Salutations in the new Testament

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's uncommon and to set it up as a test of validity to Oneness theology is a fallacy.

That is my point..as I said I never see Jfrog typing that way nor any of the other trinitarians I encounter

I agree, it is uncommon. And I also think using greeting and blessing language as a test of theological orthodoxy isn't fair or proper.

Notwithstanding, when a group of people regularly avoid correct Biblical language like the plague, language that helps explain, define, and differentiate God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (whether in the greetings and benediction, or elsewhere), then they need to ask themselves "What am I so afraid of that I can't even use the words the Apostles used when penning their letters"?

I would go a step further and offer that if everyone claiming to be a Christian would stop using un-Biblical language and terminology, we'd all be in a better place. Further, if we, not out of obligation or in an attempt to sound spiritual, but as a reinforcement of our understanding of truth, greeted and blessed one another as they did in the Bible, we would be doubly better off.

Which is something that I and some of my brothers in the Lord try to do.

"Have a nice day" doesn't compare to "May the God of all peace be with you".

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No I maintained Jesus and the Father are One in Being (Divine) but that Jesus has a distinct human nature and functions as though he were a separate Human being.

And I certainly would never say Jesus is two SEPARATE beings

Thanks I understand

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Not with me. I've heard them QUOTE those verses to try to prove a point, but as part of their vernacular, no.

BTW A Trinitarian CAN actually say God raised Himself. Jesus is God and they often quote Jn 2 when arguing with JWs

And they can also say God came himself. They do actually believe Jesus was God incarnate.

But as I have already said I have no problem saying God sent His Son and I have.

It doesn't normally come up in Oneness conversations with non OPs because you guys are asking us to explain our views and so our conversations are usually technical

I totally agree with most of those points

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Right before Easter I preached a message about Christ's exaltation and went through Acts showing many examples that the Apostle's central theme was the glorification of God's Son. That's what they preached.

Afterward my pastor commended me for not being afraid to use the plain language of the Bible.

Thanks for the input. So when you prached that sermon were you expecting many to be taken aback?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Thanks for the input. So when you prached that sermon were you expecting many to be taken aback?

Not at all.
Most I have encountered understand that the incarnation necessitated a human/divine relationship between God and the Son. But my pastor referred to people he has known who shy away from references to Jesus being God's son and how sill they are.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Again, limiting God to human restrictions.

Think of it. This statement you made incises people to gasp in shock at such a silly thought. such as Jesus being His own God.

But is he?

Does Jesus have a God?

Yes.

Is Jesus God?

Yes.

It's simple logic. And you just called it silly.

You're funny!

But the flaw of logic is that it puts the issue on the level of one of us claiming we are our own God, which is agreeably crazy.

There I go again "limiting God", eh? But I'm not! You are the one saying that these statements about God, that are drawn directly from what you are saying, are "silly" or "crazy", not me.

But the flaw here is that none of us are in actuality God. So, from God's perspective, the comparison which incites the shock is absurd.

God can do far more than what we humans can do. Starting out as a human being makes it impossible for me to be my own God. But the one actual and true God starting out as God can indeed manifest in flesh and be the God of that manifestation. Where is the flaw of logic there?

You made the same logical flaw people make when they gasp and say we believe Jesus prayed to Himself. That would be wild if we proposed it was not GOD who manifested in flesh causing need for that manifestation to pray to deity, as though godhood was not inherently involved as in any given human being like you or me.

Is the Father a self and Jesus a self? Or are they the same self?

SMH. All this fuss over the definition of "person".

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I agree, it is uncommon. And I also think using greeting and blessing language as a test of theological orthodoxy isn't fair or proper.

Notwithstanding, when a group of people regularly avoid correct Biblical language like the plague, language that helps explain, define, and differentiate God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (whether in the greetings and benediction, or elsewhere), then they need to ask themselves "What am I so afraid of that I can't even use the words the Apostles used when penning their letters"?

I would go a step further and offer that if everyone claiming to be a Christian would stop using un-Biblical language and terminology, we'd all be in a better place. Further, if we, not out of obligation or in an attempt to sound spiritual, but as a reinforcement of our understanding of truth, greeted and blessed one another as they did in the Bible, we would be doubly better off.

Which is something that I and some of my brothers in the Lord try to do.

"Have a nice day" doesn't compare to "May the God of all peace be with you".

I disagree.

Consider that many terms and phrases had an idiomatic meaning to people then that do not come through to us today. They spoke in certain ways we do not today.

Also consider that EVERYONE, even Unitarians, do not just repeat what the bible says. They explain it

So for example a Unitarian might not refer to Jesus as "existing in the form of God" or as "The Almighty" etc etc at least without some sort of explanation as to how it does not mean what we think it means

Trinitarians do the same, employing non biblical terms and phrases to communicate what they believe the bible teaches.

It's a false "standard" to insist we have to mimick everything the bible says and also not offer our explanation.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I totally agree with most of those points

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Timmy

But is he?

Does Jesus have a God?

Yes.

Is Jesus God?

Yes.

It's simple logic. And you just called it silly.

You're funny!


There I go again "limiting God", eh? But I'm not! You are the one saying that these statements about God, that are drawn directly from what you are saying, are "silly" or "crazy", not me.





Is the Father a self and Jesus a self? Or are they the same self?

SMH. All this fuss over the definition of "person".

It's all over what the scriptures allow us to think of God and what it does not. That is the controversy. Then you had the Catholics killing people who denied the trinity.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's all over what the scriptures allow us to think of God and what it does not. That is the controversy. Then you had the Catholics killing people who denied the trinity.

The scriptures don't allow you to use the term "person" for the three entities that are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

You have shown me a scripture that refers the the person of God. That very scripture draws some kind of contrast between that person and Jesus (the human known as Jesus and as the Son of God).

The Bible portrays the Father and the Son as two persons, do they not?

And yes, the Catholics were wrong to kill those people for whatever heresies they held to, denying the Trinity being one of them (apparently -- not sure I've heard that before). Not sure how that is relevant, though.