What's so wrong with calling these three entities that God simlultaneously is, who talk with each other, have different desires (not my will but thine be done), beget each other, give each other to the world, send each other, submit to each other, etc., "persons"? If God does things that "would require human beings to be two persons", how can Oneness people get so bent out of shape when people read about it and say, oh look, two persons?
That is thinking backwards. It is limiting God to two persons, when the bible never said He was, and God cannot be comapred to a human being in ability. Trinitarians admit that the bible does not teach it, but somehow assumes it. The fact is that the if it were true, the New Testament woudl come along with chapters about this new concept of God that was never known in the Old Testament just as there is with the issue of Christ and redemption. But since the silence is there about any such change, then take the concept of the Old Testament about God and simply realize the one person of God manifested in flesh while continuing to exist throughout all the universe.
To say God must be three persons because it takes men to be three persons and do anything remotely similar is to simply think God is limited to the abilities of human beings. The only reason anyone would state your case is if there was already a trinity doctrine floating around. Had there been no trinity doctrine, no one would think of such a thing to begin with. It's just one of those offkey ideas that stuck... at pain of death!
Quote:
The Father and Son are depicted as two persons in the Bible! And yet some Oneness folks say the Trinity doctrine was not derived from the Bible. Oh no, it's a doctrine of demons!
Weird. (IMO )
What is weird is saying God must be at least two persons when we see Christ as a human being praying to deity. It's as simple as humanity and flesh contrasted from deity. Occam's razor, dude.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
I do have another question on the topic. I remember a story about Jesus asking how David referred to Christ as Lord since he was his seed. I always took that to be a reference to his divine nature. But, maybe when David referred to him as Lord it had nothing to do with his divine nature just like Lord in the verse about Jesus Christ having a God has nothing to do with his divine nature. Don't have any idea on what it could be right now though. Any ideas?
For Christ to be referred to as David's Lord, before Christ manifested, is to consider Him divine. The pre-existence is the divine aspect.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
One man's occam is another man's convolution. Er something.
If the Bible doesn't explicitly say God is three persons, but it depicts Him as three persons, what's the diff?
There is a huge difference, as any Jew will tell you, between the idea of one God and a committee of persons. Again, Occam's razor would always favour the oneness in light of what the bible teaches and spends time upon. Think of it. People call oneness a heresy since it denies three persons, and yet the bible never says anything about three persons. The language was available to do so, but yet it is not found in the bible. God leaves nothing up for assumption. He didn't with the redemption in Christ. Why do it with His own nature? So, since there is no other note aside from what the OT says, assume nothing more than what the OT says.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
For Christ to be referred to as David's Lord, before Christ manifested, is to consider Him divine. The pre-existence is the divine aspect.
That is not necessarily true especially if we take what David is referenced as saying as a prophecy of the coming messiah; if Christ is called our Lord out of reference to his human nature, then surely he can be called David's also out reference to his human nature also.
Last edited by jfrog; 10-11-2009 at 09:41 AM.
Reason: if a prophecy of messiah
One man's occam is another man's convolution. Er something.
If the Bible doesn't explicitly say God is three persons, but it depicts Him as three persons, what's the diff?
Timmy the bible never even depicts God as three persons.
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
There is only one person of God the bodily form of Jesus Christ, God is a spirit and no one has seen him. As spirit he is everywhere, inhabiting the body of Christ and in heaven at the same time. When the humanity part of Christ prayed in the garden to the father it was just that. I could go on but the bottom line is the spirit of God dwelt in the body of Christ manifesting himself to the world as saviour. Then that same God gave to each of is children a special part of himself (the Holy Ghost). Only one spirit and only one body (the body of Jesus).
One last thought we think of Jesus as the son of God only because he came to the world as a son born of woman. But that was just a title he was infact God manifested in the flesh.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
We only think of him as the son of God
__________________
Study the word with and open heart For if you do, Truth Will Prevail
In speaking of Christ's divine and human natures, Christ had enough of a human nature to be called a man. He even prayed to God. If we refer to Christ as a person that is fully-man and fully-God and then call him God in reference to his whole person, then we have just called his human nature God. His human nature cannot be God. So, we are forced to make a clear distinction between his humanity and divinity. In short it would not be proper to call Jesus Christ God without clearly exempting his human nature from the reference.
In speaking of Christ's divine and human natures, Christ had enough of a human nature to be called a man. He even prayed to God. If we refer to Christ as a person that is fully-man and fully-God and then call him God in reference to his whole person, then we have just called his human nature God. His human nature cannot be God. So, we are forced to make a clear distinction between his humanity and divinity. In short it would not be proper to call Jesus Christ God without clearly exempting his human nature from the reference.
Aw yes this would be true in the strictist sence, but this would be only while he walked on this earth. With the completion of all things that God did thru Jesus Christ then God became all in all. No longer would we think of Jesus as the son. It is my understanding that the body of Jesus is the only body of God we will see. As God is a spirit and no man has seen him at any time. Just my thoughts
__________________
Study the word with and open heart For if you do, Truth Will Prevail
Aw yes this would be true in the strictist sence, but this would be only while he walked on this earth. With the completion of all things that God did thru Jesus Christ then God became all in all. No longer would we think of Jesus as the son. It is my understanding that the body of Jesus is the only body of God we will see. As God is a spirit and no man has seen him at any time. Just my thoughts
Well, didn't the man Jesus Christ ascend to heaven? If he ascended to heaven then surely he must still be there. So we are still left with a human nature and a divine nature for Christ, even in heaven. So, if we were to call the whole person of Jesus Christ, God, then we would also be calling the human nature of this true resurrected ascended man, God. Surely his human nature, even with his resurrected and glorified body is not God. So even with Jesus Christ being in heaven, we still are forced to make a clear distinction between his human and divine natures. Likewise, even with him being in heaven, it would not be proper to call Jesus Christ, God, without clearly exempting his human nature from the reference.
Well, didn't the man Jesus Christ ascend to heaven? If he ascended to heaven then surely he must still be there. So we are still left with a human nature and a divine nature for Christ, even in heaven. So, if we were to call the whole person of Jesus Christ, God, then we would also be calling the human nature of this true resurrected ascended man, God. Surely his human nature, even with his resurrected and glorified body is not God. So even with Jesus Christ being in heaven, we still are forced to make a clear distinction between his human and divine natures. Likewise, even with him being in heaven, it would not be proper to call Jesus Christ, God, without clearly exempting his human nature from the reference.
I agree with all you said except for this line, "So, if we were to call the whole person of Jesus Christ, God, then we would also be calling the human nature of this true resurrected ascended man, God."
The man is not Deity whether the PERSON is the same person as God or not.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
)
The pre-existence is the divine aspect.
Linear Mode
