You are Oneness/nontrinitarian, correct?

Kampioen

Member
Well I do NOT believe in “role playing”. 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.

GOD in the universe as a human is speaking to eternal GOD.

So, eternal God in His eternal state doesn't experience that He is God in the universe talking and visa versa?

How does one omniscient Person speak to another omniscient Person since they both have the same thoughts?

They are distinct and equal in knowledge comparable to a man and his interactive conscience and subconscious.
 

aeg4971

Active member
And the Greeks also say Mary never sinned.

So what is your point for telling us what the Greeks say rather than what YOU say?
The point of telling you what the Greeks said is because they gave us Trine terminology before all of the modern so called sola scriptura Christians insist they came to God is Trine by their own minds. Besides I told you what I stated so that you may properly comprehend the Greeks, hence so the Greeks say," Tres hypostases un Ousia".

What the Greeks don't do is teach polytheism as most of you are so inclined to communicate in your humanistic myopic and rudimentary efforts to express monotheism in relation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Not to mention we mostly barely know what we are talking about hence the Greeks say


I hope I cleared things up....... Alan
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
The point of telling you what the Greeks said is because they gave us Trine terminology before all of the modern so called sola scriptura Christians insist they came to God is Trine by their own minds. Besides I told you what I stated so that you may properly comprehend the Greeks, hence so the Greeks say," Tres hypostases un Ousia".

What the Greeks don't do is teach polytheism as most of you are so inclined to communicate in your humanistic myopic and rudimentary efforts to express monotheism in relation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Not to mention we mostly barely know what we are talking about hence the Greeks say


I hope I cleared things up....... Alan

Why not tell us what YOU say?

When you meet Jesus he will likely ask you what YOU say rather than what the Greeks say.
 

aeg4971

Active member
Why not tell us what YOU say?

When you meet Jesus he will likely ask you what YOU say rather than what the Greeks say.
Jesus knows what I say , like He knows what you say, nevertheless whatever you and I say will be exactly why the Greeks say, Tres hypostases un Ousia".

Everyone of us can go back and forth with our individual personal rendering of the scriptural relative predication communicated in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Still on account of," Neither dividing the substance nor confounding or confusing the subsistence ", We number the plurality in the supposita of which it is spoken, so the Greeks say," Tres hypostases un Ousia".

I am certain that when I meet Jesus He knows I do not imply three beings or three gods , like I am certain when the Greeks meet Jesus He knows they did not imply three beings or three gods. For I am certain He knows that we acknowledge a logical and substantial relative distinction without difference.

Since you 101G Yah will increase , and oddly Kenosis Trinitarians love to argue difference when in divine fact/truth there is only distinction, by that which is its opposition, I am working on a 2 part thread in regards to this word person, and the equality and union of the divine persons. Many of your(generally speaking) humanistic theological and Christological sciences somehow think that in God it is less perfect to be generated than to generate.

Post your own made up beliefs and it still affirms the Greeks fathers and Latin doctors when they say;

" In God where there is difference there is only distinction".

.PS it was customary of the Latin Augustine and Aquinas after confuting and dispatching the heretics against charges of tritheism in their own words, to end with," So the Greeks say," Tres hypostases un Ousia".
...... Alan
 
Last edited:

aeg4971

Active member
Jesus knows what I say , like He knows what you say, nevertheless whatever you and I say will be exactly why the Greeks say, Tres hypostases un Ousia".

Everyone of us can go back and forth with our individual personal rendering of the scriptural relative predication communicated in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Still on account of," Neither dividing the substance nor confounding or confusing the subsistence ", We number the plurality in the supposita of which it is spoken, so the Greeks say," Tres hypostases un Ousia".

I am certain that when I meet Jesus He knows I do not imply three beings or three gods , like I am certain when the Greeks meet Jesus He knows they did not imply three beings or three gods. For I am certain He knows that we acknowledge a logical and substantial relative distinction without difference.

Since you 101G Yah will increase , and oddly Kenosis Trinitarians love to argue difference when in divine fact/truth there is only distinction, by that which is its opposition, I am working on a 2 part thread in regards to this word person, and the equality and union of the divine persons. Many of your(generally speaking) humanistic theological and Christological sciences somehow think that in God it is less perfect to be generated than to generate.

Post your own made up beliefs and it still affirms the Greeks fathers and Latin doctors when they say;



.PS it was customary of the Latin Augustine and Aquinas after confuting and dispatching the heretics against charges of tritheism in their own words, to end with," So the Greeks say," Tres hypostases un Ousia".
...... Alan
Presentist since you like to insist on one speaking in their own words , I like to point out that there are certain theological premises as our starting point when we say," God is one, or God is eternal. God is supremely being itself subsistent absolutely indeterminate (Ex 3:14).

In ancient Christian theology we understand Eternity to signify the lack of duration of time, but not however the lack of duration of origin. It then follows Presentist ,in Christian orthodox theology we understand the distinction between the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit to be ONLY by the relation of ORIGIN . In that from all ETERNITY the Father is unbegotten the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit is proceeding.

I can't find one post Apostolic sola scriptura anti Trinitarian or Trinitarian Christological or theological sciences that confute or refute in adequately expressing verities of the divine, orthodox starting point ;as Augustine says," Thy Today is ETERNITY".

If you wish to make yourself theologically useful , by all means please demonstrate how your modern sola scriptura revisionist anti Trinitarian statement of belief, NEGATE or REFUTE the orthodox suppositions above.

...... Alan
 
Last edited:

aeg4971

Active member
God is beyond us.

It is an explanation that reconciles Scriptures that present God as three interacting distinctions yet is one God. ...

But with your view God apparently decided to produce a second personality. That is role play/modalism or perhaps
unitarianism or Nestorianism. Is one of these your view? .. or is it a hybrid of these?

But We all believe God is beyond us when Oneness Trinitarians Unitarians alike affirm the God is Omniscient Omnipotent Omnipresent . Those three adjectives which we call attributes are really identical with His essence, and thus affirm the 4th century Latin doctor of Hippo when he asserts that ," Of all the Aristotelian categories on two belongs to God-STANCE and RELATION". Nearly a thousand years later the Latin angelic doctor further elucidates as you stated," God is beyond us", and Augustine ( Stance and Relation), when Aquinas says;

"God is the Supreme Substance transcending the divisions of the Aristotelian categories at one and at the same time He is both SUBTANCE AND RELATION".

....... Alan
 

aeg4971

Active member
God is beyond us.

It is an explanation that reconciles Scriptures that present God as three interacting distinctions yet is one God. ...

But with your view God apparently decided to produce a second personality. That is role play/modalism or perhaps
unitarianism or Nestorianism. Is one of these your view? .. or is it a hybrid of these?

We all believe God is beyond us when Oneness Trinitarians Unitarians alike affirm the God is Omniscient Omnipotent Omnipresent . Those three adjectives which we call attributes are really identical with His essence, and thus affirm the 4th century Latin doctor of Hippo when he asserts that ," Of all the Aristotelian categories on two belongs to God-STANCE and RELATION". Nearly a thousand years later the Latin angelic doctor further elucidates as you stated," God is beyond us", and Augustine ( Stance and Relation), when Aquinas says;

"God is the Supreme Substance transcending the divisions of the Aristotelian categories at one and at the same time He is both SUBTANCE AND RELATION".

....... Alan
True, since a “form” of God would be a “mode” of God based on the definitions of the words...

mode: a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done.

form: the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision

Philippians 2:6... Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

So Jesus is God in the “form” (“mode”) of a human.

Here is how I describe it...

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.
On the contrary In medieval scholastic theology proper ; mode signifies manner of a thing ,whereas form, signifies the determination of the mode/manner of a thing. which is universally understood in the abstract and the concrete. The general and the particular . As when we say Deity and God or Paternity and Father.

It then follow Jesus mode is God the Word the same in the beginning with God and His form is the person of the Son having been made passable in the similitude of sinful flesh ,(ie by way of the virgin birth),now being fashioned and found as man to become obedient unto death to the gory of God the Father.

In God there is no essential difference between mode and form, nevertheless they have distinct meanings , and we must speak of each word or term according to their own proper idea and perfection.

God is not a man that He should lie neither is He the Son of man that He should repent.

It follows God in generation. That is to say; Jesus the one and only begotten is not merely God in the form or mode of a human, but rather His entire ego or personhood of the Son is of itself and by itself form of mode in God.

I often like to remind all you so called monotheistic Christians that in an absolute sense," Nothing can be the form or mode of God but God for He is His very own Godhead."

"Who being in the form/morphe of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation by taking(ie assuming) upon Him the form/morph of a servant(ie union).



......Alan
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Presentist since you like to insist on one speaking in their own words ,

I do not think you have to use your own words.

Rather I think you should say “I believe ____• rather than just “The Greeks believe ____”.

If you agree with a statement then you now believe it too. So just claim it.

And I am curious, why are you not using my correct username?

Normally in debates, when people use derogatory terms or different names it is a sign they feel they are losing the debate.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
On the contrary In medieval scholastic theology proper ; mode signifies manner of a thing ,whereas form, signifies the determination of the mode/manner of a thing. which is universally understood in the abstract and the concrete. The general and the particular . As when we say Deity and God or Paternity and Father.

But we are having a conversation today, in 2021.

Can you post a link to dictionary definitions of the words “mode” and “form” today, in 2021?

I did in my earlier post.
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings aeg4971,
I often like to remind all you so called monotheistic Christians that in an absolute sense," Nothing can be the form or mode of God but God for He is His very own Godhead."
"Who being in the form/morphe of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation by taking(ie assuming) upon Him the form/morph of a servant(ie union).
My monotheistic understanding of Philippians 2:6 "form of God" is that it is an allusion to Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5 where Jesus was made in the image and after the likeness of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and the Angels, and thus a little lower than the Angels. Despite his unique birth as The Son of God, the greatest prince that ever was born and lived, unlike Adam he did not grasp at equality with God, but humbled himself and became like a servant, as prophesied in Isaiah 42:1, 52:13, and submitted himself to the Father's will and purpose, allowing himself to suffer and be crucified the salvation of mankind, and has thus been highly exalted to the glory of the One God, God the Father. The two usages of the Greek word "form" indicates that this passage is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Jesus before and during his ministry and has nothing to do with a supposed incarnation.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Greetings aeg4971,

My monotheistic understanding of Philippians 2:6 "form of God" is that it is an allusion to Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5 where Jesus was made in the image and after the likeness of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and the Angels, and thus a little lower than the Angels. Despite his unique birth as The Son of God, the greatest prince that ever was born and lived, unlike Adam he did not grasp at equality with God, but humbled himself and became like a servant, as prophesied in Isaiah 42:1, 52:13, and submitted himself to the Father's will and purpose, allowing himself to suffer and be crucified the salvation of mankind, and has thus been highly exalted to the glory of the One God, God the Father. The two usages of the Greek word "form" indicates that this passage is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Jesus before and during his ministry and has nothing to do with a supposed incarnation.

Kind regards
Trevor
Your Jesus Christ is a worthless savior who CANNOT save anyone.
 

aeg4971

Active member
But we are having a conversation today, in 2021.

Can you post a link to dictionary definitions of the words “mode” and “form” today, in 2021?

I did in my earlier post.
So what we are in the 21st century ,we are still to rendering the Holy Writ just as early century non English speakers ,less we adamantly support modern ignorance and obstinacy.

If I relied on modernism and English speakers, I would still be teaching the Oneness heresy ," the Father is the spirit and the son is the flesh like you do.

Don't ever tell me this is the 21st century ,when I actually find that to be the main problem. We are way too carnal and humanistic . Remember early Post Apostolic Christians basically had the very same Holy scriptures we possess without all the carnal and humanistic proclivities that so easily beset us today .

Besides we do not rightly divide knowledge like the ancients largely because they had to describe it discover it and name it, whereas we just read it in English.

...... Alan
 
Last edited:

aeg4971

Active member
I do not think you have to use your own words.

Rather I think you should say “I believe ____• rather than just “The Greeks believe ____”.

If you agree with a statement then you now believe it too. So just claim it.

And I am curious, why are you not using my correct username?

Normally in debates, when people use derogatory terms or different names it is a sign they feel they are losing the debate.
Since we all have the very same Bibles it is not really about believing, but rather more about UNDERSTANDING what we believe. Hence I understand what the Greeks say on account of my belief.

Do you observe the obvious distinction between belief and understanding of belief? For instance I believe we worship One GOD in three interrelated persons , while I understand why we even say three persons in God.

......Alan
 
Last edited:

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Since we all have the very same Bibles it is not really about believing, but rather more about UNDERSTANDING what we believe. Hence I understand what the Greeks say on account of my belief.

Do you observe the obvious distinction between belief and understanding of belief? For instance I believe we worship One GOD in three interrelated persons , while I understand why we even say three persons in God.

......Alan

If you say “the Greeks say...”.

You would not have said what YOU believe.

You need to say “I agree with the Greeks who say...”

Etc.
 

aeg4971

Active member
True, since a “form” of God would be a “mode” of God based on the definitions of the words...

mode: a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done.

form: the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision

Philippians 2:6... Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

So Jesus is God in the “form” (“mode”) of a human.

Here is how I describe it...

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.
On the contrary asserting the form of God being a mode in corporal and created things is quite abstract or for us a role of a composite subject, which can be observed in the ancient Greek prosopon or the ancient Latin persona; whereas in God, Aquinas says," The abstract is contained in the concrete, as when we say," Deity and God, or Paternity and Father", It then follows that the concrete form of God is determinate in a mode of a distinct person, one from another , but not however as if other from the divine nature. This too can be observed in the ancient/ medieval Greek term Perichoresis, and ancient/ medieval Latin term Circumincession , ( note the 6th century is formally the transition from ancient to medieval and the 17th century til today is the era of ENLIGHTENMENT OR Humanism ).

Therefore it is no point to contemplate your navel over an abstract assertion of God form and mode: because CLEARLY the Biblical and Scriptural DETERMINATION in the CONCRETE ,is " The Distinction of Persons and the Equality of their Majesty". One is the Father ,another is the Son , and another is the Holy Spirit. So the Greeks say," Tres hypostases un Ousia".

I like to remind all you so called sola scriptura monotheistic Christians that, " Nothing can be the form or mode of God but God ,as this name God is the very same as Godhead .

......Alan
 

aeg4971

Active member
Greetings aeg4971,

My monotheistic understanding of Philippians 2:6 "form of God" is that it is an allusion to Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5 where Jesus was made in the image and after the likeness of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and the Angels, and thus a little lower than the Angels. Despite his unique birth as The Son of God, the greatest prince that ever was born and lived, unlike Adam he did not grasp at equality with God, but humbled himself and became like a servant, as prophesied in Isaiah 42:1, 52:13, and submitted himself to the Father's will and purpose, allowing himself to suffer and be crucified the salvation of mankind, and has thus been highly exalted to the glory of the One God, God the Father. The two usages of the Greek word "form" indicates that this passage is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Jesus before and during his ministry and has nothing to do with a supposed incarnation.

Kind regards
Trevor
Adam had no equality with God to grasp ,whereas the Son is God own substantial Word Himself proceeding subsisting numerically in the same nature as has God the Father, having been made passable in the likeness of sinful flesh. The disposition of Jesus mind does not change the fact that in an absolute sense HIs very existence is divine hypostasis in Himself.

God does not birth otherness simply because the Word Himself proceeds , which explains why the scriptures are worded in the manner that it is. Need I remind you that God is not a man that He should lie ,neither is He the son of man that He should repent.

........ Alan
 

TrevorL

Active member
Greetings again aeg4971,
Adam had no equality with God to grasp
The equality that Adam and Eve grasped at is stated in the following:
Genesis 3:4-5 (KJV): 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Top