|
>>>It is nothing more than a OT quote taken out of context to >>>draw attention from the Jewish audience. The christology of >>>the author--which is the only thing that really matters--is >>>that of a Trinitarian. That is the historical backround. >> >>Reply: No, that is the background you ASSUME. You must show >>me where in Hebrews God is ever defined as three persons in >>one being. > >see our branched discussion. > >>>Sure. I have no objections to calling referring to God as a >>>substantial being. However, there is still no logical >>>ground to stand on when we don't know ANYTHING about that >>>being. Therefore, it is impossible to say that God couldn't >>>be the exact image of Himself because, by definition of His >>>substantial being (omnipotent, omnicient, omnibenevolent), >>>we simply have no means to limit Him. >> >>Reply: Your statement makes no sense at all. > >God makes no sense at all to our imperfect rationale.
Reply: God makes perfect sense to me, you must have some mixed up type of God that doesn't make sense to you. The God of the Bible is not the author of confusion.
> >To say a >>CARAKTHR is the same as the one that it is the CARAKTHR of >>does not follow the use of the term and is thus special >>pleading. > >No it isn't. By definition, such a limit cannot be placed >on an omnipotent being. To do so otherwise is special >pleading.
Reply: The Bible places the limit, because IT IS WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS!
> >There is no way to escape that Hebrews 1:3 simply >>ruins Trinitarian theology. There is simply no way to get >>around the verse. > >Omnipotence easily gets around the verse. So then we must >find the christology of the author. Circles.
Reply: No, unfortunately for you, it does not. The verse says what it says. God here is a hUPOSTASIS and Jesus is a different hUPOSTASIS, which happens to be the CARAKTHR of the first. That is what this first tells us. But that does not fit your theology, so you are performing special pleading to try get around it.
> >>> >>>>Reply: Hebrews 1:10 does not say anything about >>>>Trinitarianism. It does not define God as 2 persons that >>>>exist in 1 being. You completely misrepresent this text. By that argument, we should argue that there are actually 6 >>>>in the Godhead, because of the prior verses. Let us throw >>>>in Solomon, David and Jehoram while we are at it! After >>>>all, things written about them are applied to Jesus. >>> >>>Well, that was an insane comment. >>> >>>Hmm, here is what it says: >>> >>>"and, In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of >>>the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." >>> >>>This is God speaking about Jesus. The only time anyone else >>>is given the creation attribute is when prophets are >>>speaking about God, thus proving the christology of the >>>author and his Trinitarian belief. With this notion (along >>>with tons of others in the NT), we can assume that God's >>>being is one in three.
Reply: This is a huge assumption, because each verse prior is a secondary application from that of the original quoation. We know Christ as a role in creation, for Hebrews 1:2 tells us such, but the role is different from the Father, in as much as Christ wasn't the creator, but the intermediate agent in creation. So this does not make God one in three, in fact, there are only 2 mentioned here!
>> >>Reply: Yes, it is. It is also a secondary, different >>fulfillment than the original, as with verses 5, 6, 8 and 9. > >5, 6, 8 and 9 say nothing to verify this notion. We are >doing the circle dance.
Reply: The quotations are from the OT, about David, Solomon and Jehoram. One such quotation, from 2 Sam 7:14, speaks of "when he sins", something not applicable to Jesus, and so we know the quotation is not used in the same sense.
> >>This does not make God a Trinity, rather, the verse is >>entirely accurate, as God created through Christ (Heb 1:2). >>So Christ clearly had an involvement in the earth and heaven >>being made. > >and through Himself, and the Holy Spirit. There are clearly >references to both ways (by and through), which--and I'm >guessing again here--would be entirely possible for an >omnipotent being.
Reply: God did not create with himself as the intermediate agent. God was the source, Christ was the intermediate agent, and of interest, according to Wallace (DTS), the holy spirit was the impersonal agent.
> >>> >>>>>unless, of course, carakthr means "exact image", which is >>>>>does. >>>> >>>>Reply: That still does not help the position. He is the >>>>exact image of that substance, but he is still not it! He >>>>is only the CARAKTHR of it. >>> >>>And since none of us have seen God, we can only go be what >>>His implied substance is, which is one in three, as the >>>authors of the NT repeatedly state.
Reply: Please provide a single verse where a Bible writer ever teaches that God is one in three.
>> >>Reply: Please show me a single verse where a NT writer ever >>says God exists as one in three. > >see our branched discussion.
Reply: No, show me a verse. Obviously you can't, so your point is blown out the window here. Why didn't the Bible writers ever teach Trinity as they did salvation by faith (rom 4, 5) and the resurrection (1 Cor 15)? One must wonder.
> >>>Hebrews 1:10 assumes the substance of God for 1:3. >>>Midrash.. the Bible is not chronological. God remains one >>>in three... He is the carakthr of Himself... you cannot say >>>such a feat is impossible for an omnipotent being! >> >>Reply: It can have the same type of substance, as I have >>the same type of substance as my Father, but I am not the >>same substance. > >You are not omnipotent.
Reply: And this is special pleading. The verse says what it says. It does not mean one thing for everyone but God.
> >We are not one being and so to say that >>Hebrews 1:10 forces such is entirely based on your a priori >>assumption. > >Hebrews 1:10 was a reference I knew nothing about. It >simply forces this assumption for this particular paragraph.
Reply: It forces no such thing, for Heb 1:2 contextual limits Christ's role in creation, as do verses like John 1:3 and Col 1:16.
> My conclusion is based on countless NT scriptures. > >To say he is the CARARKTHR of himself does not >>make sense, and to say something of God would be senseless. > >Well, it does make sense, it just goes against our >rationale. There is a difference, and to say otherwise is >to limit God's omnipotence.
Reply: No, it really doesn't make sense, because that is not the word means, so your application is grammatically impossible.
> >>To the 1st century reader of Hebrews, it would not make any >>sense at all, because the meaning of the words does not fit >>that. You are attempting to redefine things in order to fit >>your theology. Why can't you simply accept what it is? > >I fully accept that Jesus is the exact representation of >God, as God in the Flesh. I fully accept the fact that God >is omnipotent.
Reply: But he specifically represents God's being, and if he represents that being he is thus not that being.
> >>> >>>>>Not one of your definitions define God as a separate being >>>>>from Christ, but having to do with His "real" being... find >>>>>a definition for God's "real" being (which is impossible), >>>>>and your argument will no longer have an omnipotent foot to >>>>>stand on. >>>> >>>>Reply: I don't have to define it. I know Christ is not a >>>>part of, a sharer of or anything of the like in God's real >>>>being, because he is not it, he is the CARAKTHR of it! As >>>>the CARAKTHR, he is not the original and he is temporally >>>>distinct from the original, for a CARAKTHR can only come >>>>after an original. >>> >>>Unless, of course, the hUPOSTASIS is the carakthr, which is >>>what the author seems to think!
Reply: That falls outside the useage of the words and so is thus not possible by the words this NT author used. Unless you care to argue that he was wrong?
>> >>Reply: Then why does he say exactly the opposite? The >>hUPOSTASIS cannot be the CARAKTHR, for that falls outside >>the use of the words. > >In our rationale, yes, but it certainly doens't fall outside >the lines of God's omnipotence. God can be cold and hot, >north and south, God and representation of God. Who are we >to say otherwise? I'm reading the whole of this cited >paragraph we continue to discuss, and I see it all as truth. > There is nothing you have said that has disputed God's >omnipotence and the Trinitarian belief that is obviously >stated by the author.
Reply: The problem you face is that the NT author knew what he was saying. He has our rational as well, for he was human. He used specific terms to define the existence of Christ and God, terms that do not work in your theological view. You are stuck.
> >>>I did. I read the verse you cited thinking to myself, >>>"that's odd," and then I read the rest of the paragraph and >>>realized what it was: an OT quote taken out of context to >>>draw in a Jewish audience. The christology of the author >>>wasn't assumed--it became quite obvious as I read on. >>>peace, >> >>Reply: It only became "given" within your assumed position. >> If you read it without your assumed position, it does not >>lead to Trinitarianism. > >I had no assumed position, other than hot AND cold, north >AND south, God AND man. > >There is no other way to take this >>passage than for what it simply says, unless of course, we >>do what you're doing, which is special pleading, a known >>logical fallacy. > >I cannot limit God's omnipotence. Our discussion will not >get past this. peace,
Reply: We are not limiting God, we are defining what he is and what Jesus is. This is what the NT author does, not what we are doing. Now obviously you reject what the author of Hebrews says, because it contradicts your theology. I'm sad to see you reject what scripture clearly states.
-Tony
|