The Trinity according to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD

they did not understand or see Who Jesus was.

No matter what any of us believe, God is still God. Whether the Son and the Spirit are God, a part of God, a personality of God... Jesus told us that if "they have seen him, they have seen the Father".... good enough, You can argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin all you want.... it's a waste of time and worse, a distraction from living like Jesus and spreading the word.

Too many of these specious discussions (arguments) are simply men trying to re-create rules and laws "you either believe exactly the way I do, or you are going to Hell".....

Psalm 18:2, "יהוה is my rock and my stronghold and my deliverer; My Strength is my rock, I take refuge in Him; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my high tower."

Revelation 12:

11, “And they overcame him because of the Blood of the Lamb, and because of the Word of their witness, and they did not love their lives to the death."

12-13, “Here is the endurance of the set-apart ones, here are those guarding the commands of יהוה and the belief of יהושע. And I heard a voice out of the heaven saying to me, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Master from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, in order that they rest from their labors, and their works follow with them.”

It very important to have a strong grasp on Christology. Its not being charitable or nice or cooperative or even slreading a word that saves. It is Christ who saves and not based on works. Also if you have a false Christology what word are you spreading? Can you live like Christ if you dont know who Christ is as He also understood himself then you cant possible live lime Him.
I think of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who is held up as a great theologian but he denied aspects of Christ unto eventually becoming a rank heretic and even abandoning his bible and Christianity altogether.
Then there are the cult mimicks of Christianity like Mormonism, and JW and many others.
So learning who Christ is, is fundamental to growing and maintaining faith.

John/Yahanan 12:48, "He who rejects Me, and does not follow My words has One Who judges him. The word that I have spoken, the same will be used to judge him in the last day."

John/Yahanan 5:28-30, “Do not be astonished at this-for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice, and will come forth. Those who have practiced righteousness will be resurrected in order to live; and those who have practiced wickedness will be resurrected in order to be damned."

Psalms 118:25-26, “I pray, O יהוה, please save us now; I pray, O יהוה, please send well being. Blessed is He who is coming in the Name of יהוה! We shall bless you from the House of יהוה.”

John 5:43, “I have come in My Father's Name, but you do not follow Me. Let another come in his own name; him you will follow.”

I thought that Bonhoffer was killed by the Nazis because of his faith? Was that not correct?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't teach the deity of Jesus.... it's just arguing over these nitpicky nuances is fruitless. I suppose there are too many people on here that just love to argue.
Discussion is one thing... I'm all for that, but you cannot read these threads and not see that they go off the rails into arguments pretty quickly.

They did kill him

Zechariah 14:9
And the Lord will be King over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.

What name is the only name that ever mattered to humanity?

Revelation 17:14
These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.

John 17:11
I am no longer going to be in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, so that they may be one just as We are.

John 17:12
While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name, which You have given Me; and I guarded them, and not one of them perished except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

Philippians 2:9-11
For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.

"The Father" is a title and not a name.

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Agreed. There are a lot of people who refuse to believe the Jesus of Nazareth -- the Lord Jesus Christ -- is God who became sinless Man to die for our sins. These people have chosen to reject the salvation which is only in and through Christ.

These people are simply trolling.

I'd be curious to know what your source is for this. When you say "a rank heretic," what does that mean? What did he believe or preach that was rank heresy? Please post sources.

from Bonheoffer's lectures on Christology, 1933; collected in *Christ the Center*, 1960: pp104-05, 107

Thank you. Can you explain what you mean by he was "a rank heretic?" What makes him one in your opinion?

how is "differing" different from "conflicting" . . . . ?


not sure i got a response but iirc i brought it up earlier -- how do i reconcile this view that two wills mean two different beings when ((for example)) in Romans 7 i have very, very clearly a person described with two wills within themselves?
you may make the argument that Romans 7 is describing an unsaved person; i disagree -- the language is explicitly indicating Paul talking about himself in the present tense, so it sure reads as though it's describing the present state of the Christian -- but that is immaterial to the question; explicitly a person is described as having two opposing wills: are they two different souls in one body?
is indecision an indication of multiple personality disorder?

Consider, also, that Jesus said He only said abd did what the Father gave Him to say and do.

The Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.

The Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father
doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.

The One who sent Me is truthful, and what I have heard from Him, I tell the world.

I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.

For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Jesus makes a distinction between His will and that of the Father.

my understanding of Luke 22:42 is that we are seeing the supposed tension or friction between the justice of God and the mercy of God playing out.

i say "supposed" because God is perfect and His will is beyond question, perfect -- so there is no fault in it.
and i see this as something beyond human comprehension ((see Psalm 139:6)) but something God is giving us a glimpse of by causing this to be recorded.

i see this as His holiness "vs" His lovingkindness because it concerns the cup: that cup is His act of atonement on the cross. if we look at the result of it we see what the "two wills" are, because God is not ignorant; He is weighing ((to strongly anthropomorphize)) in Himself the ends/outcomes of the two paths before Him: to atone for the sin of man, effecting salvation, or to judge man by his works. this is intricately and inescapably tied to Genesis 3 and to Job ((and some other places)) and foreshadowed in Genesis 15 -- Satan has a hand at play, in the view of all the angels, accusing God of being unjust and his 'trump card' if you will, is the free will of man freely choosing evil. this is a 'problem' as Satan presents it, tacitly accusing God of being unrighteous and/or untrue. Salvation is the answer to that -- the saga of mankind is the answer in evidence before all the angels. so does God forgive sin through gracefully mediating for man, or does He judge man, poisoned as we are by the deceit of the Serpent?

if Christ takes the cup, mercy outweighs justice, and He makes a just Way for us to be justified through Him.
if Christ turns away the cup, holiness outweighs mercy, and we are held to account for what we are justly guilty of.

Christ is appointed judge of the whole world -- to Him is all judgement handed over. so the taking of the cup is not a simple matter of ((as it is often portrayed in hideously heretical error)) Jesus being weak-kneed and scared and confused. it is a matter of supreme theological importance: it is the crux of the argument of Satan against God that swayed 1/3 of the angelic host. will He judge sin or acquit it, how can He be righteous without destroying His entire creation?

and the answer is faith, hope, and love.

Jesus is not saying He is scared to physically die by saying 'if it is Your will let the cup pass' -- He is expressing all the authority of the Hammer of the whole earth, ready to judge the quick and the dead. He is not denying His own deity but strongly affirming it - and He isn't expressing confusion or division in the Godhead, but expressing the truth of righteous judgement, the antithesis of the Egyptian 'scale of Anubis' in which mercy was never taken into account but only works: He is effectively communicating to us that He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, saying, He is ready and able to judge, but let God ((Himself)) show mercy according to His own good pleasure.

this isn't a conversation He **needs** to have in prayer or aloud. this is written for us.

I don't think you'll get response from CorrectiveLens. He has since high tailed it since the post was originally made. I was trying to get a few answers from him myself, but he kept interacting with CS1 and would not respond to me in any way.

You have to tread very lightly, because in my estimation, he could be trying to impose his own Unitarian worldview back onto your Trinitarianism. Does that make sense? To elaborate, Unitarians often think of "Trinitarians" as "Unitarian," and in doing so, will conflate Trinitarianism with Modalism (a form of "Unitarianism"). So from that vantage point, it may require a bit more reflection on exactly what he's objecting to. Sometimes the "Unitarianism" bleeds over in ways they don't realize it does, and are therefore not really objecting to anything substantial.

So without first establishing a base line, it may do some good to ask what he means by "different beings." Those two words can be quite "loaded," and may need unpacked before you can really provide an answer to his objection.

This is what I found on the pages from the reference you listed. Can you point to what it is you find objectionable?

p. 104

Jesus Christ is not God in a divine nature, ousia, substance, being, nor is he God in a way that can be demonstrated or described, he is God in faith. There is no such thing as this divine being. If Jesus Christ is to be described as God, we may not speak of this divine being, nor of his omnipotence, nor his omniscience; but we must speak of this weak man among sinners, of his manger and his cross. If we are to deal with the deity of Jesus, we must speak of his weakness. In christology, one looks at the whole historical man Jesus and says of him, that he is God. One does not first look at a human nature and then beyond it to a divine nature, but one has to do with the one man Jesus Christ, who is wholly God.

The accounts of the birth and of the baptism of Jesus stand side by side. In the birth story, we are directed totally towards Jesus himself. In the story of the baptism, we are directed towards the Holy Spirit who comes from above. The reason why we find it difficult to take the two stories together is because of the doctrine of the two natures. The two stories are not teaching two natures. If we put this doctrine aside, we see that the one story concerns the being of the Word of God in Jesus, while the other concerns the coming of the Word of God upon Jesus. The child in the manger is wholly God: note Luther’s christology in the Christmas hymns. The call at the baptism is confirmation of the first happening, there is no adoptionism in it. The manger directs our attention to the man, who is God; the baptism directs our attention, as we look at Jesus, to the God who calls.

If we speak of Jesus Christ as God, we may not say of him that he is the representative of an idea of God, which possesses the characteristics of omniscience and omnipotence (there is no such thing as this abstract divine nature!); rather, we must speak of his weakness, his manger, his cross. This man is no abstract God.

Strictly speaking we should not talk of the incarnation, but of the incarnate one. The former interest arises out of the

p. 105

question, ‘How?’ The question, ‘How?’, for example, underlies the hypothesis of the virgin birth. Both historically and dogmatically it can be questioned. The biblical witness is ambiguous. If the biblical witness gave clear evidence of the fact, then the dogmatic obscurity might not have been so important. The doctrine of the virgin birth is meant to express the incarnation of God, not only the fact of the incarnate one. But does it not fail at the decisive point of the incarnation, namely that in it Jesus has not become man just like us? The question remains open, as and because it is already open in the Bible.

The incarnate one is the glorified God: ‘The Word was made flesh and we beheld his glory’. God glorifies himself in man. That is the ultimate secret of the Trinity. The humanity is taken up into the Trinity. Not from all eternity, but ‘from now on even unto eternity’ ; the trinitarian God is seen as the incarnate one. The glorification of God in the flesh is now at the same time, the glorification of man, who shall have life through eternity with the trinitarian God. This does not mean that we should see the incarnation of God as God’s judgement on man. God remains the incarnate one even in the Last Judgement. The incarnation is the message of the glorification of God, who sees his honour in becoming man. It must be noted that the incarnation is first and foremost true revelation, of the Creator in the creature, and not veiled revelation. Jesus Christ is the unveiled image of God.

The incarnation of God may not be thought of as derived from an idea of God, in which something of humanity already belongs to the idea of God - as in Hegel. Here we speak of the biblical witness, ‘We saw his glory’. If the incarnation is thus spoken of as the glorification of God, it is not permissible to slip in once again a speculative idea of God, which derives the incarnation from the necessity of an idea of God. A speculative basis for the doctrine of the incarnation in an idea of God would change the free relationship between Creator and creature . . .

p. 107

doctrine of the incarnation and the doctrine of the humiliation must be strictly distinguished from each other. The mode of existence of the humiliation is an act of the incarnate one. Of course, that does not mean that one can separate him temporally from the act of incarnation. Rather, the God-Man in history is always and already the humiliated God-Man from the manger to the cross.

In what way does this special mode of existence of the humiliation express itself? In this way, that Christ takes sinful flesh. The humiliation is necessitated by the world under the curse. The incarnation is related to the first creation; the humiliation is related to the fallen creation. In the humiliation, Christ, of his own free will, enters the world of sin and death. He enters it in such a way as to hide himself in it in weakness and not to be recognized as God-Man. He does not enter in kingly robes of a morphe theou (Greek, ‘form of God’). His claim, which he as God-Man raises in this form, must provoke contradiction and hostility. He goes incognito, as a beggar among beggars, as an outcast among outcasts, as despairing among the despairing, as dying among the dying. He also goes as sinner among sinners, yet how truly as the peccator pessimus (Luther, Latin, ‘the worst sinner’), as sinless among sinners. And here lies the central problem of christology.

The doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus is not one locus (Latin, ‘position’) among others. It is a central point at which all that is said is decided. The question is: Has Jesus as the humiliated God-Man entered fully into human sin? Was he man with sin as we are? If not, has he then really become man? If not, can he then really help? And if he has, how can he help us out of our trouble, while he is set in the same trouble?

Here it is necessary to understand what the homoioma sarkos can mean. What is meant is the real image of human flesh. His sarx is our sarx. It is of the very nature of our sarx that we are tempted to sin and self-will. Christ has taken upon him all that flesh is heir to. But to what extent does he differ . . .

Sir, I am going to borrow your signature: "I could be wrong, I have been before."
It might be useful to lighten the atmosphere when encountering some individuals.