1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured 'Was' and 'Beginning' in John 1:1

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by tigger2, Aug 23, 2019.

  1. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,552
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Religion:
    •Lord God•
    I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing with me, or disagreeing.

    However because of the context, also,
    John 1:1-10

    Yohanan is actually saying that deity manifested via Jesus.

    This brings us to

    John 17

    And why there seems to be a contradictory yeshua in the gospels, who doesn't consider himself 'g-d', thusly making the sacrifice a bizarre replacement sacrifice, instead of a conditional Spiritual sacrifice, [that is actually symbolic.

    There are problems with a non deific jesus, and it shouldn't be a surprise that many do not subscribe to a 'replacement sacrifice', incredibly weird and contradictory to the scripture itself.
     
  2. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,985
    Ratings:
    +4,085
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    I'm just saying that the two aren't multiple attestations of the same sentence. John 1 says, "In the beginning." Genesis 1 doesn't really say that.

    I think that Substitutionary Atonement is a crock.
     
  3. Moz

    Moz Religion. A pox on all their Houses.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    FOLLOWER OF CHRIST
     
  4. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,093
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    You have three things, that are different from each other, and call it one.[/quote]

    Yep, 3 person, 1 God. :)


    Really? So I can't be 3 different things... husband, father and a brother and then claim to be some guy named Oeste at the same time?

    Tell us again how this defies math, logic, reason and common sense.

    Do you understand what Triune means?


    Why do some Arians claim such extreme difficulty with this?

    I just asked you to hand me a 1x1x1. Are you going to hand me 3 boards, 1 board, or are you going to tell me that what I really asked for was a 1+1+1 instead?

    That sounds more like statement than explanation to me, but if an explainable God works for you that's fine.

    Exactly! It was a response to Arianism and Macedonianism based on scripture.

    Absolutely! Some groups are extremely intolerant, so rather than embrace discussion they shut it down. I enjoy discussions like the one we're having here. We may not come to agreement but we do get a chance to vet views. It's a type of spiritual refinement difficult to get from the neighborhood church and non-existent at your local Starbucks.

    If a particular doctrine I have fails to pass muster then I'm all the better off without it.

    Not exactly...but its close enough I think.

    We simply understand the parable differently.

    In any event I am WAAAAAAAAY behind schedule if I ever intend to get out of town this weekend and we're about as far removed from thread theme as we can get. It's difficult to get time to post here, and if someone knew I was posting rather than packing...

    I really, really hope to start a thread on the Trinity, but I don't want to start it then have to wait 3 or 4 days before I can respond to a post. I'll let you know when it starts. Save your best darts and the heavy artillery for then.
     
  5. Moz

    Moz Religion. A pox on all their Houses.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    FOLLOWER OF CHRIST
    Yep, 3 person, 1 God. :)




    Really? So I can't be 3 different things... husband, father and a brother and then claim to be some guy named Oeste at the same time?

    Tell us again how this defies math, logic, reason and common sense.

    Do you understand what Triune means?




    Why do some Arians claim such extreme difficulty with this?

    I just asked you to hand me a 1x1x1. Are you going to hand me 3 boards, 1 board, or are you going to tell me that what I really asked for was a 1+1+1 instead?



    That sounds more like statement than explanation to me, but if an explainable God works for you that's fine.



    Exactly! It was a response to Arianism and Macedonianism based on scripture.



    Absolutely! Some groups are extremely intolerant, so rather than embrace discussion they shut it down. I enjoy discussions like the one we're having here. We may not come to agreement but we do get a chance to vet views. It's a type of spiritual refinement difficult to get from the neighborhood church and non-existent at your local Starbucks.

    If a particular doctrine I have fails to pass muster then I'm all the better off without it.



    Not exactly...but its close enough I think.



    We simply understand the parable differently.

    In any event I am WAAAAAAAAY behind schedule if I ever intend to get out of town this weekend and we're about as far removed from thread theme as we can get. It's difficult to get time to post here, and if someone knew I was posting rather than packing...

    I really, really hope to start a thread on the Trinity, but I don't want to start it then have to wait 3 or 4 days before I can respond to a post. I'll let you know when it starts. Save your best darts and the heavy artillery for then.[/QUOTE]
    Hi.

    REALLY. Husband, Father, Brother . That's modalism dude. What you need is a different person in each role and then get then to be ONE. I can't believe the kindergarten stuff that gets spewed out here.

    And 3 boards are still three different boards aren't they. So you have three boards of the same class not existence. And you accuse me of ancient heresies... Said the pot to the kettle.

    Peace
     
  6. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,093
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    No, it’s not modalism. “Husband” is a marital relationship, “Father” is a parental relationship, and “Brother” is a familial relationship. In order for this to be modalism the Husband, Father, and Brother would have to be considered manifestations and not relationships of Oeste.

    Modalism does not consider any of these relationships as a manifestation.

    I think that’s just what happened

    Yeah, I know what you mean. Some think a few talking points from a website can replace years of scholastic study, when the talking point itself belies a lack of scholarship.

    Yes, 3 boards are still 3 different boards, but a 1x1x1 is one board.

    I don’t recall accusing you of heresy but I definitely view Arianism as heresy. Earlier you accused the Niceans of apostasy and the debate rages on.

    Agreed, but let’s be careful...that could start a new debate on who is pot and who is kettle.:eek:

    And to you!
     
  7. Moz

    Moz Religion. A pox on all their Houses.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    FOLLOWER OF CHRIST
    Hi.

    let's just go through this slowly ok.....

    Husband------ you. Brother------- you. Father------ you. That is ONE you with three different names. Not THREE you's that now make up one person..

    Father----- one person. Son----- a different person. Spirit.... a different person. That is THREE people. Or are they ONE being with three names as your example indicates. (or modes, hence modalism)


    NOW.... tell me it's a mystery how the three become one and the one become three and we have the trinitity. Illogical reasoning justified by MYSTERY. You don't know and can not explain it because it is unexplainable. You just gotta have faith in the dudes in the third century.

    The manifestation / relationship goobledegook at the end means nothing. Three things in relationship are still THREE things , they may be the same class of thing but idividuality holds.


    I just asked you to hand me a 1x1x1. Are you going to hand me 3 boards, 1 board, or are you going to tell me that what I really asked for was a 1+1+1 instead?

    This just makes no sense to me. (Firstly boards are not referred to by three measurement in that way. ) But if you asked for a 1x1x1That is a triangular piece ok. How is each one also the whole in this example.....

    Wait ... it's a mystery right.

    Peace
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,093
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hello Moz!


    No problem with that.

    Correct!

    Correct!

    Not quite... its 3 persons but not 3 people, but you're close enough.

    Unless there is a manifestation of the mode there is no modalism.

    Look in the mirror. You have a spirit, a soul, and a body yet there is one you.

    Logical reasoning justified by SCRIPTURE

    Scripturally, "mystery" does not mean unexplainable. It means something that was not explained in the past that was eventually revealed by God. You're confusing unexplained with unexplainable. The two words are not the same.

    As Christians we hold our faith in God. Of course, it goes without saying that we do not share the Arian view that Satan eventually prevails over the church. We hold that as anti-scriptural since the church shares in Christ's victory.

    Scripture tell us that Satan will bruise Christ in the heel and that Christ will bruise Satan in the head. It does not tell us that Satan would decapitate Christ's head from his body (the church), thus forcing Christ to go in search of a new body.

    That's simply gobbledygook gook we hear from Arians.

    Manifestation is necessary to understand Modalism just as the Incarnation would be essential to understanding the Trinity.

    Correct, which is why there are 3 persons in the Trinity.


    Any specific board can be referred to with these measurements. For example, requesting a 1x1x1 means the retailer will not hand you a board that is 1x3x1.

    When you ask for a 1x4 (a common measurement in construction) you are asking for a a board that is 1" thick by 4" wide.

    However, simply stating 1x4 does not tell you the height. Since this is a common measurement, it may come as 8, 10, or 12 foot heights.


    No, it's not triangular. Depending on immediate context you'll be handed a board that is either rectangular (1" x 1" x 1') or cubed (1"x1"x1").

    Each one is not the whole if we're referring to the Trinity. Each one is the whole if we speak of modalism.

    Remember, in the Trinity, its "the Word was God" and not "God was the Word".

    Fully God does not mean wholly God anymore than unexplained means unexplainable.

    In any event, I'll talk more about the Trinity when I start my thread as I have little time to do that now.
     
  9. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,985
    Ratings:
    +4,085
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    @Moz: With regard to the wheat and weeds, don’t bet too heavily that you’re right, because you’re not. The parable doesn’t point to the future of the church, it points to the nature of the kingdom. It’s not about “false Christians.”
     
  10. Moz

    Moz Religion. A pox on all their Houses.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    FOLLOWER OF CHRIST
    Hi
    I had written a couple of paragraphs in response and i was re reading your comment to make sure i understood and had addressed what you were saying and i came across this...... Remember, in the Trinity, its "the Word was God" and not "God was the Word".

    I deleted it all. How can i compete with a line like that. I completely understand how with linguistic gymnastic's of that caliber the three equals one thing makes sense to you.

    Peace.
     
  11. Moz

    Moz Religion. A pox on all their Houses.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    FOLLOWER OF CHRIST
    Hi.
    So the weeds are who then?
    And what is the Harvest referring too?
    Peace
     
  12. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,985
    Ratings:
    +4,085
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    The weeds are "outsiders." The harvest is the fruition of the Kingdom.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Moz

    Moz Religion. A pox on all their Houses.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    FOLLOWER OF CHRIST
    Hi

    "outsiders" sown amongst the wheat?
    So they are just the general non-believing population ?
    They are amongst the wheat in the sense that they exist in the same world?
    Peace
     
  14. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,949
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Interesting interpretation......I like the one Jesus gave better...

    Matthew 13:36-43....
    "Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.37 In response he said: “The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; 38 the field is the world. As for the fine seed, these are the sons of the Kingdom, but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen."

    The 'weeds' are fake Christians created by the devil. The great apostasy was foretold and here it is.

    It is obvious that there is a contrast between the two who co-exist in the same field. The 'sons of the Kingdom' are sown first, then "while men were sleeping", the devil sowed counterfeit seeds in the same field. These are not just "the general non-believing population" because unbelievers existed well before Jesus was even born.

    The grain sown by the devil in the illustration is believed to be bearded darnel, which was called "wheat's evil twin" because it so resembled wheat in the early growing period that it was difficult to tell the difference until the harvest time. Jesus said to allow both to grow together until the difference was clearly discernible, then the weeds could be uprooted and disposed of first.

    Apostate Christendom is the weeds and they are not dealt with until the harvest time (which is looming).....only then will the separation be complete. Its not good news for the 'pretend Christians'. (Matthew 7:21-23) :(
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Moz

    Moz Religion. A pox on all their Houses.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    FOLLOWER OF CHRIST
    Hi.

    Yes that is my viewing as well, which is why sojourner is in the process of correcting my mistake. I'm actually interested in figuring out why they do not see an an apostasy and false church arising back then. They have no problem saying it happens today.

    Is it "the devil will never overcome the faithful" scripture i wonder.
    Or possibly it's that if an apostasy was to have happened then the obvious culprit would be the "councils of the church"" upon which their faith is built and it could not possibly be them who are the weeds.

    These are not just "the general non-believing population" because unbelievers existed well before Jesus was even born.

    That is the exact thought that occurred to me. Otherwise it's just a restatement of the two seeds of Gen3:15. Saying that their are evil people in the world is hardly worth a parable.
    Peace
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,985
    Ratings:
    +4,085
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Outsiders are anyone who is marginalized or ostracized.
     
  17. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,093
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    Correct!

    Lol, I can see where it might be confusing but there are no "linguistic gymnastics" involved. :)

    When we use the word “was” as in “The Word was God” we are referring to a state of being, and not a state of equivalence. In the mathematical formula a=b we know ‘a’ equals ‘b’ and ‘b’ equals ‘a’ because ‘a’ and ‘b’ are equivalent. The whole of 'a' and the whole of 'b' are equal, and vice versa by definition.

    However in the phrase “Joe is (or was) blue” we know that “Joe is blue” and “Blue is Joe” are not equivalent because you can be 'blue' without being 'Joe'.

    Thus 'Joe' can be fully blue, but 'blue' is not fully and wholly Joe. Likewise the Word can be fully God without God being fully and wholly the Word.

    Likewise Trinitarians do not claim "three equals one" but that the "three are one". The two phrases cannot be used interchangeably. When you hear "3=1" you are hearing plenty of Arian spin but not an ounce of Trinitarian theology.

    Within Christian Christology, if the Logos is fully but not wholly (all of) God we have Trinitarianism but no Modalism. If the Logos is fully and wholly God or God is is fully and wholly the Logos we have Modalism but no Trinitarianism. If the Logos is simply a Deity among Deities you're most likely looking at Arianism.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Moz

    Moz Religion. A pox on all their Houses.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    FOLLOWER OF CHRIST


    Hi.

    I absolutely believe that the whole problem with the trinity traversty is a result of what you are doing with the above. It was when the Philosophers got involved trying to figure out what God and Jesus were made of, pure Plato. Substance and nature and all that crap.
    And not meaning to be rude but how is the above anything but linguistic gymnastics.


    Likewise the Word can be fully God without God being fully and wholly the Word.

    Well, this is something new. I have never had a trintitarian
    even suggest that Jesus was NOT wholly God Not sure what to do with that.
    Are you saying that Jesus was "God Like" as in Divine but NOT fully God?

    To me the fully, wholly, differentiation you apply is a linguistic trick. Joe is fully blue but blue is not fully Joe?????


    I also believe the Son not wholly God but is one ."step below God" as it were. Divine, godlike but not "fully" God.



    "He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity,

    The above is from the definition of "Hypostatic Union" which is the philosophical interjection that underpins the trinity. It is clearly saying Jeusu is COMPLETELY God.


    See i'm at an impasse....... i feel that the response an attempt to juxtapose fully, wholly and completely explaining infered or implied differences and losing any true authority that the words used actually have.
     
  19. Moz

    Moz Religion. A pox on all their Houses.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    FOLLOWER OF CHRIST
    Hi.
    State of being,... State of equivalence. Fully.........wholly . equals........ are
    Word play to turn something simple into an unexplainable morass of "theology".

    Using "Blue" as a replacement for God is implying that God is an attrribute.
    Try this in your illustration.
    God is God / Jesus is God
    Blue is Blue / Jesus is blue .
    That's NOT how you reasoned it out. You are treating God as a being and an attribute at the same time.

    I looked up some stuff and i can not find any trinitarian site says Jesus was NOT completely wholly fully GOD, in every sense that can be applied. Could you please give me somewhere "official or authorititive" were i could look into the reasoning that Jesus is God but NOT fully God. Oh.... a trinitarian site cause what you are saying is actually closer to me than to the trinity. I also believe that Jesus is not fully God. He is divine and of God.
    Peace.
     
  20. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,985
    Ratings:
    +4,085
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Well, that completely derails the exegetical train, to turn the gospel into some sort of bogus "prophecy."
    It also derails the theological train. Good/evil co-exist in humanity; you can't always tell the difference; treat them all the same and trust that God will figure it out to God's pleasure.
     
Loading...