3 in 1 - I'M MORE ONENESS THAN YOU ARE ...

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Chan

The original Creeds do not use the word "person." Those who formulated the early Creeds (the Nicene, Constantinopolitan and Chalcedon Creeds, not the Athanasian Creed) used the Greek word "prosopon" or the Latin word "persona" to distinguish Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually. Cyril, trying to create a clear division between his doctrine and Sabellianism, insisted that the Church stop using prosopon or persona and start using hypostasis (which is the word used in Hebrews 1:3 in reference to God and is translated "person" in the KJV).

There are different versions of the trinity doctrine and I've even heard some trinitarians define "persons" as "beings" while others, in describing their doctrine, say the same thing oneness folks would say.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No person did not mean Persona, Rather person COMES from the word persona but theologically speaking....because we are discussing theology....the term Person has come to be used to express the individual self..the WHO. That is how the word person has been used theologically for quite a while now.

And really...the issue is really about confusion. When you talk to a Trinitarian are you going to say "Oh yeah. I believe in three persons too"? When you and I both know to him the word person means an individual self?

per·son
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia
Date: 13th century 1: human, individual — sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures4 aarchaic : bodily appearance b: the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>5: the personality of a human being : self6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I'm usually defending what we believe against their attacks. It's called apologetics.

However my point is all Trinitarians say they believe in One God. It's part of their doctrinal position. All Trinitarians believe God is three persons, not people, persons...three individual selfs or who's..Those that don't are probably really Modalists that are confused about the doctrine of the Trinity.

Correction: MOST modern Trinitarians believe God is three persons.

[mizpeh]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by sola gratia

Eternal distinctions …..

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. (the WORD- JESUS CHRIST- was GOD and HE was with GOD at the same time – this is an eternal distinction)

The OT personifies the word of the Lord, the name of the Lord, and wisdom. (There may be more I am not aware of.) In personifying these aspects of God, I don't believe the Bible is making them to be other than God or different hypostasis' of God but I think it is allowing us to see different aspects of God. The word of the Lord that came to the prophets did not come apart from the Spirit of God himself, for the prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Even though the Bible says "the word of the Lord came to" in 1Kings 16:1, we know it was the Spirit that spake the words or I could say the words belong to the Spirit and can be distinct from the Spirit but not apart from the Spirit as in another person.

2Sa 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

I hope to be back to address these other scriptures in which you wish to show an eternal distinctness. I don't think you are trying to show another God or another person of God but I'd like to know more of what you think this distinctness means since you are Oneness.

Originally Posted by sola gratia

Eternal distinctions …..

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. (the WORD- JESUS CHRIST- was GOD and HE was with GOD at the same time – this is an eternal distinction)

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.(God – meaning the Father – sent His pre-existent son)

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (JESUS wishes to return to the former glory he had with HIS Father- eternal distinction)

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (God – meaning the Father – sent His pre-existent son – HE was then made or a woman)

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (yes – I know not in the original text right! Well quite quoting Mark 16:16 to back up baptismal regeneration and then the trinnies will budge on this one! ROFL!)

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.(we still have this high priest – present tense)

I wasn't quite prepared to go as far as saying "eternal distinctions." Jesus' status as the Son of God necessarily had a beginning because in His sonship Jesus is begotten. The phrase used in the Roman Catholic/Protestant CORRUPTION of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, "eternally begotten," is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Hello SG,

What do you mean when you say the Son prayed eternally? Are you saying there is an eternal aspect of God that prayed to God (himself) outside of the incarnation (man)?

Sorry, I should have read further in the thread.

Even I had a problem with that one - and I would consider myself a Trinitarian.

[quote=mizpeh;23035]

The OT personifies the word of the Lord, the name of the Lord, and wisdom. (There may be more I am not aware of.) In personifying these aspects of God, I don't believe the Bible is making them to be other than God or different hypostasis' of God but I think it is allowing us to see different aspects of God. The word of the Lord that came to the prophets did not come apart from the Spirit of God himself, for the prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Even though the Bible says "the word of the Lord came to" in 1Kings 16:1, we know it was the Spirit that spake the words or I could say the words belong to the Spirit and can be distinct from the Spirit but not apart from the Spirit as in another person.

2Sa 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

I hope to be back to address these other scriptures in which you wish to show an eternal distinctness. I don't think you are trying to show another God or another person of God but I'd like to know more of what you think this distinctness means since you are Oneness.

I think your use of hypostasis (or its plural, hypostases) here is inaccurate since that Greek word suggests individual beings or (dare I say it) "persons."

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Chan

Correction: MOST modern Trinitarians believe God is three persons.

While I do agree with this basic statement I would like to say this...

My experience has been that very few trinitarians believe that, when they approach the throne, they are going to see 3 beings.

They do use the term persons and if you asked them if they believed God is 3 persons they would say yes.

But if you asked them how many would see there if they looked at the throne they would say one.

[sola gratia]

What we fail to understand about the Trinitarian creeds is they are not absolutes like the oneness creeds are– they are concepts of GOD – to state Trinitarians believe in three separate and distinct persons is true in “concept” – they also believe GOD is one so there is a conflict there unless you understand the concept – The concept is for each manifestation, aspect, person – whatever!!! To be identified as GOD, protecting in a creedal level the divinity and deity of each representation of GOD.

In the time of the Tertullian and others you had Sabellius who equated the Spirit and Son to be almost like puppets GOD wore to reveal himself to us, Arius stating JESUS was not deity - but more of a demigod – the modern day Trinitarians of that time sought to create a doctrine stating Father, Son and Holy Ghost are GOD! Distinct as they are – they all make up this being called GOD! Classic Trinitarianism would be opposed to the term “beings” –not “persons” however – because it was distinctive of who GOD is(Father Son HG) without creating a GOD comprised of beings…. We have demonized those fella’s at Nicea and that’s a shame their main purpose was to deify JESUS at a time others where not – they did not appease Constantine as some state – their modus operandie was to formally state JESUS IS GOD

I never said I was oneness – I said I don’t wear labels of either camp, and find some truth, and value in both

[sola gratia]

Originally Posted by Chan

I wasn't quite prepared to go as far as saying "eternal distinctions." Jesus' status as the Son of God necessarily had a beginning because in His sonship Jesus is begotten. The phrase used in the Roman Catholic/Protestant CORRUPTION of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, "eternally begotten," is an oxymoron.

eternally begotten and trinity where used LONG before Nicea Bro - hundreds of years before