How do you reconcile the first Commandment with the trinity?

[Webers.Home]

.
● John 5:22-23 . .The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment
to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He
who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

● John 3:35 . .The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his
hands.

● Matt 28:18 . . All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

● John 16:15 . . All that belongs to the Father is mine.

The above makes sense. Seeing as how the Son is God's eldest among His
posterity, and therefore His heir apparent in accord with the rules pertaining
to firstborn sons in the Bible; then it's to be expected that God would turn
over management of the family's business to Christ when he became old
enough, and mature enough, to take the reins. (cf. Gen 24:35-36)
_

 

[williamjordan]

WOW!!! that was a lot of work for nothing!!! But what's a "yute", and why would you want to get us wet???

So what you're saying is, Paul put all that work in for "nothing"? Is that right? He made all these allusions with the intent on it being "just for nothing," according to you.

What's a Yute? Listen closely, and you may catch the irony!

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

So what you're saying is, Paul put all that work in for "nothing"? Is that right?

Not even close. I'm O.K. with Paul, but your interpretations leave me cold.

What's a Yute? Listen closely, and you may catch the irony!

OH - folks don't generally think I look my age (81) but I sure feel it!!

 

[bluto]

.
● John 5:22-23 . .The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment
to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He
who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

● John 3:35 . .The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his
hands.

● Matt 28:18 . . All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

● John 16:15 . . All that belongs to the Father is mine.

The above makes sense. Seeing as how the Son is God's eldest among His
posterity, and therefore His heir apparent in accord with the rules pertaining
to firstborn sons in the Bible; then it's to be expected that God would turn
over management of the family's business to Christ when he became old
enough, and mature enough, to take the reins. (cf. Gen 24:35-36)
_

I know you have put me on your ignore list but my response is for others that can read this. No, the above does not make sense because your "assuming" the Son is only human and discounting that He is God the Son as well. He has two natures. One on His Father's side which is deity and one on His mother's side which is human. In short, your only looking at this from a strictly human perspective.

Look at Matthew 22:41-46 where Jesus ask the Jews, "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David." He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him, Lord saying, "The Lord said to my Lord sit at My right hand , until I put Thine enemies beneath Thy feet." If David then calls Him Lord, how is He his son?" And no one was able to answer Him a word." If the Jews could not answer Jesus Webers.Home, you can't.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[williamjordan]

Not even close. I'm O.K. with Paul, but your interpretations leave me cold.

OH - folks don't generally think I look my age (81) but I sure feel it!!

I emplore you to rewatch the video I shared with you earlier. And this time, instead of honing in on the key word, “Yute” (Joe Pecci), try directing your attention to the conversation between Austin Pendleton and Maury Chaykin, in the first segment (here). I think that their discussion may be more applicable to our situation. It does seem to me that you struggle quite a bit with the notion that there is a “right” vs. a “wrong” Jesus, and that anyone that confesses Christ as “Savior”/“Son of God” are saved and thereby, “God’s children.”

Are you going to suggest to me that 2nd c. gnostics—who on one side of the mouth refer to Christ as “Savior,” “Christ,” “the Son of God,” only to then (on the other side) speak out in vile hatred against the Creator—are saved? As if what was intended by the epithet “the Son of God,” did not mean that He was “the Son of the Creator.” The gnostic view of “God” was so distorted, that they took “the Son of God” to mean that Christ was an Aeon that emanated from the supreme “God,” which they did not associate or identify as the Creator, the “God” of the OT. The act of creation was solely reserved for the “God” of the OT, but that “God” of the OT is not the same “God” of the NT. Therefore, their view of “God” has a ripple effect which also impacts their view of Christ as, “the Son of God.” Whose Son is He? The Son of the gnostic “God,” who has no affiliation with creating the world?

How in the world is there not a problem with this picture?

That said, a Unitarian will refer to Jesus as “the Son of God,” but will take from that something completely different than a Trinitarian. The question boils down to whether or not the Unitarian “Son of God” is closer to the NT’s “Son of God” than the Trinitarian “Son of God.” Quite clearly somebody is not believing in the same “Son of God” as the NT authors did. Regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, that is a problem: A salvific one.

The gnostics constructed their own “God,” and their own “Son of God.” They are guilty of doing the very thing the OT Jews of Moses’ day did, and committing the grandest scandal of all: Idolatry. Worshiping creation, rather than God. Worshiping something that is a “no-god.”

To suggest that there is “no problem,” is simply a ruse. You’re trying to downplay the significance, and probably for personal reasons (direct or indirect). Perhaps what you need are some “reading glasses.” And I know where you can probably borrow a pair: Maury Chaykin.

If you are left “cold” after reading my comments, then there is nothing I can do for you. I am not a heart doctor, but I do know who is.

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

Simple.

the Trinity is not polytheism.

You can keep telling that lie but the definition that man created

No humbll, that's not how the Bible works. What your doing is advocating "Modalism" in which the Oneness Pentecostals cult believe.

Your comparing three "offices" or roles to ontological beings. That is an invalid comparison. The doctrine of the trinity does not merely reduce the persons of the trinity to "roles." The Bible clearly regards the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as actual "persons."

The argument you advocating goes like this? I'm a father, I am a son to my father, I'm also married so that makes me a husband to my wife. This all sounds good, "BUT" what if a person never has children, he therefore cannot fill the office of a father. Or what if a person never gets married, he cannot actually be a husband. It's like former President Trump who filled the office of the President of the United States and now he is no longer the President which obviously means he no longer plays that role or office.

You also quoted Isaiah 43:11, "I am God and besides me there is no savior. Yet Luke 2:11 states, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a "SAVIOR" who is Christ the Lord. The Oneness Pentecostals believe Jesus plays the "role" of all three persons of the Trinity. In other words, Jesus is the person of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As one Oneness Pentecostal told me in a debate, "Jesus is all of them." You need to change your theology stat.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Persons describing God is not in the Bible.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

I emplore you to rewatch the video I shared with you earlier. And this time, instead of honing in on the key word, “Yute” (Joe Pecci), try directing your attention to the conversation between Austin Pendleton and Maury Chaykin, in the first segment (here). I think that their discussion may be more applicable to our situation. It does seem to me that you struggle quite a bit with the notion that there is a “right” vs. a “wrong” Jesus, and that anyone that confesses Christ as “Savior”/“Son of God” are saved and thereby, “God’s children.”

Chuckle!! I don't get my "theology" from Hollywood. BUT HEY!! the Jews will find their "Messiah"/ "Wrong Jesus" shortly when they get their new "Temple" built, as the Bible records.

And everybody that "spouts" Jesus, ain't Christians (remember the "Wheat and the "Tares" thing). I've got no problems whatsoever with the issue. There's ONLY ONE GOD - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as Jesus teaches. Whether man's "Trinitarian doctrines" get anything right or not, I couldn't care less. It IS nothing more than "Theology", after all!!

If you are left “cold” after reading my comments, then there is nothing I can do for you.

I agree completely!!! Your "philosophical ramblings" lead nowhere but into confusion.

I am not a heart doctor, but I do know who is.

SO do I. His name is James Choi at Presbyterian here in Dallas. No personality whatsoever, but treated me successfully through the last 3 (of 13) heart attacks. A Good mechanic, fer sure, fer sure.

 

[posthuman]

You can keep telling that lie but the definition that man created

You realize a 4wd is still just one truck, right?

 

[williamjordan]

You can keep telling that lie but the definition that man created

Persons describing God is not in the Bible.

Nor are people that talk to themselves.

There is no legitimate way to interpret a text and say that it is the "heavenly" and the "earthly" counterparts interacting with one another, as if they are two distinct persons, when in those very contexts, are themselves filled with examples of distinct individuals interacting with one another in the same exact way.

The problem with engaging with a Modalist is that you hold to a Unitarian worldview. And the moment your Modalism is debunked, you will then default to another "Unitarian" view that has close affinities with your already held traditions: Socinianism. They hold to nearly the same thing as you do now, minus the Modalistic tendencies.

 

[williamjordan]

I agree completely!!! Your "philosophical ramblings" lead nowhere but into confusion.

That's funny, I don't recall any "philosophical ramblings," but simply pointed out the OT allusions contained in 1 Corinthians, which you allegedly "disagree" with. There's nothing "philosophical" about it. This only gets philosophical when you try to make mince meat out of what Paul says. It is quite straightforward, if you ask me. If you think Paul was writing his letters with the intent they could be "open for interpretation," then you are out of your mind.

SO do I. His name is James Choi at Presbyterian here in Dallas. No personality whatsoever, but treated me successfully through the last 3 (of 13) heart attacks. A Good mechanic, fer sure, fer sure.

I was thinking of a certain someone with a "little bit" more prestige. I wonder who that might be. Any idea?

 

[Gideon300]

Do you believe they are not contradictory? Why?
Do you rely on faith to believe they are consistent with each other? Is that an excuse or a reason?

Inquiring minds want to know! Leave your answers below, eh.

I don't understand the trinity and I don't need to. I accept that God is revealed in 3 Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This has always been so. If God was not more than one person, then love makes no sense. By definition, divine love focuses on others, not self. The Father loves the Son (John 3:35, John 5:20).

The commandment says to love the Lord your God. Jesus said that if we love Him, we will obey Him (John 14:15). God says that we are to believe first. Understanding may or may not come later. Who can understand God anyway? He is beyond human comprehension.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

The fact of the matter is, we absolutely know about God is that He is a Father, Spirit, and WORD. God is SPIRIT! But the function of how God works is uniquely intertwined and ALL of God is connected by the Same Essence [325 Council Terminology that I AGREE with].

But in order to describe God, you must pay attention to the Role that God has.
As a Father, His Love is for His Creation to be Saved.
As the WORD in flesh, the Fathers Love was Completed by the Work of Christ to bring Salvation.
As the Spirit, God's Love is to stay Connected to His Saved Creation.

Each Role is Unique.

That is God!

 

[Gideon300]

.
Now, the curious thing is: God's speech, viz: His actual personal utterances,
were never heard even once by human beings in the Old Testament-- not
one human being, not one time: not ever. He has, in fact, communicated
with human beings via the speech of a mysterious being in the Old
Testament known as Jehovah, a.k.a. Yahweh.

There is a cult at large busy making a big deal out of "Jehovah" as God's
personal identity. But God's personal identity isn't Jehovah, rather, that
name is Jehovah's personal identity: God's personal identity is currently
unknown, i.e. the Father spoken of in the New Testament has yet to give
humanity a personal name by which He may be addressed.

Now if what I'm saying here is true, then the Jehovah of the first of the Ten
Commandments isn't the ultimate supreme being that many of us have been
led to believe he is. The Jehovah of the Ten Commandments kind of gives
me the creeps because he is so mysterious; and is to be obeyed, and to be
worshipped, as a divine being.
_

God gives you the creeps? You obviously do not know Him. God has many names which identify various aspects of His nature. Men do the same thing, giving titles to people that show their position in society. What name would you think God would use, other than God? John? James? Harry? You make a big deal out of nothing.

 

[williamjordan]

God gives you the creeps? You obviously do not know Him. God has many names which identify various aspects of His nature. Men do the same thing, giving titles to people that show their position in society. What name would you think God would use, other than God? John? James? Harry? You make a big deal out of nothing.

Is it me, or do you have Webers.Home argument backwards? It seems you are accusing Webers.Home of the very thing he/she is arguing against. Webers.Home is referring to Jehovah's Witnesses, who routinely "make a big deal" out of a particular variation of the divine name ("Jehovah"), and accuse Christians along with their translations for not including it, as they do in the NWT. Webers.Home is not arguing for or against a given variation of the divine name, but is in fact arguing against those that do, and try to "Lord" it over people.

There are multiple ways the divine name has been rendered into English, and the very one that Jehovah's Witnesses "Lord" over people is in fact the variation, "Jehovah."

 

[Gideon300]

Is it me, or do you have Webers.Home argument backwards? It seems you are accusing Webers.Home of the very thing he/she is arguing against. Webers.Home is referring to Jehovah's Witnesses, who routinely "make a big deal" out of a particular variation of the divine name ("Jehovah"), and accuse Christians along with their translations for not including it, as they do in the NWT. Webers.Home is not arguing for or against a given variation of the divine name, but is in fact arguing against those that do.

Possibly I'm confused, but "gives me the creeps" bothers me somewhat.

 

[williamjordan]

Possibly I'm confused, but "gives me the creeps" bothers me somewhat.

I'd have to go back and read through the back and forth, but you should take the comments at face value. What I think Webers.Home is getting at, is that the OT routinely identifies the mysterious figure known as "the Angel of the LORD," as Yhwh. And since this "Angel of the LORD" is said to be "Yhwh," then "the Father" must thereby be some mysterious, unnamed entity.

But perhaps, they need to reflect a bit on passages such as Jn. 14:9, and Jn. 1:1-18. The point of texts like these are to show that the Father is not at all "mysterious," but is exegeted and revealed in the Son.

I am reminded of 1 Samuel 3:19-21, "And Yahweh appeared again in Shiloh, for Yahweh revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh through the Word of Yahweh."

 

[posthuman]

Is it me, or do you have Webers.Home argument backwards? It seems you are accusing Webers.Home of the very thing he/she is arguing against. Webers.Home is referring to Jehovah's Witnesses, who routinely "make a big deal" out of a particular variation of the divine name ("Jehovah"), and accuse Christians along with their translations for not including it, as they do in the NWT. Webers.Home is not arguing for or against a given variation of the divine name, but is in fact arguing against those that do, and try to "Lord" it over people.

There are multiple ways the divine name has been rendered into English, and the very one that Jehovah's Witnesses "Lord" over people is in fact the variation, "Jehovah."

He seems to me to be arguing that YHWH is not God, which is flatly indefensible.

 

[Webers.Home]

What name would you think God would use, other than God? John? James?
Harry?

I strongly suspect that the supreme being has no personal identity by which
He might be addressed when spoken to by even His closest friends and/or
relatives.

The Word-- depicted by John 1:1-18- has released quite a bit of information
about God, but to my knowledge has yet to release His personal identity.

* Speaking of the supreme being's relatives: this is something that's nigh
unto impossible for me for me to fully comprehend.

At one time I was in grave danger of every man's worst nightmare; whereas
today I'm actually in God's genealogy, i.e. listed among His posterity, and in
line for an inheritance alongside His one and only begotten son by the
process of adoption; which is a process that not only gives kids inheritance
rights, but also the right to become identified with their new father.

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we
should be called the sons of God" (1John 3:1)

Christians are sometimes thought of as foster children, but foster kids have
no right to identify with the father in a foster home, and certainly no right to
a position in his family tree, nor a right to inherit.

There was a time when the Son was an only child, but now he's
accompanied by a horde of siblings.

"Behold I and the children which God hath given me." (Heb 2:13)

I was baptized an infant into the Catholic church and anon completed
enough catechism for First Holy Communion and Confirmation-- never once
did the instructors even so much as hint that it was possible to associate
with the supreme being as His kin folk; real honest to gosh family tied to
Him forever by the bonds of adoption. (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:5, Eph 1:5)
_

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

But perhaps, they need to reflect a bit on passages such as Jn. 14:9, and Jn. 1:1-18. The point of texts like these are to show that the Father is not at all "mysterious," but is exegeted and revealed in the Son.

I am reminded of 1 Samuel 3:19-21, "And Yahweh appeared again in Shiloh, for Yahweh revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh through the Word of Yahweh."

We know, whenever we SEE God, like how the People of the Old Testament saw the LORD [YHWH = MOST HIGH GOD], to Yahweh, to the Angel Jacob wrestled with and knew it was God, and then the New Testament with Jesus, is ALWAYS, the FATHER through the WORD, revealing Himself.

In Every literal Case, when we see a Physical Body Representation of the Father, it comes by way of humans actually looking at the WORD.

Even in the Destruction of Sodom, we see the LORD reigned down upon from the LORD in Heaven. The term LORD here, MOST HIGH GOD [YHWH] is the SAME PERSON for the LORD on Earth and the LORD in Heaven. We know, this is the WORD and the FATHER. But, we also know, the LORD here, is saying the SAME PERSON LORD is in 2 Places doing ONE ACTION.

It's almost, since we absolutely KNOW that GOD is SPIRIT, when He makes contact with us, He does it in the Flesh as the WORD.

I can see how people just think this is ONE God as SPIRIT manifest Himself into Flesh. Because, the BIBLE literally shows us this example over and over and over.

I think it's best us modern day trinitarians, which, does not reflect even closely to how either the 325 AD nor the 385 AD explains the Trinity, need to rethink our own position here. the Modern Version is actually an act and form of Heresy when compared to the literal Creeds.

I am not saying anything against our Triune God, but, I am saying, I don't think Today's Modern explanation is Biblical at all.

Just a bunch of Pharisees screaming 3 PEOPLE!

Bible, doesn't even say that anywhere. And when it does explain how the FATHER deals with His Creation, it's always through the WORD. Which can easily be presented as a question: the Father is Spirit, the WORD is Spirit and Flesh. The Father DWELLS in the WORD doing the WORKS. I am merely pointing out, this seems a lot closer than it being between a Father and Son.

 

[bluto]

You can keep telling that lie but the definition that man created

Persons describing God is not in the Bible.

God describes Himself in the Bible, how you ask? He chose to manifest Himself as three "distinct" persons. For example, I give you Mark 1:11-12, "and a voice came out of the heavens, "Thou art My beloved Son, in Three I am well-pleased." Vs12, "And immediately the Spirit impelled Him/Jesus to go out into the wilderness."

Suppose you tell us all here how many persons are in view in these two verses? If your answer is anything but three, please explain why? PS: And while you at it, explain how many persons are in view at Matthew 28:19?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto