GINOLJC, to all.
first thanks for the reply, second, cannot buy that excuse, and here's why. A. if this was, as you say, " God becoming the Son". then the Son according to you did not exist until he came, correct?
No, using inexact vocabulary is what caused a lot of the Trinitarian confusion in the Early Church. When men asserted that the Son had an eternal origin, it referred to the eternity of his Deity. When you and I are here referred to "God becoming flesh" and marking Trinitarian distinctions, we are not talking about his *eternal origin in deity,* but rather, about God revealing Himself, through his Word, in humanity, marking new Trinitarian distinctions. And marking new Trinitarian distinctions does not obliviate the eternal deity of the Son.
The "Son" implies God becoming a man, but it does not obliviate this man having had eternal origins as the Word of God. So you're confusing the terms with respect to this Trinitarian argument. The Son is eternal as far as his divine identity. But the Son is not eternal as far as his having been a man from eternity!
No, my argument is not an excuse, but an effort to get you to see that Trinitarianism is complicated, and can be easily confused by the mixed use of words. By the way, GINOLJC to you, as well!
But I would, of course, have to assume that your Lord Jesus Christ is the same as mine, that he was true man and true God, and that as true man he was distinct, temporally, from God, and identified, eternally, with the person of God.
which says it was never three in the beginning. so plesse explain.
B. and if is was neither the Father nor the Son that was speaking, according to you, it was the Holy Ghost, because if this is prophetic, listen,
2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
The Holy Spirit is the divine means by which the Word of God activated God's work in the temporal sphere of creation. God, being omnipotent and omnipresent, had to, in a sense, reduce His activities to the limited sphere of the universe in order to display Himself in a less than infinite context.
He did so by the Holy Spirit, which is God's appearance in finite locations. He also did so by the use of His Word, which connects the infinite God with finite activities.
But the personhood of the Holy Spirit is not here being presented in the description of Trinitarian distinctions, but rather, as the means by which God acts within finite creation. The identity of God encompasses all 3 Persons of the Trinity. When we make Trinitarian distinctions their different roles can be expressed beyond their mere identity as God. But their Trinitarian distinctions comes *after* the Incarnation, or is merely projected, ambiguously, before the Incarnation, through prophecy.
so now according to you, this prophetic projection was of the Holy Ghost, (if it was not the Father nor the Son, according to you), who the one was pierced was the Holy Ghost, because the speaker said, " and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" ME is referring to the speaker of the prophecy. now you have the Holy Ghost coming as the Son. but you said the Father is coming as the Son. so which is it?
No, this is your projection. I never mentioned the Holy Ghost, as if this was describing Him using a Trinitarian description. You are saying that.
God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--are all encompassed in what God did in the OT Scriptures. A Trinitarian description is not being depicted there--it is only depicted after the Incarnation, as I said, or projected as such through biblical prophecy.
C. the only prophetic projection came from the Holy Spirit, according to 2 Peter 1:21. now you have another proplem, and here it is listen carefully,
1 Peter 1:10 "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:"
1 Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." HOLD IT, the Spirit of Christ was in them, meaning in the Prophet, but according to 2 Peter 1:21 it was the Holy Spirit who moved them, meaning was in then. well please this also.
now either you're saying that the apostle Peter is lying, meaning God, (God forbid), because it is God who gave Peter those words to write. or you're in error. so please explain A,B, and C please. thanks in advance.
Again, you are arguing against your own false use of terminology--not my use of the terminology. You are using the Holy Spirit not as an identifier of Deity but rather as a Person of the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit clearly operated in the OT, but is not described as a 3rd Person of the Trinity. The Son has not yet been manifested in the flesh, marking the 2nd Person of the Trinity. All 3 persons of the Trinity had an eternal origin in God, but are not distinguished as 3 persons until after the Incarnation.
The Holy Spirit had operated, separately, in the OT, but had not be depicted in the Trinitarian formulation--the Son had not yet been revealed as a man. But becoming a man was forecast in a mysterious, ambiguous way. You should therefore stop trying to produce an OT Trinitarian formulation--it doesn't exist until after the Incarnation, or by projection mysteriously.
As I said, the Holy Spirit is expressed, separately, in the OT Scriptures. And that's because, as I said, the infinite God is sort of reducing His appearance down to the level of a finite environment, where He actually appears to exist in many different locations. God is actually in *all* of those places, since He is omnipresent.
But after the Incarnation the Son also appears in a finite location, though only in one place, where he exists in the form of the flesh. Now he appears to compete with the Holy Spirit for a place within the finite universe. This then requires the Holy Spirit and the Son to be distinguished, thus marking a need for new Trinitarian distinctions. You won't be able to go back into the OT Scriptures to get this--it only takes place *after* the Incarnation.
