Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
How many times have I told you it’s the Eternal Son , the Divine 2nd Person of the Godhead who became Incarnate and took upon Himself a human nature ?

He is One Divine Person with a human nature hence He has both a Divine and human nature and is One Person.

This is the last time I respond to your false accusations on this forum and the only reason I answered this is for the onlookers on CARM.

hope this helps !!!

Them not you !

Next……..
Why won’t you say the words “ My Jesus was not a human person, he was rather a Divine person with human nature “ ? Why won’t you confess the Trinitarian Jesus ?

Next
 

cjab

Well-known member
No I’m a biblical , historical, creedal and orthodox Trinitarian.
i.e. the sort that burns heretics at the stake for saying "Son of God" rather than "God the Son" (as per Calvin and the medieval papacy)?

This is the most extreme form of orthodox philosophical Trinitarianism, and it isn't as universal as you make out. There are many dissenters.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I’ve never seen Civic confess that (bold above, aka “Anhypostasis”). It is the single most important element of the so-called “Hypostatic Union” without which one is not a Trinitarian.
OTOH there is nothing to prevent the English word "trinity" from infering no more than the revelation of three divine persons by scripture and by the son: Father, Logos and Holy Spirit, and which says nothing about their relation or composition except that they are unity with the Father.

That is a problem for unitarians, because however much they rail against the orthodox Trinity, there is a middle ground that finds a lot of biblical support; and which is neither extremist unitarian (which denies the Logos is Jesus), nor extremist trinitarian (which is a version of sabellianism in that it effectively posits that the Father himself became flesh where the divine Son is given all of the attributes of the Father).
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
No I’m a biblical , historical, creedal and orthodox Trinitarian..i.e. the sort that burns heretics at the stake for saying "Son of God" rather than "God the Son" (as per Calvin and the medieval papacy)?

This is the most extreme form of orthodox philosophical Trinitarianism, and it isn't as universal as you make out. There are many dissenters.
The irony is that he is not even bold above.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
OTOH there is nothing to prevent the English word "trinity" from infering no more than the revelation of three divine persons by scripture and by the son: Father, Logos and Holy Spirit, and which says nothing about their relation or composition except that they are unity with the Father.

That is a problem for unitarians, because however much they rail against the orthodox Trinity, there is a middle ground that finds a lot of biblical support; and which is neither extremist unitarian (which denies the Logos is Jesus), nor extremist trinitarian (which effectively posits that the Father himself became flesh).
“Person” in the Trinitarian Creedal formula is more than just an “English word.”

It has a very specific definition according to the “orthodox,” and is the equivalent to their definition of the Greek word ὑπόστασις.
 

cjab

Well-known member
“Person” in the Trinitarian Creedal formula is more than just an “English word.”

It has a very specific definition according to the “orthodox,” and is the equivalent to their definition of the Greek word ὑπόστασις.
As I said, you can have a trinity of persons where "person" isn't defined by the creeds, but by the bible, and includes what is in heaven and from heaven. Such is a biblical trinity, and no unitarian dare controvert it, because if they do, they oppose scripture and risk the eternal wrath of God.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
As I said, you can have a trinity of persons where "person" isn't defined by the creeds, but by the bible, and includes what is in heaven and from heaven. Such is a biblical trinity, and no unitarian dare controvert it, because if they do, they oppose scripture and risk the eternal wrath of God.
Trinitarians would claim their Trinity is “biblical” and that you are a “heretic.”
 

cjab

Well-known member
Trinitarians would claim their Trinity is “biblical” and that you are a “heretic.”
They would have to claim their trinity is "credal" as you and civic have pointed out. Heresy is defined in terms of violating creeds and / or the decrees of Councils. From the start, the introduction of ὁμοούσιος by Constantine ensured that no Trinitarian creed would ever be strictly biblical. The only valid creed I know of is the Apostles creed, which espouses my kind of biblical trinitarianism as it contains no philosophical appendages such as God the Son or ὁμοούσιος.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It’s all nonsense. The point is that your Jesus ( and that of “creedal Trinitarians”) has a non-human “I” , an “ I” that was not created, which always existed, etc. This contradicts the biblical definition of a human being who is always a creation, whose “ I” always comes into existence at a point in time.
 

cjab

Well-known member
It’s all nonsense. The point is that your Jesus ( and that of “creedal Trinitarians”) has a non-human “I” , an “ I” that was not created, which always existed, etc. This contradicts the biblical definition of a human being who is always a creation, whose “ I” always comes into existence at a point in time.
You've overlooked so many of my points. If you had considered them may be you would think differently. I refer you back to my point that Adam was first formed from clay. In order to become a living being, God had to breath the breath of life into him. Gen 2:7.

Gen 2:7. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

As Adam was no different to anyone else, the person that is created in a human being is created by God breathing life into him.

There is nothing in principle to suppose that God could not also breath Logos-life into a human being.

If the being was human before the life was breathed into it, then a human being results from life being breathed into it.

In short, there is no such thing as a non-human “I” relating to a human being. My Jesus cannot have a non-human "I" because such is impossible. Only in the crazy world of credal trinitarians is it possible.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
In short, there is no such thing as a non-human “I” relating to a human being.

No kidding.
My Jesus cannot have a non-human "I" because such is impossible. Only in the crazy world of credal trinitarians is it possible.

You are on record as saying that the “ I” of Jesus existed before he became “human.” So it could not possibly be human. Not to mention that the entire notion of being human with a pre-existing, non-human “ I” is nonsensical.

Garbage in, garbage out.
 

cjab

Well-known member
No kidding.


You are on record as saying that the “ I” of Jesus existed before he became “human.” So it could not possibly be human.
Of course it wasn't human before a human was created.

Not to mention that the entire notion of being human with a pre-existing, non-human “ I” is nonsensical.

Garbage in, garbage out.
What I inferred was that the "I" is governed by the form, whether human or divine. Therefore to posit a non-human "I" in a human body is the stuff of credal Trinitarians, which you desire to impute to me. But I'm not having it. The garbage belongs to you.

You are resorting to the same absurdities as credal trinitarians in even supposing that there could be a non-human "I" in a human body. There can't be, any more than that there could be more colors added to the electromagnetic spectrum. It's not a valid thing to say as it is impossible for a human body to contain a non-human "I".

Hence the real argument centres on the kenosis of Phil 2:6 required for the Logos to become human, and the implied kenosis of John 1:14. That's what so many don't believe in, including you. Without it, how can you believe that Jesus was the monogenes son of God?
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Of course it wasn't human before a human was created.


What I inferred was that the "I" is governed by the form, whether human or divine. Therefore to posit a non-human "I" in a human body is the stuff of credal Trinitarians, which you desire to impute to me. But I'm not having it. The garbage belongs to you.

You are resorting to the same absurdities as credal trinitarians in even supposing that there could be a non-human "I" in a human body. There can't be, any more than that there could be more colors added to the electromagnetic spectrum. It's not a valid thing to say as it is impossible for a human body to contain a non-human "I".

Hence the real argument centres on the kenosis of Phil 2:6 required for the Logos to become human, and the implied kenosis of John 1:14. That's what so many don't believe in, including you. Without it, how can you believe that Jesus was the monogenes son of God?
The “form” “governs” the “I” ? Just nonsense. Fact is your Jesus has a non-human “I,” he therefore cannot be a real human being, but only “a human being” say like Krishna, who apparently existed as God before his apparent “human incarnation” ( or “ Avatar”) on earth. Trinitarianism ( yours included) is simply Hinduism by another name.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The “form” “governs” the “I” ? Just nonsense. Fact is your Jesus has a non-human “I,” he therefore cannot be a real human being, but only “a human being” say like Krishna, who apparently existed as God before his apparent “human incarnation” ( or “ Avatar”) on earth. Trinitarianism ( yours included) is simply Hinduism by another name.
Sri Krishna is the Supreme Hindu Lord, equivalent to the Father.

"Krushna was an absolute incarnation (purnavtar). Actually an absolute incarnation is not an incarnation but The Lord Himself; hence it possesses all the characteristics of The Lord. Some special features and missions of Lord Krushna are enumerated below."

The incarnation you have posited would suppose that Christ was "God" per credal Trinitarians but what is clear is that the bibe never posits an "absolute incarnation." Jesus isn't God but the son of God. Therefore he isn't a Krishna incarnation. Jesus was "from God" and not in the form of God, except in so far as that form was retained subject to kenosis.

As I said above the issue devolves to understanding the kenosis necessary for "The Logos to become flesh" - a teaching of scripture that you seem to reject for ideological reasons, and not because God isn't capable of breathing the Logos into a human being in place of a created person. Does your God really not have any power at all? I think your God is a puny God, and also a deceitful God, because all men are sinners and yet Jesus was described as, and had to be, a lamb "without spot or blemish."
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
You are spewing nonsense.
I'm talking outside your comfort zone. Your whole argument is posited against the "absolute incarnation" of God, per the Krishna parallel, which is the high trinitarian incarnation. You can't digest or engage with the real incarnation because your denomination refuses to recognize it. You're only programmed to engage with high trinitarianism.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
There is no real difference. “ Absolute incarnation” vs “incarnation” is just another word game. Hindus speak simply of the “incarnation” of Krishna .
 

cjab

Well-known member
There is no real difference. “ Absolute incarnation” vs “incarnation” is just another word game. Hindus speak simply of the “incarnation” of Krishna .
Actually I quite like the way that WWW site put it. It clarified things in my own mind. You just won't allow yourself to address what I have said. I can't even get through the logic point that mandates "all incarnations are absolute." Well they're relative in the real world of Jesus Christ - i.e. relative to and governed by his humanity. It's the human that predominated, as Nestorius said in insisting upon the full humanity of Christ's human nature.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
The Trinitarian Jesus is virtually identical to Krishna, each is a God-man ( God in human form). Yours is just incomprehensible nonsense.
And like Jesus said the know who the uni god is just like the Pharisees , it’s the exact same god. Jesus told us who their father was as per John 8:39-44. The same god in 2 Cor 4:4.

Next
 
Top