 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Hang on, now. Do either the Father of the Spirit possess traits that are extraneous to God? If not, there can be no logical distinction between the two. |
They can in that they behave and act differently. You seem to be stuck on the idea that if two things share an existence, they are logically the same. Perhaps you would like to support this. Because as far as I can see, you have offered up no 'logical' proof for it. You have only continually asserted such. Support this claim.
| Quote: | | If the Son is more than God than He cannot be reduced to the shared existence which is God. This raises an interesting dilemma for you, sofyst. |
I guess I am not understanding what you mean by 'reduced to the shared existence'. For as I see it, both the Father and Son have a shared existence. Regardless of whether the Son has an extra nature, this doesn't change that those two share an existence.
| Quote: | No, I am disagreeing with your conception of the incarnation.
Jesus the man was the manifestation of God |
Oh ok...gotcha. I understand your position better now. Can I ask what differentiates this 'manifestation' from God?
| Quote: | | God, as infinite Being, is not an individual. Individuals are finite by definition. |
Only if you're pantheist. God may be infinite, but this doesn't change the fact that He is different than we are. Do you disagree with this. He is individual in that His existence is different than ours, it is an individual existence. The way you are talking, and the conclusions that would necessarily be drawn is that God is everything... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | They can in that they behave and act differently. |
You are begging the question.
| Quote: | | You seem to be stuck on the idea that if two things share an existence, they are logically the same. |
Sofyst, you are not being careful. You once again avoided answering my question: Do either the Father of the Spirit possess traits that are extraneous to God? Please answer this so that we can proceed.
| Quote: | | I guess I am not understanding what you mean by 'reduced to the shared existence'. |
Let me explain...again.  If each Person of the Trinity is distinct from one another, and if they all share the same existence (a sense of existence that you have yet to clarify), then, logically speaking, each Person must possess traits that are extraneious to Deity and each are therefore more than God.
| Quote: | | For as I see it, both the Father and Son have a shared existence. Regardless of whether the Son has an extra nature, this doesn't change that those two share an existence. |
Understood. But your dilmma now is that you have ascribed an independency of the Son from the Godhead.
| Quote: | | Can I ask what differentiates this 'manifestation' from God? |
The manifestation depends on God whereas God is self-dependent.
| Quote: | | Only if you're pantheist. |
Come to think of it, your definition of God as a nature common to differetn Persons might just lead down a slippery slope to Pantheism. I hope you have good footing. 
| Quote: | | God may be infinite, but this doesn't change the fact that He is different than we are. Do you disagree with this. He is individual in that His existence is different than ours, it is an individual existence. The way you are talking, and the conclusions that would necessarily be drawn is that God is everything... |
That's not a necessary conclusion at all. God is more than everything. But I do think we are getting somewhat ahead of ourselves. Yes, God's existence is different than ours, if that's what you mean by "individual existence". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lets get our words right. I will attempt to define words that I see us using, and then we will use either the definition I give, or a better one that you can concoct.
existence - the sum total of one's life, character, traits, history and being.
Allow me to explain this. I have lived for twenty-two years, I have lived in MS and TX. I have gone to this and this school, and I like to do this and this. Therefore, my existence is comprised of my history and who I am. If you were to perhaps change one part of my existence (say I never lived in TX), you would not be speaking about my existence, but rather a quasi-existence of what is Adam. Understand?
person - an individual that acts and thinks and behaves differently than another individual.
being - I don't necessarily know this one right now.
| Quote: | | The manifestation depends on God whereas God is self-dependent. |
Then the manifestations are not God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Lets get our words right. I will attempt to define words that I see us using, and then we will use either the definition I give, or a better one that you can concoct. |
Sounds good, my friend.
| Quote: | | existence - the sum total of one's life, character, traits, history and being. |
I dig it.
| Quote: | | Allow me to explain this. I have lived for twenty-two years, I have lived in MS and TX. I have gone to this and this school, and I like to do this and this. Therefore, my existence is comprised of my history and who I am. If you were to perhaps change one part of my existence (say I never lived in TX), you would not be speaking about my existence, but rather a quasi-existence of what is Adam. Understand? |
Word is born. 
| Quote: | | person - an individual that acts and thinks and behaves differently than another individual. |
An individual what? Don't get circular now.
| Quote: | | being - I don't necessarily know this one right now. |
Well then you had better refrain from asserting that God is three persons in one being seeing that you do not know the meaning of the term.
| Quote: | | Then the manifestations are not God? |
Didn't I answer this?
Question for you: Is Jesus a human person? Is he a "God Person"? (That one's for you, Ryck) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Well then you had better refrain from asserting that God is three persons in one being seeing that you do not know the meaning of the term. |
If I recall correctly, you are the one who kept asserting this term. I did not introduce it to our conversation. You said the difference in God and humanity is that God is a being whereas humanity is not.
I think thought that defining 'being' is crucial to our conversation. I would assert that the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that God is three persons and one being. We then need to talk more about person (as I will do below) and about being.
I got this from theopedia. See if you disagree with it or if we can derive from it a working definition.
| Quote: | | As a noun, either a thing or a substance. The latter is really our concern. A being in this sense is something that is generally living, or if not living, then conscious (certain substances may be conscious, but not living in an embodied state, and some substances may be living—plants, for example—but not conscious). A substance is the owner and unifier of properties, parts, and capacities. A being remains absolutely the same through law-like, repeatable change to reach a final stage if change is part of its nature. Each being or substance has a nature or secondary substance to it. For example, John Doe is a particular being with a human nature. 'Oneness in nature' does not entail 'oneness in being'. John, Joe, and Jack are one in their nature (i.e., they are all human), but they are not one in their being (i.e., they are all separate human beings). The members of the Trinity are not only one in the former sense, they are one in the latter sense (i.e., they are all inseparably united in their Being). |
In discussing 'person', let us see if this is a better definition.
person - one who has his own identity or individuality; one who is conscious of his own existence.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Then the manifestations are not God? |
Didn't I answer this? |
Kind of, but you are confusing. You said that the Father and the Son were manifestations of the Holy Spirit we call God. You also said the Father and Son were God. Therefore, I could read this as the manifestations being God.
But then you said that the manifestations were dependent upon God, whereas God is self-dependent. Leading one to conclude that given the way you somewhat contrasted the two, you believed the manifestations not to be God.
So, to get it all straight. You are saying that the Father and the Son are manifestations of the Holy Spirit which is God. You are saying that the manifestations are dependent upon God, but since God is self-dependent, then the manifestations, which are God, being dependent upon God are simply God being dependent upon Himself, or in other words, God being self-dependent.
Agreed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If I recall correctly, you are the one who kept asserting this term (being). I did not introduce it to our conversation. You said the difference in God and humanity is that God is a being whereas humanity is not. |
If you don't recall claiming that God is three persons yet one being (three "personal forms of existence without a difference in being") then your memory is failing you. You're too young to have such a poor memory, sofyst!
| Quote: | | I think thought that defining 'being' is crucial to our conversation. |
Well, if you think thought that a definition of 'being' is crucial to the discussion, why are you quibbling over who used the word first?
| Quote: | | I would assert that the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that God is three persons and one being. We then need to talk more about person (as I will do below) and about being. |
Very well.
| Quote: | I got this from theopedia. See if you disagree with it or if we can derive from it a working definition.
Quote:
As a noun, either a thing or a substance. The latter is really our concern. A being in this sense is something that is generally living, or if not living, then conscious (certain substances may be conscious, but not living in an embodied state, and some substances may be living—plants, for example—but not conscious). A substance is the owner and unifier of properties, parts, and capacities. A being remains absolutely the same through law-like, repeatable change to reach a final stage if change is part of its nature. Each being or substance has a nature or secondary substance to it. For example, John Doe is a particular being with a human nature. 'Oneness in nature' does not entail 'oneness in being'. John, Joe, and Jack are one in their nature (i.e., they are all human), but they are not one in their being (i.e., they are all separate human beings). The members of the Trinity are not only one in the former sense, they are one in the latter sense (i.e., they are all inseparably united in their Being). |
I am taking to to mean that you are retracting your earlier definition of 'being' as "a living thing."
In any case, why don't you sum up for me what you believe to be the definition offered by this quote you've supplied.
| Quote: | In discussing 'person', let us see if this is a better definition.
person - one who has his own identity or individuality; one who is conscious of his own existence. |
That's fine. So, in case of the Godhead, is each Person conscious of their own existence apart from the others?
| Quote: | | You said that the Father and the Son were manifestations of the Holy Spirit we call God. You also said the Father and Son were God. Therefore, I could read this as the manifestations being God. |
No, the Father is not a manifestation of the Spirit. The Father is the Spirit and the Son is the manifestation/image/expression of the Father. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I am taking to to mean that you are retracting your earlier definition of 'being' as "a living thing."
In any case, why don't you sum up for me what you believe to be the definition offered by this quote you've supplied. |
No no, just expounding upon it.
Being, used as a noun is either a thing or substance, it is something generally living, and if not living then conscious.
| Quote: | | That's fine. So, in case of the Godhead, is each Person conscious of their own existence apart from the others? |
This wording can be taken two ways, so I'll answer both.
They are conscious (apart from the others) of their own existence. But they are not conscious of their existence apart from the others.
Does that make sense?
| Quote: | | No, the Father is not a manifestation of the Spirit. The Father is the Spirit and the Son is the manifestation/image/expression of the Father. |
But you are positive that this manifestation/image/expression is God? Meaning if we looked to this manifestation, we would see God. Granted, we would not see Him as He really is (for we would die), but we would see an expression of Him or image of Him. It would really be God that we are seeing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Being, used as a noun is either a thing or substance, it is something generally living, and if not living then conscious. |
Man, get more concrete with your lingo! In what sense is God a substance of a thing? And don't accuse me of using tired antics. I need you to be specific so that I can understand and address your position rather than addressing a caricature.
I wrote:
| Quote: | | That's fine. So, in case of the Godhead, is each Person conscious of their own existence apart from the others |
?
You replied: | Quote: | | This wording can be taken two ways, so I'll answer both. |
Two ways? What two ways?
| Quote: | | They are conscious (apart from the others) of their own existence. But they are not conscious of their existence apart from the others. Does that make sense? |
The first sentence does but not the second.
| Quote: | | But you are positive that this manifestation/image/expression is God? Meaning if we looked to this manifestation, we would see God. Granted, we would not see Him as He really is (for we would die), but we would see an expression of Him or image of Him. It would really be God that we are seeing. |
I would agree with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Man, get more concrete with your lingo! In what sense is God a substance of a thing? And don't accuse me of using tired antics. I need you to be specific so that I can understand and address your position rather than addressing a caricature. |
Apoc, I'm saying I don't know how to get more concrete than this. You use the word as well, it is not as though 'being' is some Trinitarian fabrication. Therefore you put forth your understanding of the word. For as far as I'm thinking, this definition does quite well with me. You disagree with it, you then give something better.
| Quote: |
Two ways? What two ways? |
You said:
| Quote: | | That's fine. So, in case of the Godhead, is each Person conscious of their own existence apart from the others |
I was saying that this question can be taken two different ways.
We can either read it that each person is conscious of their existence apart from the others. Meaning that apart from the others describes their existence. They are conscious of their existence, what existence? Their existence apart from the others.
OR we can read it as each person being conscious apart from the others of their existence. Meaning that they are all conscious of their shared existence, but they are conscious of this shared existence apart from the others as they do not share a consciousness.
That is why I didn't just answer yes, because if read the wrong way, I would have been saying yes they do not share an existence.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | But you are positive that this manifestation/image/expression is God? Meaning if we looked to this manifestation, we would see God. Granted, we would not see Him as He really is (for we would die), but we would see an expression of Him or image of Him. It would really be God that we are seeing. |
I would agree with this. |
So when we see this manifestation speaking or acting or loving, it is really God speaking or acting or loving? As the manifestation is God, when the manifestation speaks or acts or loves, it is God speaking or acting or loving? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
sofyst,
I'm not disagreeing with your definition of 'being' as "a thing or a substance" - I am only trying to understand it. Using these terms loosely, I can agree that multiple persons can share an existence. You and I are, after all, made of the same stuff. Is this loose sense what you have in midn when you say that the Persons of the Godhead share an existence?
| Quote: | | So when we see this manifestation speaking or acting or loving, it is really God speaking or acting or loving? As the manifestation is God, when the manifestation speaks or acts or loves, it is God speaking or acting or loving? |
Yep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm not disagreeing with your definition of 'being' as "a thing or a substance" - I am only trying to understand it. Using these terms loosely, I can agree that multiple persons can share an existence. You and I are, after all, made of the same stuff. Is this loose sense what you have in midn when you say that the Persons of the Godhead share an existence? |
No, because your existence is not dependent upon mine. I can exist without you existing. You can exist without I existing. Jesus cannot exist without the Father nor the Father without the Spirit.
You and I are made of a common 'stuff', granted, but there is still a difference between your 'stuff' and mine. Whereas in God, there is no difference, there is just one eternal 'stuff' of which three persons share. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
This should be locked...
Unless of course you want me to discuss with myself. I do so quite well actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry, Sofyst, I was blocked from accessing the forum for for a week and a half. I'm surprised that nobody informed you. then again, I wasn't informed either. Sure, we can lock this up for now. Or you can give me some time to refesh myself with this debate. What do you want to do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
