From Carm.Org link to forums.carm.org a trinitarain poster wrote and ignores the following answer in reference to the Oneness claim that the genuine man Jesus was praying to the one God that both Incarnated him, and who was still literally on the throne in heaven :
The poster then says:"You have God praying to himself or a sham. Please explain."
The writer then dishonestly writes the following in reply to his own from Oneness adherent and How that Jesus was both God and man at the same time and that a distinction must be made in Jesus as both David's son(Man) and David's LORD(God) concerning the incarnation.
He then adamantly rejects the answer and says:"This is not about Jesus, per se, but God in totality."
I would first pose how that this person thoughtlessly shoots himself in the foot with the question, and has God praying to himself. I would then remind him that even the Chalcedon confession which I personally put zero stock in and reject the majority of as un-scriptural; says the following:
"for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person."In Layman's terms the trinitarain confession says: there is a distinction in his human nature and his divine nature(Which Oneness adherents maintain) although Oneness states with scripture his divinity is the Father that incarnates the son and makes the son God. As Malachi 2:10 states: the totality of God is called the Father and not a person of "the trinity." ( Isa.9:6, Malachi 2:10,Math.28:18, Acts 2:36,John 14:10)
Most of the questions posed and presented by trinitarains affect their own doctrines as much or more than it does the Oneness. For example, take their argument and accusation of "patripassianism" or the accusation that we must hold the doctrine that "The father died" which is just as thoughtless as the former argument directed toward Oneness. Any God dying or praying is just as bad as the other whether it is the son dying as god or the father dying as God and Oneness do not teach that God as father or son died but the body and genuine humanity that God incarnated died. The very problem is highlighted in the Chalcedon creed that says:" Mary was the Mother of God" In one instance the creed says divinity and humanity is "inconfusedly" and in another confuses and makes no distinction with the mother of God quote.
What is the lesson here then? Well both trinitarains and Oneness in arguing their points better make sure to choose their answers carefully. And No, God does not pray; nor does he have need to pray because he has nothing higher in the way of having a God which then screams of polytheism! God no more prays any more than Mary was the mother of God! Both questions are distinction errors. Yes Jesus is God, and yes Jesus is man at the same time, Both David's son, and David's God or LORD. The scripture makes the distinction the poster from CARM dishonestly denied that which the bible makes claim. Think about it....
33 comments:
Any God dying or praying is just as bad as the other whether it is the son dying as god or the father dying as God and Oneness do not teach that God as father or son died but the body and genuine humanity that God incarnated died.
The difficulty with Oneness' understanding of the Incarnation is that there is no real union of the divine and human substances. If they are really unified, and if Jesus is really God and man at the same time (as you admit), then in Jesus there is one subject (that dreaded 'person' word, I know) of whom the acts of both the human and divine substances are predicated. Because this union in the hypostatic union is actual, via the communication of idioms God died, not because the divine substance suffered or died but because the human substance of Jesus is united to the hypostasis of the Son, and thus is actions are predicated of the Son. I fail to see how the Oneness view (or at least what you have espoused here) could escape outright Docetism.
The very problem is highlighted in the Chalcedon creed that says:" Mary was the Mother of God" In one instance the creed says divinity and humanity is "inconfusedly" and in another confuses and makes no distinction with the mother of God quote.
It continues on by stating in the very next phrase that she is the Mother of God 'according to the Manhood;' in other words, the human substance of Jesus has its origin from her. However, given the reality of the hypostatic union and that Jesus as both God and man is nevertheless a single subject, since Mary is the mother of Jesus she is thus the Mother of God, not that she originated the divine substance but rather that the via the communicatio idiomatum the act of the human substance is referred back to its subject in unity of the hypostatic union. Thus, the Chalcedonian creed very clearly makes a distinction; you just overlooked it, it would seem.
What is the lesson here then? Well both trinitarains and Oneness in arguing their points better make sure to choose their answers carefully.
A lesson you want to try to learn.
And No, God does not pray; nor does he have need to pray because he has nothing higher in the way of having a God which then screams of polytheism
I thought you said that Jesus was fully God and fully man? Why then should the human substance of Jesus not have use of prayer, given that, as a created being, it is not God and thus would have something higher to which to pray?
Most of the questions posed and presented by trinitarains affect their own doctrines as much or more than it does the Oneness.
Given my previous example, it would seem the same is true of you.
This was your one and only comment Jason.I am not going to debate you on comments you should have taken my phone call. God did not die the Person the spirit incarnated Died. Your three persons is downright polytheism Just like the Hindu's three person. You can que the whining.
We do not deny the genuine Human Being of Jesus is a person. I have difficulty with calling the spirit of God a person because For one the Bible does not say He is and you run into all kinds of other contradictions. The seven Spirits of God comes to mind if a spirit is a person.(John 4:24)If the divine substance did not suffer and die which is true then God did not suffer and die the Body and person God incarnated suffered and died and it is just as I said :God does not die and either dying is silly doctrine like Mary as the Mother of God which thoughtless drivel.
The Union is genuine BTW between the genuine One God, and One man.
I really do not care what you call me Jason(It is your opinion based on your own doctrine) as it does not mean very much. I view your doctrine as polytheism and it is very hard for you to escape that fact. Mary the mother of God according to manhood? Jason? really? I ma saying Jesus is God and the genuine man died. Mary s not the mother of God as God has no beginning or end. But when it comes to God the son you will then argue he pre-existed and the inconsistency will roll. Bye Bye Jason. trins are just too inconsistent.
God did not die the Person the spirit incarnated Died.
Naturally the divine nature did not die; no one is stating that. However, if Jesus really is going to be both God and man in a unity, that entails that Jesus is single possessor of his actions. A person is one to whom the activities of his substance can be predicated; that you needlessly limit 'person' as you do is somewhat curious. At any rate, if Jesus is really going to be a unity of action viz-a-viz the divine and human substances, what can be predicated of the human substance can be predicated of the divine substance via the communicatio idiomatum.
We do not deny the genuine Human Being of Jesus is a person.
Obviously you don't. Triniarianism, on the other hand, does deny this, at least insofar as the human substance is considered apart from the union with the Logos, the latter of which is the 'personhood' of Jesus.
I have difficulty with calling the spirit of God a person because For one the Bible does not say He is and you run into all kinds of other contradictions.
The Bible also doesn't say that Jesus is fully God and fully man (in so many words), but that doesn't stop one from reasonably extrapolating such an understanding of the Incarnation.
The seven Spirits of God comes to mind if a spirit is a person.(John 4:24)
The 'seven spirits' of God is a way of describing the fullness of the Spirit. Nowhere in Christian interpretative tradition (as far as I am aware) is this understood as referring to seven beings. Rather, it quite reasonably understands the significance of the numerological device employed, and as such presents no difficulty except for those who do not understand the distinction between univocal and equivocal language.
If the divine substance did not suffer and die which is true then God did not suffer and die the Body and person God incarnated suffered and died and it is just as I said
If this is true, then God was not the possessor of Jesus' actions and thus Jesus was not truly God. Looks like Docetism really is back on the table!
The Union is genuine BTW between the genuine One God, and One man.
Except, of course, for the fact that in your understanding God has absolutely no reference to Jesus' acts as not possessing them or being predicated of them, which seriously calls into question exactly what kind of union this is.
I really do not care what you call me Jason(It is your opinion based on your own doctrine) as it does not mean very much.
I don't recall calling you anything. If you are referring to my suggestion that your understanding logically culminates in Docetism, your quibble is with St. John, not with me.
I view your doctrine as polytheism and it is very hard for you to escape that fact
Strange, I haven't had any difficulty answering any of your assertions. You, on the other hand, have routinely ignored or dodge questions.
Mary the mother of God according to manhood? Jason? really?
I'm not entirely sure what you find so troubling about that. Mary was the mother of the human substance of Jesus, was she not? Jesus was in fact fully God, was he not? The divine and human substances were perfectly united in Jesus, were they not? If all of these are true, I fail to see what difficulty such a statement entails or how it is, as you stated earlier, 'thoughtless drivel.'
I ma saying Jesus is God and the genuine man died.
If Jesus is God, then God possesses the actions of Jesus. As such, one can predicate the acts of the human substance of the divine substance via the communciatio idiomatum. If you don't understand what that entails, just say so.
Mary s not the mother of God as God has no beginning or end.
In that she is the not the mother of the divine substance, obviously she is not the mother of God. That is why Chalcedon states that she is the Mother of God 'according to the manhood.'
But when it comes to God the son you will then argue he pre-existed and the inconsistency will roll.
Well, seeing as St. Paul and St. John speak of how the Son was before all things and the one through whom all things were made, I'm not sure where you are locating this inconsistency, unless your argument is that St. Paul and St. John are being inconsistent.
I write:Any God dying or praying is just as bad as the other whether it is the son dying as god or the father dying as God and Oneness do not teach that God as father or son died but the body and genuine humanity that God incarnated died.
Jason then writes:The difficulty with Oneness' understanding of the Incarnation is that there is no real union of the divine and human substances. If they are really unified, and if Jesus is really God and man at the same time (as you admit), then in Jesus there is one subject (that dreaded 'person' word, I know) of whom the acts of both the human and divine substances are predicated. Because this union in the hypostatic union is actual, via the communication of idioms God died, not because the divine substance suffered or died(Rolling of Eyes then say so) but because the human substance of Jesus is united to the hypostasis of the Son, and thus is actions are predicated of the Son. I fail to see how the Oneness view (or at least what you have espoused here) could escape outright Docetism.
Rotfl! "Docetism" is the belief that Jesus was a divine Spirit being Only pretending to be a man? The very thing I accuse you trinity adherents of! How did you come to that ridiculous conclusion? Jason you have proven yourself lacking in any understanding of what I have said. Do not come back an bother me if you do not understand what is being said.
The union of the Divine and human substance was exactly my position and it is genuine union of God and man in the incarnation. To confuse one or the other, is neither though!That is what you do without giving any thought to it. To confuse his genuine humanity and divinity and mix that in some weird mishmash is neither God nor man.
You and I can be in unity but it does not mean we are mixed we remain distinct. Jesus was given the spirit by no measure that you measure (John 3:34) John 3:35 says that was Jesus and Not every christian that was the given the spirit by no measure. Then you write me the following: Jason writes
It continues on by stating in the very next phrase that she is the Mother of God 'according to the Manhood;' in other words, the human substance of Jesus has its origin from her.
You are confusing the incarnation and use an extra-biblical source as though it is the word of God to force your false doctrine of God the son.
I would not have such a problem if Oneness were saying something to this effect because we do see that God shed his own Blood. How? In and through the Union of incarnation. That shedding of blood was not god the fictitious son shedding blood it was God period in the incarnation! (God was In Christ reconcilling the world unto himself 2nd. Cor.5:19) It did not say god the son was Christ did it Jason? It said God was In Christ! The son was he to whom the one God incarnated.
The rest of this is just ore of the same old bothersome drivel you have been giving for years that proves nothing but that you are a die hard trinitarains and I am not impressed.
I write: If the divine substance did not suffer and die which is true then God did not suffer and die the Body and person God incarnated suffered and died and it is just as I said
Jason responds :If this is true, then God was not the possessor of Jesus' actions and thus Jesus was not truly God. Looks like Docetism really is back on the table!
Shaking of Head! Jason Docetism is Jesus pretending to be a man and a divine spirit being only. That is your doctrine not mine.
Jesus has two Spirits,One divine as God (the father John 14:10) and One
human spirit as a genuine man.(Luke 23:46) You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
I have given you chance after chance and this is just to ridiculous to deal with as you are either very dishonest or you do not understand.
Jason, I am not going to publish your posts of ignorance. you need to learn how to not contradict yourself it is embarrassing for you. I was not sourcing the creed as authoritative to prove anything for my own beliefs and doctrines I was showing hos they were contradictory. You continue to embarrass yourself. Look at the following: No I was not arguing from an exrtrabibical source I used your creed to show how silly your doctrines really are. I was not trying to prove my own doctrines and beliefs Jason.
Jason Watson wrote"So let me get this straight; you begin by arguing from an extra-biblical source that such and such an understanding is misguided, but then when your argument viz-a-viz that extra-biblical source is thoroughly dismantled you retreat into your rather sophmoric whimper that its an extra-biblical source?"
Your total disregard and misunderstanding and more than likely dishonest application for my accurate explanation for Docetism is astounding. I said nothing about a spirit being only But a divine spirit pretending to be a man. Then you reject My explaination of the Union of God(Faher) and man(The son)as the incarnation. So then I must accept yours? Really? Yours in nutshell is God the son changed from one thing int another and went back to being the other. after he left the earth which is nonsense!
Jason, I am not going to publish your posts of ignorance. you need to learn how to not contradict yourself it is embarrassing for you.
Jason:Given that you have yet to once substantiate how I have supposedly 'contradicted' myself, and since you feel it necessary to make these sorts of statements outside of the arguments I present, one can only assume that my arguments are so devastating to your own that you cannot bear to show the carnage to anyone but yourself. If that isn't the case, one might be forgiven for assuming that you'd actually make an attempt at a refutation..
Me:ROTFL! Jason, You give no arguments There are none here now, nor were there any in these comments. The only thing I see is criticisms and anger from you and you think your big words are impressive. You have been doing this same thing for years now.
Me. I was not sourcing the creed as authoritative to prove anything for my own beliefs and doctrines I was showing hos they were contradictory.
Jason:Sigh...I am never quite sure if you simply do not understand what constitutes an argument, or if you are being deliberately obtuse.
me:shaking of head.
Jason:It is painfully obvious that you were not sourcing the creed as authoritative- I never said nor even intimated that you did. Rather, my point was that it is intellectually dishonest to assert it is contradictory as a plank in your argument, and then, when your rather tendentious understanding of it is so thoroughly dismantled, fall back to the notion that 'it's not authoritative.'
Look at the following: No I was not arguing from an exrtrabibical source I used your creed to show how silly your doctrines really are. I was not trying to prove my own doctrines and beliefs Jason.
Obviously. Seriously, no one with a modicrum of intellectual honesty would have suspected that I was suggesting you were attempting to buttress your argument by means of appealing to the authority of the creed. It was equally obvious that you were trying to show it was contradictory. I, however, demonstrated how your understanding was incorrect.
Me: Um no,You attempted that and failed! You are simply a legend in your own mind. Take your own advice and learn what an argument is. Your attempt for years have been misunderstandings and then you blame me and say I was not clear or whatever your excuses have been.
Jason:It was only once your tendentious understanding was undone that you doubled back to your standard line of 'it's not authoritative.' Convenient, but sophmoric on your part. Just admit you were wrong, or ignorant, or whatever. There's no shame in that. It's certainly better than doubling down on your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
Me:I am not doing any such thing ever! If you want to believe that nonsense go right ahead. Ignorance? That would be you… But there is no argument here either. I have yet to encounter an actual argument from you.
Your total disregard and misunderstanding and more than likely dishonest application for my accurate explanation for Docetism is astounding.
Jason:I didn't disregard your explanation; rather, I demonstrated how it was rather superficial and in no way exclusive of the application I applied to your position.
Docetism is the same exact doctrine you hold that God the son pretends to be a man. That is your doctrine not mine.
You do not know what you are talking about here is the definition from the Catholic encyclopedia.
Semblance An ancient sect that taught Christ only appeared to be a man.
Now do not continue to tell me I being dishonest you did not even bother to check any sources in your bogus claim that I was a docetist. The rest of your post was just as bad as all the others and meaningless.
Me:ROTFL! Jason, You give no arguments There are none here now, nor were there any in these comments.
I argued that your position logically culminates in a form of Docetism. I then provided a more substantial understanding and definition of the latter and then explained how your concept of union falls into that definition, using your own arguments and statements as evidence. How is that not an argument?
The only thing I see is criticisms and anger from you and you think your big words are impressive. You have been doing this same thing for years now.
I have absolutely no anger towards you, so if you think that is what my demolition of your arguments arises from, you are either making wild assumptions or projecting your own predilections upon me. Given that I do not appropriate clarivoyant powers for myself, I am unable to say what your motivations are, and frankly I am not terribly interested in them. But if you want to go on wrongly assuming I am angry, I suppose I cannot stop you.
As for criticism- it is evident that irony is lost on you when you make this kind of argument that is just as applicable to yourself. As for ‘big words’- I fail to see how that makes any difference one way or another. Again, you seem to assume I am using them to 'impress,' but on the contrary I am using them for precision, which is why 'big' words exist. But if you want to make more wild and unfounded assumptions, again, I cannot stop you.
Me: Um no,You attempted that and failed! You are simply a legend in your own mind. Take your own advice and learn what an argument is. Your attempt for years have been misunderstandings and then you blame me and say I was not clear or whatever your excuses have been.
Your clarity of thought (or lack thereof) is rarely the issue; rather, it is that you consistently misrepresent the position of your opponent, and then when you are called out on it and shown to be in error you double-back onto more of the same. And every time I ask you to demonstrate where I have misunderstood you, you fail to substantiate your assertions.
If I am so unaware of what an argument is, then why don't you educate me on what one is?
Me:I am not doing any such thing ever! If you want to believe that nonsense go right ahead. Ignorance? That would be you… But there is no argument here either. I have yet to encounter an actual argument from you.
You are not doing what? My argument was that you began with a line from the creed, attempting to show it was contradictory, which is what you did (and what you admitted to doing). I then argued that you retreated back to your normative position of 'it's not authoritative,' which you also did. If my dismantling of your original misunderstanding 'failed,' then why not press the original assertion more fully or rebut my argument?
Docetism is the same exact doctrine you hold that God the son pretends to be a man. That is your doctrine not mine. You do not know what you are talking about here is the definition from the Catholic encyclopedia.
More baseless assertions- wonderful. I can see that my education in argumentation is proceeding apace...
As for the Catholic Encyclopedia definition- I have no difficulty with that definition, but given that it is an encyclopedia, it is necessarily limited and succinct. It hardly scratches the surface of the philosophical underpinnings of such a system, not to mention that "Docetism" (like most early sects) was hard to pin down since it were extraordinarily diverse in its theologies/philosophies. But if you want to double-down on a superficial definition, I cannot stop you. It doesn't, however, obviate my critique or answer how, in your position, God is not the subject of Jesus' acts but is still in union with him so as to have an actual incarnation.
(Greek Doketai.)
A heretical sect dating back to
Here is the Catholic definition of Docetism form the catholic Encyclopedia.
Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, "appearance" or "semblance", because they taught that Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ's human nature altogether, some only the reality of His human body or of His birth or death. The word Docetae which is best rendered by "Illusionists"
It is a Gnostic doctrine and denies Jesus genuine humanity! You have falsely accused me and stated I must defend myself against your charge. You simply charged me with no proof! I greatly espouse the genuine humanity of the son incarnated by God. You on the other hand do not believe Jesus had a human spirit, will mind intellect but a God mind only. That is a pretend man and Docetism.
So your big play is to reject the definition of Docetism and give me your own definition. You talk about "Clarvoyent?" I have no idea what your made up definition is of docetism. You are a moving target sir! You change the definition because you say it is vague. ROTFL! It is not vague! It means to pretend to be a man. That is your very doctrine. I know you do not like being told that. BTW, if Jesus is a pretend man then your incarnation is bogus also! I posted these so everyone can see just what you do.
MLC:It is a Gnostic doctrine and denies Jesus genuine humanity! You have falsely accused me and stated I must defend myself against your charge. You simply charged me with no proof!
Jason Watson:Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension then, as I already wrote at least a paragraph of explanation concerning this.
MLC:Shaking of Head. Your whole reason for rabidly stalking me here is because you do not like the fact that I refuse to use your thoughtless language. "God died" "God was born" "Mary was the mother of God"
Jason:Succinctly- since in your view God is not the subject of Jesus' acts, the union of divinity and humanity in Jesus could be only apparent, but hardly real.
MLC:Jason, Psalm 121:3-4 says God never sleeps, he is always watching.
But Jesus as a genuine man slept(Mark 4:38)
Both God and man exist in Jesus at the same time.
Unlike you, I rightfully attribute both to Jesus, but with a clear distinction you confuse. Because of the incarnation and the two realities found of Jesus you cannot confuse the two or you have neither God, nor man, but something else.
You will refuse my explanation because you have been doing this for years starting on my debate group on yahoo many years back.
Jason:In other words, the logical conclusion of your position is that Jesus (who you maintain is the Father incarnated) does not really have a body since the acts of that human substance cannot be properly attributed to God.
MLC:The Father(God) has a Body, that body and genuine man is the son of God. I have already stated in another post like the scriptures God shed his own Blood.(Acts 20:28)
You on the other hand do not have God with a body really because you are equivocating. Your god is a trinity. only a third of god had a body. Thus by your own criteria you are admitting you are docetist. You will then come back and say what is attributed to one person is attributed to all.
So for 3 days were missing all of God? God died? You do not believe that. His genuine sinless humanity died.
Jason: So whether one is arguing that Jesus' body was not literally material or that God does not posses the human substance as being the subject of its acts, the end result is not meaningfully different.
MLC:I think you argue just to argue. God gave the man his own spirit by no measure.The man possessed the spirit by no measure. This was not Spirit possession of a puppet Jason!
Jason: I would restate why this is not incompatible with a Docetist understanding, but I've already explained that before and it's there to be revisited.
part 1
part 2
MLC: You really do not know what you are talking about. But I know you will simply keep blathering on and on.
MLC:I greatly espouse the genuine humanity of the son incarnated by God.
Jason:I never said that you didn't 'greatly espouse it,' nor can you point to a place where I have. Rather, my point was that since in your view God is not the subject of the human substance's acts, God is not actually incarnated and thus has not actually come in the flesh, which is St. John's critique of nascent Docetism in 1 John.
"God is not the subject of the human substance acts?" Well, a ventriloquist would be the subject of the dummies acts. Right? What is the difference between your explanation and the ventriloquist then? God and man at the same time both exist in Jesus. You refuse one to posit your trinity doctrine of god the son. The only thing that is really meaningful to you. Which does not exist in scripture by the way.
Jason: Again, whether that body is literally material (which Docetists within their particular philosophical presuppositions could have actually maintained given the view of the relation of the material to the ideal) or not doesn't change the fact that in both cases (i.e., yours and the Docetists) the human substance's acts cannot be meaningfully predicated of God. That is is deeper significance that St. John and the early polemicists were combating.
MLC:Although you mean well with your critique it lacks any real depth of thought and argumentation. You really confuse the incarnation. The sons mind is only god the son animating a body or possessing a body for show.
MLC:You on the other hand do not believe Jesus had a human spirit, will mind intellect but a God mind only. That is a pretend man and Docetism.
I find it ironic that you earlier attempt to quote the Council of Chalcedon as a means to demonstrate something contradictory about Trinitarianism, but then somehow miss the part where it explicitly predicates a human mind and spirit of Jesus in stating that each nature retains what is proper to it.
Is that four persons then? The fake man's mind(1) God the sons mind(2) God the fathers Mind (3) God the Holy Ghost's mind (4)
You are just giving lip service Jason. In Oneness there is only One Mind of God and 1 genuine limited man's mind, who by the way, is not Just a puppet.
MLC:You on the other hand do not believe Jesus had a human spirit, will mind intellect but a God mind only. That is a pretend man and Docetism.
Again, where have I ever stated that Jesus did not have a human spirit? Prove it from something I have said, if you can. We both realize you can't since you never have every time I have challenged you, so why continue arguing like a fifth-grader?
Is that four persons then? The fake man's mind(1) God the sons mind(2) God the fathers Mind (3) God the Holy Ghost's mind (4)
Honestly, have you never read anything about what trinitarianism actually asserts? or are you just feigning abject ignorance? 'Person' is not equivalent to 'mind,' and as such there are not three minds in the trinity, but rather one. And obviously you have no idea what triniatarianism asserts viz-a-viz the Incarnation since the man in his human substance is not a person but is so due to the union with the Logos who is the 'person' of Jesus. Again, if you are going to get beyond arguing like a fifth-grader, you'd do well to know what your opponent actually thinks.
You are just giving lip service Jason.
Is this that clairvoyance peeking through again?
In Oneness there is only One Mind of God and 1 genuine limited man's mind, who by the way, is not Just a puppet.
Yes, I know what you assert regarding Oneness' understanding of the Incarnation, but you still haven't answered how God can really be united to the human substance if God is not the subject of the human substance's acts.
MLC:Is that four persons then? The fake man's mind(1) God the sons mind(2) God the fathers Mind (3) God the Holy Ghost's mind (4)
Jason:Honestly, have you never read anything about what trinitarianism actually asserts? or are you just feigning abject ignorance? 'Person' is not equivalent to 'mind,' and as such there are not three minds in the trinity, but rather one. And obviously you have no idea what triniatarianism asserts viz-a-viz the Incarnation since the man in his human substance is not a person but is so due to the union with the Logos who is the 'person' of Jesus. Again, if you are going to get beyond arguing like a fifth-grader, you'd do well to know what your opponent actually thinks.
MLC: Now we are getting to the meat of things. You have just proven you give lip service to his humanity and have god the son animating a puppet. Jason, you and I are both men and e have minds.
What you want to do is confuse the incarnation and refuse his genuine humanity.It is exactly what trinity doctrine states that mind is equivalent to person.You will not accept the definitions given or the current authorities so there is no use arguing. You admitted your Jesus is not a man with no real man's mind. Your Union is a body animated like puppet with a God mind only. That is what is meant by you.
I know not much is said because this part you would not want to talk about too much. Nobody has ever argued it for you.
You are equivocating and I am glad we have gotten to the heart of the matter with you and your false doctrine of polytheism. A man with no mind is a dead man. A man with a god mind only is a pretend man, and a Hercules fake man. This is the heart of the matter. If you do not like Dr.White saying God has 3 centers of Consciousness then you should debate him.
You will not accept the definitions given or the current authorities so there is no use arguing.
Firstly, what 'definitions' are you talking about? The 'three centers of self-consciousness?' Given that I don't know what is meant by that phrase, I have no way to reasonably make a judgment on it one way or another. 'Consciousness,' after all, could be being used as a short-hand or as an equivalent term for 'person,' or it could be being used to denote something else which may or not not be compatible with the traditional language of 'person.' The phrase in and of itself is not a definition, but if you are so knowledgable about what it entails, then perhaps you can provide a definition that encompasses what those who employ it actually mean by it. I mean, obviously you must know exactly what it means and entails and aren't just making a knee-jerk reaction to another phrase you don't understand, right?
As an aside, the reason I naturally prefer 'person' over 'center of consciousness' is that, beyond not knowing what any given person entails by the latter, the former at least has a long pedigree of traditional explication. That is, the term 'person' within Trinitarian theology has a historical and traditional meaning. I would point you to Aquinas if you have any doubt as to what I mean by 'person.' 'Center of self-consciousness' may have a similar meaning, or it may entail something else, depending on who is employing it. Again, if you know exactly what is entailed by this phrase, point me to some documentation that defines it within the context of its use.
Secondly, the 'current authority' you mention (James White, I presume) is perhaps an authority in his own circle, but Trinitarian explication had a far longer pedigree than this which is easily accessible. Why should James White take precedence over the historical and traditional explication of Trinitarianism simply because he is contemporary?
Thirdly, where have I ever stated that I do not 'accept' the 'current authorities?' My point earlier was that I have very little familiarity with White or what his teaches, and so if anything I would be claiming agnosticism regarding him and his assertions, since I have little to no acquaintance with him.
Lastly, all this is really just a distraction from the questions I have asked and you have failed to answer. None of my arguments are predicated on White's explication of the Trinity, so I really do not understand why you keep bringing him up rather than engaging my arguments as they are presented. Perhaps you think White is an easier target and you think you can try for a little guilt by association? I'm not saying this is actually what you are doing, but if not then forget about White and engage my arguments as they are presented.
MLC:You will not accept the definitions given or the current authorities so there is no use arguing.
Jason:Firstly, what 'definitions' are you talking about? The 'three centers of self-consciousness?'
MLC: I do not recognize you s any authority. I would also say your argumentation sounds as if you are Catholic. Yes 3 centers of consciousness and Dr.White is the target since he made the assumption and attempted to defend it.
Jason:Given that I don't know what is meant by that phrase, I have no way to reasonably make a judgment on it one way or another.
MLC: You are not the foremost authority today on the false doctrine of the trinity, he is.
Jason:'Consciousness,' after all, could be being used as a short-hand or as an equivalent term for 'person,' or it could be being used to denote something else which may or not not be compatible with the traditional language of 'person.'
MLC: Yeah and that is why we are having these discussions. I do not really believe there is a whole lot of difference between "being" and "person." I belie it is equivocation to say God is one what and 3 who's. God could be One what and 7 who's with the spirits of God. But I believe God is One what and 1 who! God and man ie. Jesus!
Jason: The phrase in and of itself is not a definition, but if you are so knowledgable about what it entails, then perhaps you can provide a definition that encompasses what those who employ it actually mean by it.
MLC: Jason, I could ignore you completely. But I have given you a platform in my comments box to discuss your differences with the foremost authority(Dr.White) of the false doctrine of the trinity. I do not have to argue with you.
Jason:I mean, obviously you must know exactly what it means and entails and aren't just making a knee-jerk reaction to another phrase you don't understand, right?
MLC: I understand 3 centers of consciousness perfectly well. I also understand you as a trinitarian do not like it. I do not have to publish any of your comments here.
Jason:As an aside, the reason I naturally prefer 'person' over 'center of consciousness' is that, beyond not knowing what any given person entails by the latter, the former at least has a long pedigree of traditional explication. That is, the term 'person' within Trinitarian theology has a historical and traditional meaning.
The term person does not get to the heart of anything. The term must be defined so everyone can understand. There is no term in scripture employed in the manner in which you use it for God. I do not like the term at all since it does not exist in scripture. So since you like it it should be used? Be honest it is not in scripture and men from history are not the scriptures. Jason, Hymeneus and Philetus were right there with the Apostles(2nd.Tim.2:17) and somehow managed to teach false doctrine and you want me to accept men simply on the merits that you believe they were part of the Body in history? How could I go wrong believing scripture instead of your history? Hmmm?I believe One could be deceived just misunderstanding the scriptures alone that is why we must have the word and the spirit to confirm the word.Even then we could be deceived if we are not careful. Hymeneus and Philetus must have had the spirit but quenched the spirit and refused truth and were deceived.How much more should we be careful? I do not believe your men in history should be viewed as the keepers of truth. Maybe you think the popes should determine that for us?
part 1
part 2
Jason: I would point you to Aquinas if you have any doubt as to what I mean by 'person.' 'Center of self-consciousness' may have a similar meaning, or it may entail something else, depending on who is employing it. Again, if you know exactly what is entailed by this phrase, point me to some documentation that defines it within the context of its use.
MLC: Go read Dr. Whites apologetics or his books "The Forgotten Trinity" would be a good start. I own it myself. He does not give a clear definition for the term because I believe he makes it up as he goes because there is nothing in scripture for the term. In his book he attempts it in pgs.25-31 with nothing simply saying to put the baggage for person like we know already for mankind upon God. Well, why even use the term then? He defines God and the the 3 persons further in his debate with Roger Perkins.
Jason:Secondly, the 'current authority' you mention (James White, I presume) is perhaps an authority in his own circle, but Trinitarian explication had a far longer pedigree than this which is easily accessible. Why should James White take precedence over the historical and traditional explication of Trinitarianism simply because he is contemporary?
MLC: He is the One with the PHD doing all the debating thus making himself the target and often quotes the very history and sources you are telling me to look at just like you. I go for the big fish when fishing. I often catch little fish lie you and have to throw them back.
Jason:Thirdly, where have I ever stated that I do not 'accept' the 'current authorities?' My point earlier was that I have very little familiarity with White or what his teaches, and so if anything I would be claiming agnosticism regarding him and his assertions, since I have little to no acquaintance with him.
MLC: I sent him our discussion and your views on this subject and am now waiting to see if he will answer. He will more than likely make the same type charges you are making that is if he even answers me back at all. we shall see. I have heard him make the charge of liberal scholarship to those who do not agree with him.
Jason:Lastly, all this is really just a distraction from the questions I have asked and you have failed to answer. None of my arguments are predicated on White's explication of the Trinity, so I really do not understand why you keep bringing him up rather than engaging my arguments as they are presented. Perhaps you think White is an easier target and you think you can try for a little guilt by association? I'm not saying this is actually what you are doing, but if not then forget about White and engage my arguments as they are presented.
You charged me with no incarnation. ROTFL! I charge you with the same thing. I do not believe John 1:1 is a passage to be used for the incarnation I think it is a lousy shallow gloss over the passage and rough-shod scholarship.
Jesus is God in the flesh! So, if he is God? Then the word/Logos is with him as God. The word or Logos is God's means of creating and judging by the breath of his mouth.(Psalm 33:6) It was not one person with another person. Jesus wields the sword of the word in the judgment. I think the trinitarian explanation of John 1:1 is silly non-sesne. Do not bother answering because I am not going to post your replies. I want Dr.White to pipe in but he may ignore me altogether.
There is a genuine unity of God and man in the incarnation and many passages speak about it. Isa.9:6,11:2,John 3:34,John 10:30, 14:10 2nd.Cor.5:19,Col.2:9,1st.Tim.3:16,
and many others.
Jesus said I can of mine own-self do no miracles/works.Was that God or man speaking?
Here is some good examples of what I mean By Jason equivocating. An evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant distinctions or objections.
I write the following of the trinity : God is one what and 3 who's.
I then state:God could be One what and 7 who's with the spirits of God. But I believe God is One what and 1 who! God and man ie. Jesus!
He takes My point in one post (I did not allow to get through and moderated) and he takes issue with me saying:" God is One what and one who." ROTFL!
Jason:So Jesus is one what and one who? Or is it just that you don't know how to properly use 'i.e.'? I thought Jesus was both God and man; that is, that he had a divine substance and a human substance. You know, 1 who and two whats. But then, you said that it is equivocating to assert anything other than 1 to 1 correspondence between what and who, so you are either contradicting your previous assertion or you are asserting that Jesus' 'what' is just one thing. So it is divine, is it human, or is it some other kind of 'what?'
I said God is One what(God and man) and 1 who(Jesus)Yes you are equivocating. Jesus is God and man. God is man (Jesus)
You Even take issue with my usage of IE. For the example of.
You try and wrangle everything I say into your false doctrine of the thoughtless trinity. I have to be careful while you run rough-shod through the scriptures with your Mary the mother of God and no thought or distinction in using it. Jason I am not playing these games with you anymore.
Don't bother filling up my comments because no more comments are getting through from you unless you want to take a phone call or a debate.
Here is some good examples of what I mean By Jason equivocating. An evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant distinctions or objections.
Pointing out equivocation is not irrelevant, since equivocation deals with the substance of the argument set forth.
I write the following of the trinity : God is one what and 3 who's. I then state:God could be One what and 7 who's with the spirits of God. But I believe God is One what and 1 who! God and man ie. Jesus! He takes My point in one post (I did not allow to get through and moderated) and he takes issue with me saying:" God is One what and one who." ROTFL!
You are the one who is always accusing me of making a human-divine hybrid, but then you mention here that God is one 'what.' The 'whatness' in question is substance, and if Jesus is one substance then I fail to see how your assertion escapes the very hybrid you accuse others of holding.
However, since it is obvious from other statements that you don't actually think Jesus has one substance but rather has a human substance and a divine substance, to say that Jesus is one 'what' is yet another example of you equivocating, which was my point in the first place. Or is that not relevant? Maybe you should spend less time rolling on the floor laughing and more time keeping your argument consistent with itself.
I said God is One what(God and man) and 1 who(Jesus)Yes you are equivocating. Jesus is God and man. God is man (Jesus)
God and man are two 'whats' (divine substance and human substance), not one. To semantically merge them into one 'what' as you have done here is a textbook example of what 'equivocation' means. But again, it seems you don't know what the term means since you not only engage in it yourself but still fail to point out where I have supposedly equivocated.
You Even take issue with my usage of IE. For the example of.
Um, i.e. means 'that is' (from the Latin 'id est') whereas e.g. means 'for example' (form the Latin 'exempli gratia'). So yes, I would take issue with it, since you have just now demonstrated you don't know what it means!
You try and wrangle everything I say into your false doctrine of the thoughtless trinity.
Actually, most of my arguments are setting your own arguments and assertions against themselves, demonstrating your rather consistent lack of consistency. If I am begging the question, as you implicitly assert here, then demonstrate an example. If you ever get around to it, I'll give you a hint: start with 'e.g.' and not 'i.e.!'
Jason:Pointing out equivocation is not irrelevant, since equivocation deals with the substance of the argument set forth.
MLC:I write the following of the trinity : God is one what and 3 who's. I then state:God could be One what and 7 who's with the spirits of God. But I believe God is One what and 1 who! God and man ie. Jesus! He takes My point in one post (I did not allow to get through and moderated) and he takes issue with me saying:" God is One what and one who." ROTFL!
Jason:
You are the one who is always accusing me of making a human-divine hybrid, but then you mention here that God is one 'what.
MLC: The Human divine Hybrid I accuse you of has nothing to do with genuine incarnation. I accuse all trins. of it.You make no genuine distinction if you did you would have four persons.That is another pifall of your word person. In genuine Incarnation there is a unity of the divine and Human in Jesus. Your divine is "God the son"(Which is not found in scripture) Your man is also god the son. How come the man does not converse with god the son? You have god the son only who interacts with the other two "persons."
We have father and son, man and God both exist in Jesus and the divine also exists outside of Jesus. That is it that is the interaction.!
Jason:' The 'whatness' in question is substance, and if Jesus is one substance then I fail to see how your assertion escapes the very hybrid you accuse others of holding.
MLC:What Jesus is,is Both man and God unconfused. ie. the unity or incarnation You would say that is two persons. Alright,let's say that just for your sake? How many persons does that give you? Your Jesus is not a man. The man would have to interact with your god the son but there is no man there is onlt god the son pretending.
Jason: However, since it is obvious from other statements that you don't actually think Jesus has one substance but rather has a human substance and a divine substance, to say that Jesus is one 'what' is yet another example of you equivocating, which was my point in the first place. Or is that not relevant?
Who is the man substance Jesus united with un-confusedly? Jesus did say he was a man was he lying?
Here is what a trinitarain says by Matt Slick:
"One of the lesser known biblical doctrines concerns Jesus as a man right now. Many do not know that right now, in heaven, Jesus is a man, though in a glorified body. Some object to this and cite various reasons (answered at the end of this paper) for denying His present humanity. They are in error."
I agree, Matt Slick is correct. But How? Does the man converse with the God? I read lip service but how does that work? Can the man Jesus converse with the God Jesus? Or does he change hats so to speak? You all do not believe that.
part 1
Part 2
In Jesus is Both God(Father Not son) and son(Man, Not god the son) That is the incarnation and unity. You do not have that but rather a confusion and mixture which is neither God nor man.
Jason:Maybe you should spend less time rolling on the floor laughing and more time keeping your argument consistent with itself.
MLC: You let me worry abut my own arguments. I am not taking anything I said back! Consistency is something you need very badly
MLC:I said God is One what(God and man) and 1 who(Jesus)Yes you are equivocating. Jesus is God and man. God is man (Jesus)
Jason:God and man are two 'whats' (divine substance and human substance), not one.
MLC:Really? So I am getting you to admit you have four persons then?3 persons of god and 1 man are four persons right? Using your word person... Or is that just lip service? My one is a one of Unity yes One what god manifest in flesh! One who: Jesus!
Jason: To semantically merge them into one 'what' as you have done here is a textbook example of what 'equivocation' means.
MLC: The scriptures do that with the incarnation. The Only Gd I know is Jesus!
Jason:But again, it seems you don't know what the term means since you not only engage in it yourself but still fail to point out where I have supposedly equivocated.
MLC: You seem Like One angry fella because I am contradicting your doctrine Jason. I also know what ie. means.
Jason:If you have one 'who,' then Jesus would be the subject of the human substance's acts, would he not? And if Jesus is God, then God would be the subject of the human substance's acts, would he not? Yet this is the very thing you deny, so either you are equivocating on 'person' and 'who' or you simply don't know how to keep your argument straight.
MLC: What are talking about? Within Jesus is Both the One God and the One man. I do not deny anything. Where did you come up with this? This is why I said the ventriloquist(god the son) is the subject of the dummies(The fake) man's) acts.
There is no denial of God's acts within Jesus. Jesus said the father that dwells in e he does the works and miracles you see me do.(John 14:10) I simply do not confuse the incarnation as do you.
MLC: The scriptures do that with the incarnation. The Only God I know is Jesus!
Jason:The scriptures semantically merge the two substances so as to equivocate on the notion of 'substance?' Really...where?
MLC: Do you mean confuse by merge? You must Because you will not admit there is a man that prays to God. You are saying there is a god the son in Jesus but not enough the man can pray to him. That is why I refuse trinity doctrine.
There is no man with you because he cannot interact with the God in Jesus only the God in Jesus interacts or he trades hats something your side has been trying to put in Oneness.
Jason:" Jesus would be the subject of the human substance's acts."
MLC:Of course "Jesus is the subject of the human subject's acts."
Within Jesus are not Just a genuine man, or not just the One genuine God. Both exist in Jesus. That is why even though Jesus was Born we can say he pre-existed and even though the son did not pre-exist as son really the bible says Adam Came before Jesus.( Romans 5:14, 1st. Cor.15:47) The divinity that incarnated him pre-existed. Trinity doctrine says the same thing although we argue over who that was. The son was born of Mary(Math.1:20-21) But you will confuse that and say it was God the son incarnated by god the word/son)
Romans 5:14 Adam who was the figure
of him that was to come.
Adam was made in Jesus image even though The son of God was not back there. It is the incarnation that puts the son as pre-existng. That is what was meant when god said let us make man in our image after our likeness.(Gen.1:26)
When you say Jesus you really mean god the son only. I refuse that false doctrine. Jesus is both God and man and both are attributed to Jesus. That is why Jesus did not know the time of His own second coming but the father ONLY(Mark 13:32)
Jesus said I can of mine ownself do no miracles.(John 5:30)
The father that dwells *in* carne *ME*(Incarnation Latin) he does the works and miracles you see ME do.(John 14:10) The Father incarnated the son.
MLC:The divinity that incarnated him pre-existed. Trinity doctrine says the same thing although we argue over who that was.
Jason:Actually, Trinitarianism does not assert this, since there is no 'him' apart from the person of God the Son for the divine substance to incarnate.
MlC: You want to talk about equivocating? There is no god the son in scripture period! I am arguing with you over a doctrine nor any of the ideas that exist in scripture. This was your last hurrah.
MLC:The son was born of Mary(Math.1:20-21) But you will confuse that and say it was God the son incarnated by god the word/son)
Jason:God the Son was not incarnated by anybody,
MLC: The only truth you have told here! He did not exist not in scripture or anywhere accept in your tradition.
Jason: nor did he incarnate anybody since God the Son was the subject of the Incarnation.
ROTFL! He does not even exist in scripture.
It is the incarnation that puts the son as pre-existng. That is what was meant when god said let us make man in our image after our likeness.(Gen.1:26)
I'm curious. You refuse to predicate of God as a subject the acts of the human substance of Jesus. Yet here you read this passage (as far as I can understand your reading) as referring to the Incarnation; that is, the image and likeness of God is the humanity of Jesus.
The difficulty is that for God to say 'our likeness' in reference to the human substance, such a statement would imply that God is the subject of that image and likeness, and thus the human substance's acts would be predicated of God as a subject.
Thus, your explanation here would seem to contradict your explanation of the unity in the Incarnation, would it not? If not, how do you avoid such a conclusion given the premises you have offered?
On another note- are we still going to debate sometime? What format did you have in mind?
MLC:That is the incarnation that puts the son as pre-existng. That is what was meant when god said let us make man in our image after our likeness.(Gen.1:26)
Jason:I'm curious. You refuse to predicate of God as a subject the acts of the human substance of Jesus.
MLC: No I do not! I refuse to say: "God died! I refuse to say God was born. God is eternal, God cannot die. God never sleeps either. But the genuine man and his own son that he incarnated slept. A God that dies is no God at all. God is Life.
Jason:Yet here you read this passage (as far as I can understand your reading) as referring to the Incarnation; that is, the image and likeness of God is the humanity of Jesus.
MLC: Correct!
Jason:The difficulty is that for God to say 'our likeness' in reference to the human substance, such a statement would imply that God is the subject of that image and likeness, and thus the human substance's acts would be predicated of God as a subject.
Thus, your explanation here would seem to contradict your explanation of the unity in the Incarnation, would it not?
MLC: Absolutely not! I simply make a distinction. Like you do with your three persons. God the father did not die you say. I say Gof the father did not die because he cannot die.
You say: God the son did. I say the son died. If there was a god the son he would not be able to die as Gd or would not be God.
My distinction is between the deity that did not die, and the genuine humanity incarnated and that was born, lived a life on this earth and died and then rose again when the spirit of Life entered back into the son.
Jason:If not, how do you avoid such a conclusion given the premises you have offered?
MLC:See above.
God is eternal,man is mortal. You have a hybrid mix of neither. You make no distinction nor do you care to and you think you are exempt from scrutiny. When my scrutiny of your doctrine is pointed you wave your hand and say that is silly of you to critique my doctrine. It is self defeating doctrine and you cannot see it and you will more than likely not understand the scrutiny I gave and pointed out and say point out where? I just did, man dies God does not. You will then say:" Well I predicate of God as a subject the acts of the human substance of Jesus." Yeah so Do I with a clear distinction you do not. Jesus said I can of Mine own-self do no works or miracles, the father that dwells in me he does the works.(John 14:10) there is the distinction you do not make.
Here is another: God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.(2nd.Cor.5:19)
Did that your false doctrine of perichoresis? Which Gd was in christ? It did not say God was Christ or a person was in christ. You are going to say God was Christ. It did not say tat because it is making a distinction I make and you do not! I am justified with my distinction in this passage you say I am not!
Here is another: There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus(Not the God 2nd. Tim 2:5)
You do not make that distinction. You simply say he is a mix and cannot be separated because he is one person. This passage is why I asked you if the God in Jesus could converse with the man Jesus? In my doctrine he can because he is Both the God exists inside him and outside of him still on the throne in heaven. That God also existed before he was Born. That God also existed when the man died!
God cannot die. Only men die. Since you have hybrid mix it does not matter to you.
Jason:On another note- are we still going to debate sometime? What format did you have in mind?
We did! I gave you all you are going to get.
Jason:These are descriptions of the substance of each. But if Jesus is to be a single subject in whom these substances are united, he must be the subject of both substances.
MLC: Jesus is the subject and yes God and man are united in Jesus not confused like in your Jesus.
You ignored the distinctive Passages I gave.
2nd Time 2:5 There is one mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus.
2nd Cor.5:19 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
I asked you if there was conversation between the god and man in Jesus and
There is no conversation in your fake incarnation because you confuse it. The passages I gave do not.
Jason I am not going to read your posts because I am growing wearing of your endless insufferable pretentiousness. You will simply keep demanding I accept your premise with no proof from scripture based on you believing that is what Incarnation is. The word from John 1:1 is not a picture of the pre-existent Christ.
a Unity of God and man is not a confusion of God and Man, nor is the confusion and mishmash incarnation. God retains that which he is and so does the man or there is neither. You have not proven by saying it and demanding it.You simply have a hybrid confusion of neither God nor man.
God was in christ not God was Christ here. It makes the distinction you ignore(2nd.Cor 5:19) Yes I believe Jesus is God but it is making a one side distinction here. The God christ Jesus is made in other places.
2nd Tim. 2:5 There is one mediator between God and man. The same distinction is made here.
Jason again Ignored the distinction of the two passages and say it was me denying Jesus was God. No Jason you are dishonest.
God was In christ reconciling the world unto himself.(2nd Cor.5:19)
God is in every christian also.
There is one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus.(2nd Tim 2:5) You say that distinction cannot be made in Jesus. You get angry and say I deny the incarnation of your mishmash and that Jesus is God by submitting this passage... This passage is distinguishing Jesus humanity as the go between. Not his divinity. Both exist in Jesus but you say you cannot do that. That has been your argument.
1st. Tim 2:5, 2nd Cor.5:19
Not a word but you are flabbergasted that I will not accept your absurd reply as you wave your hand and say it is no problem. It is a problem for you because it demonstrates your Jesus is not a man. he simply pretends the only subject you concern yourself with and keep going back to is god the son. I ignore it because it is not a problem for me. he is God he is simply not god the son because no such thing exists in scripture.
Jason Let me give you Ed Dalcour's famous reply.... No exegesis, no reply. The passage clearly did not state the God and man is the mediator between God and man. But that is what you are saying The point was made there is one mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus.
You claim he is God but you must have a problem then! Is he mediating to himself? Can you imagine the surprise of Jesus when he krept up on himself to mediate? Total and utter absurdity as is all of trinity doctrine.
That is why the trinity Jesus is hybrid confusion and they give lip service to his humanity. Jesus is one person but there are two subjects in Jesus: divine, invisible, immortal, eternal. There is also son, human, man, seen/visible, mortal. You cannot confuse the two or you have neither.
MLC:You cannot confuse the two or you have neither.
Jason gives lip service to his confused hybrid:"Indeed- so which of these subjects is Jesus?"
Both for you in confusion and no real distinction of God and man. Both for me unconfused with distinction of the human and divine of the one God in the man and still in heaven. A unity of God and man in the incarnation. the man has a limited will and and mind of the obvious man who does not even know the time of his own second coming and the God in him and everywhere at the same time.
You are bluffing Jason and have nothing and never will have anything and you sure do not have a biblical view of the incarnation.
Post a Comment