Bill Schlegel Videos

Otherness
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by Otherness » Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:38 pm

darinhouston>>>I think the first key is understanding that John isn't saying that the Logos is the self-same individual as (numerical identity of) Jesus. Whatever the "word" is, it was "enfleshed' in or "became" flesh. That is not to say there was a pre-incarnate sentient, individual person from all eternity "called" the word that was merely transformed from a pre-incarnate self to an incarnate self.<<<

Yes...this is where our differences begin. In that the Logos is identified AS God, the Logos IS, therefore, I AM (for this is WHO and WHAT it means to be identified as GOD). The Logos is the pre-incarnate Son Who is the (image and likeness) of the (type of) son that I AM seeks in His creation of Man. This is why that when He incarnates His (preferred?) title of Himself is the (S)son of Man. This is what (a) Man is created to be as a son whose Father is God. The Logos is the Alpha (the predestined purpose) of Creation, and He is the Omega (the predestined fruit) of Creation. God's plan (Logos) is His Own Image and Likeness (Logos) as the Personal Center and Personal Circumference of Creation, and all that is created consists (lives, and moves, and has its being) in Him, and must (in the end) subject itself (be subjected) to Him, that God may be all in all.

As I've said previously, at the heart of (all?) the objections to the trinitarian formulation is the “created i am's” inability(?) to step outside of its own ontological makeup and (simply) recognize that the aseity of I AM is “something” from above, and it (itself), in its self-centeredness, is (in bondage to what is) from below. The created “i am,” having nothing within itself to reason out the aseity of I AM, continually defaults to reasoning that I AM cannot exist in a true Trinitarian State because to be an I am means what a “created I am” intuits itself to be.

darinhouston>>>How do you reconcile it? Merely by appeal to mystery? That does not seem to be a very reliable way to reconcile difficult texts as it has no bounding conditions.<<<

I expect you'll be sorry you asked :

No...not an appeal to mystery. I reconcile it along the lines of the thread that I started elsewhere in this Forum. To begin with, from a Scriptural standpoint, there is no need to repeat the information found in Steve's excellent presentation of the subject in his Topical Lectures. Rather, I come to the subject from a Natural Theology perspective that accepts the testimony of Scripture and looks to the testimony of Creation as a corroborating witness.

Having accepted the “given” that God is triune (from the scriptural evidence) I let go of the question of “how” this is possible, and asked “why” He exists this WAY. I have come to understand that this is Who and What He IS in His desire to create the wondrous beings that we are becoming (are to become) in Christ. In our natural state we have little to no sensitivity to the wonder that we (even) have existence as real beings who are truly ontologically other beings (than God). That is, we are not ethereal, ephemeral, phantom beings only in the mind of God, but truly real beings living in the “womb” He prepared in Himself by being in this creative state we call The Trinity.

Taking Paul's cue (1 Corinthians 15:46) the thought process here starts with the natural, and then goes on to the spiritual. We live at a time when the Creator is taking back to Himself the witness of the natural world on its own terms. Listen to a practicing atheist, Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow, as he laments that “contemplation of superstrings may evolve into an activity as remote from conventional particle physics as particle physics is from chemistry, to be conducted at schools of divinity by future equivalents of medieval theologians…for the first time since the Dark Ages, we can see how our noble search may end, with faith replacing science once again.” Glashow's lamentation here goes to the heart of what science has, relatively recently, discovered about the nature of reality at its deepest depths. Quite literally, in the words of Niels Bohr, one of the earliest pioneers of Quantum Theory, “everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” This is just another way of stating the very thing that Hebrews 11:3 asserts : “...(the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that) the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” In other words, the visible (material, natural, physical) emerges from the invisible (immaterial, non-physical, “spiritual”), exactly as Quantum Field Theory reveals. This theory has it that “all that really exists” is a undulating fluid-like, non-material field of “Something” from which emerges the “Everything” we know as the Cosmos. Matter (particles) is (are) an epiphenomenon arising from vortices in this field.
So...the Cosmos emerges from “the (creative) waters” – mysteriously : “the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). I AM expresses His thoughts, and the “fluid-like field” takes the form of these words (expressed thoughts). Alternately, per Sir James Jean, a leading voice in the Quantum Revolution : “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” This great imposing phenomenal world of concrete mountains and endless galaxies is an ingenious non-material construct that is -- as Max Planck, the originator of Quantum Theory, asserted – “derivative from consciousness.” The reality of the world around us, the world in which we are embedded, is generated by Consciousness (I AM). The whole of the natural world is expressed thought!

The picture of the nature of reality that has been put together (by science) in the last one hundred years is so counter-intuitive that some of its brightest lights have described it as “magical” (John Wheeler) and “absurd” (Richard Feynman). More prosaically put, “quantum mechanics is the first theory in human history that violates the basic a priori principles that have shaped human thought since immemorial times.” (Miguel Ferrero, David Salgado, José Luís Sánchez-Gómez. QUANTUM MECHANICS AND MAGIC: AN OPEN DISCUSSION. 2014).
One of those violated a priori principles can be traced at least as far back as (actually further than) Aristotle (the father of the scientific method). His empirically based epistemology assumes that the scientist (observer) is (can be) an objective agent vis-a-vis the object being observed. Quantum Theory demonstrates that this is a naive presupposition because the cosmos, and everything in it (including us), is an organic whole. That is, it is impossible, within the closed system that the cosmos is, to have such a thing (concept, reality) as Objectivity.

Objectivity is not a (native) quality of the closed system of (our) reality, nor is it a quality that (pure) Science can co-opt for itself (out of thin air) because (one of) its a priori assumptions is the cosmos is all there is (philosophical naturalism). However, objectivity IS (actually) a quality of (our) reality for the reason that it derives its ontology from outside (other than) the cosmos. That is, the (ontic) reality of object / object existence is grounded in the Creator Himself because He (self-willfully) exists in this State of Being. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because the One (I AM) [Who IS Who (That) He Is (Exodus 3:14)] exists as Trinity that He is (can be) the Creator of a truly objective – OTHER – reality.

Why is that? For the very reason that, as stated above, the true nature of our created reality is immaterial (spiritual) in that it is (simply) expressed thoughts – words. But...where is the place that these expressed thoughts are spoken (into)? The Apostle Paul proclaims that it is “ in Him (that) we live and move and have our being, (Acts 17:28), and he says this to un-regenerate people. How can this be? The answer is that it is for the same reason that the bush and the Fire were able to co-exist during Moses' encounter on Mount Horeb (Exodus 3). The bush and the Fire existed as wholly (ontologically) other realities to one another (each in its own dimension), occupying “the same time and same place.”
The dimension in which Creation exists is generated “(super)naturally” in I AM in that He “lets” (as used in Genesis 1) a “separation / emptiness / void” exist in His Being. This KENOSIS in His Being is the WOMB of the wholly OTHER Reality that we experience as our Cosmos.

In the Love of God....

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2814
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by darinhouston » Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:55 am

Otherness wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:38 pm
Yes...this is where our differences begin. In that the Logos is identified AS God, the Logos IS, therefore, I AM (for this is WHO and WHAT it means to be identified as GOD).
This is the first premise I reject (or at least one which you have not proven). First, I don't acknowledge that (in the greek) the Logos is "identified as" God. It sounds this way in English, but it is much more subtle and nuanced than that in Greek. I am no greek scholar, but most who are acknowledge this. Second, even if it means the Logos "is" God in some respect, that does not make it the self-same "I AM" (so-called). Or at least I will require your proof of this.
Otherness wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:38 pm
The Logos is the pre-incarnate Son Who is the (image and likeness) of the (type of) son that I AM seeks in His creation of Man. This is why that when He incarnates His (preferred?) title of Himself is the (S)son of Man. This is what (a) Man is created to be as a son whose Father is God.
You're right, this is a key difference. What is your proof that the Logos is the pre-incarnate Son? The Logos "became" flesh (in Jesus). Jesus was the Son, but what is your proof for your premise that the Logos itself was the Son prior to the birth of Jesus? Would you say that the Sophia/Wisdom just "is" the same thing as the Creation? I see Logos in much the same way as use of Sophia.

Most of the rest relies on those fundamental premises, and much of it is hard to follow. But, in any event, we should start with these presuppositions. Perhaps in the extensive John 1:1ff topic here: https://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3457 or the "Great I AM" topic here: https://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6226
Otherness wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:38 pm
Having accepted the “given” that God is triune (from the scriptural evidence) I let go of the question of “how” this is possible, and asked “why” He exists this WAY.
That's not the question I asked. I asked not "how it's possible" but how you reconcile verses that seem to suggest (or strongly hold) otherwise. That is how this discussion began - you asking me how I square what is a clear distinction between Jesus and God with John 1:1 which to your understanding clearly says he is God. I explained that I don't see John 1:1 unequivocally proving this. But, you haven't explained how you interpret the other passage(s) which clearly distinguish them. At the VERY LEAST, there is a tension there, and I'm curious how you resolve that tension (not how you see "how" the Trinity could be true, metaphysically). If I accepted "as given" Scriptural proof of the Trinity, I would not reject it merely because of my lack of metaphysical or philosophical understanding, and yet you appear to do the opposite.

Otherness
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by Otherness » Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:51 pm

otherness>>>Yes...this is where our differences begin. In that the Logos is identified AS God, the Logos IS, therefore, I AM (for this is WHO and WHAT it means to be identified as GOD).<<<

darinhouston>>>This is the first premise I reject (or at least one which you have not proven). First, I don't acknowledge that (in the greek) the Logos is "identified as" God. It sounds this way in English, but it is much more subtle and nuanced than that in Greek. I am no greek scholar, but most who are acknowledge this.<<< Second, even if it means the Logos "is" God in some respect, that does not make it the self-same "I AM" (so-called). Or at least I will require your proof of this<<<

Well...John 1:1-4 (in Greek) identifies the Word as God, and proclaims that all things were made by Him, that without Him not anything that was made was made, and that in Him was life; and the life was the light of men. Paul, in Colossians 1 :16-17 says the same thing in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ. As I said, Steve's treatment covers the scriptural data that “proves” the identity that we're talking about. Before I came across his ministry I had already come to the same conclusion that he did, and I witness to what I have come to know. We are called to be witnesses of what we have seen and heard, and it is only God Who can do the “convincing.”

darinhouston>>>Second, even if it means the Logos "is" God in some respect, that does not make it the self-same "I AM" (so-called). Or at least I will require your proof of this<<<

There is simply One I AM, this is what it is to be GOD. The Logos is called GOD, ergo, this is the self-same Being Who Is GOD. He has made it abundantly clear (in the latter half of Isaiah) that there is no G(g)od beside Him : that He knows none, that He has not formed any.

In Thessalonica (Acts 17), Paul explained and gave evidence (variously translated “proved”) that the Christ must suffer and rise..., but his testimony was rejected by “the Jews.” All of us (Christians), on all sides of our “disputes” need but tell the truth to, and love, each other. God will do the rest! My witness here is motivated by the great joy I have knowing that the hand I hold behind the veil is the actual hand of God Himself, my Lord Jesus Christ.

otherness>>>The Logos is the pre-incarnate Son Who is the (image and likeness) of the (type of) son that I AM seeks in His creation of Man. This is why that when He incarnates His (preferred?) title of Himself is the (S)son of Man. This is what (a) Man is created to be as a son whose Father is God.<<<

darinhouston>>>You're right, this is a key difference. What is your proof that the Logos is the pre-incarnate Son? The Logos "became" flesh (in Jesus). Jesus was the Son, but what is your proof for your premise that the Logos itself was the Son prior to the birth of Jesus[/u][/b]? Would you say that the Sophia/Wisdom just "is" the same thing as the Creation? I see Logos in much the same way as use of Sophia.<<<

The incarnation of the Logos was integral to the plan (Logos) of Creation, and His (planned) sacrifice was the (fail safe) foundation of (all) Creation (Revelation 13:8). Again, the Logos was God, and therefore is I AM because there is only one I AM : there is only ONE GOD. The “Logos itself was the Son prior to the birth of Jesus” because “THE SON” is the “PLACE” in God's Being where creation is happening. It is in THE SON that the Father is creating His sons in His image and likeness. The Body of Christ is the predestined fruit of creation because Creation is happening in THE SON. The Trinity is the Creative State of the Being of I AM; this is GOD being Who and What He wills TO BE to be the Creator of that that He wills : the Body of Christ.

darinhouston>>>Most of the rest relies on those fundamental premises, and much of it is hard to follow. But, in any event, we should start with these presuppositions. Perhaps in the extensive John 1:1ff topic here: https://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3457 or the "Great I AM" topic here: https://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6226 <<<

Yes, I know it is hard to follow because it was at least that hard to learn to articulate. As I said, I accepted “the Trinity” because of the testimony of Scripture, and then I looked to corroborating testimony in God's Creation (Natural Theology). We take the existence of our own beings, and our objective reality, too much for granted. It really is a miracle of Genius for God to have made “room” within His Being for a Creation wholly other than Him : ontologically not Him. He does this in His existence as Trinity : in this Creative State He is making REAL the reality of OTHER. The Father is Other than the Son, and the Son is Other than the Father : it is THIS that makes OTHER real, and now that OTHER is REAL there is a place in His Being, a “separation, emptiness, void” where He can create “other beings” who are (have the potential to be) as real as He Is Real.

So here we are, “living, and moving, and having our beings in Him,” and we do not doubt for a moment that we are real. As a matter of fact, in our dimension of Reality, we question if He is real. What utter nonsense! But it does testify of the Genius of our Creator in making, out of nothing but expressed thought – words – a real world other than Him.

otherness>>>Having accepted the “given” that God is triune (from the scriptural evidence) I let go of the question of “how” this is possible, and asked “why” He exists this WAY.

darinhouston>>>That's not the question I asked. I asked not "how it's possible" but how you reconcile verses that seem to suggest (or strongly hold) otherwise. That is how this discussion began - you asking me how I square what is a clear distinction between Jesus and God with John 1:1 which to your understanding clearly says he is God. I explained that I don't see John 1:1 unequivocally proving this. But, you haven't explained how you interpret the other passage(s) which clearly distinguish them. At the VERY LEAST, there is a tension there, and I'm curious how you resolve that tension (not how you see "how" the Trinity could be true, metaphysically). If I accepted "as given" Scriptural proof of the Trinity, I would not reject it merely because of my lack of metaphysical or philosophical understanding, and yet you appear to do the opposite.<<<

I (somewhat) glossed over your question because I referenced Steve's topical lecture which addresses these “distinctions.” As I said, my witness here is from a Natural Theology perspective. I would be happy to discuss any particular passage that you cite. In the meantime, as I said earlier, when I AM incarnated He clothed His (naked) I AM in the objective reality of what it is to be a “created i am.” So we see THE SON in His life as the (a) S(s)on of Man. This was real because He was living in the wholly other (ontologically other) reality, that humans inhabit, as a man. His flesh and blood touched (mixed with) ours and created a WAY to be with Him where He lived : in the bosom of the Father.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. My love to you brother.

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by commonsense » Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:35 am

Otherness wrote:
Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:51 pm
Yes, I know it is hard to follow because it was at least that hard to learn to articulate. As I said, I accepted “the Trinity” because of the testimony of Scripture, and then I looked to corroborating testimony in God's Creation (Natural Theology). We take the existence of our own beings, and our objective reality, too much for granted. It really is a miracle of Genius for God to have made “room” within His Being for a Creation wholly other than Him : ontologically not Him. He does this in His existence as Trinity : in this Creative State He is making REAL the reality of OTHER. The Father is Other than the Son, and the Son is Other than the Father : it is THIS that makes OTHER real, and now that OTHER is REAL there is a place in His Being, a “separation, emptiness, void” where He can create “other beings” who are (have the potential to be) as real as He Is Real.
Otherness, no offense but, I think there's a lot of speculation and imagination going on here.
In the beginning, God created a Man in His image. This human being was a Son of God. Scripture doesn't tell us of any non-human Son that was created prior to this. In all other verses of Scripture the son of God is a human being or a collective body of human beings.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2814
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by darinhouston » Thu Jul 08, 2021 9:38 am

Otherness wrote:
Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:51 pm
Well...John 1:1-4 (in Greek) identifies the Word as God, and proclaims that all things were made by Him, that without Him not anything that was made was made, and that in Him was life; and the life was the light of men.
I remain unconvinced - your saying it does not make it so. Many scholars disagree with you as to this passage "identifying" the Word "as God" from a linguistic perspective. Associated closely with God is not the same thing as "being God." Moreover, apart from the linguistic aspects of numerical identity with God, I believe the context and cultural milieu into which John was preaching this gospel suggests a different (and more compelling/understandable) interpretation of this entire preamble (consistent with much of the rest of John's Gospel as well as the apologetic emphasis of his epistles). You might be interested in the cultural and historical background of the article and book I referenced (by Kegan Chandler) even if you disagree with the conclusions. I believe there was a great deal of spiritual deception in the early centuries influenced heavily by pagan and hellenistic ideas stemming in part from Egypt and Greece. Hermeticism and Pagan Gnostic ideas were rampant and had competing cosmologies. Even the term homoousios is suggested to have been traced back to the pre-christian hermetic poimondres. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEvZjJr ... 78&end=895
Otherness wrote:
Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:51 pm
Paul, in Colossians 1 :16-17 says the same thing in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ. As I said, Steve's treatment covers the scriptural data that “proves” the identity that we're talking about.
Colossians is a tricky passage for the unitarian, but they have a variety of quite reasonable explanations for what is in view here -- not literally "all" of creation, but within the context of the broader Colossians discussion, the creation of the Church and the spiritual and physical aspects of the new creation. I don't know greek well enough, but think there are also some interesting aspects pertaining to the excessive use of pronouns where both the Father and the Son are explicit in the same passage and where the pronouns could be ambiguous. This is just my speculation, however, and I haven't researched that. But, even if all refer to heavenly and earthly creation writ large, I note that it is the things IN heaven and IN earth that he is said to have created/sustained/etc. That's got at least some contextual value and we don't have thousands of years of biblicists considering these things because they haven't been permitted to. I note further that the passage states that "it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" That implies that (1) the fullness isn't inherent in him but that it was following the Father's pleasing that it was caused to dwell in him; and (2) that at the very least this fullness and his existence was subordinate to the Father. Finally, I'm not sure I'm completely sold on the various unitarian readings, but even with your reading, this passage merely proves Jesus' pre-existence in some form (something I'm not prepared to reject) -- whether before or after the earth and heavens were formed, or before or after mankind and angelic realms were created to fill them. That is not the same thing as eternal pre-existence (especially as God).

Otherness wrote:
Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:51 pm
darinhouston>>>Second, even if it means the Logos "is" God in some respect, that does not make it the self-same "I AM" (so-called). Or at least I will require your proof of this<<<

There is simply One I AM, this is what it is to be GOD. The Logos is called GOD, ergo, this is the self-same Being Who Is GOD. He has made it abundantly clear (in the latter half of Isaiah) that there is no G(g)od beside Him : that He knows none, that He has not formed any.
This is a fairly simplistic view of the term "I AM" - I commend the forum discussion on this term

Otherness
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by Otherness » Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:58 pm

Commonsense,

otherness>>>Yes, I know it is hard to follow because it was at least that hard to learn to articulate. As I said, I accepted “the Trinity” because of the testimony of Scripture, and then I looked to corroborating testimony in God's Creation (Natural Theology). We take the existence of our own beings, and our objective reality, too much for granted. It really is a miracle of Genius for God to have made “room” within His Being for a Creation wholly other than Him : ontologically not Him. He does this in His existence as Trinity : in this Creative State He is making REAL the reality of OTHER. The Father is Other than the Son, and the Son is Other than the Father : it is THIS that makes OTHER real, and now that OTHER is REAL there is a place in His Being, a “separation, emptiness, void” where He can create “other beings” who are (have the potential to be) as real as He Is Real.<<<

commonsense>>>Otherness, no offense but, I think there's a lot of speculation and imagination going on here. In the beginning, God created a Man in His image. This human being was a Son of God. Scripture doesn't tell us of any non-human Son that was created prior to this. In all other verses of Scripture the son of God is a human being or a collective body of human beings.<<<

There is no reason for me to be offended by your diligence and carefulness concerning what you read or hear about God. I am the same way because I know that there is nothing more important in life than believing in, (truly) knowing, and loving God. You specifically chose the above paragraph to reference in your honest concern about “speculation and imagination” in what I wrote. I expect the first three sentences come across as fairly benign, so I'll elaborate starting after these.

otherness>>>It really is a miracle of Genius for God to have made “room” within His Being for a Creation wholly other than Him : ontologically not Him.<<<

Paul, in Acts 17, states that “we live, and move, and have our being in Him,” so..."somehow" He has made “room” within His Being for our (the Cosmos') existence. Also, I do not expect that any Christian would claim that there is not an absolute ontological distinction / difference between the Uncreated Being Who is God, and ourselves as created beings : ontologically we are not Him.

otherness>>>He does this in His existence as Trinity : in this Creative State He is making REAL the reality of OTHER.<<<

I stated, earlier, that my acceptance of the Trinity formulation is because of the testimony of Scripture, and there is copious historic and contemporary rationale for this acceptance that is not based on mere speculation and imagination. So...the second part of my statement here is where your concern may begin.

But think about what we believe : to wit, “before” the Beginning there is only I AM. This “I AM” (PERSONAL BEING) is ALL there IS! There is no cosmos, no light, no sound, no movement, no thing, nothing, nothing, nothing else – absolutely no other being, absolutely no “other” reality! One could (must) even say that there was even no such reality as “otherness” itself, that is, there was nothing OTHER vis-a-vis I AM.

But… I AM wanted “some (particular) thing” other than Himself, so…“first” He had to “let” what the very reality of what “otherness” is itself – be REAL. He did this by Self-Willfully existing in a State of Otherness Himself because it lies with(in) Him in the power of His Own Self-Existence to Exist as He chooses (To Be THAT that He says HE IS – Exodus 3:14). We created beings have no such (true) freedom, and to us it is WONDER!

So…I AM “let” (remember how this word “let” is used in Genesis 1) His Being exist in the State He desired : this is our Creator : Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- thus establishing the reality of “otherness” (itself), and setting the Alpha (THE SON) and Omega (the fulness of THE SON -- the Body of Christ) of creation in the Rock -- Who He IS. This “reality of otherness” is the ground of our Objective Reality, that is, were God not Triune then “our” objective reality, our real Cosmos, could not exist. We would be but ethereal, ephemeral phantoms in the mind of God, somewhat like the (non)reality we “create” in our dreams. What's more (what's worse), if there is not this quality of “otherness” within God vis-a-vis Creation then there is no escape from pantheism, or even its more (hoped for) benign sibling, panentheism.

We must remember that our created reality, our cosmos, is the expressed thoughts (the words) of God. Science, as it corrects itself, is leading humanity in this direction, that is, back to the Creator. Quantum Theory is dragging scientists (albeit kicking and screaming) back to the Genesis narrative as the “reality” of the world around us disappears before their very eyes (their scientific inquiry). Their best understanding, at this time, is expressed in Quantum Field Theory, which I have already referenced here. This parallels the creative waters narrative of Genesis 1.

Our Creator – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – generates this Reality we experience and holds it in being from instant to instant for the very purpose of forming the Body of Christ : “others” with whom to share the joy of His Glorious Being : this is His First Love (in His creative labor) and thus is He LOVE. ALL things work together for the good of this that He is doing. Thank you Jesus for saving us for this!

>>>The Father is Other than the Son, and the Son is Other than the Father : it is THIS that makes OTHER real, and now that OTHER is REAL there is a place in His Being, a “separation, emptiness, void” where He can create “other beings” who are (have the potential to be) as real as He Is Real.<<<
This sentence is a recapitulation and summary of the paragraph, so your concerns must be in what I have elaborated just above. I am more than willing to continue to discuss this with you.

I'll close with a response to your additional comments :

commonsense>>> In the beginning, God created a Man in His image. This human being was a Son of God. Scripture doesn't tell us of any non-human Son that was created prior to this. In all other verses of Scripture the son of God is a human being or a collective body of human beings.<<<

Yes, God created (a) Man in His image : in the Image of the Logos Who is, in His Creative State, with Him in eternity (John 17:5). This “I” Who is speaking here in John 17 is the “I” (Personal Being) Who was with God in the beginning, and Who (the Logos) was God. Human beings are created to be the fulness of the Logos, Who is the SON (God) Who is with Him in eternity in His Creative State of Being. In some verses, contra your view, of Scripture (e.g. Daniel 3:25 “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”) we see this dynamic in action.

I am simply using Special Revelation (Scripture) and General Revelation ( Natural Theology) as two witnesses to testify to the “accuracy” of the Trinitarian Formulation.

May God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be glorified!

I am your brother in this Beloved Family of His.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by Paidion » Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:31 pm

Otherness, you wrote:I am simply using Special Revelation (Scripture) and General Revelation ( Natural Theology) as two witnesses to testify to the “accuracy” of the Trinitarian Formulation.
Just because you can speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, doesn't prove that God is a Trinity.

I, too, am a father. I have a son, and I have a spirit (or mind), but that doesn't imply that my son, my spirit, and myself as a father, make up a trinity.

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

This verse clearly indicates that the Father is the one God, and that the Lord Jesus Christ (God's Son) is someone other that the one God.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by commonsense » Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:23 am

Otherness wrote:
Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:58 pm
He does this in His existence as Trinity : in this Creative State He is making REAL the reality of OTHER.
Otherness, So how did God create animals? Does He go by the same formula? If so, then from what you're saying, God must first be that "other" cat to make real the reality of the other. I don't think the Bible is trying to explain Quantum Theory, or how God created everything.
Otherness wrote:
Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:58 pm
>>>The Father is Other than the Son, and the Son is Other than the Father
I agree. God is not the Son, and the Son is not God. The son of God is defined as this: " All( human beings) who are led by the Spirit are sons of God."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by Paidion » Sat Jul 10, 2021 2:34 pm

Common Sense wrote:God is not the Son, and the Son is not God. The son of God is defined as this: " All( human beings) who are led by the Spirit are sons of God."
Those who are led by the Spirit are sons of God in a different sense that Jesus is the unique Son. Jesus is the ONLY Son who was begotten by God—before all ages—the first of God's acts. The following passages clearly state that He is the only begotten Son of God, and thus there is no other.

John 1:14 And the Word became 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.(NKJV)
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (NKJV)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Bill Schlegel Videos

Post by commonsense » Sat Jul 10, 2021 5:32 pm

Paidion wrote:
Sat Jul 10, 2021 2:34 pm
Those who are led by the Spirit are sons of God in a different sense that Jesus is the unique Son. Jesus is the ONLY Son who was begotten by God—before all ages—the first of God's acts.
Paidion,I let the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures on this one.

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”