Oneness of God signifies the Unity of Essence in the distinction of Persons.

[101G]

On what ground do you erroneously assert," there is no such thing as any hypostasis".

Philippians 2:6 " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
form here is Nature, and God nature is "Spirit", per John 4:24a.

now that flesh, bone and blood, is it spirit? no, it's only a house, or a temple that the Spirit, (the Person), dwell in. for that flesh bone and blood returns back to the dust, from where it came from. it's not eternal. do you understand now.

Let me ask you, Has anybody ever told you ," CONTEXT IS ALWAYS KEY". You seem to be responding to me under human conditions that could not actually exist in God.

no, but the Holy Spirit is,,,, and speaking of CONTEXT,

Again you are not remotely intellectually qualified to assert," there is no such thing as any hypostasis" First of all God by nature is Spirit, so what point is it to tell me ," God nature always been spirit".. And the underling reality of Spiratio which supports All else is God infinite intelligible species , which is manifestly Expressed by way of Hypostasis. You ignorantly assert," there is no such thing as any hypostasis ", but then you negate your own erroneously unlearned supposition by effectively stating.," God Hypostasis is spirit. To even assert God is omnipotent omniscient omnipresent signifies essential properties in the Divine nature, which again is manifestly expressed by way of Hypostasis.

we can cover that in just two words... "The Intrinsic Spatial" ......... (smile),

I just handwritten a new thread on legal pad in my horrible left hand penmanship on your improper mode of signification," God is a plurality of Himself". You do not really believe this abstract concept, simply because in its proper mode of signification its concrete determination could only by way of Hypostasis.

you ERROR on the left hand as well as the RIGHT hand, listen, the flesh is not his NATURE, my God how hard is that to understand.
and for the LAST time, "\God is a plurality of Himself". another two words, EQUAL SHARE.

The term Hypostasis must need to apply to the Lord Jesus Christ by reason of His very existence as a living intelligible rational being . And that holy thing born of Thee shall be called the Son of God. Therefore Jesus would be Jesus without Hypostasis in Himself.

look, is your house or the tabernacle that you dwell is YOU?, no, any Idiot knows that... why not U?

Ok so that which was born under the law was changed after the resurrection.

Oh, the light bulbs came on for a second?

Titles generally speaking are not personal names, nevertheless The Father the Son the Holy Spirit are each supported by way of Hypostasis.

hogwash, so the light bulbs are now off again, total darkness.
LOOK! when U get out of the stone age and come to the true light, then we can talk, else.... good day

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Basically your only argument is ,created conditions in words and terms that could not actually exist in God.

Well, if the Latin devils can't select better expressions to express the divine "mystery", that isn't my problem.

You don't just find it much easier to adjust your intellect to accommodate words and terms predicated to God so as not to be repugnant to the SHEMA.

What's repugnant is inserting a plural meaning to the Shema where none exists.

We strip the imperfection of corporal and created conditions in the language of the rational creature, as applied to God, if for no other reason than the Holy Writ requires it.

We strip any imperfections of physical notions, divisions, parts, applied to God, if for no other reason that our God isn't corporal or created.

You really refute yourself only.

No, just you and your Latin devils. You'd do better without your cut and pastes.

............ Alan

Bye Alan

 

[101G]

The last is plural in Isaiah 41:4.

LOL, LOL, LOL, what utter nonesense. can U READ? Isaiah 41:4 " Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

is it you think, just because he is Last it's plural?.... LOL, U can't be that IGNORANT, can U? listen, and LEARN. Isaiah 48:12 " Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." THE "I", IS ALSO THE LAST, SO, IS THE "I" PLURAL?...... (SMILE).,,, LOL, LOL, LOL.

a first grader knows better. see you been caught in a ERROR, and here your ERROR is better known as a lie.

but as I said, until you come out of the dark ages in to the LIGHT,,,,, until then.... see ya... LOL, LOL.
PICJAG, 101G.

 

[101G]

To all,
if the Oneness of God signifies the Unity of Essence in the distinction of Persons. my question again is this... "How much of the Spirit was in that flesh and bone body of Christ, who many say is the second PERSON. now mind you, the Spirit, per Phil 2:6 & 7 was G2758 κενόω kenoo,

so how much of the ONE "Spirit" was G2758 κενόω kenoo for as said, "the Unity of Essence in the distinction of Persons.?"

looking to hear from many.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[Tanachreader]

I already refuted you. At any moment of eternal generation, there's also a moment of eternal destruction. That which is eternal, doesn't need to be generated constantly nor dependent on another's existence. Such is the son and holy spirit.


Christian, not Judeo. We don't believe in the son.


The Father spoke his words. There was no one else.


Today you are begotten is temporal.


Sorry, begotten is temporal.


The only gibberish are the quotes of the Latin devils.

Ha! Pure nonsense.

You mean Rabbinical Judaism and Caesar appointee’s NOT Judeo.
History say’s many 2k years ago MANY believed and were persecuted by those who rejected the scriptures.

John 2:23 (KJV)
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast [day], many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 4:39 (KJV)
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

John 4:41 (KJV)
And many more believed because of his own word;

John 7:31 (KJV)
And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this [man] hath done?

John 8:30 (KJV)
As he spake these words, many believed on him.

John 10:42 (KJV)
And many believed on him there.

John 11:45 (KJV)
Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

John 12:11 (KJV)
Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

John 12:42 (KJV)
Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

Acts 4:4 (KJV)
Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Acts 9:42 (KJV)
And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord.

 

[Jewjitzu]

LOL, LOL, LOL, what utter nonesense. can U READ? Isaiah 41:4 " Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

You haven't bothered to read the Hebrew again for last, achronim. It's plural, again.

The context is God through all the generations from the first to the last plural generations.

is it you think, just because he is Last it's plural?.... LOL, U can't be that IGNORANT, can U? listen, and LEARN.

No, the Hebrew shows it's plural. Here it is again, https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/41-4.htm.

You're quite the illiterate. Can't you admit last is plural in this verse?

Isaiah 48:12 " Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." THE "I", IS ALSO THE LAST, SO, IS THE "I" PLURAL?...... (SMILE).,,, LOL, LOL, LOL.

"I" never said it was. This is a different verse and context. Learn to read.

But, the idea is the same. God alone is eternal. Not another.

a first grader knows better. see you been caught in a ERROR, and here your ERROR is better known as a lie.

Actually, the Hebrew analysis is above. One person can be first and last when he alone is God. No second fiddle as you mischaracterise.

but as I said, until you come out of the dark ages in to the LIGHT,,,,, until then.... see ya... LOL, LOL.
PICJAG, 101G.

You're still there.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Ha! Pure nonsense.

You mean Rabbinical Judaism and Caesar appointee’s NOT Judeo.
History say’s many 2k years ago MANY believed and were persecuted by those who rejected the scriptures.

John 2:23 (KJV)
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast [day], many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 4:39 (KJV)
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

John 4:41 (KJV)
And many more believed because of his own word;

John 7:31 (KJV)
And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this [man] hath done?

John 8:30 (KJV)
As he spake these words, many believed on him.

John 10:42 (KJV)
And many believed on him there.

John 11:45 (KJV)
Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

John 12:11 (KJV)
Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

John 12:42 (KJV)
Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

Acts 4:4 (KJV)
Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Acts 9:42 (KJV)
And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord.

Your NT is gibberish as well.

 

[aeg4971]

I already refuted you. At any moment of eternal generation, there's also a moment of eternal destruction. That which is eternal, doesn't need to be generated constantly nor dependent on another's existence. Such is the son and holy spirit.


Christian, not Judeo. We don't believe in the son.


The Father spoke his words. There was no one else.


Today you are begotten is temporal.


Sorry, begotten is temporal.


The only gibberish are the quotes of the Latin devils.

Begotten God is temporal and creature because you want it to be, not that it actually is . You are sitting up here arguing ," Because I only comprehend in this way, then it must be that way only ". What you call gibberish others call rightly dividing knowledge. IF I had to choose the measure of INTELLECTGION between you and the ancient theologians, the Post Apostolic theologians wins every time. How on earth can you refute me when you are arguing contrary to anything that I have typed. I did make clear that you fail to rightly understand. But since you adamantly "Deny" The Word Himself proceeding His Divine Self Sovereignty , then it is really nothing for us to discuss.

Lastly Eternally Begotten, Logos and Son express the same, and signifies the atemporal manner in which the Divine Nature Subsist, which is expressed by way of Hypostasis . . It really makes no sense to unnecessary assert" That which is eternal, doesn't need to be generated". when atemporal Divine generation signifies Procession of the Word in God which is rightly called generation. You refute yourself. If you want to refute me you need to refute the ancient theologians and my intelligibility. You cannot refute me based on what you think and suppose , you need to refute me based on what I think and suppose . Divine Generation is predicated of Deity and God , and signifies a Divine Procession of the Word in God.

The Son Eternal generation is not a matter of wanting/need, but rather a matter of what is in itself and by itself.
You must need to refute that ,otherwise you are arguing against the Webster dictionary of the rational creatures, for creatures and by creatures. You too busy worried about the Eternal generation of the begotten Son /. , when it its mode of signification signifies an Eternal Procession of the Word in God.

But since you adamantly "Deny" The Word Himself proceeding His Divine Self Sovereignty , then it is really nothing for us to discuss. Now refute that the Word Himself proceeds in God.


...... Alan

 

[Jewjitzu]

Begotten God is temporal and creature because you want it to be, not that it actually is .

Begotten, biblically comes from Psalm 2:7, the Hebrew is yulad. There's no association with something being eternally born, proceeding, etc.

The Latin devils are flat wrong.

You are sitting up here arguing ," Because I only comprehend in this way, then it must be that way only ". What you call gibberish others call rightly dividing knowledge. IF I had to choose the measure of INTELLECTGION between you and the ancient theologians, the Post Apostolic theologians wins every time.

Your choice, not that I really care.

How on earth can you refute me when you are arguing contrary to anything that I have typed. I did make clear that you fail to rightly understand. But since you adamantly "Deny" The Word Himself proceeding His Divine Self Sovereignty , then it is really nothing for us to discuss.

Word, dabar in Hebrew, isn't a person in all of Tanakh. So know what you're talking about.

Lastly Eternally Begotten, Logos and Son express the same, and signifies the atemporal manner in which the Divine Nature Subsist, which is expressed by way of Hypostasis . . It really makes no sense to unnecessary assert" That which is eternal, doesn't need to be generated". when atemporal Divine generation signifies Procession of the Word in God which is rightly called generation. You refute yourself. If you want to refute me you need to refute the ancient theologians and my intelligibility. You cannot refute me based on what you think and suppose , you need to refute me based on what I think and suppose . Divine Generation is predicated of Deity and God , and signifies a Divine Procession of the Word in God.

What's funny is that there's zero mention of Hypostasis in God in Tanakh. What's clear is that the Father alone created when He spoke, not another.

The Son Eternal generation is not a matter of wanting/need, but rather a matter of what is in itself and by itself.

I said eternal generation is an inherent imperfection. Try using a different phrase or explanation other than copying and pasting the words of the Latin devils.

You must need to refute that ,otherwise you are arguing against the Webster dictionary of the rational creatures, for creatures and by creatures. You too busy worried about the Eternal generation of the begotten Son /. , when it its mode of signification signifies an Eternal Procession of the Word in God.

Yulad as shown above shows its application is temporal, not eternal.

But since you adamantly "Deny" The Word Himself proceeding His Divine Self Sovereignty , then it is really nothing for us to discuss. Now refute that the Word Himself proceeds in God.

Sure, just based on the use of Psalm 2:7 for yulad, begotten, shows its temporal application. God spoke in time. The words came from the Father, no one else.

Show me where the son clearly created in Tanakh?

 

[101G]

To all,
Looking at all these topics in this trinity folder, it's ridiculous... is anyone really READING their bibles?
listen up, all of US, Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."

Hebrews 5:13 "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe."

Hebrews 5:14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

we suggest everyone of us need the first principles of the oracles of God. yes, all of US.

Genesis 1:1 holds the keys to the Godhead. this is where one needs to start, ..... IN THE "BEGINNING".

MY Lord, lets walk together.

PICJAG, 101G.,

 

[aeg4971]

Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Are any of these statements true?

A) The Spirit is a principle, from which, without dependence, the Father proceeds.

B) The Spirit is a principle, from which, without dependence, the Son proceeds.

C) The Spirit is an originating Principle of the Father.

D) The Spirit is an originating Principle of the Son.

And so that your fellow Trinitarians won’t say, Question is too complex, don’t understand the statements, etc... Please notice that I used your verbiage and only changed the names. So surely you can answer the question. ?


P.S.

John 4:24... God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

And for those who are new to this forum, here is a summary of what I believe...

GOD is spirit and is the only one who is eternal. GOD is also in the universe as spirit and as a human. GOD in the universe as spirit is called the Spirit of God, GOD in the universe as a human is called the Son of God, and eternal GOD is called God the Father.

How exactly are you clarifying someone's view when you turn around and suppose the complete opposite of what was stated. The post gave you the same order of nature as to the Relation of the Father, the Son., the Holy Spirit clearly declared in the Holy Writ .There is no ground in reason for any of these questions whatsoever.

How many post have I told you that The Father as the Principle of Divinity and Begetter by definition proceeds from no one? Why then would you conceive in your intellect such a question as," A) The Spirit is a principle, from which, without dependence, the Father proceeds".

Basic Biblically common sense tells us that the Spirit of God belongs properly to God. I also told you plenty of times that everything cannot be said conversely of God, wherein proof is in yours meaningless questions. Your questions are not too complex, the fact is there is no ground in natural reason or Divine Revelation for you to even entertain these questions.

YaChristian ask yourself does the scriptures themselves allow for you to suppose these questions? The answer is no they do not. Every Person by Himself is the Incommunicable Existence in the Divine Nature. Scriptures" verbatim" tells us that, The Spirit proceeds therefrom the Father by way of the Son, and not conversely".

Besides this word Principle solely negates the idea of Causation , Created , Source, Greater or Less"". and yet, it signifies " Magnitude".

....... Alan

 

[101G]

John 14:1 " Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me."

step 1 of FAITH, for without faith it's impossable to please GOD.

oh ye of little faith.....

PICJAG, 101G

 

[101G]

Oneness of God signifies the Unity of Essence in the distinction of Persons.

lets see if there are any distinctions in persons, John 1:3 " All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
ONE PERSON.

Isaiah 44:24 " Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

is this the same person, or is there a distiction as to who, "MADE ALL THING". if there is a distinction of person please give scripture to the contrary.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[johnny guitar]

Oneness of God signifies the Unity of Essence in the distinction of Persons.

lets see if there are any distinctions in persons, John 1:3 " All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
ONE PERSON.

Isaiah 44:24 " Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

is this the same person, or is there a distiction as to who, "MADE ALL THING". if there is a distinction of person please give scripture to the contrary.

PICJAG, 101G.

NO distinction in Isaiah 44:24 since The Trinity had NOT yet been fully revealed.
John 1:3 refers to ONE Person: The Son.

 

[Yahchristian]

NO distinction in Isaiah 44:24 since The Trinity had NOT yet been fully revealed.
John 1:3 refers to ONE Person: The Son.

Now that you say the Trinity HAS BEEN fully revealed...

Which Person of the Trinity is saying “I” and “myself” in Isaiah 44:24?

A) The first Person of the Trinity
B) The second Person of the Trinity
C) The third Person of the Trinity
D) Not sure which Person of the Trinity
E) In the OT, saying “I” was not a sign of personhood

Isaiah 44:24 " Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

 

[101G]

NO distinction in Isaiah 44:24 since The Trinity had NOT yet been fully revealed.
John 1:3 refers to ONE Person: The Son.

Correct, no distinction, because it's the same one person. your ERROR as before, in that you think it's two persons with two titles. error, there is only one person with two titles, so you're reproved on "LORD", and "Lord". for the LORD in Isaiah 44:24 is JESUS the one Person who is "SHARED" or is DIVERSIFIED in flesh at John 1:3. yes, correct, Jesus holds both titles, Father and Son, in the ECHAD of the Godhead. as Ordinal First/Father/LORD, and he, Jesus, DIVERSIFIED in Flesh, is the Ordinal Last/Son/Lord. how easy is that to understand.

so your trinity is exposed for what it is, FALSE DOCTRINE.

now, your next half of your statement. so the trinity is based on being revealed...... FULLY? nonesense. if the trinity was alway, there would be no revealing later, "FULLY", for this scripture exposes your ERROR,
Romans 1:19 " Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."
Romans 1:20 " For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

see, you have no excuse, for ... "God hath shewed it unto them." that revealing FULLY, is nonesense, just that "NONESENSE".

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[johnny guitar]

Correct, no distinction, because it's the same one person. your ERROR as before, in that you think it's two persons with two titles. error, there is only one person with two titles, so you're reproved on "LORD", and "Lord". for the LORD in Isaiah 44:24 is JESUS the one Person who is "SHARED" or is DIVERSIFIED in flesh at John 1:3. yes, correct, Jesus holds both titles, Father and Son, in the ECHAD of the Godhead. as Ordinal First/Father/LORD, and he, Jesus, DIVERSIFIED in Flesh, is the Ordinal Last/Son/Lord. how easy is that to understand.

so your trinity is exposed for what it is, FALSE DOCTRINE.

now, your next half of your statement. so the trinity is based on being revealed...... FULLY? nonesense. if the trinity was alway, there would be no revealing later, "FULLY", for this scripture exposes your ERROR,
Romans 1:19 " Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."
Romans 1:20 " For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

see, you have no excuse, for ... "God hath shewed it unto them." that revealing FULLY, is nonesense, just that "NONESENSE".

PICJAG, 101G.

NO Person referred to in Isaiah 44:24.

 

[johnny guitar]

Now that you say the Trinity HAS BEEN fully revealed...

Which Person of the Trinity is saying “I” and “myself” in Isaiah 44:24?

A) The first Person of the Trinity
B) The second Person of the Trinity
C) The third Person of the Trinity
D) Not sure which Person of the Trinity
E) In the OT, saying “I” was not a sign of personhood

Isaiah 44:24 " Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

D).
Next question....................

 

[101G]

NO Person referred to in Isaiah 44:24.

implied... "LORD" , who is ONE "God", per Deuteronomy 6:4,

reproved again,

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[johnny guitar]

implied... "LORD" , who is ONE "God", per Deuteronomy 6:4,

reproved again,

PICJAG, 101G.

ONE Lord, ONE God, ONE Being clearly REVEALED.
Correct again.