No one knows the nou·me·non except the phe·nom·e·non.
However, if you have seen the phe·nom·e·non then you have seen the nou·me·non. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust
Well I suppose Immanuel Kant's transcendental philosophy beats an Irish priest going on about three-leafed clovers and ice, water and steam for those who need extra-Biblical support for faith in Athanasianism, but a couple of points: | Dust wrote: | | No one knows the nou·me·non except the phe·nom·e·non. |
Not only, no one knows the phe·nom·e·non except the nou·me·non:
Luke 10:22 (a la Kant) "All things have been handed over to me by my Nou·me·non (Ding an sich), and no one knows who the Phe·nom·e·non (Erscheinung) is except the Nou·me·non (Ding an sich), or who the Nou·me·non (Ding an sich) is except the Phe·nom·e·non (Erscheinung) and anyone to whom the Phe·nom·e·non (Erscheinung) chooses to reveal him.”
Phe·nom·e·non, this is just a posh (and anachronistic) noun form of the NT vocab phaino / phanerw / phaneros / phanerosis (manifest, reveal) and there are 100 or so verses which give us all we need to know about this.
| Quote: | | However, if you have seen the phe·nom·e·non then you have seen the nou·me·non. |
"who sent him" (John 5:37, 8:40, , and is therefore greater than him (John 14:28).
John 12:45 And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.
| Mohammed wrote: | The Women
4.171 O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak lies against Allah, but speak the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector. |
Fundamentally Trinitarians share the same problem as Mohammed - they are offended by the idea that Jesus has two parents - God, and Mary.
God bless
Steven
Last edited by Steven3 on Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slaveOFchrist
Little Guppy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 30
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
This is certainly an interesting way to look at things. At first I am repulsed by the obvious usage of high level philosophical language you are using (which of course is totally foreign to the Hebrew thought world). Then as I thought about what you are saying, it could just be another way of saying that Jesus represents God to us fully. I believe that the word became flesh, that if you have seen Jesus then you have seen the Father, that he was the visible manifestation (declaration, exegesis) of the invisible Father. Good point to bring out, though I'm not sure what this has to do with the atonement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | Then as I thought about what you are saying, it could just be another way of saying that Jesus represents God to us fully. |
Unfortunately Dust isn't saying that, in this Kantian gloss on the Athanasian Triad there is no representation involved because that would require Jesus to be more than a Phe·nom·e·non of the coeternal cosubstantial coequal Trinity. There is no "Father", no "Son", just a wonderful candid camera set up where one part of God acts out being "conceived" etc.
Sort of like the Truman Show in reverse, where we're all Truman Burbank... 
God bless
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 881
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Howdy,
| slaveOFchrist wrote: | | This is certainly an interesting way to look at things. At first I am repulsed by the obvious usage of high level philosophical language you are using (which of course is totally foreign to the Hebrew thought world). Then as I thought about what you are saying, it could just be another way of saying that Jesus represents God to us fully. I believe that the word became flesh, that if you have seen Jesus then you have seen the Father, that he was the visible manifestation (declaration, exegesis) of the invisible Father. Good point to bring out, though I'm not sure what this has to do with the atonement. |
"Jesus represents God to us fully". Hey, we agree, but what I was actually getting at with my expostion on the nou·me·non/phe·nom·e·non is to illustrate/express, to some degree, how I deal with the conumdrum you mentioned in your previous post.
Philosophical language, and really any language, is inadequate when attempting to provide any definition that would speak of the infinitude-of-God....logically something that is indefinable. Any attempt really just amounts to an imagined metaphor. I Personally don't need to develop a metaphor in my mind to believe what I believe about the Father/Son/HolySpirit concept. I do it for discussion purposes....usually discussion that is prompted by those who are not of like mind.
Now I don't expect to convince you with my imaginings, but I do hope to show you, at least, the reasonablness of my beliefs. I'm glad that you were initally turned off by the rather sterile philosophical language.....sterile because these terms lack the element of love. The terms 'father' and 'son' on the other hand carry great connotations of love.
The words of the trinity doctrine were/are an attempt to put into words what many tacitly, or perhaps spiritually, believe about the Father/Son/HolySpirit concept. Thus the verbage of the trinity doctrine works for many. Most who believe it, haven't thought it out in a philosophical fashion, such as I have....it's more like....the verbage of the trinity doctrine rests easy on the mind, there is no reason to question it....it's tacitly, or tacitly-like, accepted....spiritually accepted, if you will. But, there is a line of reason, as to how the trinity doctrine may work, for those who might delve into it.
As far as what all this has to do with the atonement, it depends on ones depth of understanding. The atonement can be understood in the most simple of terms, yet can also be understood by those with the capacity for even the deepest understanding.
Hello Steven,
Stop with the labels. They are limiting, and a lot-of-the-time, inaccurate. I haven't read Kant, I barely know what you mean by the term 'Athanasianism', I don't know why your speaking German, and I don't think Christians, who believe in the Father/Son/HolySpirit concept, are offended by God and Mary being the Father and Mother of Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slaveOFchrist
Little Guppy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 30
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well...I guess there is not answer to my initial question. Perhaps this is just a blind spot that trinitarians have no answer to. I don't think one can have both the Trinity and the Atonement in the same world. The Trinity is a late philosophical development; the Atonement is found directly in Scripture. In the absence of any cohesive way to have both, I think it is wisest to drop the Trinity and replace it with the pure monotheism of Judaism. After all, Jesus was a Jew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
