You speak like Kamala Harris.
Is the Spirit owned by all three members of the Trinity?
- Thread starter Andreas
- Start date
You speak like Kamala Harris.
Photine
Well-known member
That guy purposely speaks in the Wizards Tongue to mystify and spellbound readers.
Basically what it comes down to is
[WIZARD SPEAK]
Therefore, TRINITY.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Nope. His name is "YHVH" / "YHWH". "Jesus" is His only begotten SON'S Name.
I highly doubt Kamala Harris is remotely adequately capable of rightly dividing knowledge between God and creatures. I mean you erroneously assert "Divinity is fused with humanity", whereas ancient Latin theologians who rode around on camels without dictionary's or google search, supposes " Whether God enters into Composition "not fuse/fusion with humanity. Remember oh wise professor of theology, created things are composition and subjection, none of which can actually exist in God. Also the ancient don't say "God thought" They say," Emanation of The Infinite Divine Intellect" or " Divine Act of Understanding whereby God Knows His own Nature". Further The Divine Intellect/ Infinite Divine Mind is nothing else but the very Substance of Divinity itself .otherwise something else moves God to act if His Wisdom/Self Knowledge is not His very Essence/Virtus Spirationis. That same Spirit..
Now refute or Negate the suppositions, since I have given you proper context.
....... Alan
Last edited:
Yahchristian
Well-known member
Since Trinitarians are not all in agreement on this, let me ask YOU...
1) Is there subordination within the Trinity? (Matt Slick says there is.)
If you say Yes...
2) Is there a difference between "subordination" and "subjection"?
If you say Yes...
3) What is the difference between "subordination" and "subjection"?
I say the preincarnate Christ is NOT subordinate (or subjected) to anyone.
P.S. The ancient Latin theologians who rode around on camels didn't speak English. So whatever you are posting is someone's interpretation of what was spoken in Latin. And based on some of your posts, the interpreters were not always using proper English grammar.
Photine
Well-known member
You sound like a jahoba witness...
The reference to Kamala Harris refers to the way she speaks. The goal of communication is to try to say something substantial and clear using normal grammar. You said, "Divine Act of Understanding whereby God Knows His own Nature". God knows his own nature. Who was thinking otherwise on CARM? High sounding rhetoric that add nothing to anyone's knowledge.
But, you have captured the true spirit of Colossians 2:8, I'll give you that.
They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. ROMANS 9:4-5
Plato and his fellow European philosophers didn't receive divine Revelation. Of course, a blind squirrel will get a nut occasionally. You'd be better served to follow Isaiah and Paul rather than Plato and Aquinas.
Christian Theology is so not derived from modern English speaking grammar, therefore if we wish to affirm or deny what has been laid down centuries and centuries before our modern English speaking births, we have to at least comprehend as the ancients , otherwise we are literally debating ourselves and not how the ancients perceived. We have to think as the ancients in order to refute the ancients. We can't refute the ancients with modern common English because they knew it not.
........Alan
Photine
Well-known member
YOU don't have to speak like a wizard on here.
There is no disagreement , for there is either rightly understanding or ignorance, no in between. Subordination is in the order of nature , not in The Divine Essence itself. Therefore as One regards Himself to another, "Relation", Sonship is naturally subordinate to Paternal Authority, as One proceed therefrom another. That means subordination is in the relation of Paternity and Filiation, but not in The Substance of Divinity itself, for their is only One Divine Essence , and The whole Perfection of The Divine Nature exist in each Divine Person.
Ps. Our English didn't exist when these writers were alive so proper English is quite relative to the beholder in rendering ancient no English speaker nuance. One thing is for certain Presentist we all in every century have the very same Holy Scriptures.
........Alan
Yahchristian
Well-known member
Okay, ancient Latin speakers could explain the doctrine of the Trinity in Latin.
Are YOU personally able to explain the doctrine of the Trinity using modern English?
Yahchristian
Well-known member
You have given your understanding of "subordination". Now, how about your understanding of "subjection"...
Is there subjection in the order of Divine nature?
If you say No...
What do you see as the difference between "subordination" and "subjection"?
Well one thing is for certain, we have the very same Holy Scriptures in every century, so we know the Holy Writ is not the problem. Besides scriptures themselves doesn't even allow for "three Persons in God" to literally mean three gods. It just doesn't.,
........Alan
Photine
Well-known member
I never said anything about three gods.
There's just no "third person". There's only two.
Yahchristian
Well-known member
By "the order", is this what you mean?
The Father must be referred to as the FIRST Person of the Trinity, never the SECOND or THIRD Persons of the Trinity.
Or would it be acceptable for a Trinitarian to order the Persons like this?
God the Holy Spirit is the first Person of the Trinity, God the Father is the second Person of the Trinity, and God the Son is the third Person of the Trinity.
Oh wise one I am using modern English as it renders ancient non English speaking Greek and Latin nuance. No matter what words are used in English, we still have to mean what the ancients meant, otherwise we are just debating against our modern selves....
.......Alan
In the order of nature Paternity is Principle ,as one proceed from another. The Latins use principle because it is a wider term which signifies" without cause, put principle".
Your Argument seems to be" please use English in the most humanistic way possible ", which amounts to, Jesus is just a man/ God the Father's primary creature with the fully indwelling spirit".
........Alan
Yahchristian
Well-known member
But in the order of nature, the one proceeding exists AFTER the other.
But since you say all three had no beginning...
Would it be acceptable for a Trinitarian to refer to God the Father as the second Person of the Trinity?
No. My question is...
Are YOU personally able to explain the doctrine of the Trinity using modern English?
On the contrary Mr Straw, God is Infinite Wisdom, which is His Essence which is His Existence which is His very own Godhead. God is The same as Godhead. I like the ancients speaks of God as if His very nature is not contained in a subject, whereas you speak of God as if He does not possess enough Omnipotence to Begat His own Substantial like/similitude. For you God has to turn into a son, whereas we understand from all Eternity God conceived(not think about), His Substantial Form and Image signified by Word properly called Begotten and rightly called Son. Flesh and blood is a secondary principle to this Biblical Truth.
You remain refuted with your so called normal humanistic grammar.
...... Alan
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
I feel the same on the Oneness thread. Did you concede on our last conversation?