The Trinity

[kylixguru]

In order to achieve that end, the criterion really ought to be: "Who knows their stuff & is well peer-reviewed," not "Who's a Trinitarian & who's not."

I don't get the whole big deal over the Trinitarian thing.
Seems to me they didn't come up with anything all that useful.
More or less, it seems to me their conclusion was: NOBODY CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

It was just a cop-out that has given room to all kinds of nonsense thereafter.

 

[sojourner]

I don't get the whole big deal over the Trinitarian thing.
Seems to me they didn't come up with anything all that useful.
More or less, it seems to me their conclusion was: NOBODY CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

It was just a cop-out that has given room to all kinds of nonsense thereafter.

It's not a big deal. It's simply a legitimate way of understanding God. If you don't get it, it's probably not all that important to you.

 

[kylixguru]

It's not a big deal. It's simply a legitimate way of understanding God. If you don't get it, it's probably not all that important to you.

You mean it is an attempt to give "not understanding God" legitimacy.

 

[sojourner]

You mean it is an attempt to give "not understanding God" legitimacy.

Please don't pretend to tell me what I mean when I was perfectly clear. It's a legitimate way of understanding God.

 

[kylixguru]

Please don't pretend to tell me what I mean when I was perfectly clear. It's a legitimate way of understanding God.

Do you recall that you were responding to my statement earlier when I made reference to the basic conclusion of the creeds is that we cannot actually understand God?

For example, it says God is 3 distinct personages in one God and yet God has no body parts, etc. That's a contradiction right there.

They also come right out and just say it cannot be understood, and they made it a creed in order to force that alleged legitimacy onto the masses.

It was just one gigantic cop-out and it imposed the cop-out onto the masses.

The whole crux of it was simply because the apostles who did understand such things were martyred and the church had drifted into a state of apostasy where its leaders were devoid of revelation and understanding.

Did you ever get the impression the apostle Paul was lacking in confidence to answer difficult questions? He had a vision of the heavens and of the risen Lord. He was someone who knew and understood God. He would have considered those creeds the very culmination of the corruption he warned about in Galatians chapter 1.

 

[sojourner]

For example, it says God is 3 distinct personages in one God and yet God has no body parts, etc. That's a contradiction right there.

How is that a contradiction? God has body parts in the person of Jesus.

They also come right out and just say it cannot be understood,

The doctrine can't be fully understood, which is what they were talking about. God can't be fully understood, either, but the model of Trinity does help some to a fuller understanding -- and legitimately so.

It was just one gigantic cop-out and it imposed the cop-out onto the masses.

Any theology is ultimately a "cop out," since no one theology fully explains God.

The whole crux of it was simply because the apostles who did understand such things were martyred and the church had drifted into a state of apostasy where its leaders were devoid of revelation and understanding.

Your opinion -- completely unsubstantiated by fact.

He would have considered those creeds the very culmination of the corruption he warned about in Galatians chapter 1.

Oh? Really! How do you know that?

 

[kylixguru]

How is that a contradiction? God has body parts in the person of Jesus.

You just amplified the contradiction.
If it's not already obvious to you, then I probably can't help you.
Why say God has no body parts when the 2nd member of the Trinity has such?
They are all personages and so they all have or had body parts.
In the case of the Holy Ghost, this is a disembodied spirit that had body parts.

The doctrine can't be fully understood, which is what they were talking about.

The doctrine is the easy part.

God can't be fully understood, either, but the model of Trinity does help some to a fuller understanding -- and legitimately so.

It's a theory that purports to help you understand that you can't understand?

Any theology is ultimately a "cop out," since no one theology fully explains God.

Any theology born of uninspired men surely is.

Your opinion -- completely unsubstantiated by fact.

The most pertinent fact you have already acknowledged.
You are who is claiming that things cannot be understood, not me.

Oh? Really! How do you know that?

Because I have had a similar experience as Paul himself had.

 

[Avoice]

Sojouner:

It appears from this post that you misunderstand 1) what went on at Nicea, 2) the social and political climate of the day, and 3) the communal nature of Xy.

Wikipedia under Nicea,

The role of Constantine
Main article: Constantine I and Christianity
While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[64] This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.[64]

Since doctrine is the word I should have used just what part of Constantine's role do I misunderstand?

 

[sojourner]

If it's not already obvious to you, then I probably can't help you.

I don't know why you're trying; it is unnecessary for a blind person to help a sighted person cross the street...

They are all personages and so they all have or had body parts.

Nope.

In the case of the Holy Ghost, this is a disembodied spirit that had body parts.

And, nope.

The doctrine is the easy part.

Easier than understanding God, yes.

It's a theory that purports to help you understand that you can't understand?

You're not allowed to twist my words. You know what I meant -- don't pretend that you don't.

Any theology born of uninspired men surely is.

Are you saying that any theology that doesn't agree with you is "uninspired?" Or are you saying that some theology certainly can and does fully explain God? If the first one is the case, you're too full of yourself. If the second is the case, you don't understand the essence of theology well enough to be able to discuss it rationally.

The most pertinent fact you have already acknowledged.
You are who is claiming that things cannot be understood, not me.

What are you claiming, then? That God can be fully understood?
Fine. Explain God fully to me. I dare ya.

Because I have had a similar experience as Paul himself had.

ROFLMAOE
Part of the sandwich I'm eating just came out my nose. I haven't laughed that hard since the Republicans said Sarah Palin would make a good vice president!

 

[sojourner]

Sojouner:


Wikipedia under Nicea,



Since doctrine is the word I should have used just what part of Constantine's role do I misunderstand?

Wiki? Really!? Well, I suppose it does give one a survey of Nicea -- but nothing in depth.

Constantine's whole impetus was to create a unified church. Canon was never discussed at Nicea. What Constantine did was force widely disparate viewpoints to come together in mutuality and compromise, preventing a huge rift. In other words, community -- the essence of what the church is, was far more important to him than doctrine -- what the church believes. The Creed is ambiguous for a couple of reasons: 1) Trying to explain God's essence coherently is impossible 2) the Creed had to be broad enough to include all points of view. It says unequivocally that Jesus is fully human and that he is fully Divine. It's a mystery, because neither one POV or the other can fully grasp what that universality means. In other words, it's not the Creed's fault -- it's our fault.

 

[kylixguru]

I don't know why you're trying; it is unnecessary for a blind person to help a sighted person cross the street...

Ok, interesting. I'm one who says God can be understood, both in doctrine and in substance, and you claim that no such thing is possible. How can someone who claims it is correct to not see these things purport to help someone who claims not only that he can, but that he does?

If you wish for me to exchange my understanding of God for your self imposed blindness, that would be like the apostle Paul being convinced he never had a personal encounter with the risen Lord and that he never beheld any of the heavenly visions that enabled him to masterfully address the Gentiles and help them to see truth. Christianity sunk back into the doctrine of "the unknown God". Paul wasn't one to come along and say "yep, you guys got it right, He is indeed unknown". Rather, with boldness and knowledge Paul said "I have come to declare this God unto you" because Paul knew God.

Nope.

Because you say so? Jesus had no eyes, feet or hands?

And, nope.

I disagree.
I can back up my claim.
Can you yours?

Easier than understanding God, yes.

I think you misunderstood my point on that.

You're not allowed to twist my words. You know what I meant -- don't pretend that you don't.

I was talking about the creeds and am talking about the creeds where the Trinity doctrine was established that also claim that God cannot be understood. If you reject that part of the creed then please clearly distinguish how you reject that and how you do understand God. So far you simply seem to be supporting those creeds and are glossing over things. Rather than accuse me of twisting your words, how about you stay in the context that was on the table when you pulled up a chair and sat down? You seemed to choose to defend the creeds and therefore, from my point of view, the words of the creed are what's in your mouth.

Are you saying that any theology that doesn't agree with you is "uninspired?"

I find much inspiration and I continue to learn and grow. I'm not the be-all end-all. But, there are things that I do have firm knowledge of that expose many false traditions and corrupt precepts of men that I am willing to share at the same time as I look for greater truth and light.

Or are you saying that some theology certainly can and does fully explain God? If the first one is the case, you're too full of yourself. If the second is the case, you don't understand the essence of theology well enough to be able to discuss it rationally.

I am a combination of both. I believe it is possible and I have sought for such diligently and the Lord has been very gracious with me in helping me to pierce through much darkness that exists today. And, when the Lord gives truth and light it is my natural inclination to wish to share.

What are you claiming, then? That God can be fully understood?
Fine. Explain God fully to me. I dare ya.

You dare me? You sound as if some kind of a threat is on the table.
I have made a number of posts in this and other threads on this subject.
I invite you to read through my posts carefully if you wish to understand my views on this better. If you have any specific questions I will be happy to address them in an appropriate thread for them to be discussed.

ROFLMAOE
Part of the sandwich I'm eating just came out my nose. I haven't laughed that hard since the Republicans said Sarah Palin would make a good vice president!

I don't take kindly to your mockery.

 

[sojourner]

Ok, interesting. I'm one who says God can be understood, both in doctrine and in substance, and you claim that no such thing is possible. How can someone who claims it is correct to not see these things purport to help someone who claims not only that he can, but that he does?

If you think you can fully understand God, you're blind to the fact that no one can fully understand God. We're not allowed to see God's face, remember?

Rather, with boldness and knowledge Paul said "I have come to declare this God unto you" because Paul knew God.

Not fully. Even Paul said, "Now we see partly. Then we shall see face-to-face."

Because you say so? Jesus had no eyes, feet or hands?

Huh. I said that a long time ago. But it was only because Jesus was fully human.

I disagree.
I can back up my claim.
Can you yours?

Yup.

I was talking about the creeds and am talking about the creeds where the Trinity doctrine was established that also claim that God cannot be understood.

God cannot be fully understood. That was my point. Period. I defend the Creed as a valid way of partially understanding God, not as the valid way of completely understanding God.

I find much inspiration and I continue to learn and grow.

Great! Me too!

I'm not the be-all end-all.

Glad to hear you admit that.

But, there are things that I do have firm knowledge of that expose many false traditions and corrupt precepts of men that I am willing to share at the same time as I look for greater truth and light.

Perhaps false and corrupt from your POV, but no POV is absolute. And if you think it is, you've got a lot more growing to do.

I am a combination of both.

Humility is a virtue...

when the Lord gives truth and light it is my natural inclination to wish to share.

Sharing is one thing. Making "I'm right, 'cuz God said so" statements is quite another.

You dare me?

You said the ice was thick enough to walk on... I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is and walk out on it, and we'll see...

I invite you to read through my posts carefully if you wish to understand my views on this better.

Nope. Too much effort for too little return. I really couldn't care less what your views are, so long as they remain your views, and you don't try to foist them on the rest of us by imparting some kind of false universalism to them.

I don't take kindly to your mockery.

Deal with it. I don't take kindly to your grandiosity in comparing yourself to Paul.

 

[kylixguru]

If you think you can fully understand God, you're blind to the fact that no one can fully understand God. We're not allowed to see God's face, remember?

Who is we?

Not fully. Even Paul said, "Now we see partly. Then we shall see face-to-face."

And, when did Paul say it would be "then"?
Seems according to you "then" shall never happen.

Huh. I said that a long time ago. But it was only because Jesus was fully human.

You are going round and round in self-contradictory circles. That's a good indication that your creeds are broken.

God cannot be fully understood. That was my point. Period. I defend the Creed as a valid way of partially understanding God, not as the valid way of completely understanding God.

Knowing Him personally as my Father is not something I am intimidated by, at least not at this point in my life.

Perhaps false and corrupt from your POV, but no POV is absolute. And if you think it is, you've got a lot more growing to do.

Well, the absolute point of view is. Or are you stepping into another conundrum?

Humility is a virtue...

So is speaking your truth sincerely, hiding nothing but being a candle that is set out for all to see.

Sharing is one thing. Making "I'm right, 'cuz God said so" statements is quite another.

I don't believe in the "Because I said so" argument. I come from the school of "Please hear me out and I'll hear you out and we each embrace whatever value the other has to offer, or not, according to our own inner divine guidance. Even if I was some great authority, I would not respect anyone who ever started believing me on anything I said, just because I said it. I can sense when people shift into that mode and it repulses me. I want to be surrounded by peers who all keep minds of their own and who are willing at all times, in a respectful way, to question anything and everything I think. This is usually always when new discoveries come into view. When we are adults with one another, we learn how to see effectively through the eyes of others and thereby greatly increase our own understanding.

You said the ice was thick enough to walk on... I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is and walk out on it, and we'll see...

And, I've asked you to familiarize yourself with my writings and you will see fairly quickly how to put it together from my POV.

Nope. Too much effort for too little return. I really couldn't care less what your views are, so long as they remain your views, and you don't try to foist them on the rest of us by imparting some kind of false universalism to them.

I'm not into universalism. I simply wish to know the truth as it was intended and then to see how each religion plays a role in working together to make each cycle of Creation complete.

Deal with it. I don't take kindly to your grandiosity in comparing yourself to Paul.

As I said, I don't take kindly to your mockery.

Unless and until you have given reasonable effort to know and understand who I am as an individual and as a servant of the Lord, you may want to reserve judgment.

 

[sojourner]

Who is we?

Don't be obtuse.

And, when did Paul say it would be "then"?

the next world, when we reach consummation.

You are going round and round in self-contradictory circles. That's a good indication that your creeds are broken.

No, I'm not. I said that God was available in the Person of Jesus. Jesus had feet and hands, but only because Jesus was also fully human -- just like all other human beings. God as Father and Holy Spirit, however, does not.No self-contradiction there at all.

Knowing Him personally as my Father is not something I am intimidated by, at least not at this point in my life.

Intimidation and partial disclosure are not the same thing. I never mentioned intimidation.

Well, the absolute point of view is.

There is no such thing.

So is speaking your truth sincerely, hiding nothing but being a candle that is set out for all to see.

Your truth. Your truth. Your truth is not the truth. Don't act as if it were. Otherwise, you're just so much noise -- like a clanging cymbal.

I don't believe in the "Because I said so" argument. I come from the school of "Please hear me out and I'll hear you out and we each embrace whatever value the other has to offer, or not, according to our own inner divine guidance.

You certainly haven't exhibited that dynamic on this thread...

And, I've asked you to familiarize yourself with my writings and you will see fairly quickly how to put it together from my POV.

And I'm asking you to address it here, in this thread and in this context. Otherwise, it creates confusion.

I'm not into universalism.

Truly sorry to hear that...

I simply wish to know the truth as it was intended

The problem is that you can only know the truth as you see it.

As I said, I don't take kindly to your mockery.

Well, all I can offer is that you have a choice: 1) let it bug you 2) get over it.

Unless and until you have given reasonable effort to know and understand who I am as an individual and as a servant of the Lord, you may want to reserve judgment.

Unless and until your posts here begin to formulate reasonable arguments, I'll probably continue to be brusque.

 

[kylixguru]

Don't be obtuse.

I think you should speak for yourself.

the next world, when we reach consummation.

Yes, and that time is now. A new Creation cycle is being birthed.

No, I'm not. I said that God was available in the Person of Jesus. Jesus had feet and hands, but only because Jesus was also fully human -- just like all other human beings. God as Father and Holy Spirit, however, does not.No self-contradiction there at all.

There is an advent of the Father as well as an advent of the Holy Ghost.
This is where the "person" in personages of the Godhead comes from.

There is no such thing.

False statement.

Your truth. Your truth.
Your truth is not the truth.
Don't act as if it were.
Otherwise, you're just so much noise -- like a clanging cymbal.

I only ask to be heard out.
And, I try and hear out you. If you think I'm missing something, I'll patiently hear you out..

You certainly haven't exhibited that dynamic on this thread...

Everything I say, please take in that context.
Please do not read anything beyond that.

And I'm asking you to address it here, in this thread and in this context. Otherwise, it creates confusion.

This is a very condensed nutshell version.

God has a body of flesh and bone.
This body is a spiritual body.
It is composed of individual people as members of that body.
For example, the Church is the Bride of God.
She too is a body of flesh and bone composed of members.
Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel. Seth, etc. are such bodies.
For that matter, so too are the other aspects of the Creation account.
The Creation account pertains to bodies of flesh and bone at the varying roles or levels of glory that they function with.
These are all the categories of "names" that Adam assigns (fore-ordains) people from the past creation cycle when the new creation cycle is organized by him.
Adam is our judge. He is who gives us our "name".

For example:
Fishes are Christians, of the Catholic variety.
Fowls appear to correspond to Muslims.
Creatures upon the dry land are the evolved fishes as manifested in the protestant reformation.
Eventually, Adam, the fulness of the Gospel and Priesthood comes to be.
Adam is a body of individuals in union at the highest level of union possible.
These are the individual who compose the body of Eloheim, once Adam is redeemed.
Eve is the latter day Church that becomes a harlot and needs to be cleansed and redeemed.
Adam falls along with His Bride in order to facilitate Her redemption.
Seth is the Son of Man and is the redeemer of Adam and Eve, Firstborn in spirit to them.
This is what is meant in Rev 12:10 when it speaks of the Kingdom of our God (Adam) and the power of His Christ Son of Man (Seth).
Seth functions in the capacity as the latter-day Elias/Elijah who makes a "restitituion of all things" (which is Adam and Eve's redemption).
Son of Man serves as the forerunner to the Father being redeemed to His throne in victory.
Then, through this process the King and His Redeemer (through the process of union) become Eloheim, the Father.
This is a group of the very elect who keep themselves clean and pure and who are tried in the fires of affliction and who are made white and pure.

Truly sorry to hear that...

Why? I don't believe in a one shoe fits all program.

The problem is that you can only know the truth as you see it.

Unless you are a generous soul and you take time to listen to others.
Then, whether you agree with them or not, at least you can also extend your vision through the vision of others.
Then, you have the option to properly judge what could potentially be new and valuable things.

Well, all I can offer is that you have a choice: 1) let it bug you 2) get over it.

I would appreciate an apology.
But, either way, consider yourself forgiven.

Unless and until your posts here begin to formulate reasonable arguments, I'll probably continue to be brusque.

Suit yourself.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, and that time is now. A new Creation cycle is being birthed.

According to...
Who? What?

There is an advent of the Father as well as an advent of the Holy Ghost.
This is where the "person" in personages of the Godhead comes from.

???
A little cryptic.

False statement.

'K. Name one.

God has a body of flesh and bone.
This body is a spiritual body.

Contradictory statement.

It is composed of individual people as members of that body.
For example, the Church is the Bride of God.
She too is a body of flesh and bone composed of members.
Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel. Seth, etc. are such bodies.
For that matter, so too are the other aspects of the Creation account.
The Creation account pertains to bodies of flesh and bone at the varying roles or levels of glory that they function with.
These are all the categories of "names" that Adam assigns (fore-ordains) people from the past creation cycle when the new creation cycle is organized by him.
Adam is our judge. He is who gives us our "name".

This is inconsistent with the biblical view. It also represents a partial understanding of God -- not a full understanding, which is what you claimed you had, and which is what I dared you to provide for us. further, it doesn't take into account any kind of cosmological approach -- that is, how God relates to the universe around us.

Epic fail.

Why? I don't believe in a one shoe fits all program.

Well, OK, that description is of syncretism, not universalism. If you don't understand what universalism is, how do you know whether you embrace it?

Then, you have the option to properly judge what could potentially be new and valuable things.

...from your POV, which still represents the truth as you see it.

Ultimately, you have not adequately addressed why the Trinity cannot work as a legitimate understanding of God. You have only provided an alternative understanding that's an interesting POV here, but it represents a biblical interpretation that is evidence of a poor exegetical approach to the texts in its theological development.

 

[kylixguru]

According to...
Who? What?

According to the "sealed portion" of holy writ, which is simply a glossed over way of strictly interpreting the Word of God by only using interpretive keys that it provides. This is the knowledge that the prophet Daniel was told about that would remain sealed until the time of the end. See Daniel 12:4.

???
A little cryptic.

Yes, I understand that these are new ideas to most people.
It is simply taking the case of Jesus being the Son, who is the 2nd personage of the Trinity, and staying consistent with that. Therefore, in like manner, we can also look for two other personages of significance who perform vital roles. Just as Jesus the person was the advent of the 2nd member of the Trinity, so too shall there be a personal advent of the Father and of the Holy Ghost.

An implication you can make is that when Jesus returns it shall be in a similar process as was explained in the Gospel of John. Jesus got after Philip and told him "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". This is because the spirit of the Father had taken up residence within Jesus and was manifesting through Jesus. So, in like manner, there will come a time when the spirit of Jesus will manifest through some individual, or group of individuals united in covenant, to carry forward the accomplishment of things. Someone looking for the return of Jesus may eventually have the same concept explained to them as Jesus explained to Philip.

A clear example of this was something Jesus explained to the Jews. They were saying that the Messiah couldn't come unless Elijah the prophet returned first in order to usher in the Messiah and to anoint him king. What they failed to realize is that John the Baptist was in fact manifesting the return of Elijah the prophet and it was he who had the responsibility to baptize Jesus and to anoint him as the king of Israel. Elijah had indeed come, but many of the Jews took him for a deranged fool and drove him out into the wilderness. Elijah had come with great power and authority, but they rejected him, therefore they also rejected Jesus too.

'K. Name one.

What I mean is a person can increase in skill and discipline to put aside subjectivity and to seek to view things from the absolute perspective. I believe there is absolute truth and I believe we can entrain our minds to weigh something to the degree it represents an absolute truth.

Contradictory statement.

Please read Ephesians 5:30 and see if this helps you get what I am talking about.
A body of flesh and bone is a group of individuals who are all united in spirit.
Thus, it is a body of people gathered together who are hearkening to a particular spirit.
Thus, such a body does have a component of actual flesh in that those individuals who are enlightened by and functioning in accordance with a spirit are also in the flesh.

This is inconsistent with the biblical view.

It is inconsistent with the typical way people view the Bible, but so far as I can discern, it is 100% biblical when the proper interpretive keys found within the Bible are made use of.

It also represents a partial understanding of God -- not a full understanding, which is what you claimed you had, and which is what I dared you to provide for us. further, it doesn't take into account any kind of cosmological approach -- that is, how God relates to the universe around us.

And, what if the actual cosmic aspect of things is irrelevant?
Wouldn't you agree that to understand something completely that would also include understanding that which they are not?

Epic fail.

I'm flattered you would consider this epic.

Well, OK, that description is of syncretism, not universalism. If you don't understand what universalism is, how do you know whether you embrace it?

I prefer to just keep my context clear. The Bible represents something that is specific to a certain lineage of people on this planet.
It is not an exclusive program as there is a way to become naturalized into it.
It isn't something that people should be forced into, nor does it advocate force should ever be used in matters of spirituality. However, if people do come into it and then corrupt and twist it for their own selfish purposes, then there are some rather severe consequences brought upon those who do such.

...from your POV, which still represents the truth as you see it.

We are all 100% responsible for what we as an individual accepts as truth or not.
Even if I was the leader of a religious organization and held as a prophet of God, I would be very irritated if I sensed that people were accepting what I revealed just because I said so. I would only ever want people to hear fully and consider what was said and then for them to go and seek out a personal witness for their self as to what they actually believed.

Ultimately, you have not adequately addressed why the Trinity cannot work as a legitimate understanding of God. You have only provided an alternative understanding that's an interesting POV here, but it represents a biblical interpretation that is evidence of a poor exegetical approach to the texts in its theological development.

Well, I've only given a very nutshell version.
I appreciate that you have given it some reasonable consideration.
At least you are not outright flaming me as a lunatic, which I often confront.

If you are interested in exploring my POV for further consideration, perhaps another thread would be more appropriate?

 

[sojourner]

According to the "sealed portion" of holy writ, which is simply a glossed over way of strictly interpreting the Word of God by only using interpretive keys that it provides. This is the knowledge that the prophet Daniel was told about that would remain sealed until the time of the end. See Daniel 12:4.

as I asserted above, an interpretation is always based in solid exegesis. As i suspected, there seems to be a lot of eisegesis going on here. That doesn't wash when it comes to good scholarship upon which a coherent theology is based.

It is simply taking the case of Jesus being the Son, who is the 2nd personage of the Trinity, and staying consistent with that. Therefore, in like manner, we can also look for two other personages of significance who perform vital roles. Just as Jesus the person was the advent of the 2nd member of the Trinity, so too shall there be a personal advent of the Father and of the Holy Ghost.

The Father is personally manifest in Jesus. That's the whole crux of the doctrine -- and, as far as I'm concerned -- of soteriology.

there will come a time when the spirit of Jesus will manifest through some individual, or group of individuals united in covenant, to carry forward the accomplishment of things.

That happens every time someone receives the Holy Spirit in baptism...

What I mean is a person can increase in skill and discipline to put aside subjectivity and to seek to view things from the absolute perspective. I believe there is absolute truth and I believe we can entrain our minds to weigh something to the degree it represents an absolute truth.

But, being particular beings, the human person can never transcend particularity (possibly until one travels through death -- although we can't know that) in order to gain such a universal perspective. Remember, "close" only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades. "Absolute" is absolute -- not "near."

Please read Ephesians 5:30 and see if this helps you get what I am talking about.
A body of flesh and bone is a group of individuals who are all united in spirit.
Thus, it is a body of people gathered together who are hearkening to a particular spirit.
Thus, such a body does have a component of actual flesh in that those individuals who are enlightened by and functioning in accordance with a spirit are also in the flesh.

Yes, but while the individuals involved have arms and legs, it does not mean that God, as a particularity, has arms and legs -- only that people residing in God have arms and legs. The "body" of believers only has arms and legs because the bodies of those people have arms and legs. In this case, "body" is a metaphysical statement, not a literal statement. you're confusing the two.

so far as I can discern, it is 100% biblical when the proper interpretive keys found within the Bible are made use of.

So far as I can tell, you're extrapolating those "keys" from more than a fair bit of eisegesis. "Proper interpretive keys" are always exegeted -- not eisegeted.

And, what if the actual cosmic aspect of things is irrelevant?

How can it be irrelevant? Physics is physics, and we are physical bodies.

Wouldn't you agree that to understand something completely that would also include understanding that which they are not?

We are not "unphysical."

I'm flattered you would consider this epic.

I don't consider "this" to be epic. I consider the failure of "this" to be epic.

I prefer to just keep my context clear. The Bible represents something that is specific to a certain lineage of people on this planet.
It is not an exclusive program as there is a way to become naturalized into it.
It isn't something that people should be forced into, nor does it advocate force should ever be used in matters of spirituality. However, if people do come into it and then corrupt and twist it for their own selfish purposes, then there are some rather severe consequences brought upon those who do such.

As Xy has correctly and aptly shown, the religious paradigm is a very fluid and living thing -- adaptable to many situations -- not static and dead and inplacable.
What universalism says it that the Divine is not confined to our particular understanding of the Divine.

We are all 100% responsible for what we as an individual accepts as truth or not.
Even if I was the leader of a religious organization and held as a prophet of God, I would be very irritated if I sensed that people were accepting what I revealed just because I said so. I would only ever want people to hear fully and consider what was said and then for them to go and seek out a personal witness for their self as to what they actually believed.

That statement does not defend your position that we are able to step outside our particular context. In fact, it argues from a contextual standpoint.

Well, I've only given a very nutshell version.
I appreciate that you have given it some reasonable consideration.
At least you are not outright flaming me as a lunatic, which I often confront.

If you are interested in exploring my POV for further consideration, perhaps another thread would be more appropriate?

feel free to start another thread if you wish to. I don't find it necessary. My rebuttal here is adequate to the task of summing up your stance:
solid theological constructs are exegeted from the texts and not eisegeted. Your approach here is almost entirely eisegetical.

 

[kylixguru]

as I asserted above, an interpretation is always based in solid exegesis. As i suspected, there seems to be a lot of eisegesis going on here. That doesn't wash when it comes to good scholarship upon which a coherent theology is based.

I'm glad you recognize only what is apparent.
Could it be possible that I have deliberately put aside the orthodox views and I embarked upon solid exegesis and made a discovery that departs from the darkness of the past?
Just because I am holding revolutionary paradigm shifting views doesn't make them wrong. Of course, I could be wrong, but I think you would want to follow the path I took to get where I am to see if it holds any validity.
What remains clear to me is that thus far the realm of religion is filled with darkness and confusion. I was about to just consider it all a huge waste of my life's time and resources, but I decided I should first make a thorough analysis in faith for myself instead of just relying on what so many around me tell me is so.
I wanted answers directly from God so that I could understand His Word properly.

The Father is personally manifest in Jesus. That's the whole crux of the doctrine -- and, as far as I'm concerned -- of soteriology.

I don't know what soteriology means.
I have no formal seminary training.
Please keep that in mind.

That happens every time someone receives the Holy Spirit in baptism...

And, that "breath of life" raises them to some level of glory.
They become an angelic spiritual creation.
This is why Jesus ate fish when He appeared to His disciples.
His resurrected body at that point was composed of "fish".
Christianity itself is the resurrected body of flesh and bone of Jesus.

But, being particular beings, the human person can never transcend particularity (possibly until one travels through death -- although we can't know that) in order to gain such a universal perspective. Remember, "close" only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades. "Absolute" is absolute -- not "near."

We are speaking about whether they exist or not, not whether I have an absolutely perfect grasp upon it all. If it exists, it is something for which I can strive.

Yes, but while the individuals involved have arms and legs, it does not mean that God, as a particularity, has arms and legs -- only that people residing in God have arms and legs. The "body" of believers only has arms and legs because the bodies of those people have arms and legs. In this case, "body" is a metaphysical statement, not a literal statement. you're confusing the two.

A body of flesh and bone is just as tangible as our own body of flesh and blood.
You cannot understand who Adam actually is in reality unless you understand what a flesh and bone body is in reality.

So far as I can tell, you're extrapolating those "keys" from more than a fair bit of eisegesis. "Proper interpretive keys" are always exegeted -- not eisegeted.

I gave you a nutshell version only.
I have deliberately disciplined myself to avoid eisegesis as much as possible and you are now hearing of my findings by having approached it this way.
Just because I don't agree with your view doesn't automatically mean I have performed eisegesis as you have accused.
This is to assume you are not a partaker of a build up of past eisegesis that embeds itself in the traditions of the father. Are you sure you are safe to make such an assumption?

How can it be irrelevant? Physics is physics, and we are physical bodies.

Irrelevant in that the Bible is not directly addressing how our material cosmos came to be.
I believe there will be a type or a shadow of cosmic truths, but the Bible is something that is geneopolitical rather than cosmic in scope.

We are not "unphysical."

Correct. We are the flecks of dust from which Adam's body becomes composed.
We are also the flecks of dust from which "creatures in the waters wherin dwells the breath of life" are composed.

You are likely functioning somewhere in the "fish" to the "four-footed beasts" category of angelic glory. You may or may not be sufficiently prepared to become elevated to the angelic glory of entering into the body of Adam, and to undergo the challenges and trials He faces, but you might be as well. It will all depend upon the degree to which you discipline yourself to avoid eisegesis and to perform proper exegesis in strict accordance with the Holy Spirit. The sealed portion will draw in those who shall recognize it and drive away those who love their darkness over the light.

I don't consider "this" to be epic. I consider the failure of "this" to be epic.

Oh, ok, well I am not overly concerned as to whether you consider it a failure or not.
Your opinion would matter greatly if at some point I confirmed that you actually took the time to fully and carefully review things and you had substantive reasons to refute it. Unless and until that time comes, your opinion is just based on the orthodox views I rejected many years ago, for very good reasons.

As Xy has correctly and aptly shown, the religious paradigm is a very fluid and living thing -- adaptable to many situations -- not static and dead and inplacable.

It can evolve from one cycle of creation to another.
But, when the platform has been established for a cycle and you covenant to abide that platform, then you need to function properly within that or else you risk becoming someone who does not have fidelity, which is not going to be helpful.

What universalism says it that the Divine is not confined to our particular understanding of the Divine.

That's all fine and good, but when someone receives religious ordinances and enters into a covenant, the terms and conditions of that covenant shall be honoured.
If they are not honored, then this is a form of infidelity and shall be treated accordingly.

So, there is plenty of room for different religious groups (spiritual families) on this planet. And, when a group of spirits establishes a covenant with a man in the flesh that his posterity will be the tabernacles for those spirits in that group, then all those who have the DNA of that individual who made that covenant is actually bound to some extent whether they realize it or not. Mostly it is just to make something available to them if they choose.

That statement does not defend your position that we are able to step outside our particular context. In fact, it argues from a contextual standpoint.

The context I argue for is that each individual get their own individual inspiration from the Holy Spirit to know for themselves what is true and what is not.
We should not be so inclined to accept things just because someone else (whether an individual or an entire group or society) says so. That's all I'm saying.

feel free to start another thread if you wish to. I don't find it necessary. My rebuttal here is adequate to the task of summing up your stance:
solid theological constructs are exegeted from the texts and not eisegeted. Your approach here is almost entirely eisegetical.

I'm comfortable if this is where you wish to leave it.

I'm only here to share, not convince anyone of anything.

 

[sojourner]

I'm glad you recognize only what is apparent.

I recognize what is read out of the texts -- not what is read into the texts. What is read out of the texts is what is apparent.

Could it be possible that I have deliberately put aside the orthodox views and I embarked upon solid exegesis and made a discovery that departs from the darkness of the past?

I haven't seen any evidence of that here...

What remains clear to me is that thus far the realm of religion is filled with darkness and confusion.

so are human beings...

I decided I should first make a thorough analysis in faith for myself instead of just relying on what so many around me tell me is so.

If you don't understand the importance of the community, you don't understand what Jesus taught.

I wanted answers directly from God so that I could understand His Word properly.

If, as you seem to claim, we comprise God's body, then what that body says is "directly from God," yes? God speaks through human agency. At least, that's what an exegesis of the texts tells us -- and, BTW, the texts are human agency.

I don't know what soteriology means.
I have no formal seminary training.
Please keep that in mind.

Maybe you'd also like to practice medicine without a license or build bridges and skyscrapers without proper schooling in engineering...

Christianity itself is the resurrected body of flesh and bone of Jesus.

An eisegetical conclusion.

We are speaking about whether they exist or not, not whether I have an absolutely perfect grasp upon it all. If it exists, it is something for which I can strive.

we are speaking about the ability to have a full and perfect understanding of God. Or have you forgotten?

You cannot understand who Adam actually is in reality unless you understand what a flesh and bone body is in reality.

You cannot understand who Adam actually is in reality unless you exegete Genesis.

I have deliberately disciplined myself to avoid eisegesis as much as possible and you are now hearing of my findings by having approached it this way.

You've missed that mark...

Just because I don't agree with your view doesn't automatically mean I have performed eisegesis as you have accused.

No, but your baseless conclusions here do mean that you have done so.

This is to assume you are not a partaker of a build up of past eisegesis that embeds itself in the traditions of the father.

The Bible, itself, is a tradition, produced out of perceived experience -- not made up out of whole cloth.

Are you sure you are safe to make such an assumption?

Reasonably so.

Irrelevant in that the Bible is not directly addressing how our material cosmos came to be.

"God created the heavens and the earth, etc."

I believe there will be a type or a shadow of cosmic truths, but the Bible is something that is geneopolitical rather than cosmic in scope.

"Types" and "shadows" were not the paradigm of OT thinking. That's a much later, Platonic invention. A completely different "geneopolitical" model.

Correct. We are the flecks of dust from which Adam's body becomes composed.
We are also the flecks of dust from which "creatures in the waters wherin dwells the breath of life" are composed.

How cosmological of you...
I thought we were using a "geneopolitical" model?

You are likely functioning somewhere in the "fish" to the "four-footed beasts" category of angelic glory. You may or may not be sufficiently prepared to become elevated to the angelic glory of entering into the body of Adam, and to undergo the challenges and trials He faces, but you might be as well. It will all depend upon the degree to which you discipline yourself to avoid eisegesis and to perform proper exegesis in strict accordance with the Holy Spirit. The sealed portion will draw in those who shall recognize it and drive away those who love their darkness over the light.

Or, I could be well-schooled in theological construction and have the ability to shoot your hypothesis full of holes and eat fish and chips without an attack of conscience...

Your opinion would matter greatly if at some point I confirmed that you actually took the time to fully and carefully review things and you had substantive reasons to refute it. Unless and until that time comes, your opinion is just based on the orthodox views I rejected many years ago, for very good reasons.

I'd have to say that "evidence of eisegetical conclusion" is fairly substantive here.

You have no idea how "orthodox" or "unorthodox" I may be. Remember, when you "assume"...

when the platform has been established for a cycle and you covenant to abide that platform, then you need to function properly within that or else you risk becoming someone who does not have fidelity, which is not going to be helpful.

Welcome to "The World According to Kylixguru..."

That's all fine and good, but when someone receives religious ordinances and enters into a covenant, the terms and conditions of that covenant shall be honoured.
If they are not honored, then this is a form of infidelity and shall be treated accordingly.

well...
I'd have to say that Jesus was certainly crucified...
Do we not, at our baptism, enter into his death with him?

So, there is plenty of room for different religious groups (spiritual families) on this planet. And, when a group of spirits establishes a covenant with a man in the flesh that his posterity will be the tabernacles for those spirits in that group, then all those who have the DNA of that individual who made that covenant is actually bound to some extent whether they realize it or not. Mostly it is just to make something available to them if they choose.

Could you be any more vague?

The context I argue for is that each individual get their own individual inspiration from the Holy Spirit to know for themselves what is true and what is not.
We should not be so inclined to accept things just because someone else (whether an individual or an entire group or society) says so. That's all I'm saying.

the prophets prophesied to a society -- a culture -- a people. Jesus gathered a community -- a group -- and taught them. That's all I'm saying.

I'm only here to share, not convince anyone of anything.

Well, this is a debate forum. If you don't want the heat, why are you in the kitchen?