Butch5
Active
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Messages
- 3,334
Not so. By making the distinction He is acknowledging that Jesus is not God.Actually, in a hierarchy the opposite of what you said would be the case. If he is understanding this to be true, he would have to make that distinction because Jesus is also fully human!
But it's not talking about agreement. It's talking about power. The word means All might. Three different coequal persons cannot have all might. They would each have certain amount of might. Only one can have all might.Exactly! They are all in agreement!
Yes, I looked at the graphic. I'm familiar with it. It makes no sense.You failed to understand what I wrote to you, or you don't want to understand it, because I have said nothing about them not being co-eternal or co-equal because they are. Did you look at the graphic? If you look at that, then you'd understand how that is so.
He was the same being He is now. If there is no one and nothing to rule over there would be no need for the title god. I disagree that there are three that know each other fully.So, before Creation what was He? He won't need a name and has one that we might understand if but a little bit, who He Is.
You are correct it is only a Title! The essence is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They actually don't even need that distinction because they know each other fully. The distinction exists that we might understand who He is.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. King James Version, Mt 11:27.
This is one of the verses that disproves the doctrine. The word "man" is not in the Greek text, it was added by translators. The passage reads none know the Son but the Father. And vice versa. And Jesus uses the Greek word epiginosko, which means to fully know. One has to wonder if the Holy Spirit is a third person how is it that He doesn't know the Father or the Son? However, if the Holy Spirit is a reference to the Father this passage makes perfect sense.
That's what the word means. I can't change it to make it fit something preconceived. You don't have to worry about the mother issue. As I see it the Holy Spirit is a reference to God the Father, just as Jesus said.Yes, and the Father and Son are from the same essence doing so by the Holy Spirit that is of the same essence for there was nothing else. So, it would be impossible for one to be less than the other. And so is the beginning of the Trinity & Hierarchy.
Note: Please don't think of begotten in human terms of procreation, because if you do than you'll go down the rabbit hole of those who see the Holy Spirit as Mother! Which we had a new member who had been part of a church that believes that, and sadly has been chased away, by one of our not so loving members.
I'm confused. When you converse with God, you're addressing all three, but when you speak to just one, you're still speaking to God? So that would mean that when you're speaking to just one, you're actually speaking to all three, correct?When I converse with God, I address all three persons of the Trinity. However, when I speak specifically to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, I am still communicating with God, but with a particular focus within the divine hierarchy.
Because essence doesn't confer title. I gave an example. If the president has a son the son is of the same essence however, the son is not president. You agreed the word god is a title. Essentially, it's a ruler. If Jesus is begotten yet has no kingdom or people to rule over, how is He a ruler or God? He can't be. The title requires a kingdom and people to rule over.Why not if they are the same essence? That is why I believe it was in this thread, or might have been another, I said "A rose by any other name is still a rose." The inherent qualities are not changed at all no matter what you title it. This is where hierarchy comes into play. Each choose to willingly be who they are in the Godhead/Divinity. Which is why they are always in agreement. Father, Son, Holy Spirit is positional only and why they are God when acting on behalf of each other.
Don't be sorry Nick. You're trying to explain that which can't be explained. It's been 1500 years, and no one has been able to explain it. That was one of the big red flags to me. I don't understand how people have a doctrine that no one can explain, isn't in Scripture, and yet they so adamantly defend. It's bewildering.If this doesn't make sense to you, I'm truly sorry in failing to explain this to you in such a way that you would know. It is also the reason I sought some outside references that would be able to communicate to you and others in words that would be able to answer the questions you might have concerning this topic. And the reason I provided the link to the .pdf in my last post.
I have to disagree. The "God is outside of time" argument is just speculation. God may be outside of time; however, no one knows what that entails. I know some claim that to God, past, present, and future are all simultaneous, however that is mere speculation. As I see it, there is no way it makes sense. The doctrine simply requires me to suspend reality to accept it and I can't do that. God is not a God confusion.All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. John 16:15 KJV
Note: Which includes the Holy Spirit in this verse!
It all makes sense if you understand that God is out of "Time" and sees (maybe lives) it all in the "Now". Past, present, future, is in the "Now" until Jesus/Son of God as Son of Man was manifested in the flesh and He laid the attributes He had since before Time in order to do so.
The rest is just going back over what is covered above.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><