|
figmentPez -> RE: How is Jesus God if God is Jesus' Father? (7/10/2008 2:40:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: VJDTropical This may help <SNIP link that foolishly defines the Son as proceeding from the Father, but neglects His status as eternally begotten> See this before seeing the next one <SNIP off-topic link about tripartite man> The other one <SNIP heretical teachings about "trinity"> Hope I helped Sadly, you most certainly did not help, and have contributed to the harm done to Christianity by false teaching about the nature of God. First, let me say that your second link, the one about a "tripartite man" is completely off topic. Even IF man is of three parts (and not two, one or many more), that has nothing to do with God's triune nature. There is no part of a man that is begotten of another part. My flesh cannot say that it is the son of my soul or spirit, as the Son can truly say that He is the son of the Father. God's triune nature is not related to man's various parts. Next, lets deal with the false analogies put forth in your third link: Matter: Your link says "it takes on different forms or manifestations under different conditions." This is completely unlike God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not different forms or manifestations of God. In fact, trinitarian doctrine is completely opposed to "modalism" which teaches such heresy. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternal. God has always existed as these three, and always will exist as these three. Before there was anything in creation to manifest to, God was already Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God does not change. It is wrong to compare the unchaging God's eternal triunity to the ability of matter to shift between states. (Not only that, but matter has more than three states anyway. Plasma and Bose-Einstein Condensate are two more.) Light: The link says "Light that appears as white, the purest of all, does not exist by itself... a manifestation of three colors in one." However, a person cannot look at blue light and know what white light is, but it is possible to know the Father by seeing the Son. The Son is the very image of the Father, not just a fraction that fails to present the whole of God. Space: Link says that "and yet that point is one [dimension]" Regardless of any theological accuracy, this wrong from a scientific standpoint. A point has no dimensionality. A line is a single dimension. As to theological accuracy, I think it is foolish to claim that the three dimensions of our world somehow represent God. Each person of the trinity is the whole of God, and not a limited one-dimensional caricature. Time: This is another analogy that lends itself more to modalism than trinitarian doctrine. God is not different in the past that He will be in the future. God is who was and is and is to come. This is true of each person of the Godhead. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are unchanging, and are not like time which is constantly shifting. Lastly, when the article finally gets to talking directly about God, it makes some horrendously wrong statements: Of Jesus Christ it says "He was both "Son of God," an expression of God as contained in human form," Whoah! This is a completely wrong definition of what it means to be the Son of God! The Son of God is God begotten of God, and has nothing to do with His humanity! The Son of God was the Son of God before creation existed. Furthermore, the article claims that humans will have a "divine form". Men will NOT become gods!!! It also refers to the Holy Spirit as a "part" of God, which is rather inaccurate, and defines Him by His role in relation to humanity, instead of as His identity as God and His relationship within the trinity. It also claims that the Father is the only part of God that is "transcendent, infinite and beyond our understanding," but that is true of all three persons of the trinity. The first link you had is better than the other two, but is still very poor. It fails to relate the eternal nature of the Son being begotten of the Father, and also fails to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. It also goes outside of Biblical teaching in it's statements about the trinity acting in creation.
|
|
|
|