|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 17, 2005 13:16:31 GMT -5
The problem with your desciption of what you understand as oneness is that it's vague and sounds more like a modified trinity to me. especially with that last sentence. Description of Jesus as "The Physical"; Spirit "continuing prescence"; and GOD being the deriving enity is extremely incomplete. I see. So it wasn't that it was necessarily wrong, just ambiguous, and open to misunderstanding. I can appreciate that. I was trying to articulate the doctrine in terms that are understandable to the Trinitarian. But even more than that, I was hoping to articualte the reason for saying each name in the scriptures instead of just repeatedly saying "Jesus" every time the Diety is mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Sept 17, 2005 22:46:44 GMT -5
The problem with your desciption of what you understand as oneness is that it's vague and sounds more like a modified trinity to me. especially with that last sentence. Description of Jesus as "The Physical"; Spirit "continuing prescence"; and GOD being the deriving enity is extremely incomplete. I see. So it wasn't that it was necessarily wrong, just ambiguous, and open to misunderstanding. I can appreciate that. I was trying to articulate the doctrine in terms that are understandable to the Trinitarian. But even more than that, I was hoping to articualte the reason for saying each name in the scriptures instead of just repeatedly saying "Jesus" every time the Diety is mentioned. something like that. but leaning more towards wrong. sometimes over simplification is just as bad as being overly technical. I think the way i've put it in repeated posts is as simple as you can get. |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 18, 2005 23:46:31 GMT -5
^^cool, thanks^^
Do you think you could quickly, explain why the biblical authors wrote "Jesus" "God" "Holy Ghost," etc, instead of always just being consistent with just one name/title?
The reason I ask is because you said the best way is the way you explain it. If I articualate my understanding of the doctrine in a manner that is counter productive to that doctrine, I would rather be able to percieve this issue as clearly as possible from your position so as to not run into that problem. Thx.
peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Sept 19, 2005 9:29:47 GMT -5
^^cool, thanks^^ Do you think you could quickly, explain why the biblical authors wrote "Jesus" "God" "Holy Ghost," etc, instead of always just being consistent with just one name/title? The reason I ask is because you said the best way is the way you explain it. If I articualate my understanding of the doctrine in a manner that is counter productive to that doctrine, I would rather be able to percieve this issue as clearly as possible from your position so as to not run into that problem. Thx. peace. lol. i thought i did. i guess i can do it again. |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 19, 2005 12:25:52 GMT -5
Well, I see where you wrote...
First off notice that “GOD and Father” are connected as ONE. Already showed you that Jesus is the Father (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus Christ is called the Lord, and also called the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). Why is Paul using these terms? Because he’s Jewish and has always used them. Realize that when Paul realized who Jesus is, he didn’t stop being Jewish; but he now had a complete understanding of it.
But you say Paul uses these terms because he is used to being Jewish? Does that mean he used to think Jesus was a person and not God, and now that he found out the truth, he was just in the habit of saying Jesus and not God? I'm not sure I am following you.
There are just so many refferences to each title, often in the same passage, it would seem that at the bear minimum it is a refference to the various experiences of this One God, through the person of Christ, and through the continuing presence of God articulated as Holy Ghost.
Perhaps you can be a little clearer. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Sept 19, 2005 22:09:17 GMT -5
i meant i explained it in previous threads. ;D Well, I see where you wrote... First off notice that “GOD and Father” are connected as ONE. Already showed you that Jesus is the Father (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus Christ is called the Lord, and also called the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). Why is Paul using these terms? Because he’s Jewish and has always used them. Realize that when Paul realized who Jesus is, he didn’t stop being Jewish; but he now had a complete understanding of it.
But you say Paul uses these terms because he is used to being Jewish? Does that mean he used to think Jesus was a person and not God, and now that he found out the truth, he was just in the habit of saying Jesus and not God? I'm not sure I am following you. There are just so many refferences to each title, often in the same passage, it would seem that at the bear minimum it is a refference to the various experiences of this One God, through the person of Christ, and through the continuing presence of God articulated as Holy Ghost. Perhaps you can be a little clearer. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 20, 2005 11:49:15 GMT -5
Well, as you know I never get involved in these threads. But I do sort of get dismayed with being told I am wrong, but not given the right answer...
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Sept 20, 2005 14:18:48 GMT -5
HHH, You have never clearly explained your view. Yet u always say u have. Is God 1, yet have 3 different modes? Like u could be a pastor, father, and son, but u are one person. Is that how u view God?  |
|
|
|
Post by quietstorm on Sept 20, 2005 15:25:11 GMT -5
In fairness to HHH (even though I dont agree with his doctrinal convinctions) I have seen him debate this issue for years now and have seen him explain certain things over and over again. I remember times on the Hiphopzone in which he took the time to answer everybodies question in detail but a constant trend I have seen is that people never take the time to deal with his questions. I think over time he has grown a little weary or re explaining things (forgive me if I am wrong). By the way HHH whats your email address there is an article I want to send to you to get your thoughts since your boy thapsalmist2 is to busy ;D . Holla
|
|
|
|
Post by quietstorm on Sept 20, 2005 15:29:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Sept 20, 2005 16:20:55 GMT -5
Wow!
I have only read a few paragraphs..dope artic;e so far! It actully rebutts many of HHH positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 20, 2005 16:32:02 GMT -5
In fairness to HHH (even though I dont agree with his doctrinal convinctions) I have seen him debate this issue for years now and have seen him explain certain things over and over again. I remember times on the Hiphopzone in which he took the time to answer everybodies question in detail but a constant trend I have seen is that people never take the time to deal with his questions. I think over time he has grown a little weary or re explaining things (forgive me if I am wrong). By the way HHH whats your email address there is an article I want to send to you to get your thoughts since your boy thapsalmist2 is to busy ;D . Holla I agree with that. But like I said, I never got into any of those discussions, at all. I never even followed one really, because I never really saw the point. I just want to know where I am wrong in my understanding of the doctrine. I thought it was a "God is experienced through___" type of thing, not a mode thing. I have seen him say before he disagrees with modalism...I'm not sure why, but I know he does. I'd just like to learn. peace. |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Sept 20, 2005 16:36:47 GMT -5
I have seen him say before he disagrees with modalism..
RIGHT!! This is why i'm confused!
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Sept 21, 2005 19:04:14 GMT -5
I agree with that. But like I said, I never got into any of those discussions, at all. I never even followed one really, because I never really saw the point. I just want to know where I am wrong in my understanding of the doctrine. I thought it was a "God is experienced through___" type of thing, not a mode thing. I have seen him say before he disagrees with modalism...I'm not sure why, but I know he does. I'd just like to learn. peace. "God is experienced through_"?! Interesting. If you want some quick answer before i get back, I'd suggest browsing the thread called "Hip-Hop Head Explain This". Wow! I have only read a few paragraphs..dope artic;e so far! It actully rebutts many of HHH positions. That article is about 100% stuff i've heard and rebutted for the past 4 years or so. Not one thing there that i haven't seen written in a thread already. I have seen him say before he disagrees with modalism.. RIGHT!! This is why i'm confused! This is one of the problems with this discussion. People come in with "Preconceived Notions". Like, Oneness is "Modalism".Then people get frustrated when the Oneness person (who they think is a modalist) say he's not one. In this discussion sometimes you need to "Forget what you heard" And in some cases forget what you thought. :-D Don't panic kiddies, I'll be back. |
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Sept 21, 2005 19:09:26 GMT -5
lol. fam. read the first thread you started before you left out of town. I explained my view REPEATEDLY. What i didn't do is explain it using words that you could got to some seminar book a say "heretic" too. Does the bible say God is in modes?! HHH, You have never clearly explained your view. Yet u always say u have. Is God 1, yet have 3 different modes? Like u could be a pastor, father, and son, but u are one person. Is that how u view God? |
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Sept 27, 2005 10:09:41 GMT -5
BTW. anyone get a change to go through that other thread? just wondering. Ya'll got quiet ;D But you say Paul uses these terms because he is used to being Jewish? Does that mean he used to think Jesus was a person and not God, and now that he found out the truth, he was just in the habit of saying Jesus and not God? I'm not sure I am following you. There are just so many refferences to each title, often in the same passage, it would seem that at the bear minimum it is a refference to the various experiences of this One God, through the person of Christ, and through the continuing presence of God articulated as Holy Ghost. Perhaps you can be a little clearer. Thanks. I didn't say he's "used to being Jewish". He uses them because he's Jewish. That's how he grew up, that's what he read in the scriptures. Like I said, when he converted, all that he learned was now put into context. And Yeah, he didn't always believe Jesus was God, but that's not really relevant to what I'm saying. But anyway, why the different referrences? Because of meaning/significance and It's how it has always been done throughout scripture. The best word I could think of is operational distinctions, but I don't even like that one because it leaves room for a certain amount of mis-understanding, which is why I like to use scripture. I'll leave you with this though. Something to think about. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 1 John 3:16 "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." Another Reason I Fail To See A Personage Seperation. Think about it |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 27, 2005 14:28:49 GMT -5
Same difference.
Right, and I can understand that, and is what I thought (at least) I was saying earlier.
Which is why a lot of people don't ever want to discuss theology outside of established doctrine. Many Trinitarians refuse to articulate what the Trinity means outside of 4th century jargon. And I have discovered that most attempts to explain that doctrine have been declared as heresy according to some Trinitarians. They feel anything other than the 4th century philosophical working out of it is incorrect, and open to some wrong ideas, so we embrace the most ambiguous deffinition possible, and the one with the least words, so as to not get trapped. I give a big "oh boy" to that.
And good point. But then we just get back to everyone agreeing the passage is true, but disagree on how to form it together with other passages. And everyone willing to disect the other person's puzzle, but unwilling to formulate their own deffinitions.
I think metaphors are so great because they are inherently imperfect, yet able to express something so far beyond. I believe in some respect this is what the Trinity is, and really any articulation to this point any of us can offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Sept 27, 2005 23:00:54 GMT -5
Which is why a lot of people don't ever want to discuss theology outside of established doctrine. Many Trinitarians refuse to articulate what the Trinity means outside of 4th century jargon. And I have discovered that most attempts to explain that doctrine have been declared as heresy according to some Trinitarians. They feel anything other than the 4th century philosophical working out of it is incorrect, and open to some wrong ideas, so we embrace the most ambiguous deffinition possible, and the one with the least words, so as to not get trapped. I give a big "oh boy" to that. I can see where that happens. However, with me I'm specific yet heads keep asking me to explain. It seems to me they're looking for me to explain my position with 4th Century Jargon as well, or it's not really specific.. I form all my definitions from scripture. It seems to be the way it has always been done even in the scripture. The scripture contains all necessary information that we need to describe God's character. When we start trying to define God outside of what he told us that's where we get into bad definitions. I have no problems with metaphors. Sure they're imperfect. Better yet, incomplete because they usually can only describe a few attributes at once. But "trinity" is more than a metaphor. It gives a definition more than a descriptive comparison/simularity. Even if it was just a metaphor, metaphors are formed from known information. But the trinty is formed from subjective thought built on unverified information. feel me? |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Sept 28, 2005 0:05:58 GMT -5
So HHH
Is my view unbiblical?
What about my view is incorrect?
I fail to see how I'm "reading in to the text"
The baptism of Jesus, is a good example. You say it is
A sign to John the Baptist. ok? The Spirit decending as a dove was the sign. Not the voice from heaven or Jesus in the water.
This is God doing what here?
THe trinity makes sense here. Your view doesn't.
But the trinty is formed from subjective thought built on unverified information
SIke...Unverified? No way! I don't claim to "understand" the trinity, but to say it has NO basis, just isn't true
|
|
|
|
Post by HIPHOPHEAD on Sept 28, 2005 9:27:18 GMT -5
So HHH Is my view unbiblical? What about my view is incorrect? I fail to see how I'm "reading in to the text" The main premise is read into the text. The baptism of Jesus, is a good example. You say it is A sign to John the Baptist. ok? The Spirit decending as a dove was the sign. Not the voice from heaven or Jesus in the water. This is God doing what here? THe trinity makes sense here. Your view doesn't. I've already explained that. It was the first thing i did in the first thread you started. But the trinty is formed from subjective thought built on unverified informationSIke...Unverified? No way! I don't claim to "understand" the trinity, but to say it has NO basis, just isn't true It has a basis. But the meat of it isn't biblical. Like i said the main premise of trinity that "God is 3 persons" is subjective thought that can't be verified with scripture. Everything I've said can be tho. |
|
