Trinitarianism, in contrast to Unitarianism... seems like they are opposites of a continuum. Even though at times it would seem that the two have irreconcilable differences, I wonder if there is a more of in the middle alternative. The reason being is that when we take in consideration some of the standards needed to validate a theological construct (see added media), both fall short by when looked by themselves. The main concern I have comes from noting in the Bible certain verses: Leb: Zechariah 14:9 And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; on that day Yahweh will be one and his name one. Rev 7:17 because the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and will lead them to springs of living waters, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." Like I wrote somewhere else long ago: So if the Lamb is in the midst then is implied that the Father (Creator of Heaven and Earth) is a little to the left so the Lamb can be to His right? unlikely. We have a wonderful description of a Being in Revelation 1:12 - 19, many of the descriptive details are exactly related to Yahweh in the OT, but some other characteristics seem to be related with Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. Could it be that in the end, God fleshed Himself of humanity to be able to be with us without causing us harm as He would if present among us in Spirit? The description in Rev 1, seems to be a combination of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man. Ireneaus at one point seemed to think that "Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the arms (or hands) of God that He uses to bring believers close to His heart" [very rough paraphrase from flawed memory of mine] If that is so, note that members (arms or hands), of the Godhead, are not different persons, but inherent elements. So maybe there is something about the unity of God that escapes our understanding precisely because we have a particular contextual situation that does not allow us to know about other forms (or modes) of being. So looking in awesome Logos Software, I found something that can be the start of an exploration into a more in the middle of the continuum possibility: One may hold, with orthodox theologians from Basil of Caesarea to Herman Bavinck, either that the divine persons are modes of the divine being or that they differ only in their modes of being, without committing oneself to the heresy of modalism. In order to avoid modalism, rather, one need merely affirm that the distinctions between the divine persons are (1) eternal, (2) unchangeable, and (3) real, and in particular, intrinsic to the divine being and not dependent for their existence on the activity of nondivine minds. Jowers, D. W. (2018). Modalism. In H. W. House (Ed.), The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions (p. 327). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books: A Division of Baker Publishing Group. Peace and grace. Not perfect, but also a good start to look at the issue with fresh perspective.
- Blair: Better information is coming up: 10.6 Jesus and the Spirit Dunn, J. D. G. (2006). The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (Second Edition). London: SCM Press. The previous section was up to something good, but then blew it with associating Colossians with poetry. Jesus as God's Wisdom made flesh... Living Torah anyone... Then when explain about the relation of Jesus with the H.S. is clear that the Holy Spirit is the giver of life, the one that operates to resuscitate humans, so the construct that He must have left Jesus before Jesus died, is plausible, otherwise Jesus would not be able to die. I also noted that there is a Factbook entry for hypostasis. Pretty cool. Lastly my unscientific way to research more was to select certain resources from the filter in Library: 1 New Temple of God 2 Temple I put selected resources picked from the above and placed in a collection, then looked up the term hypostasis (that is how I got to the Parting of the ways book). Lots of material to check. Then one must prioritize selected key concepts, to then have a more rational way to study the subject. Wonder if there is somewhere a section dealing with the relation between God the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Hamilton Ramos — EditedOops... more problems: Furthermore, there are for Barth, as for Calvin, soteriological reasons why the creaturely integrity of the Temple is upheld. It is crucial to Jesus Christ’s work as mediator that the dwelling place remains human: ‘If the human essence of Jesus Christ is deified, can he really be the Mediator between God and us?’ (IV/2, p. 89). His human essence is the same as ours, and even as the exalted Son of Man, he is still our brother, and in this way accessible and recognizable and able to be the first-born among many brothers. Norgate, J. (2004). The Temple in the Theology of Karl Barth. In T. D. Alexander & S. Gathercole (Eds.), Heaven on Earth (p. 234). Carlisle [England: Paternoster Press. In theory, Mary was not a contributor to the zygote of Jesus, because she was of a fallen nature, and the Lamb had to be perfect. Even more, if Jesus had some fallen nature on Him, the Holy Spirit would not be able to remain on Him after descending because that Holy Spirit presence would kill any fallen nature not yet justified by the atonement. Now Jesus as an incarnated Divine Hypostasis (more similar to the nature of Adam before the fall [to allow equality of conditions for testing]), so as being of unfallen nature, could perfectly receive the Holy Spirit and have that Holy Spirit remain. And this is the beauty of it: an unfallen human, dying voluntarily for the fallen ones... Wisdom and Power of God at best, so that obedience was learned by making Himself similar to us, and letting go of being same as God, so that He could die for us. To then be glorified and have the fullness of Deity dwell bodily being the New Temple of God. By extension, as we are the body of Christ, we become living stones, part of that Temple, but that does not make us same as the Spirit that indwells the temple. Being a living stone part of the New Temple of God, does not give us self-existence. That is an incommunicable attribute of God. We will always be dependent on God's grace to continue living even in glorified form.
- Blair posted way above in the thread: "Concerning St. Irenaeus, Trinitarians see that picture as a picture of the Trinity. We believe the Spirit and the Christ are both the same God. "St. Irenaeus drew a beautiful picture of God the Father holding His two hands out to us. The one hand is the Holy Spirit. The other hand is Jesus. Thus we have the Trinity " by Anthony M. Coniaris. Knowing God: Life’s Highest Purpose and Joy. N. p. Print. This is precisely my point, arms, or hands extended out by God are not different persons, but different hypostasis of God. Arms or hands are considered inherent members of 1 Being, and that seems to be what the view was in that era believer's worldview. I have to accept that because that seems to be the intent of the Authors concerning Jesus (not two powers on heaven, but an inherent Hypostasis of God). The next investigation is to find out if "seated to the right " is figurative language, and what they meant by it. As I have mentioned elsewhere: is God (the Creator of all) a little to the left so the Lamb can be to the right? (unlikely). Rev 7:17 because the Lamb who is in the midst of the thronewill shepherd them and will lead them to springs of living waters, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." So being to the right seems to me more like figurative language to indicate that resurrected Jesus (New Temple of God) is where the fullness of Deity dwells bodily.