Rejection of Jesus, why?
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
I am not able to comment on all that you said above, but allow me to revisit one of the phrases you raise above:For what it's worth, CM, I point out that some of my comments to which you don't respond contain consequential parts of my argument against the Trinity.
Did you missed that Jesus is "...the exact imprint of his nature." Jesus is the image of God..." means, “to compare, liken” (Isa 40:18, 25; 46:5, 5) and “image” (Gen 1:26, 27; 5:3; 9:6).
I think Wolfgang does an excellent job of engaging this issue, so I defer to his response.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
We have shown you more than enough references to prove the Trinity.
Really? I have replied to a number of posts with what you seem to think of as your "more than enough references" and have done so in detail ... showing straight from the texts of the passages that they do not prove a Trinity. You, however, have never done such going through texts in detail and showing the exact points why a passage proves the Trinity
I've given so many it's not even funny. Others have as well. You just refuse to know Him.
Indeed, I don't think it's funny anymore either ... You better point out where you have given so many passages with details, otherwise you would look like a liar.
Who are you to make a statement concerning me (or any other person) like "You just refuse to know Him" ??
I don't have time to search the forums for stuff that has already been posted. Do the search yourself. As for who am I? You refuse to know Christ because you deny His deity that is CLEARLY taught in Scripture. It's not who am I, it is who is God and what does He say in the Scriptures.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Indeed, I don't think it's funny anymore either ... You better point out where you have given so many passages with details, otherwise you would look like a liar.Who are you to make a statement concerning me (or any other person) like "You just refuse to know Him" ??
I don't have time to search the forums for stuff that has already been posted. Do the search yourself.
Hmn ... you just give a lazy excuse line ...
As for who am I? You refuse to know Christ because you deny His deity that is CLEARLY taught in Scripture. It's not who am I, it is who is God and what does He say in the Scriptures.
Indeed, Scripture is plain that only One person (and NOT three persons) is the true God -- my Jesus' words (cp. John 17:3) suffice to clarify that for you, as Jesus stated that his Father ALONE was true God.
There is this NO Deity of Christ in Scripture as you propose. Thus, it looks more that those who propagate a God Jesus are the ones who really do not know the Biblical Jesus.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Indeed, I don't think it's funny anymore either ... You better point out where you have given so many passages with details, otherwise you would look like a liar.Who are you to make a statement concerning me (or any other person) like "You just refuse to know Him" ??
I don't have time to search the forums for stuff that has already been posted. Do the search yourself.
Hmn ... you just give a lazy excuse line ...
So I am lazy for not wanting to search but you are not? Oh that is rich.
As for who am I? You refuse to know Christ because you deny His deity that is CLEARLY taught in Scripture. It's not who am I, it is who is God and what does He say in the Scriptures.
Indeed, Scripture is plain that only One person (and NOT three persons) is the true God -- my Jesus' words (cp. John 17:3) suffice to clarify that for you, as Jesus stated that his Father ALONE was true God.
No, one being. Never says one person.
There is this NO Deity of Christ in Scripture as you propose. Thus, it looks more that those who propagate a God Jesus are the ones who really do not know the Biblical Jesus.
Sure there is. John 1.
-
How do you define the word "being"? How do you define the word "person"? what is the difference between the two?
There is this NO Deity of Christ in Scripture as you propose. Thus, it looks more that those who propagate a God Jesus are the ones who really do not know the Biblical Jesus.
Sure there is. John 1.
John 1 makes a clear distinction between "God" and "Word" ... the two are different, and are distinct from each other.
-
@Wolfgang said:
How do you define the word "being"? How do you define the word "person"? what is the difference between the two?
There is this NO Deity of Christ in Scripture as you propose. Thus, it looks more that those who propagate a God Jesus are the ones who really do not know the Biblical Jesus.
Sure there is. John 1.
John 1 makes a clear distinction between "God" and "Word" ... the two are different, and are distinct from each other.
No it doesn't. The Word WAS GOD. In other words, they ARE THE SAME.
-
@reformed said:
John 1 makes a clear distinction between "God" and "Word" ... the two are different, and are distinct from each other.
No it doesn't. The Word WAS GOD. In other words, they ARE THE SAME.
Well, John also says "the Word was WITH God" ... in addition, the phrase you quote more accurately reads "and God was the Word" (in other words, "DIVINE was the Word")
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
John 1 makes a clear distinction between "God" and "Word" ... the two are different, and are distinct from each other.
No it doesn't. The Word WAS GOD. In other words, they ARE THE SAME.
Well, John also says "the Word was WITH God" ... in addition, the phrase you quote more accurately reads "and God was the Word" (in other words, "DIVINE was the Word")
That still supports my position, not yours.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
John 1 makes a clear distinction between "God" and "Word" ... the two are different, and are distinct from each other.
No it doesn't. The Word WAS GOD. In other words, they ARE THE SAME.
Well, John also says "the Word was WITH God" ... in addition, the phrase you quote more accurately reads "and God was the Word" (in other words, "DIVINE was the Word")
That still supports my position, not yours.
To be WITH someone requires by plain simple logic that TWO distinct beings, entities, persons are involved ... One single being, entity, person who is supposedly WITH themselves makes only for nonsense.
So, pray tell, how does nonsense support your position (unless your position is also nonsense) ??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
John 1 makes a clear distinction between "God" and "Word" ... the two are different, and are distinct from each other.
No it doesn't. The Word WAS GOD. In other words, they ARE THE SAME.
Well, John also says "the Word was WITH God" ... in addition, the phrase you quote more accurately reads "and God was the Word" (in other words, "DIVINE was the Word")
That still supports my position, not yours.
To be WITH someone requires by plain simple logic that TWO distinct beings, entities, persons are involved ... One single being, entity, person who is supposedly WITH themselves makes only for nonsense.
So, pray tell, how does nonsense support your position (unless your position is also nonsense) ??
That's only nonsense if you limit the meaning to one person, which it does not. One essence, one being, three persons.
-
@reformed said:
So, pray tell, how does nonsense support your position (unless your position is also nonsense) ??
That's only nonsense if you limit the meaning to one person, which it does not. One essence, one being, three persons.
Again ... what is your definition of "being"? what your definition of "person"? Does "essence" mean the same as "being"?
Please provide proper source for your definitions (so we know, what you claim is not just your thought up idea of what these words mean). -
essence, essentia. Deriving from the Latin verb esse, literally “to be,” essence is the fundamental nature of something apart from which the thing would not be what it is. Essence, then, is the core of what makes something what it is without being something else. The Latin term essentia became important in reference to the nature of God, especially in the discussion surrounding the Trinity, where each person—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—is said to share the same essentia.
Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 46.
person. Used of humans to denote a living being with the capacity p 91 for freedom, consciousness and relationships; of God as similarly yet preeminently personal; and of the three members of the Trinity. When referring to the triune personhood of God, person does not have any similarity to the contemporary psychological understanding, nor does it connote three separate Gods. Instead, the trinitarian persons are relational in their personhood.
Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 90–91.
-
@reformed said:
essence, essentia. Deriving from the Latin verb esse, literally “to be,” essence is the fundamental nature of something apart from which the thing would not be what it is. Essence, then, is the core of what makes something what it is without being something else. The Latin term essentia became important in reference to the nature of God, especially in the discussion surrounding the Trinity, where each person—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—is said to share the same essentia.Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 46.
person. Used of humans to denote a living being with the capacity p 91 for freedom, consciousness and relationships; of God as similarly yet preeminently personal; and of the three members of the Trinity. When referring to the triune personhood of God, person does not have any similarity to the contemporary psychological understanding, nor does it connote three separate Gods. Instead, the trinitarian persons are relational in their personhood.
Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 90–91.
Thank you .... what about the meaning of "being"??
The above definition of "person" seems to equate "being" and "person" as meaning the same .... cp. "person. used of humans to denote a living being ..."
If that is so, then three persons would NOT be one being, but three living beings. -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
essence, essentia. Deriving from the Latin verb esse, literally “to be,” essence is the fundamental nature of something apart from which the thing would not be what it is. Essence, then, is the core of what makes something what it is without being something else. The Latin term essentia became important in reference to the nature of God, especially in the discussion surrounding the Trinity, where each person—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—is said to share the same essentia.Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 46.
person. Used of humans to denote a living being with the capacity p 91 for freedom, consciousness and relationships; of God as similarly yet preeminently personal; and of the three members of the Trinity. When referring to the triune personhood of God, person does not have any similarity to the contemporary psychological understanding, nor does it connote three separate Gods. Instead, the trinitarian persons are relational in their personhood.
Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 90–91.
Thank you .... what about the meaning of "being"??
The above definition of "person" seems to equate "being" and "person" as meaning the same .... cp. "person. used of humans to denote a living being ..."
If that is so, then three persons would NOT be one being, but three living beings.I'll concede that. One essence, three persons.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
The above definition of "person" seems to equate "being" and "person" as meaning the same .... cp. "person. used of humans to denote a living being ..."
If that is so, then three persons would NOT be one being, but three living beings.I'll concede that. One essence, three persons.
So then "God" is an ESSENCE? Essentially then, "God" is an IT, a quality, a characteristic, a nature?
Illustration: "mobility" would be an essence which certain types of living beings (animals, humans) share .... but one would not call a human person or an elephant or a shark "mobility", or?
Scripture describes God as an acting living SPIRIT Being/person ... Now, please note, an essence does not act. is not itself an living being, a living person.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
The above definition of "person" seems to equate "being" and "person" as meaning the same .... cp. "person. used of humans to denote a living being ..."
If that is so, then three persons would NOT be one being, but three living beings.I'll concede that. One essence, three persons.
So then "God" is an ESSENCE? Essentially then, "God" is an IT, a quality, a characteristic, a nature?
Illustration: "mobility" would be an essence which certain types of living beings (animals, humans) share .... but one would not call a human person or an elephant or a shark "mobility", or?
Scripture describes God as an acting living SPIRIT Being/person ... Now, please note, an essence does not act. is not itself an living being, a living person.
Scripture actually describes God as three persons.
-
@reformed said:
Scripture describes God as an acting living SPIRIT Being/person ... Now, please note, an essence does not act. is not itself an living being, a living person.
Scripture actually describes God as three persons.
I disagree about THREE persons, but I do agree that Scripture describes God as a living being/person.
Now then, with the truth established that God is described as PERSON why do you and Trinitarians in general always come up with this talk that "God" is an "essence" ????
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Scripture describes God as an acting living SPIRIT Being/person ... Now, please note, an essence does not act. is not itself an living being, a living person.
Scripture actually describes God as three persons.
I disagree about THREE persons, but I do agree that Scripture describes God as a living being/person.
Now then, with the truth established that God is described as PERSON why do you and Trinitarians in general always come up with this talk that "God" is an "essence" ????
Look at the definition of Essence.
-
@reformed said:
Now then, with the truth established that God is described as PERSON why do you and Trinitarians in general always come up with this talk that "God" is an "essence" ????
Look at the definition of Essence.
I have ... and it certainly is not something that is acting or a living being or person.
If God were an essence, that God does not act or do anything .... an essence does not speak, does not love, does not create, etc etc -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Now then, with the truth established that God is described as PERSON why do you and Trinitarians in general always come up with this talk that "God" is an "essence" ????
Look at the definition of Essence.
I have ... and it certainly is not something that is acting or a living being or person.
If God were an essence, that God does not act or do anything .... an essence does not speak, does not love, does not create, etc etcUm, everything that exists is an essence. You are an essence, I am an essence. Therefore, God must necessarily also be an essence.
-
@reformed said:
Um, everything that exists is an essence. You are an essence, I am an essence.NOT so ... depending on what aspect you have in mind, you or I have a certain essence or consist of a certain essence, etc. But such essence is NOT the person we each are.
We, the persons, are the living beings, the living persons, who act and do things.Therefore, God must necessarily also be an essence.
See above .... your conclusion is based on a wrong premise.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Um, everything that exists is an essence. You are an essence, I am an essence.NOT so ... depending on what aspect you have in mind, you or I have a certain essence or consist of a certain essence, etc. But such essence is NOT the person we each are.
We, the persons, are the living beings, the living persons, who act and do things.Therefore, God must necessarily also be an essence.
See above .... your conclusion is based on a wrong premise.
What definition of essence are you working from? Clearly not the one I posted.
-
Certainly I am using the word "essence" in its common sense and the one given in a previous post.
Does am essence act and do things? Did an essence create heaven and earth? Or did a living SPIRIT Being/Person act and create? -
@Wolfgang said:
Certainly I am using the word "essence" in its common sense and the one given in a previous post.
Does am essence act and do things? Did an essence create heaven and earth? Or did a living SPIRIT Being/Person act and create?In our working definition and essence absolutely can act/do things.
-
@reformed said:
Does am essence act and do things? Did an essence create heaven and earth? Or did a living SPIRIT Being/Person act and create?
In our working definition and essence absolutely can act/do things.
And what would YOUR definition of "essence" be? And how does it agree with commonly accepted definition of "essence" ?
Do you really think you can come up with your own definition as valid when it contradicts commonly accepted and well known definitions of terms?
I mean, in my definition, an "elephant" is a salt water fish ... ;-) Any objections to that from your end? -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Does am essence act and do things? Did an essence create heaven and earth? Or did a living SPIRIT Being/Person act and create?
In our working definition and essence absolutely can act/do things.
And what would YOUR definition of "essence" be? And how does it agree with commonly accepted definition of "essence" ?
Do you really think you can come up with your own definition as valid when it contradicts commonly accepted and well known definitions of terms?
I mean, in my definition, an "elephant" is a salt water fish ... ;-) Any objections to that from your end?I already posted the definition, thanks.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Does am essence act and do things? Did an essence create heaven and earth? Or did a living SPIRIT Being/Person act and create?
In our working definition and essence absolutely can act/do things.
And what would YOUR definition of "essence" be? And how does it agree with commonly accepted definition of "essence" ?
Do you really think you can come up with your own definition as valid when it contradicts commonly accepted and well known definitions of terms?
I mean, in my definition, an "elephant" is a salt water fish ... ;-) Any objections to that from your end?I already posted the definition, thanks.
So why do you then not adhere to your own definition which you had posted earlier from some lexical source???? Because what you now claim does not agree with the definition of essence which you posted earlier.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Does am essence act and do things? Did an essence create heaven and earth? Or did a living SPIRIT Being/Person act and create?
In our working definition and essence absolutely can act/do things.
And what would YOUR definition of "essence" be? And how does it agree with commonly accepted definition of "essence" ?
Do you really think you can come up with your own definition as valid when it contradicts commonly accepted and well known definitions of terms?
I mean, in my definition, an "elephant" is a salt water fish ... ;-) Any objections to that from your end?I already posted the definition, thanks.
So why do you then not adhere to your own definition which you had posted earlier from some lexical source???? Because what you now claim does not agree with the definition of essence which you posted earlier.
I am adhering to what I posted. How am I not? Be specific.
-
Brethren,
It needs to be made clear, God, himself, is a mystery, how much more the incarnation or the Trinity. However, that should not trouble us as long as the different aspects of these mysteries are clearly taught in Scripture. Even though we may not be able to comprehend logically the various aspects of the Trinity, we need to try and understand as best as we can the scriptural teaching regarding it.All attempts to explain the Trinity will fall short, “especially when we reflect on the relation of the three persons to the divine essence ... all analogies fail us and we become deeply conscious of the fact that the Trinity is a mystery far beyond our comprehension. It is the incomprehensible glory of the Godhead.”
Where is your faith? God has revealed enough for us to believe what he has revealed. CM
SOURCE:
-- Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1941), 88.
-
@C_M_ said:
Where is your faith? God has revealed enough for us to believe what he has revealed.My faith and trust is in what God has revealed ... and thus far I have not seen "the Trinity mystery" revealed in Scripture ...
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
