101G
Well-known member
Correct, and is this not the SAME one Person in the OT LORD/"YHWH", and the NT, Lord/"YHWH?"
101G
5 Non-Negotiables from the Church Fathers on the Incarnation
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
101G
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I'll try to explain the logical problem.
- PREMISE 1: Let's call "God" the entity that sent Jesus to the world, as John 3:16 states.
- PREMISE 2: "The Father" is One Single Person.
- PREMISE 3: Jesus calls the entity that sent Him to the world "The Father" (never "The Holy Spirit" or, in any variant, "The Family/Assembly of My Father, Me and The Holy Spirit")
What is the conclusion?
God (the entity who sent Jesus to the world) is a single Person.
101G
Well-known member
Greeting brother, using you example above, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you."
now, the one who "CAME", meaning ..... being SENT, who was it? God or someone else?
101G.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Well, this is very simplistic; even if we granted your premises, it could still easily fit in the definition of the Trinity.
Trinitarians believe the Father is one person and sent Jesus, that's completely compatible, no contradiction.
It would be up to you to prove that Jesus cannot be God, or that God can never be used in more than one way, and of course, you cannot.
This is a logical fallacy that if one persons sends someone, no one else could have sent them. If I say, "Bob sent me down to the office," that does not necessarily exclude that Bill may have sent me too, I may just want to mention Bob in a certain context. Again, back to the refrain, we use the whole Bible to interpret each verse. There are of course verses that directly tell us both the Spirit and the Son were involved with sending Jesus.
No one, forced it from me, but, I, lay it down, of myself, (Jn. 10:18)
The Holy Spirit, shall come upon thee, and, the power of the Most High, shall overshadow thee; wherefore, even that which is to be born, Holy, shall be called, Son of God. (Lk. 1:35)
Dizerner
Well-known member
No, there are Three divine persons that all interact.
The Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Father are both the Holy Spirit.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
It would be in line if we had only passages that said "The Father sent the Son", but we have a passage saying "God sent his Son".
So, God cannot be anything or anyone else that the Person of the Father.
This is not an isolated case, my brother.
Consider this one:
- PREMISE 1: The Bible says that God raised Jesus from the dead: "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)
- PREMISE 2: The Father is One Single Person.
- PREMISE 3: The Bible says that The Father raised Jesus from the dead: Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead) (Galatians 1:1). It never says that the Holy Spirit, or the Collective of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.
CONCLUSION:
God, who raised Jesus from the dead, is The Father, One Single Person.
101G
Well-known member
101G
Well-known member
was it not the Lord Jesus who raised up his own body? supportive scripture, John 2:18 "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" John 2:19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" John 2:21 "But he spake of the temple of his body." John 2:22 "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."
the Lord Jesus said he raised up his body.
101G.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
You argue that the fact that Jesus mentioned the Father as the Person who Sent Him, does not preclude that other Persons could have sent him as well (even himself, I guess). Is this your argument? If so, what you are doing is a fallacy ex silentio.
Please notice what a fallacy ex silentio can lead us to.
If nothing precludes Jesus to have been sent by MORE PERSONS besides The Father, we could argue that
- Jesus could have been sent not just by 2 other persons, but by many persons whose identity Jesus preferred to conceal. For example, He could have been sent by The Angel of YHWH of the Old Testament... a fourth person of the Godhead... or by Enoch, why not? Maybe by Elijah and Moses as well, and that's why they appeared with Him in the Transfiguration. Maybe by Abraham, who saw His day coming. The fact that Jesus didn't mention Enoch, Moses, Elijah or Abraham does not preclude to have been sent by them. Right?
- Jesus also could have sent himself, given himself authority, telling himself what to speak and do. Nothing prevents that, right?
My brother, we are talking here about a doctrine of the highest importance, do we agree?
Jesus considered important to present his credentials as the Messenger or Ambassador of Someone with authority ("The Father"), as we can read over and over in the gospels.
So, why would we consider that Jesus did not tell the whole story about Who was sending Him? Why would he hide or deny the fact that He was also sending Himself, giving himself authority?
Dizerner
Well-known member
One, of course. He is "of" both of the others.
civic
Well-known member
God, who raised Jesus from the dead, is The Son, One Single Person.
Hope this helps !!!
Johann
Well-known member
The Father raised Jesus from the dead-the Spirit and Jesus.
Textus Receptus (TR): "εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν..."
Translation: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you..."
This explicitly attributes Jesus’ resurrection to the power of the Holy Spirit.
1 Peter 3:18
TR: "θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, ζῳοποιηθείς δὲ πνεύματι..."
Translation: "Being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit..."
While there is interpretive debate, many scholars see this as a reference to the Spirit's role in resurrection.
Jesus Himself Raised His Own Body
John 2:19-21
TR: "λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν."
Translation: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
The context (v. 21) clarifies that Jesus was speaking about His body, affirming His direct involvement in His resurrection.
John 10:17-18
TR: "διὰ τοῦτο ὁ πατὴρ με ἀγαπᾷ, ὅτι ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, ἵνα πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν... ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν."
Translation: "Therefore, the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again... I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again."
Jesus declares His power and authority over His own resurrection.
Harmonization of Roles
The New Testament often emphasizes the collaborative work of the Trinity. While the Holy Spirit is identified as the agent of resurrection in some passages, Jesus also asserts His divine authority and active role. Both views are theologically consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work in perfect unity.
J.
101G
Well-known member
ok, Good .....well then, how much of the "ONE" Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') for the one person Christ/The Son to come in flesh. because, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
now, the form of God here is "Spirit", G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313
so, how much of the ONE Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') for the PERSON, the Son to come in flesh and blood?
how much 1/3 or all or none?
101G.
101G
Well-known member
Johann
Well-known member
Perhaps you should consider using Lexicons other than Michelson and learn basic Koine Greek grammar and syntax-I can steer you in the right direction, IF you are willing.
J.
101G
Well-known member
used General Definitions. Modalism, noun
theology
the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature.
also, Try reading... https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-heresy-modalism.html
101G.
Johann
Well-known member
of God. This is a clear assertion on Paul’s part of the deity of Christ. Daniel Waterland gets to the crux of the controversy by setting forth two series of texts. The first series includes Isa_43:10; Isa_44:8; Isa_45:5; Isa_46:9, which declare that God is one, and to him none can be likened. The second series includes Jhn_1:1, Rom_9:5, Php_2:6, Heb_1:3; Heb_1:8, which declare that Jesus Christ is God.
The consequences of the Arian scheme are that if the texts of Isaiah exclude the Son, he is altogether excluded, and is no God at all. He cannot, upon Arian principles, be the same God, because he is not the same Person: he cannot be another God, because excluded by the Isaiah texts.
If, therefore he be neither the same God, nor another God, it must follow, that he is no God. This is the difficulty which lies against the Arian scheme, and which Arians have not sufficiently attended to. It will not do to make Jesus Christ "a god" in a lesser sense, reserving only to the Father the title of supreme God, for neither Isaiah, nor the first commandment, allow for such a distinction.
If they had allowed such a distinction, then in what sense would the worship of Baal and Ashteroth be considered idolatry, if they were merely looked upon as inferior deities, and served with a subordinate worship? The Old Testament texts cannot mean that there is merely no other Supreme God; but absolutely no other: and therefore our blessed Lord must either be included and comprehended in the one Supreme God of Israel, or be entirely excluded with the other pretended or nominal deities.
In no case have the Arians proved—what must be proved if their understanding is to be received as correct—that texts which designate God the Father as the "only true God" (Jhn_17:3) or "one God" (1Co_8:6) are meant to teach that the Son is absolutely excluded also from such designations, just as the Son is emphatically designated one Lord (Eph_4:5) without design to exclude the Father from being Lord also (see Daniel Waterland, Works, vol. 1, pp. 275-280).
Waterland observes that the tactics of Arians in his day were to industriously run from the point, misrepresent our sense, and artfully conceal their own—characteristics which have not changed from his day to ours. Jesus must either be entirely excluded by the Isaiah texts, or not at all: and if he be not excluded, he is comprehended in the one Supreme God, and is one with him. Arians produce texts to show that the Father singly is the Supreme God, and that Christ is excluded from being the Supreme God: but I insist upon it, that you misunderstand those texts; because the interpretation you give of them is not reconcilable with other texts; and because it leads to such absurdities, as are too shocking even for yourself to admit.
In short, either you prove too much, or you prove nothing (Waterland, vol 1, p. 278, 281). Subsisting in the form of God proves his nature and essence to be divine. John Daille states "As then the Lord Jesus, before He took our flesh, was in the form of God, it necessarily follows that He was truly God, no one being able to have the glory of God but He who had His nature also. And what the apostle adds, that He was "equal with God," clearly also determines the same thing; it being evident that if the Son were a creature, He could not be equal to God; every creature being of necessity infinitely below the nature, power, and majesty of the Creator" (Comm. on Philippians, Sermon 9, pp. 91, 92). Isa_43:10; Isa_44:8; Isa_45:5; Isa_46:9, Jhn_1:1, Rom_9:5, Heb_1:3; Heb_1:8.
J.
Johann
Well-known member
I see-you are NOT willing to learn and I believe in the Triune Godhead-not modalism.
This is a waste of my time and energy.
J.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Persons can have roles, this does not necessitate one person.
