 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ragman13 wrote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | One unique attribute that the Father has which we can't have is the Father is uncreated while his Son and us are. |
Jesus Shares the attribute of being Eternal and Infinite with the Father, God the Son was not created But Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. Yes His human nature was created but His God nature has always existed.
There is a really good lecture online about the Trinity that talks about the difficulties of it and the reason that Christians hold to it when even the Judaism that Christianity is born from does not.
http://biblicaltraining.org/bible-gateway-online/bible-Systematic-Theology-lay/bible-The-Trinity.html |
Thanks for the link. I read through it. Unfortunately it does the common problem all Trinity supporters do: You have to assume the Trinity is true then look in the Scriptures for innuendos and suppositions which can be coerced to give Trinity support. That's being a prejudiced spinner instead of being an objective reader.
As it stands there is no explicit Scripture that says that God is composed of a Godhead made up of specifically three persons which are God in themselves and also make up one God collectively.
Phew! That's one heavy claim which should have been explained by at least one Bible writer for all would-be Christians if this was going to be the corner stone of Christian belief. As it stands, no Bible writer makes any statement casually saying that God is three let alone teaching that God is three and the details of that unusual union.
Peace! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
james
Lion
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 901
Location: Portland, Ore
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am curious as to how everyone here would interpret the meaning of these two scriptures, concerning the relationship of Christ and God :
Phil 2:5,6 "Let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
2 Cor 4:4 " .....lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,....." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dabmci
House Cat
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 160
Location: Wylie
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | I am curious as to how everyone here would interpret the meaning of these two scriptures, concerning the relationship of Christ and God :
Phil 2:5,6 "Let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
2 Cor 4:4 " .....lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,....." |
James,
They should be interprted just how they are read. God shows himself to us in many ways. The Son of God as read in Phil 2:5,6 laid down the ability to act on his own to come down and transend time and space to be in human form just to die and take back what was his before any that was anything was ever created. God does not share his Glory with anyone nor does he Counsel with any one, nor does he talk to himself. So if that is the case something else is going on in all those passages where he speaks like "let us make man, and "Who will go for us" and " Man has become like one of us" and Jesus saying glorify him with the glory he had with the father. How do you interprted that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Big Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | So, I don't understand how you imply that God is three when this Scripture clearly states that God is one! |
Is it my quoting of these particular scriptures that make an implication, or is it the scriptures themselves?
To gain an understanding within the bounds of the physical realm with no regard to what the bible declares about God's infinite, transcendent, and spiritual qualities is probably impossible.
There is no totality of infinitude; therefore it is impossible to know God in His infinitude, but if something of God becomes known, which is the definition of Logos, then perhaps it can be properly stated that the Logos is an emanation from the midst of the infinitude of God. In that the Logos became flesh by being born of a woman, the spiritual relationship of Jesus (the Logos), and the unknown infinitude of God is that of father and son.
And so by this rational we can see how the Father, and the Son are not just one in agreement, but rather truly one. And we can also see how it is that the Father is revealed in the Son and how it is that only the Son can properly declare things of the Father.
There is no composition regarding God, other than what is known, unknown, and declared. Our view of this may be why it was necessary to Scripturally declare.....
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD
Note: Strictly within the bounds of the physical realm it would not be necessary for one to declare himself to be one.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Ryck wrote: | | So, I don't understand how you imply that God is three when this Scripture clearly states that God is one! |
Is it my quoting of these particular scriptures that make an implication, or is it the scriptures themselves?
To gain an understanding within the bounds of the physical realm with no regard to what the bible declares about God's infinite, transcendent, and spiritual qualities is probably impossible.
There is no totality of infinitude; therefore it is impossible to know God in His infinitude, but if something of God becomes known, which is the definition of Logos, then perhaps it can be properly stated that the Logos is an emanation from the midst of the infinitude of God. In that the Logos became flesh by being born of a woman, the spiritual relationship of Jesus (the Logos), and the unknown infinitude of God is that of father and son.
And so by this rational we can see how the Father, and the Son are not just one in agreement, but rather truly one. And we can also see how it is that the Father is revealed in the Son and how it is that only the Son can properly declare things of the Father.
There is no composition regarding God, other than what is known, unknown, and declared. Our view of this may be why it was necessary to Scripturally declare.....
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD
Note: Strictly within the bounds of the physical realm it would not be necessary for one to declare himself to be one. |
If God had a hand in the composition of Scripture, He would have given us a follow-up to understand "correctly" what is meant in Deut 6:4. There is no follow-up re-interpretation of Deut 6:4.
It is an historical fact that the Jews were strict monotheists who zealously maintained their God as One Himself. Jesus later repeated the idea of Deut 6:4 in Mark 12:29. And indications from Mark 12:32 is that the audience understood what was meant in Deut 6:4 for generations and that that understanding didn't change even in Jesus' day. And Jesus, the Apostles, and disciples didn't go on record to alter that understanding at any time.
So, respectfully, what you are trying to imply is not valid.
Let's not make the Scriptures complicated. Interesting, yes. But not complicated.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Big Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ryck,
It's not a matter of making the Bible complicated, it's a matter of conflicting Christian views/interpretations, and how to properly discern among them. Deception, as the Bible indicates, plays a roll in perpetuating these conflicts.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | Ryck,
It's not a matter of making the Bible complicated, it's a matter of conflicting Christian views/interpretations, and how to properly discern among them. Deception, as the Bible indicates, plays a roll in perpetuating these conflicts. |
So you have shown how those of your position conflict with the Old and New Testament understanding of Deut 6:4 and Mark 29:29. Remember that Mark 29:32 reveals the people's continuing understanding of Deut 6:4 and that Jesus didn't conflict, change, nor redefined that understanding. He had a great moment to declare the Trinity nature of God but instead maintained and perpetuated the unary monotheistic nature of God.
Interesting, isn't it?
Question is: Why do you (plural) confict? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | I am curious as to how everyone here would interpret the meaning of these two scriptures, concerning the relationship of Christ and God :
Phil 2:5,6 "Let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
|
Does someone being in the form of a lion makes that person a lion?
| james wrote: |
2 Cor 4:4 " .....lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,....." |
Is the image of something the same thing as the original? Which is going to bite you? The image of the lion or the lion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Big Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | So you have shown how those of your position conflict with the Old and New Testament understanding of Deut 6:4 and Mark 29:29. |
Slow down Ryck,
I provided a simple summery of the Father/Son/HolySpirit relationship as outlined across several books in the NT. My summery demonstrates by way of reason how this concept is not only compatible with Deut 6:4, but also offers a reason as to why Deut 6:4 was declared.
Apparently you found the summery to be complicated, but the summery is actually quite simple. I ask that you slow down and actually read it.....consider it. If you find it incompatible with scripture demonstrate it by way of reason.
In your haste you have referenced non-existent passages (Mark 29:29, Mark 29:32???).
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Ryck wrote: | | So you have shown how those of your position conflict with the Old and New Testament understanding of Deut 6:4 and Mark 29:29. |
Slow down Ryck,
I provided a simple summery of the Father/Son/HolySpirit relationship as outlined across several books in the NT. My summery demonstrates by way of reason how this concept is not only compatible with Deut 6:4, but also offers a reason as to why Deut 6:4 was declared.
|
Thank you for your summary. Explaining the Trinity is not an easy task. But with all that it doesn't fit the Biblical evidence.
There is nothing in the Old Testament that leads anyone to a Father/Son/Holy Spirit composite deity and there is nothing in the New Testament that defines God as a Father/Son/Holy Spirit melded deity for Christians to believe and follow.
| Quote: |
Apparently you found the summery to be complicated, but the summery is actually quite simple. I ask that you slow down and actually read it.....consider it. If you find it incompatible with scripture demonstrate it by way of reason.
In your haste you have referenced non-existent passages (Mark 29:29, Mark 29:32???). |
No, I was a little careless. I'm a two handed typer but when I'm forced to type one handed typos happen. I thought I checked for typos but obviously I missed that. Thanks for catching that. I was refering to Mark 12:29. where Jesus was repeating the Shema.
Mark 29:32 reveals the people's continuing understanding of Deut 6:4 which Jesus repeated in Mark 12:29. Jesus didn't conflict, change, nor redefine that understanding. He had a great moment to declare the Trinity nature of God but instead maintained and perpetuated the unary monotheistic nature of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Lion
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 901
Location: Portland, Ore
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ryck,
| Quote: | james wrote:
I am curious as to how everyone here would interpret the meaning of these two scriptures, concerning the relationship of Christ and God :
Phil 2:5,6 "Let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
Does someone being in the form of a lion makes that person a lion? |
And yet would someone in the form of a lion think they were equal with a lion, unless they were truely a lion?
| Quote: | james wrote:
2 Cor 4:4 " .....lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,....."
Is the image of something the same thing as the original? Which is going to bite you? The image of the lion or the lion? |
If someone claims they have equality as a lion would they not bite to convince others they are a real lion?
I do apologize for asking a question to your questions but I want to understand what is said here in scripture and these are the questions that came to mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Lion
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 901
Location: Portland, Ore
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dabmci wrote: | | james wrote: | I am curious as to how everyone here would interpret the meaning of these two scriptures, concerning the relationship of Christ and God :
Phil 2:5,6 "Let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
2 Cor 4:4 " .....lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,....." |
James,
They should be interprted just how they are read. God shows himself to us in many ways. The Son of God as read in Phil 2:5,6 laid down the ability to act on his own to come down and transend time and space to be in human form just to die and take back what was his before any that was anything was ever created. God does not share his Glory with anyone nor does he Counsel with any one, nor does he talk to himself. So if that is the case something else is going on in all those passages where he speaks like "let us make man, and "Who will go for us" and " Man has become like one of us" and Jesus saying glorify him with the glory he had with the father. How do you interprted that? |
I do not know right now and am looking for input. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geoff
Tadpole
Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 21
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi all.
Jesus said:
Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
The Greek word translated 'seen' properly means: 'to discern clearly' or 'perceive' in the context of this verse.
At the point of time that Jesus made this statement he truly was the only one that had perceived God.
He repeated this:
Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
The disciples still didn't get it. Then later he said:
Joh 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
They still didn't understand as this below shows:
Joh 16:29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
Joh 16:30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
Joh 16:31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?
Then comes the first recorded statement from any man that Jesus truly had been perceived and therefore so had the Father been 'seen'.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
What is it that made the difference?
Joh 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
To that point in time no one had 'seen' Jesus as any one other than a man; now they saw both the man and God who was dwelling in him.
Now they understood what Jesus meant when he prayed:
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Geoff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | Ryck,
| Quote: | james wrote:
I am curious as to how everyone here would interpret the meaning of these two scriptures, concerning the relationship of Christ and God :
Phil 2:5,6 "Let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
Does someone being in the form of a lion makes that person a lion? |
And yet would someone in the form of a lion think they were equal with a lion, unless they were truely a lion?
|
That just means they were something but not quite a lion, right? Otherwise they are the lion instead of somewhat a copy of one.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | james wrote:
2 Cor 4:4 " .....lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,....."
Is the image of something the same thing as the original? Which is going to bite you? The image of the lion or the lion? |
If someone claims they have equality as a lion would they not bite to convince others they are a real lion?
|
But we already KNOW they are the IMAGE of that lion hence not actually a real lion.
| Quote: |
I do apologize for asking a question to your questions but I want to understand what is said here in scripture and these are the questions that came to mind. |
Oh no! That's fine!! Good questions are as valuable to learning as good answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dartman
Labrador
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 311
Location: Central Washington State
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: Phil 2:3-11 |
|
|
Phil 2:3-11
3 Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
RSV
To understand this text, we need the context. The topic here is "Attitude". The believers in Philipi were being instructed to have the same attitude Jesus displayed, in that he did not attempt to grasp equality with God, in fact, he took on the role of a servant. He was/is by linage the rightful king. He was/is by God's power the Son of God. Yet his attitude was that of a servant. It is VERY important to note that this passage does NOT say Jesus IS God, or EQUAL with God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
