Originally posted by jaywillBut was the Father crucified on the cross ?
[b]===================
No one is making the argument that the Son is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't even make that claim.
==============================
As a caveat for my true brother in Christ I do not mind saying that the biblical revelation of the Triune God holds that the Son is the Father.
At least I would not ...[text shortened]... in the Father - inseparable but distinct.
That's me. And my basis is Isaiah 9:6. [/b]
I don't know. It doesn't come out to say exactly that. But it DOES say that the "Son ... given" shall be called "Eternal Father".
And I am not willing to interpret that to mean the opposite of what it states.
Praise our Wonderful Triune God.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillC'mon Jaywill, it seems to me that Robbie "ran off" because he saw the futility in trying once again to explain his position. Sometimes it's as if you guys don't even bother to really read the posts of others. It seems that you're so intent on finding points to attack that the larger point of the posts is missed, hence "blinders". When you can't be bothered to read the post of others for content, it's really a problem.
[b]=============================
Robbie, I'm sorry that you could not sufficiently defend your position.
===============================
For some reason I am not sorry. Because of what he teaches some people may be lost.
ThinkOfOne talks about "blinders'. But it was Robbie who closed his eyes and ran off without listening to Phillip S o pray for the man and his family. I think in everyone's case it requires the mercy of God.[/b]
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneespecially since your own posts are so long
C'mon Jaywill, it seems to me that Robbie "ran off" because he saw the futility in trying once again to explain his position. Sometimes it's as if you guys don't even bother to really read the posts of others. It seems that you're so intent on finding points to attack that the larger point of the posts is missed, hence "blinders". When you can't be bothered to read the post of others for content, it's really a problem.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe point is that, so far as I can tell, Robbie did address your question contrary to your continued claims otherwise. Maybe not in the manner that you would like, but if you'd take the time to understand his position, you'd see that it has been addressed.
The point is that, so far as I can tell, Robbie did address your question contrary to your continued claims otherwise. Maybe not in the manner that you would like, but if you'd take the time to understand his position, you'd see that it has been addressed.
You know, I can't say as I ever understood exactly what the Doctrine of the Trinity does claim m ...[text shortened]... you. I suspect that it's because you aren't comfortable with the message that He brought.
I agree, Robbie did address my question. However, his claims are insufficient; they are (1) Christ is worthy of said honor due to his unique achievements and (2) that all people are worthy of honor. These are insufficient reasons because (1) Christ's achievements, no matter how profound, cannot make him infinite, and (2) all people are worthy of honor, but only proportionate to their rank; leaving my question unanswered: why is Christ worthy of the same level of honor as God.
You know, I can't say as I ever understood exactly what the Doctrine of the Trinity does claim mostly because it's pretty much just double talk. You really should ask yourself why Jesus didn't explain the concept of the trinity Himself. Seems like an important concept to leave out. Not sure why you so consistently insist on relying on the words of others, when the words of Jesus are available to guide you. I suspect that it's because you aren't comfortable with the message that He brought.
I'm not defending the Doctrine of the Trinity here, ThinkOfOne, I'm defending the Deity of Christ. And in case you haven't noticed, the crux of my argument rests upon the words of Jesus (particularly, John 5:23).
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI agree that it can be accurately said that the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. I don't however believe it is classic trinitarian doctrine to ever go so far as to confuse the Son with the Father and vice versa, e.g., the Son is the Father. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are said to be three persons, co-equal, and of one substance, but nevertheless three distinct persons.
[b]===================
No one is making the argument that the Son is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't even make that claim.
==============================
As a caveat for my true brother in Christ I do not mind saying that the biblical revelation of the Triune God holds that the Son is the Father.
At least I would not ...[text shortened]... in the Father - inseparable but distinct.
That's me. And my basis is Isaiah 9:6. [/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo clearly you and Jaywill dont believe in the same Trinity.
I agree that it can be accurately said that the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. I don't however believe it is classic trinitarian doctrine to ever go so far as to confuse the Son with the Father and vice versa, e.g., the Son is the Father. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are said to be separate persons, co-equal, and of one substance, but nevertheless distinctly separate persons.
Jaywill says they are not separate.
You say they are distinctly separate.
Originally posted by epiphinehasOK, still you believe that "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are said to be three persons, co-equal, and of one substance, but nevertheless three distinct persons."
I edited my post. I meant "separate" in that Father and Son are never confused.
Thats not what Jaywill believes. I believe what you believe as well but without the c0-equal.
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasLet's face it, no matter what Robbie had to say, short of agreeing with you, you'd deem "insufficient". Was there really any point in claiming, "ROBBIE, since you've repeatedly failed to answer my question..." when you knew it wasn't true?
[b]The point is that, so far as I can tell, Robbie did address your question contrary to your continued claims otherwise. Maybe not in the manner that you would like, but if you'd take the time to understand his position, you'd see that it has been addressed.
I agree, Robbie did address my question. However, his claims are insufficient; they are ced, the crux of my argument rests upon the words of Jesus (particularly, John 5:23).[/b]
I realize that the crux of your argument hinges on John 5:23, hence my earlier reference to "honor". You see what you want to see into His words, rather than just accepting what He actually says, "...so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." This is a claim that He is to be honored, not a claim of deity. If Jesus was making the claim you propose, why didn't He just explicitly state it? It's a reach.
8 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis passage (John 5:23) does not simply state that Christ is to be honored. Consider the context. By claiming that God was his Father, Jesus was claiming equality with God; this is affirmed by the narration in John 5: "Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" (v. 18). Jesus then courageously reaffirms the offense: "All should honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (v. 23).
Let's face it, no matter what Robbie had to say, short of agreeing with you, you'd deem "insufficient". Was there really any point in claiming, "ROBBIE, since you've repeatedly failed to answer my question..." when you knew it wasn't true?
I realize that the crux of your argument hinges on John 5:23, hence my earlier reference to "honor". You read wha ing the claim you propose, why didn't He just explicitly state it? It's a reach.
No, this is not simply a matter of honoring Jesus because he is a powerful, though finite, spiritual being in the Lord's service. This becomes clear when we consider how, exactly, Christ is meant to be honored. The Bible teaches us to honor, glorify, worship, pray to, sing to and about, believe in, fear or reverence, religiously serve, love and obey, Jesus, just as we would God:
Consider how the Old Testament closely links love for God and obedience to his commandments. In the Ten Commandments, the Lord told Israel that he expected them to "love me and keep my commandments" (Exod. 20:6; Deut. 5:10). The Lord "maintains covenant loyalty with those who love him and keep his commandments" (Deut. 7:9). "You shall love the Lord your God, therefore, and keep his charge, his decrees, his ordinances, and his commandments always" (Deut. 11:1; see also 11:13, 22; 19:9; 30:6-8 16, 20; Josh. 22:5; Neh. 1:5; Dan. 9:4). Israelites were to put loyalty to the Lord above everything else, even loyalty to their families (Deut. 13:6-11; 33:9).
Jesus expected to be given the same kind of absolute devotion, the same unqualified commitment of the heart and life, that we ought to give to God. Jesus put love for him above family ties: "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37). A similar statement in Luke puts it more starkly: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26).
In the Gospel of John, Jesus repeatedly associates love for him with obedience to his commandments: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (14:15) ; "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me" (14:21) ; "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love' (15:10).
Clearly, Jesus is meant to be honored with the same level of honor as God the Father, not merely honored.
Therefore, it is completely legitimate to ask: "If nobody but God is worthy of the honor due to God, how then do we explain Christ's assertion that the Son should be honored just as the Father is honored?" The only correct answer is, "Because Christ is God."
1 edit
"This is a claim that He is to be honored, not a claim of deity."
thinkofone, my friend, you would be as well as talking to a brick wall, infact, there would be more reasonableness from a brick wall than a trinitarian, there really does seem no way to help them for indeed their bias has obscured there ability to reason.
here is a song for Epiphenomena, its by Likke li, and is called
im good im gone,
&feature=related
I apologise for the sound quality, hope you like it - regards Robbie.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillthis is not entirely surprising Jaywalk, for it is a reflection of the vindictive God that you worship, and is evident proof that you are uninterested in actually ascertaining what the truth is, but in simply seeking to establish your own point of view, one again your ability to reason has been blinded by your prejudice.
[b]=============================
Robbie, I'm sorry that you could not sufficiently defend your position.
===============================
For some reason I am not sorry. Because of what he teaches some people may be lost.
ThinkOfOne talks about "blinders'. But it was Robbie who closed his eyes and ran off without listening to Phillip S o pray for the man and his family. I think in everyone's case it requires the mercy of God.[/b]
Originally posted by Rajk999=============================
So clearly you and Jaywill dont believe in the same Trinity.
Jaywill says they are not separate.
You say they are distinctly separate.
So clearly you and Jaywill dont believe in the same Trinity.
Jaywill says they are not separate.
You say they are distinctly separate.
=============================
If you ask me I do not feel that it shows that. I think it shows that human language is limited in expressing such a profound matter. And that two brothers in Christ would use slightly different ways of expressing the matter.
IMO the essence of God's being is enjoyable and for our subjective experience. But our limited human language cannot fully express the mystery of the revelation of God.
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie==============================
this is not entirely surprising Jaywalk, for it is a reflection of the vindictive God that you worship, and is evident proof that you are uninterested in actually ascertaining what the truth is, but in simply seeking to establish your own point of view, one again your ability to reason has been blinded by your prejudice.
this is not entirely surprising Jaywalk, for it is a reflection of the vindictive God that you worship, and is evident proof that you are uninterested in actually ascertaining what the truth is, but in simply seeking to establish your own point of view, one again your ability to reason has been blinded by your prejudice.
=====================================
No that is not it Robbie.
The fact of the matter is that the Gospel saves people by causing them to CONTACT the living Person of Jesus.
The danger of your teaching is that you think you are doing some favor to Jehovah by putting Jesus aside to supposedly exalt the Old Testament God.
In essence Arianism is fighting against the truth of incarnation. In essence you are taking people back to the Old Testament God. If God intended to keep people in the Old Testament the Word would not have become flesh (John 1:14).
Receivers of this teaching often have suspicion towards honoring the Son and turning their hearts TO Jesus Christ. You already scoulded everyone that they should not pray to Jesus.
Listen, I did a lot of thinking and arguing about God years ago. But God was not real to me. The night I really needed God I opened a Bible to read. But I didn't feel like reading anything would help me.
Then I decided to pray. And to my surprise when I uttered the word Jesus all heaven broke loose. I can say unequivicably that it was calling on the name of Jesus that finally made God real to me.
I do not expect everyone to have the identical same experience. But I am pretty certain that you have to allow yourself to be humbled and subdued by that terrible and wonderful name - "JESUS".
Jesus totally subdued me. And that is where my life with God began.
Sometime afterwards I met a few Jehovah Witnesses. They attempted to make me unsure of the fact that it was JESUS who made God real to me. So I know what are the seeds of doubt sown into the hearts of seekers by Watchtower indoctrination.