praise_yeshua
Active Member
Read the comments I made to your fellow apostate.
The Trinity and the Incarnation
- Thread starter Rory Wilson
- Start date
Read the comments I made to your fellow apostate.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
So Jesus is better than you?
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Jesus raised from the dead with His own power. You have no power except it be given to you from above.
There is no telling how long your body is going to stay in the grave and find corruption. Jesus didn't find the corruption you're going to find when you DIE. Jesus didn't DIE like you're going to die.
He is a Unitarian. You're a charismatic Trinitarians. At least that is what you claim. I have never personally meet a Arminian that doesn't preach and teach like a Unitarian.
If you're going to be like @Peterlag , then I will treat you like him.
Unitarians murdered Jesus Christ. Why do you identify with those who murdered Jesus Christ.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Jesus was better than the apostles. This connection you're making is of less quality than the connection Jesus Christ had with the Father.
You're being foolish in this comparison.
Okay. I don't believe you're saying that you're exactly like the Father. However, Jesus was.
Thusly, you're less than Jesus Christ.
So why "talk around" this fact. Jesus is better than you. Jesus was/is just like the Father in quality, power and character.
You're not. So stop comparing Jesus to yourself. It is a foolish endeavor.
Believe
Active Member
In Isaiah 6:3, where the prophet, in his vision of the exalted Yahweh, hears the trisagion ‘Holy, holy, holy’ in the mouths of the seraphim. This is another example of what, on the face of it, was originally understood as a threefold ascription of praise to God but that on later reflection, in the light of fuller NT revelation, bears the impress of the three-personed God.
Postmodernism is unable to account for unity in the Trinity. Islam is a militant and monolithic unifying principle, with no provision for diversity, but postmodernism is a militant diversifying principle without a basis for unity much like Unitarianism.
Unitarianism and its rejection of the knowledge of the trinity and it's absolute false claims that Jesus is just a man, not a divine being, and emphasizes His role as a moral and prophetic leader leaves it with no way to account for salvation.”
Postmodernism is unable to account for unity in the Trinity. Islam is a militant and monolithic unifying principle, with no provision for diversity, but postmodernism is a militant diversifying principle without a basis for unity much like Unitarianism.
Unitarianism and its rejection of the knowledge of the trinity and it's absolute false claims that Jesus is just a man, not a divine being, and emphasizes His role as a moral and prophetic leader leaves it with no way to account for salvation.”
Runningman
Active Member
We know that Jesus is the image of the invisible Father, yet the Bible says to be conformed to the image of Jesus. The degree of holiness and righteousness the apostles taught people to have is one that equals God's. They believed people can and should cease all of their sin activity.
Since Jesus is the image of the invisible God and Paul taught people they will conform to the image of Jesus, then was Paul telling people to be the image of the invisible God just like Jesus?
Colossians 1
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Romans 8
29For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.
As I have said many times before, Jesus is the example God expects of us. God doesn't expect us to be God, but just like Him in more ways than one.
Matthew 5
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Luke 6
36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Ephesians 5
1Be imitators of God, therefore, as beloved children,
1 Peter 1
16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Active Member
You need to admit what I said is true before you try to move on. You're not going to move away from this point without confirming.
You tried to say that those who follow the apostles have the same relationship to the Father that the Son has. You lied. You are being foolish in such comparisons.
Admit that the Son has a different relationship with the father than the apostles had. He was greater than them. He is greater than you.
charismaticlady
Active Member
I conversed with @Peterlag privately to ask him if he was Unitarian as "Mike" said, and he replied he didn't know what Mike was talking about.
We do interpret the scriptures the same, and I agree with him more than most others on these forums. But I'm not Unitarian.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
Oh but it is
Peterlag
Active Member
There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.
Peterlag
Active Member
Others (not me) say on other sites that people can't debate me, so they mock me. Others would say the same if they saw me on these sites.
cc: @praise_yeshua
@mikesw
Doctrines of revelation emerge from reflection on the experience of the divine in the world as it is understood to be received and lived by the Church. Epistemological constructions of divine (self-)revelation are made to provide a conceptual framework for the experience of ‘knowing’ that to which the doctrine of the Trinity refers or symbolizes.
The consequences of the Enlightenment challenge to epistemological certainty meant that it became necessary once more to ask the question, ‘Is it possible to know God and in particular to know God as Trinity?’ Theologians had to ask themselves whether it was possible or preferable to ‘begin’ with God or with the works of God in creating and redeeming or the knowing of the human subject. One manifestation of anxiety about the consequences of the Enlightenment is to be seen in the debates concerning Socinianism and Deism.
Socinianism denies key elements of historic Christian orthodoxy, particularly the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and substitutionary atonement. Socinians also rejected the infallibility of Scripture, the concept of original sin, and the traditional Christian understanding of justification by faith alone. As a result, Socinianism is considered a heresy for its radical departure from core biblical teachings.
The consequences of the Enlightenment challenge to epistemological certainty meant that it became necessary once more to ask the question, ‘Is it possible to know God and in particular to know God as Trinity?’ Theologians had to ask themselves whether it was possible or preferable to ‘begin’ with God or with the works of God in creating and redeeming or the knowing of the human subject. One manifestation of anxiety about the consequences of the Enlightenment is to be seen in the debates concerning Socinianism and Deism.
Socinianism denies key elements of historic Christian orthodoxy, particularly the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and substitutionary atonement. Socinians also rejected the infallibility of Scripture, the concept of original sin, and the traditional Christian understanding of justification by faith alone. As a result, Socinianism is considered a heresy for its radical departure from core biblical teachings.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Why would anyone then bow down or worship him?
Are you gonna bow down to me? I give you a pass on the worship.
Starting at the beginning.... all KJV.
Matt 2:11
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
Matt 28:9
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
John 9:38
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
Romans 14:11
It is written: “As surely as I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow before Me; every tongue will confess to God.”
Hebrews 1:6 "
And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of of God worship him.
Philippians 2:9-10
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Rev 5:14
And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
- Bowing down signifies submission and reverence. In the New Testament, this act is directed towards Jesus, affirming his divine status and authority.
The Lamb Exalted
…13And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power forever and ever!” 14And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.
Berean Standard Bible · Download
Theological Significance
The call to worship and bow down is not merely a ritualistic practice but a theological affirmation of God's lordship. It acknowledges His majesty and our dependence on Him. Worship is both a personal and communal act, reflecting the believer's relationship with God and the unity of the body of Christ.
The act of bowing down and worshiping Jesus is often interpreted as an indication of His divinity, as worship is reserved for God alone in biblical texts. This is supported by instances in the New Testament where individuals worship Jesus, suggesting that He holds a divine status.
DO YOU WANT MORE?
Peterlag
Active Member
When it comes to Socinianism... it appears they are correct concerning the trinity. A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.
charismaticlady
Active Member
Peter read Titus.
13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
I didn't realize Jesus was God until I read this verse. I even wrote Jesus is God in the margin in big letters! That was almost 50 years ago.
Hosanna
Active Member
Yes, He most certainly is our God and Savior. Jesus is the answer.
Jesus, Jesus, You're the answer
To all I'm searching for
Jesus, Jesus, there's no question
You're what my heart is longing for
Chorus
You're my hope, You're my strength
You're my peace in the stormy sea
You're my life, my very source
My guiding light wherever I may go
You're what my heart is longing for
You're what my heart is longing for
I love it
This I hope may help understand the Trinity. I know it helped me.
But it is in his exposition of the Trinity that Dr. Fairbairn is most precise. God ‘is by His essence a society.’ The three Persons are the three members of this society. Viewed from within, God is ‘love in eternal exercise, existing through personal distinctions, yet in community of life, … in ceaseless flow and ebb, streaming from its source in the eternal Subject, retreating from its eternal Object, moving in the unbeginning, unending cycle which is the bosom of the Infinite.’
It is, I think, impossible to attach any real meaning to such language as this without taking the term ‘Person’ in the doctrine of the Trinity in quite the modern English sense, in which a person is one having a clear individuality of his own. It is quite true that in the historical theology of the Church it will not bear that meaning. The English word is a translation of a Latin word for a character, and the Latin word itself is a very faulty translation of a Greek word (Hypostasis) meaning an aspect or manifestation.
But it seems quite clear that two sides of one person cannot be said to love one another, nor can three aspects or manifestations of one being love one another. So that, if we are to take Dr. Fairbairn’s account of the Godhead, it certainly comprises three several Persons loving one another. Nor does Dr. Fairbairn make any attempt to disclaim this plain meaning of his own language beyond the courageous, but startling expedient of calling these three Persons collectively ‘He,’ as though they were obviously, not a plural, but a singular.
The germ of this conception, so far as the first and second persons of the Trinity are concerned, will be found in the late Richard Holt Hutton’s treatise on The Incarnation and Principles of Evidence, in his volume of Theological Essays. He there contends that it is necessary to think of the Son as eternally associated with the Father, if we are to believe that love is of the essential nature of God; because love in its essence is social, and God’s love could not otherwise find an object prior to the existence of created things.
The simple answer seems to be that there is no need to suppose that there ever was a time when God was not already calling into being objects for his love. But, in any case, Mr. Hutton’s suggestion does not go the length of Dr. Fairbairn’s. I believe that in the crude and naked form in which a Society, whether of two or of three persons, receiving and bestowing affection among themselves, is put forward by the Principal of Mansfield and, as we shall see, by many popular contemporary theologians, is almost entirely a phenomenon of the last few years.
When Dr. Fairbairn proceeds to portion out the functions of the three several Persons in the Trinity, or rather those of the second and the third, the confusion becomes still more perplexing. Orthodox theology teaches that the Word is incarnated in Christ, and the Word is the second Person of the Trinity. But Dr. Fairbairn tells us that it is by the Holy Spirit that Christ performs his mighty works, and the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity.
And so he goes on to say that Christ and the Holy Spirit are ‘coefficient energies, or co-essential persons.’ Neither could have worked effectively without the other. The Spirit is suddenly substituted to fulfil the offices hitherto ascribed to the Word. It is the ever haunting difficulty of rationalising orthodox theologians to keep clear the functions of the first and second Persons of the Trinity and to prevent their merging into one.
But it is in his exposition of the Trinity that Dr. Fairbairn is most precise. God ‘is by His essence a society.’ The three Persons are the three members of this society. Viewed from within, God is ‘love in eternal exercise, existing through personal distinctions, yet in community of life, … in ceaseless flow and ebb, streaming from its source in the eternal Subject, retreating from its eternal Object, moving in the unbeginning, unending cycle which is the bosom of the Infinite.’
It is, I think, impossible to attach any real meaning to such language as this without taking the term ‘Person’ in the doctrine of the Trinity in quite the modern English sense, in which a person is one having a clear individuality of his own. It is quite true that in the historical theology of the Church it will not bear that meaning. The English word is a translation of a Latin word for a character, and the Latin word itself is a very faulty translation of a Greek word (Hypostasis) meaning an aspect or manifestation.
But it seems quite clear that two sides of one person cannot be said to love one another, nor can three aspects or manifestations of one being love one another. So that, if we are to take Dr. Fairbairn’s account of the Godhead, it certainly comprises three several Persons loving one another. Nor does Dr. Fairbairn make any attempt to disclaim this plain meaning of his own language beyond the courageous, but startling expedient of calling these three Persons collectively ‘He,’ as though they were obviously, not a plural, but a singular.
The germ of this conception, so far as the first and second persons of the Trinity are concerned, will be found in the late Richard Holt Hutton’s treatise on The Incarnation and Principles of Evidence, in his volume of Theological Essays. He there contends that it is necessary to think of the Son as eternally associated with the Father, if we are to believe that love is of the essential nature of God; because love in its essence is social, and God’s love could not otherwise find an object prior to the existence of created things.
The simple answer seems to be that there is no need to suppose that there ever was a time when God was not already calling into being objects for his love. But, in any case, Mr. Hutton’s suggestion does not go the length of Dr. Fairbairn’s. I believe that in the crude and naked form in which a Society, whether of two or of three persons, receiving and bestowing affection among themselves, is put forward by the Principal of Mansfield and, as we shall see, by many popular contemporary theologians, is almost entirely a phenomenon of the last few years.
When Dr. Fairbairn proceeds to portion out the functions of the three several Persons in the Trinity, or rather those of the second and the third, the confusion becomes still more perplexing. Orthodox theology teaches that the Word is incarnated in Christ, and the Word is the second Person of the Trinity. But Dr. Fairbairn tells us that it is by the Holy Spirit that Christ performs his mighty works, and the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity.
And so he goes on to say that Christ and the Holy Spirit are ‘coefficient energies, or co-essential persons.’ Neither could have worked effectively without the other. The Spirit is suddenly substituted to fulfil the offices hitherto ascribed to the Word. It is the ever haunting difficulty of rationalising orthodox theologians to keep clear the functions of the first and second Persons of the Trinity and to prevent their merging into one.
Similar threads
