Whether the Son is in the Father, and conversely ? Envelopment/Interpenetration

johnny guitar

Well-known member
the new creation is not on this earth.

per prophets and rev this one is to be destroyed.

His creation, eden earth, is in the other world.

The body He created for us is not the current ape body.

sin is this body and its mind.

the lawless don’t know that and live for this world.

not all here are souls from Him.
Men have HUMAN bodies; ONLY apes have ape bodies.
 

aeg4971

Active member
ROFLOL, you do realize that the scriptures also teach that the believers are in both the Father and the Son and that the Father and the Son is likewise within them don't you??????

All you are doing in the above is a bunch of bias carnal human reasoning over this and whenever men do this, they are bound in false doctrines as a result.

By the way, the Son going forth from the Father means that before the the world was created, the Son was conceived in the mind (Logos) of the Father and then when the Logos was made flesh, what was only in God's logos = mind, became a living reality in flesh and blood.


Even Tertullian saw this to some degree as I will reveal in his below words.

Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is:

Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind …
Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (Against Praxeas 5)
Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity.

God, according to the early churches, has always had logos inside of him.




In the above we see that Tertullian understood what the words "and the Logos was (pros towards God) with God" really meant and he understood that the Logos was also God's mind and that God was reciprocating with his own mind in his thoughts "pros" towards himself.

It is just too bad for him, that he interjected his own carnal human reasoning in to this in believing the Logos was a second person of God.

For you can see this in that he even thought of each man's logos as being a second person within him and which is total rubbish.

This is what happens when a man tries to understand God and his words through his flesh and carnal human reasoning instead of by the Spirit.
You deny the Son Godhead but turn around and accuse others of human reasoning. Really!!!! Well God is not human and Word said of God in its proper sense is used personally and is the proper name of the Son, therefore His Logos must need be subsistence and thus the distinct person of the Word ,the only begotten of the Father.

You Unitarians are immersed in human reasoning while the ancient theologians use the Method of analogy being that God is not made of body as we are .

Its too bad that you apply this word person in the most human way the ancient theologians DID NOT , which leaves your 21st century humanistic reasoning completely unqualified to reproach anyone. I can't find anything more humanistic than Unitarians supposition that the Son is god jr uttered into existence from God mind. The consubstantial Word Himself proceeded in the likeness of sinful flesh .

If you must need aide take the mode of signification "distinct persons" to mean" God the Father extending hypostasis. You people lack proper perspective to even present an adequate argument against orthodox theology .

....... Alan
 
Last edited:

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
You deny the Son Godhead but turn around and accuse others of human reasoning. Really!!!! Well God is not human and Word said of God in its proper sense is used personally and is the proper name of the Son, therefore His Logos must need be subsistence and thus the distinct person of the Word ,the only begotten of the Father.

You Unitarians are immersed in human reasoning while the ancient theologians use the Method of analogy being that God is not made of body as we are .

Its too bad that you apply this word person in the most human way the ancient theologians DID NOT , which leaves your 21st century humanistic reasoning completely unqualified to reproach anyone. I can't find anything more humanistic than Unitarians supposition that the Son is god jr uttered into existence from God mind. The consubstantial Word Himself proceeded in the likeness of sinful flesh .

If you must need aide take the mode of signification "distinct persons" to mean" God the Father extending hypostasis. You people lack proper perspective to even present an adequate argument against orthodox theology .

....... Alan
Sorry but before the Logos was made flesh, it was only a personification of God's mind and not a living person in flesh or spirit yet and actually when the Logos became flesh, God duplicated his mind = Logos into the human being Jesus and that is what is meant when John says "And the Logos became (ginomai) flesh.

You are a follower of the flesh both your own and those who teach you and therefore you approach the scriptures as though they were conceived by human beings of the flesh instead of by God who is Divine Spirit and that is why you will never understand the scriptures correctly either.

For you will always fail to see the Spiritual meaning behind the words written in the scriptures and therefore you will view them off the cuff as if they were conceived by human flesh like a physics text book or such.

Actually and whether you are able to admit it or not and because you are not understanding it in the Spirit, the way that trins take John 1:1-3 John would have been telling us that there are two God's, one called The Logos and another called The God, for John makes no mention of one God in two persons here at all.


Even Tertullian saw this when John 1:1-3 and the Logos is taken to be God in a person and below is his very words on it that prove this also.


Tertullian in the early third century wrote:

Now if this one [the Word] is God according to John ("the Word was God"), then you have two: one who speaks that it may be, and another who carries it out. However, how you should accept this as "another" I have explained: as concerning person, not substance, and as distinction, not division.[6]
And a little later:

And that you may think more fully on this, accept also that in the Psalm two gods are mentioned: "Thy throne, God, is forever, a rod of right direction is the rod of thy kingdom; thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee." If he is speaking to a god, and the god is anointed by a god, then also here he affirms two gods... More is what you will find just the same in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God": One who was, and another in whose presence he was.[7]
Tertullian's writings above and especially in Psalm 45:6-7, is how he read it as meaning the Logos was another person of God and he admits that taken this way, John and the Psalmist is speaking of two Gods and not two persons who are both the same God and which neither John nor the Psalmist ever states at all period.

So then, in an interpretation of the flesh, this idea of two persons who are both the single God is never communicated in either of these two passages and therefore it is read into them both when nothing is in them that even remotely suggest this idea.
 
Last edited:

aeg4971

Active member
ONE word in the OT, and ONE word in the NT will answer your topic.

OT, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
One here is the Hebrew word, H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.

[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

definition #2. explain your topic in A. NATURE, and in, B. "PERSON". ONE PERSON, with ONE NATURE "SHARED" in Flesh.

this explains the John 14:10 "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

revealing scripture, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (the son of man on earth at the same time in heaven? yes,

the Son of Man is "spirit", but the, "EQUAL Shared", spiirt of the ONE NATURE, "Spirit", note the capitalization in Spirit, that is G2758 κενόω kenoo while in the NATURE of Natural flesh, (flesh bone and blood as or in likeness as a man). this is why the "HOLY SPIRIT" is the "ANOTHER", G243 Allos of himself in GLORIFIED Flesh and bone, but no blood. scripture, John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;"

but was not the Lord Jesus the first "Comforter" in FLESH? Luke 2:25 "And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him."

here the term "consolation" is another word for God the "COMFORTER" in flesh and ... "BLOOD". it it the Greek word,
G3874 παράκλησις paraklesis (pa-ra'-klee-sis) n.
1. an imploration, entreaty (urgent request (for mercy or help)).
2. an exhortation (urgent counsel, encouragement, or caution).
3. a comfort, solace.
[from G3870]
KJV: comfort, consolation, exhortation, intreaty
Root(s): G3870

one who is in flesh that "helps", or "comfort" another is a HELPER, (which the Holy Spirit is, IN, IN, IN, Spirit). John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
COMFORTER: G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter
Root(s): G3844, G2822

Definition #1 above correspond to definition #1 in "consolation" help

and this same "Comforter/Helper" is the "intercessor" who is the HOLY GHOST, supportive scripture, Romans 8:26 "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

BINGO, again..... "I,IN, IN, IN, him and he IN, IN, IN, me. the same one person only equally shared or diversified in the "ECHAD" as the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym.

the One teur God is simply "ANOTHER", G243 all of himself in Flesh.

PICJAG, 101g.
Your entire post affirms as the creed," We acknowledge every person by Himself to be God and Lord" So you didn't say this word person in the plural ,nevertheless you communicated in theology this word person in the plural.


...... Alan
 

e v e

Super Member
Your entire post affirms as the creed," We acknowledge every person by Himself to be God and Lord" So you didn't say this word person in the plural ,nevertheless you communicated in theology this word person in the plural.


...... Alan
the One is a pagan construct, one nature shared in flesh as an oversoul. It would take much typing to go through all the references...but it is definitely a hive mind type entity..that could called IT or on a personal level, the I or Self, as plurals. It's genderless and signatureless.

The soul in plato is basically the same god construct as the one, and in Plotinus the one of Intellection with 3 hypostases emanating.... the same prime mover of Aristotle. Emanationism appears also in jewish kabala and in egypt.

Not God's.
 

aeg4971

Active member
Sorry but before the Logos was made flesh, it was only a personification of God's mind and not a living person in flesh or spirit yet and actually when the Logos became flesh, God duplicated his mind = Logos into the human being Jesus and that is what is meant when John says "And the Logos became (ginomai) flesh.

You are a follower of the flesh both your own and those who teach you and therefore you approach the scriptures as though they were conceived by human beings of the flesh instead of by God who is Divine Spirit and that is why you will never understand the scriptures correctly either.

For you will always fail to see the Spiritual meaning behind the words written in the scriptures and therefore you will view them off the cuff as if they were conceived by human flesh like a physics text book or such.

Actually and whether you are able to admit it or not and because you are not understanding it in the Spirit, the way that trins take John 1:1-3 John would have been telling us that there are two God's, one called The Logos and another called The God, for John makes no mention of one God in two persons here at all.


Even Tertullian saw this when John 1:1-3 and the Logos is taken to be God in a person and below is his very words on it that prove this also.


Tertullian in the early third century wrote:


And a little later:


Tertullian's writings above and especially in Psalm 45:6-7, is how he read it as meaning the Logos was another person of God and he admits that taken this way, John and the Psalmist is speaking of two Gods and not two persons who are both the same God and which neither John nor the Psalmist ever states at all period.

So then, in an interpretation of the flesh, this idea of two persons who are both the single God is never communicated in either of these two passages and therefore it is read into them both when nothing is in them that even remotely suggest this idea.
Sorry but a personification of God mind is likewise substantial and not accidental as you continue to argue every post . For it is the procession of the Word in God which is rightly called generation and the Word Himself proceeding is properly called eternally begotten and Son. It then follows God mind(infinite wisdom/infinite intelligible species) is His being and His being is His essence and His essence is His existence and His existence is His very own Godhead. Please come back with a better non humanistic story. God is the same as Godhead for what God is and whereby He is are the same.

.......Alan
 
Last edited:

aeg4971

Active member
Yes.

the One is a pagan construct, one nature shared in flesh as an oversoul. It would take much typing to go through all the references...but it is definitely a hive mind type entity..that could called IT or on a personal level, the I or Self, as plurals. It's genderless and signatureless.

The soul in plato is basically the same god construct as the one, and in Plotinus the one of Intellection with 3 hypostases emanating.... the same prime mover of Aristotle. Emanationism appears also in jewish kabala and in egypt. Not God's.

I don't no what you mean by paganism when you teach polytheism ,leaving you completely unqualified to reproach anybody. Oh and Aristotle is considered to be the most wise pagan , so your point is what exactly ?????? Like I said perhaps you should start by rightly dividing knowledge between God and creatures like Aristotle and every post Apostolic theologian . Modern science find that Aquinas did a pretty good job for primitive people reconciling the Aristotelian categories to divine revelation. So what do you know past your modern ignorance and obstinacy.

.......Alan
 
Last edited:

e v e

Super Member
Insulting to Man And God.
we so need to get out of here and Go Home...
and His 144k sons be with Christ and rebuild Eden...
I'm not excluding girls but the sons legally
rule with Christ...and so I focus on them..
and hope we go soon to our imperishable resurrection bodies
and be with Christ.
 

e v e

Super Member
how much longer can this earth-zoo filled with canaanites continue?
its wall to wall insanes....
 

e v e

Super Member
The temple of Him is the resurrection body...
not this one...
and the sons will be reunited with their original body, which is sacred to Him..
and sinless just as in Eden before Adam disobeyed him but even better...

and they will be reunited with their gorgeous resurrection body
which is their birthright... which was lost because of adam...
and with Christ His Sons will rule so beautiful restored Eden.

the garden of God.

that all I hope for every day...
His sons to have their Change to their imperishable being.
 

aeg4971

Active member
Sorry but a personification of God mind is likewise substantial and not accidental as you continue to argue every post . For it is the procession of the Word in God which is rightly called generation and the Word Himself proceeding is properly called eternally begotten and Son. It then follows God mind(infinite wisdom/infinite intelligible species) is His being and His being is His essence and His essence is His existence and His existence is His very own Godhead. Please come back with a better non humanistic story. God is the same as Godhead for what God is and whereby He is are the same.

.......Alan

Why do modern English speaking anti Trinitarian Christians think it is exact to say," a personification of God mind ", as some refutation to the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity. The Greeks say," God the Father extends hypostasis to another" or the First person extends hypostasis to the Second person".

Yah will increase you need to know ,God mind is not sum part of Him. Furthermore orthodox Christian theology is derived from the 2nd century Logos doctrine, " Aspects of God mind are expressed as distinct individuals".


......Alan
 
Last edited:

jamesh

Active member
The mind of God was the Logos and actually in the definition of the Logos by the philosophers who used it, all men have a logos also and it refers to the mind and even Tertullian understood this much but then added his own carnal human reasoning to it to make it refer to another person within God and also within those made in his image and which is rubbish.

And I can also understand why it sounds foolish to you James, for you are in the flesh and not in the Spirit and therefore you read the Bible as if it were a humanly conceived text book like physics or some such and which is why you do not understand the spiritual truths within it either.

1 Corinthians 2

13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[a] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[b]
But we have the mind of Christ.



The word "pros" doesn't mean with in the same sense that you are taking it but it means towards God and the Logos was towards God in that God was thinking towards himself about Christ when he created all things.

Here is Tertullian on this and these are his actual words about it also.

<p>In Greek, "Word" is Logos, and it carries a much wider meaning than "word" does. It's the word from which we get "logic." The early churches were almost as prone to translating it "reason" as they were to translating it "word."

Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is:

Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind …
Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (Against Praxeas 5)
Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity.

God, according to the early churches, has always had logos inside of him.


Why the Logos as God's mind fixed on the future coming of Jesus Christ when what was the Logos as God in the beginning would be made the Logos as flesh in created time.

When John says all things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made, he is seeing Jesus as the one who would in the future fulfill God's purpose for creating all things by redeeming it and restoring it back to what God intended from the very beginning.

So God was looking ahead to Christ as the remedy that he knew in advance would be needed to fulfill his purpose for creating all things and without which in his foreknowledge, he wouldn't have created any of it at all period.
You declare the Logos is not a person but rather the "words/thoughts/plan of God insisting there is no "he" (a masculine personal pronoun) in John 1:1-3. Then when "him" (a masculine personal pronoun) actually appears in the text at vs3 you say it's not a person because it refers to logos, which you have already declared to be a non-person by the absence of "he".

The fact is, however, that a masculine personal pronoun appears (bty twice) in John's prologue in reference to logos this particular line of reasoning falls apart. Not to mention that all this occurs before His actual incarnation and proves His preexistence. And speaking about the "mind of God/ Christ it refers to those who are already Christians at 1 Christians 2:16. The Apostle Paul backs this up at Philippians 2:6, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."

The bottom line in all of this is the fact that it all happened in "real time" at John 1:1-3." God is "NOT" looking ahead by way of His foreknowledge because of that one small little word "en/was" in John 1:1. The definition of "was", first and third person singular past of "be." Or being; past participle; been.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

101G

Active member
You better believe I am sure, for in this above verse he is speaking before he died and was resurrected and ascended unto the Father and then later returned to appeared unto them and also Thomas.
GINOLJC, to all.
that's your mistake, he "APPEARED" after his resurrection, but what did he say, and Judas asked him? listen carefully. John 14:21 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." John 14:22 "Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?"

a MANIFESTATION is not an APPERANCE... my God there is a GROSS lack of Bible training.

on the Day of Pentecost the Lord Jesus ... "RETURNED" in Spirit, in the MANIFESTATION of the Spiritual Gifts. this is basic bible study.

understand, after resurrection, "APPERANCE" in bodily form, (Luke 2:4:39). after ascension, ...return in "MANIFESTATION" Spirit form. understand NOW?

this reprove all of your questions.
You see, Jesus has a God above him and it is Yahweh and this proves that he is not Yahweh himself.
then you're polytheistic in Bibicial ERROR. a God above God? listen, Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

and the term "BESIDE" means in addition to; apart from.. and the First and the Last is JESUS, who is God, and there is no God over, or next to, or below him. so your statement is FALSE. and rejected.
Remember, Jesus told Mary "touch me not, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father but go tell my disciples that I ascend unto my Father and their Father and to my God and their God.
My God is MY "Spirit", is not God at Spirit per John 4:24a? my shows possession, OWNERSHIP. listen, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

"OWN" ... arm? yes OWN shows what? that's right OWNERSHIP. that's HIM OWN Spirit that he is asending to, listen, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

did you hear that Yahweh will increase? while on earth in a diversified state in flesh, he<JESUS, God, was in heaven at the same titme... (smile). see how easy the ECHAD is to show, he was in Heaven , "Father", LORD, the Ordinal First of the ECHAD, and at the same time, on EARTH, the son, the Lord, the ordinal Last of the ECHAD in flesh. oh this is too easy.....

look, Yahweh will increase, no offence, but you need to do as Hebrews 5:12 states, "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."

PICJAG, 101G.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
You declare the Logos is not a person but rather the "words/thoughts/plan of God insisting there is no "he" (a masculine personal pronoun) in John 1:1-3. Then when "him" (a masculine personal pronoun) actually appears in the text at vs3 you say it's not a person because it refers to logos, which you have already declared to be a non-person by the absence of "he".

Not exact, for I declared that the Logos was a personification of God's mind and thinking and the same mind and thinking that was afterward duplicated into Christ Jesus and which Jesus then had to maintain by perfect obedience in that mind and through much temptation.
The fact is, however, that a masculine personal pronoun appears (bty twice) in John's prologue in reference to logos this particular line of reasoning falls apart. Not to mention that all this occurs before His actual incarnation and proves His preexistence. And speaking about the "mind of God/ Christ it refers to those who are already Christians at 1 Christians 2:16. The Apostle Paul backs this up at Philippians 2:6, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."

That is because he was using the Logos the same way that the Greeks and Hebrews did with their Memra, and as a personification of God's mind and channel through which he did all things including especially the creation and therefore the only pre existence here is of God's mind that would be fulfilled through Christ Jesus.

No incarnation but rather only a duplication of God's mind the Logos into the human being Christ Jesus and also as per Hebrews 1:3 and the Greek word "charakter", for that is what John is revealing in his prologue.

Yes the mind that was in Christ Jesus was the Logos that God duplicated into Jesus Christ from his own nature and within the one born as a human being and so Paul was speaking of the mind and attitude within the human being Jesus and not the mind within the Logos as not yet made flesh.
The bottom line in all of this is the fact that it all happened in "real time" at John 1:1-3." God is "NOT" looking ahead by way of His foreknowledge because of that one small little word "en/was" in John 1:1. The definition of "was", first and third person singular past of "be." Or being; past participle; been.

IN GOD THE SON,
james

The above is your interpretation through your carnal human reasoning and wisdom and also that of those who taught you and which you have been brainwashed in and will not let go of and that is too bad for you James.


Now, how is it that you refuse to answer to the problem in your doctrine concerning Philippians 2:9 and that Jesus was given a name above every name only after his resurrection and as a reward for his obedience and as per Paul in Philippians 2:6-9?

For as you falsely claim, Jesus was always Yahweh God and never ceased to be Yahweh God even while becoming a man and therefore he would have always had a name above every other James?



Why is it that you run away from this every time I present it and go back to John 1:1-3 and also to your misinterpretation of Philippians 2:6 like you do?

This proves that you are being led in your knowledge by human wisdom and not by the Spirit, for your idea about Philippians 2:6 doesn't line up with the fact that Paul says in verse 9 that because of his obedience unto death God rewarded him with a name above every name and which he already would have had anyhow if he were truly Yahweh God.
 

101G

Active member
Yes in the beginning it was the single person and being of God but not when it was made flesh dude and that Greek word "ginomai" and how it is used and what it means in the 670 times it appears in the scriptures proves this also.

Besides this, in the beginning Jesus was not the Logos but rather conceived in the Logos to later become a living reality in the flesh and that is what John is speaking of and not another person of God like you and the trins falsely believe and teach about it.

In John 1:1-3, the Logos is the mind of God fixed on the future coming of Christ but Christ in God's mind the Logos doesn't become a living reality as a human being until he is born of Mary and this is when God sends him forth from his mind the Logos to become the Logos made flesh.
see ZPost #98.

PICJAG, 101G.
 
Top