Yahchristian
Well-known member
Since TRINITARIANS insist…
1) Is Jesus The Son of God a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
2) Is Jesus The Son of Mary a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Person is ONE of the members in The Being.
- Thread starter Yahchristian
- Start date
Since TRINITARIANS insist…
1) Is Jesus The Son of God a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
2) Is Jesus The Son of Mary a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
Yahchristian
Well-known member
Jesus The Son of Mary did NOT exist UNTIL The Son of God became a man.
So TRINITARIANS…
1) Is Jesus The Son of God a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
2) Is Jesus The Son of Mary a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
johnny guitar
Well-known member
1) Yep!Since TRINITARIANS insist…
1) Is Jesus The Son of God a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
2) Is Jesus The Son of Mary a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
2) No. NOT as a Man.
Yahchristian
Well-known member
1) Is Jesus The Son of God a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
2) Is Jesus The Son of Mary a Person (one of the members in The Being)?
1) Yep!
2) No.
So according to TRINITARIANS…
The one mediator between God and men is NOT one of the members in The Being.
Correct?
1 Timothy 2:5… For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Why do you do this?..i.e. get one person to say something in a sentence or word in response to one of your questions, take it out of whatever the context it was said in, and then assert, "According to Trinitarians..." That isn't even true in the limited scope of what you have heere as you have an answer from one person but make the claim..."according to Trinitarians," plural, as if this is what everyone who claims to be a Trinitarian believes (and by implication, that it is what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches). The one person of the Son is not divided in the incarnation, there is not a divine Son and a human Son ...there is one undivided person of the Son. The incarnation changed nothing about the divine nature or being, the Son and the Trinity remained exactly the same after the incarnation as before. According to the doctrine of the Trinity, there are not two Sons, (i.e. one the Son of God and another the Son of Mary).So according to TRINITARIANS…
Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D)
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
TheLayman
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Stupendous STRAWMAN.So according to TRINITARIANS…
The one mediator between God and men is NOT one of the members in The Being.
Correct?
1 Timothy 2:5… For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Yahchristian
Well-known member
The one person of the Son is not divided in the incarnation, there is not a divine Son and a human Son ...there is one undivided person of the Son.
1) Did the “undivided person of the Son” die on the cross?
2) Does the “undivided person of the Son” have a father?
3) Does the “undivided person of the Son” have a mother?
@johnny guitar I would like to hear your answers as well.
1) Did the “undivided person of the Son” die on the cross?
2) Does the “undivided person of the Son” have a father?
3) Does the “undivided person of the Son” have a mother?
@johnny guitar I would like to hear your answers as well.
Yes, Yes and Yes. However only the human born person is the Son. But He is a continuation of the Word, a distinction of God. The Word is the Son of God by virtue of being what continued forth as the Son of Mary.*
Jesus is God ie the Word under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses, constituting a human person/being. However He continued to uphold the universe by virtue of Godhood. And He continues by virtue of the Word being a distinction of God, constituting one monotheistic being with God.
God and the Word are analogous to a man and his conscience ie one being.
Yahchristian
Well-known member
However only the human born person is the Son.
Would you say you hold to the orthodox* doctrine of the Trinity?
*The doctrine of the Trinity that has been held for centuries.
Or would you say you have your own view of the doctrine of the Trinity?
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Yes to all three.1) Did the “undivided person of the Son” die on the cross?
2) Does the “undivided person of the Son” have a father?
3) Does the “undivided person of the Son” have a mother?
@johnny guitar I would like to hear your answers as well.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Only ONE doctrine of The Trinity.Would you say you hold to the orthodox* doctrine of the Trinity?
*The doctrine of the Trinity that has been held for centuries.
Or would you say you have your own view of the doctrine of the Trinity?
Yahchristian
Well-known member
Only ONE doctrine of The Trinity.
Is the following statement from the ONE doctrine of The Trinity?
However only the human born person is the Son.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
This statement seems unrelated to The Trinity.Is the following statement from the ONE doctrine of The Trinity?
Would you say you hold to the orthodox* doctrine of the Trinity?
*The doctrine of the Trinity that has been held for centuries.
Or would you say you have your own view of the doctrine of the Trinity?
The Word that was with God and was God is Jesus. That confirms with orthodox Trinitarianism. The eternal Father-Word/Son is a relationship, not a birth. But the hypostatic union establishes a human Son starting over as a child born into existence, the Son of God, now applied as a moniker eternally, being a continuation of the Word.
Yahchristian
Well-known member
The eternal Father-Word/Son is a relationship, not a birth.
So you would say the term “eternally born” is wrong.
The correct term would be “eternally related”.
Correct?
P.S.
Catholic Catechism 246 says…
And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."
So you would say the term “eternally born” is wrong.
The correct term would be “eternally related”.
Correct?
P.S.
Catholic Catechism 246 says…
Eternally born is not a coming into existence from having not existed. It is the relationship that would result from such a birth.
Yahchristian
Well-known member
Eternally born is not a coming into existence from having not existed. It is the relationship that would result from such a birth.
So..........
Is "eternally born" a GOOD term to describe PRE-incarnate Jesus?
I say No. The eternal God is PRE-incarnate Jesus and the eternal God was never "born" much less "eternally born".
Deuteronomy 33:27... The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Eternal RELATIONSHIP is more accurate.So you would say the term “eternally born” is wrong.
The correct term would be “eternally related”.
Correct?
P.S.
Catholic Catechism 246 says…
Yahchristian
Well-known member
Eternal RELATIONSHIP is more accurate.
So..........
Is "eternally born" a GOOD term to describe PRE-incarnate Jesus?
I say No. The eternal God is PRE-incarnate Jesus and the eternal God was never "born" much less "eternally born".
Deuteronomy 33:27... The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
NO, but eternally BEGOTTEN is.So..........
Is "eternally born" a GOOD term to describe PRE-incarnate Jesus?
I say No. The eternal God is PRE-incarnate Jesus and the eternal God was never "born" much less "eternally born".
Deuteronomy 33:27... The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.