Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

Pretty sure Catholics believe the human spirit is eternal just like Protestants? (Diz, Jan 12)

I am was being hopeful, I rewrote that line four times, and gave up. I am hoping Alan will not go from tradition, and use scripture instead. Not all protestants believe the human spirit is immortal either, but I think that is another thread.

It may surprise you to know that there were many trinitarians that associated with Russell early on…’ (Editor, Jan 12)

It is no surprise that Trinitarian(?) christians (?) were amongst most the early Mormons also. But these ‘christians’ either didn’t have enough sense, or understand their bible well enough to recognize Josephs plagiarism of the bible, and such, so then I don’t expect their biblical depth was anything to speak of either. That is my point: a lack of understanding may be excusable, but the refusal to understand and look into the evidence is no excuse, especially when the evidence is so overwhelming and accessible. When Joseph announced his polytheistic teaching (i.e. the King Folett discourse 1844, or so) many left him then, those who left Joseph give me hope in reason.

Remember more than half the world is polytheistic. Most 'all the world was Polytheistic' at the time of Christ and prior. Understanding the Oneness of the Judean Christian God changed this understanding for over half the world, for awhile. This is still the main contention and difference between Western and Eastern religion today. The Deity of Christ is the main theological contention between Judaism, Islam and Christian beliefs today.

The majority of world religions seem to see the difference, so to suppose this is an area of doctrine that Christians or truth seekers find ‘too hard to understand’, or it isn’t vital to know, or it’s just ok, because there are people on both sides, etc. would be saying God has not been able to explain clearly what He commanded, and stressed as a foundational principle and identification, between the true God and the false gods. Maybe some can’t understand, and others want to disagree, fine, and why not? My job is to just exhort and teach what I know, and let others decide. But I will never contend that it is unknowable, or of less importance because some want to differ. I have seen great success, growth, and life, come from believers who are shown the basic scriptures and reasons that explain the Oneness of God, and the Deity of Christ.

(True Dwight lots of verses to note, there are just too many to list! The Baker and Naves Topical Bibles each have about 50 pages of correlating verses... I will note the list of precepts I made on page 35, Sept 8, in this thread on that thought, just to remind myself I have something to justify my belief: http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... ent#p65644 )

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I think you are on to something actually. I think that God was painfully inadequate in describing His substance and nature. If this doctrine is so paramount, I would have expected it to be as clearly delineated as the Ransom of Christ is. I would have expected to see the "Pauline Creed" hammered out instead of having to wait 300 years to get the Athanasian one. Tell me, when the 12th hour arrives and all of us 11th hour non-trinitarian workers are there for our denarius, are you going to stand behind Jesus and whisper in his ear "Are you sure about that one, Lord?"

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

BrotherAlan,

You wrote:

....within God, there is more than one Divine Person-- namely, there is the Father AND the Son (i.e, the Person Whom the Father eternally generates; we are not considering, btw, at this point, the procession of the Third Person of the Trinity). This, in fact, is where Thomas Aquinas begins his discourse on the Trinity-- he first asks, "Is there procession in God?", and then he asks, "Can any procession in God be called 'generation'?" Based on Scripture (eg., John 8:42, Ps. 2:7), he answers in the affirmative to both questions. Now, I do not know exactly what the Mormons believe, but traditional Christian belief in the Trinity (including Catholicism, which Faith I hold) stats that within God there is such a thing as procession (in fact, there are two processions in God), and that one of these processions can be properly called 'generation', i.e., the begetting of a Son from a Father. Thus, Scripture records for us God (I.e., God the Father) stating to Christ, "You are my Son, this day I have begotten you."

I do not understand this idea of "eternal generation" or eternal sonship. John informs us that prior to creation, at least, Jesus was the "Word". Why did John not write "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God"? And if Jesus gave up equality with God (Philippians 2:6) when He was incarnated, how was he ever equal with God if he was eternally the Son? Certainly in the patriarchical culture of the Ancient Near East the son was considered as subordinate to the father. I do not think that is what Paul had in mind when he wrote of Jesus giving up equality.

John 8:42 (NASB)

42. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

As for this passage from John the plain reading would indicate Jesus was referring to His incarnation.

Psalm 2:7 (NASB)

I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You. Ps. 2:7 (NASB)

The Hebrew for "begotten" is yalad and the lexical meaning is "to bear, beget, or bring forth." In Acts 13 we find the inspired Apostle Paul"s explanation of Psalm 2:7:

Acts 13:29-34 (NASB)
29. When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. 30. But God raised Him from the dead; 31. and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32. And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33. that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You.’ 34. As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’

[jriccitelli]

'I think that God was painfully inadequate in describing His substance and nature' (Editor, above)

Dear Editor, I don’t know how much information is enough. If we are thinking scripture was supposed to explain why atoms hold together / what quarks are composed / how nothing comes from nothing / how a spirit can be in two places at once / what they are made of / and what ingredients make a persons spirit, then I suppose we can whisper in Jesus’ ear and say ‘you didn’t give us enough information’.

But, I know a 7 year old that knows a proton from a neutron, and a three year old that knows which way to put in a battery. And you don’t have to be an electronics engineer to know you shouldn’t stick a fork in a electric outlet. God gave us the basics, so it better look like a light bulb, if your going to stick something in a lamp socket.

'A Psalm of David. The LORD is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? (Psalm 27)
‘There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him… Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life… He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me… I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world' (John 1:9, 8:12, 9:5, 12:46) ‘This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin’ (1 John 1:5)
We cannot put anything in Gods place, that would be idolatry, but we can put Jesus in Gods place, where only God belongs. That would be what Jesus did. But, don’t do so unless you are ‘sure’ who He is. On that I think we agree.

"Arise, shine; for your light has come, And the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. For behold, darkness will cover the earth And deep darkness the peoples; But the LORD will rise upon you And His glory will appear upon you. Nations will come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising… The sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory’ (Isaiah 60:1-3, 19-20) ‘And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb’ (Rev 21:23)

‘If this doctrine is so paramount, I would have expected it to be as clearly delineated as the Ransom of Christ is’

It does seem clear to many believers, so whether some believe or accept it, or not, is like any other word from God. Why do we think many in Jesus’ day did not believe Jesus? Is it because Jesus did not give them enough information? Or delineate well enough about who He was? Was not the ransom and His sacrifice for sin not believed upon by many then? Is His sacrifice still is not believed upon by many now for salvation? Neither of these doctrines are 'not' believed upon, simply for a lack of facts.

I asked you, and some other non-Trinitarians here awhile back: Who is your Lord? And Who is your Savior? I've responded to alot of questions of others since then, but these are the most important questions.

[Paidion]

I do not understand this idea of "eternal generation" or eternal sonship.

Homer, I couldn't make sense of it, either. I thought it meant, "The Son was always being generated (or begotten) from the infinite past throughout all time, and will continue to be generated in the infinite future, and so I understood Catholics to believe that the generation of the Son to be an everlasting or infinite process.

But as the result of an exchange with Brother Alan, I now see that that is not at all what the Catholics mean by "eternal generation". From the days of early Catholicsm as well as from Greek philosophical thought, "eternal" meant "outside of time". Personally, I can make no sense of "outside of time" but it seems that even current philosophers seem to think they mean something by it.

So the Catholics believe that Jesus was begotten or generated as a single act (as I do), but He was generated "outside of time" before time began (if it makes any sense to use the temporal word "before" in reference to a non-temporal state). So in Catholic theology, Jesus and his Father existed (past tense, indicating time again) outside of time, and God performed an act outside of time, namely to generate his Son. So speaking temporally, the Son always existed, since there was never a TIME in which He didn't.

The early Christian writers stated that there was never a TIME in which the Son did not exist. Catholics agree with this statement, and I agree with it. The early Christian writers say that the generation of the Son was the first of God's acts. Catholics agree with that statement, and so do I. The only difference between Catholic doctrine and mine is that Catholics affirm that the Son was genererated BEFORE time existed, and I believe this first act of God together with the second act CAUSED time to begin. I don't believe there was a BEFORE. But I am asked the question, "How could God have generated the Son neither outside of time or within time?" And I am unable to answer that question. My understanding is problematic for that reason. But for me, it is much more problematic to conceive of God existing outside of time, doing nothing, until He performed ONE ACT ONLY outside of time—the generation of his Son. Why couldn't that one act have been performed exactly at the beginning of time? Indeed, that together with the second event (probably the creation of the universe) caused time to exist (if "time" means the temporal "distance" between two events, as I believe it to be).

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for clearing that up.

Do you know of any other verses that would be cited as support for Jesus being God's Son prior to his incarnation?

[Paidion]

Do you know of any other verses that would be cited as support for Jesus being God's Son prior to his incarnation?

I think John 16:28 is a powerful indication of Jesus having been begotten by God prior to his birth. And If He were begotten, prior to his birth, He would have been God's Son prior to his birth.

I emerged out of the Father and have come into the Universe. [Now] I am leaving the Universe and am going to the Father again.

I think I have good justification for translating "ἐξηλθον ἐκ του πατρος" (exālthon ek tou patros) as "I emerged out of the Father". For the word "ἐξηλθον" means more than "I came" as many translations render it. The prefix ἐξ means "out of". It is the form of ἐκ (out of) that is used before a vowel. So ἐξηλθον means "I came out of" or "I emerged".
And then there is a second "out of" and the preposition of the phrase "out of the Father", which emphasises the fact that Jesus did not simply "come from the Father" but "came out of the Father" or better (because of the double "out of") "emerged out of the Father". Does not this emerging out of the Father indicate the Father as the source of his Being?
Does this not indicate that God the Father begat Him previous to his birth from Mary? And if God begat Him previous to his birth from Mary, then He was God's Son prior his incarnation.

[darinhouston]

Do we not refer as an English idiom of our children "coming into this world?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

Do we not refer as an English idiom of our children "coming into this world?"

Yes, but we don't refer to our children as "coming into this cosmos", and "cosmos" is the Greek word. Jesus came into this cosmos, or universe, and then went out of it back to his Father.

[darinhouston]

How certain are you that this wasn't an idiom of the age? It would beg a lot of questions from non-pharasaic Jews at the time and I just don't see that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk