The trinity in the Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter whyeyeman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Every spirit that denies Christ come in the flesh is not of God”
 
When the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, the Word “was made man” (to quote the Creed). Not before.

The Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, always existed. We agree on that much. But always existed as a man? No. He “was made man” at a particular point in time.
 
Last edited:
Read the entire thing.

Any error or cherrypicking in the creed will lead to heresy.

The same applies to a lot of the interpretation of scripture in this entire thread.

Rejection of Christ’s human nature was part of war in heaven.

This has been going on forever.

These ideas are nothing new…

Recycled old heresies.

This entire thread reeks of misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology…

Much of which is a mystery anyway.

But to say that they are not co equal or Christ was never human is all heresy.
 
How can he be the second person if he never was a person? To put it in simpler terms.

God is eternal. He never changes… only what is revealed about him does as we learn more.
 
Him becoming human means he always was human because he is God. He is eternal.
 
I’m not rejecting Christ’s human nature at all. I buy the hypostatic union completely!

And I am not cherrypicking the creed. The Word, the eternally existing Son of God, is represented i the creed as “begotten, not made,” yet having been “made” man at a particular point in time, i.e., when he was “born of the Virgin Mary.” That’s what the creed says. Not made God. Made man. How could it be clearer?
 
Exactly but these are eternal things.

Through him all things were made.

So…

It is kinda a paradox but that’s the way these things are.

Like Adam and Eve were created in the image and likeness of God.

To Say God was never human kind of denies a lot of that.

He is whatever he wants to be… And whatever that is has always existed since he is uncreated and eternal. Not bound by time.

We know how the story goes and that is all important but it in no way circumvents his human nature because he has transcended all that. Even if historically to most it is just a story about some dude who lived in the desert over 2000 years ago.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Alot of protestants deny the perpetual virginity of Mary because of the word “Until” in luke saying Joseph knew her not until. That is a similar problem and in no way denies her perpetual virginity or the immaculate conception.
 
Last edited:
Quote “To say God was not human prior to being born of Mary doesn’t deny a bit of that!”

Maybe in how the story is told…

But not in the theological understanding.

He is transcendent.

Humans are created in his image and likeness.

Don’t forget genesis.
 
We only make errors like this because we are limited.

Some scientists will tell you time isn’t really linear it is a flat circle…

I think God is above all that and stuff but it is a similar idea.
 
Or rather born of the father and incarnate of the virgin Mary.

Oops.

See what I mean?

Words are important.

But the divine mysteries are like eternal and perpetual things.

To deny any of that we fall into error.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

How is he walking if he doesn’t have a body?
 
Or is it them that is walking?

Or both…

See scripture has a lot of meaning in how it’s written that is not immediately apparent.
 
Some will even argue that the trinity changed between the OT and NT or that they are not the same God…

I don’t know much of the official position on this but I’m gonna go with Samuel l Jackson.
 
RedFan said:
When the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, the Word “was made man” (to quote the Creed). Not before.
Click to expand...
So as a man the Second Divine Person was not eternal? Or part trapped in time and part not?

Rev 13-18All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
 
Last edited:
The immaculate conception wasn’t defined as dogma historically til more recently… doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top