Nostr Web Client

God is (numerically) one (not only operating but) existing eternally in three persons. Christ is one person with two natures. To worship one of the persons is to worship the "whole" God.

MKD Podcast 1y ago

ok so we have come full circle.

saying it in that way really makes me question why there is so much division. all people worship the 1 god in some form or fashion including the 'pagan'. the pagan generally does not subscribe to organized religion but that doesnt make them a disbeliever of the 1 god per se.

why polarize things like paganism or christ when you said by worshipping an aspect of the creator, one is actually worship the creator in its entirety?

maybe i misunderstand your position 🤷🏾‍♂️

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

If you'd like to understand the position better, I would point you to Scripture. Genesis 1-3, then the gospel of John, then the Epistle to the Colossians, then the Epistle to the Romans.

Worshipping Christ Jesus in no way approximates what is meant by "worshipping an aspect of the creation."

You might also pick up Peter Jones, Identity Theft.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

Specifically, see what the Scriptures say about the Creator/creature distinction ("all is two") vs. what the monist pagans say ("all is one"). Hint: the pagans say creation is an aspect of the essence of God, rather than an utterly distinct and dependent "work of his hands."

https://youtu.be/Ts5669wmzWg?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/ZudncAOALvM?feature=shared

MKD Podcast 1y ago

interesting idea. like the 2 natures you mentioned before. i recall reading about the church debating this idea and remains divided on the subject. the irony of the all being two 🙃🙂

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

No, not "the all," just all. Meaning that we cannot speak about "being in general" because there are two distinct *kinds* of being: Creator (infinite, eternal, unchangeable, self-existent, etc) and his creation (finite, temporal, changeable, dependent). God is not like us only "more so," we're not on the same scale at all. What makes the creature differ from his creator is not merely a matter of *degree*.

Look at what Aquinas says about univocal, equivocal, and analogical knowledge. That gets at it a bit too.

MKD Podcast 1y ago

i reject that part because it appears to be a cognitive dissonance.

we are made in the likeness of god, possessed of his spirit. surely this describes a degree of difference between god (creator) and man (creation) not 2 different things.

like hot and cold they are both temperature just on different sides of the one measure.

GODGIFT. 1y ago

Hmm

MKD

You actually make sense

MKD Podcast 1y ago

do i normally sound off my rocker 😅😅😅

MKD Podcast 1y ago

if there is no man, there is no god and vice versa. if you dont have hot you dont have cold and vice versa..

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

God does not depend on us for his existence.

MKD Podcast 1y ago

clearly god needs a body/vehicle to exist. the eternal is formless and void and doesnt exist by strict definition.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

Clearly we're using different definitions of "exist" - God *is* from all eternity. He didnt need to take on flesh to appear in history, however. Think of the many epiphanies in Scripture. Restricting existence to "in time and space" is rather limiting and rule out God.

I think some of your questjons might be answered by what we call the communicable attributes of God (how are we like him?) and thr incommunicable attributes of God (how are we not like him?)

https://youtu.be/bcbL6J7vzbQ?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/QF5ibvv_VQA?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/F7gUpl5hUSY?feature=shared

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

Distinction means we are not him and he is not us--but that doesn't preclude his ability to speak to us, our ability to commune with gim. We were make "like" him but not "of the same substance" as him.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

Also - that Christ has "two natures in one person" has been a settled dogma since the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

Weatherall 1y ago

but then what to make of all of this? :

"This book is an exposure of the greatest assurances of Catholic Christian Apologists. When faced with a Protestant opponent, the seething arrogance and pretended intellectual superiority of these men is shattered on the rocks of this book. This book details the evolution of Hellenistic philosophy through its Pre-Christian, Gnostic and Neoplatonic eras finding its perpetual home in the Christian Church. The doctrine of the Trinity will be shown to be grounded in the ancient pantheistic doctrine of the Monad Huperousia, the One, transcending all the categories of human language; not the concrete personal creator of the Bible but the psychological state in one’s head when in mystic trance. I will demonstrate how the Trinity doctrine affects one’s entire worldview working out into a mystic Ascetic Ethical philosophy and a Communist Political and Economic philosophy. The egalitarian Godhead of Trinitarianism and the Filioque is the basis for the modern doctrines of Equality of Opportunity, Equality of Outcome, and Gender and Racial Equality which have resulted in mass genocide and social and economic chaos in the west. The Trinity doctrine is also based in the Hegelian Dialectic and the Neoplatonic idea that all distinctions inherently imply hostility which also has enormous social implications. All in all I will show this doctrine to be one of the worst ideas in human history."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50727164-conquering-the-verbal-sorcery-of-trinitarianism

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

On the Trinity, see John Owen's [Brief Vindication](https://ccel.org/ccel/owen/trinity/trinity.i.html)

For a brief response regarding Hellenism, see Michael Horton's [Hellenistic or Hebrew?](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Hellenistic-or-Hebrew-Open-Theism-and-Reformed-Horton/8fc416fd8bf9c04b4f98af616d738a9e585f2a6d)

I don't see how Hegel comes into play at all. The Gnostics were dealt with soundly by Irenaeus.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

...the rest of those charges can be laid at the feet of gnosticism but not Trinitarian doctrine. For (probably) the best defense of the "self-contained ontological Trinity" against Hegel's (ancient) ideas, see Cornelius Van Til - free courses available at [Reformed Forum](https://reformedforum.org)

Weatherall 1y ago

who do you reckon is responsible for the massive decline in the west while there was a church on every corner?

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

The many, vs the few

Weatherall 1y ago

who would be the few in this?

im just saying the church has done nothing to arrest these degenerative trajectories and in some cases seems to have clearly contributed ... and it also seems to be accelerating with latest jesuit install?

is the body still a body without a head?