Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Equal in nature

Expand Messages
  • travelingman1352
    I was wondering if the scripture that you were thinking of was 1 Pet. 1:3, 4? Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 14, 2009
      I was wondering if the scripture that you were thinking of was 1 Pet. 1:3, 4?

      "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for YOU."

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      If I understand you correctly on this, I like your train of thought. But I think that even though Trinitarians may agree that all heavenly persons do have the same spiritual form (including the original angels and those who have the heavenly hope), they may get around this by saying that they are referring to a different kind of nature when talking about the actual 'Godhead'. The triune Godhead's nature as opposed to the nature of all divine beings. 

      This reminds me of a scripture that I would like to share that you may appreciate:

      "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." -Luke 9:26

      By using Trinitarian's own faulty reasoning against them, one could illustrate their absudity by making the argument that the holy angels in this verse are a part of the 'Godhead'. You could also ask them, "If the Holy Spirit is an equal member of a trinity, then where is the "glory of the Holy Spirit" in this scripture? ;)

       

      --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Hello All,
      >
      > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and I'd
      > like you guys to give your imput on this:
      >
      > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the standard,
      > the
      > orthodox doctrine. They are:
      >
      > a.. Separate in person
      > b.. Equal in nature
      > c.. Submissive in duty
      >
      > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God, but
      > one being.
      > There are three persons in one being.
      >
      > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person, for
      > this
      > would be self-contradictory.
      >
      >
      > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the point.
      >
      > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity equal in
      > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says this)
      > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does that
      > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
      > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once those
      > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
      >

    • ginosko92
      Travelingman the Scripture that you quote does not sound like the one I had in mind.... I think that the verse actually mentioned they would be sharing Jesus
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 14, 2009

        Travelingman the Scripture that you quote does not sound like the one I had in mind.... I think that the verse actually mentioned they would be sharing Jesus' divine nature!

        However you make an excellent point with your reasoning!! Thank you for your contribution.

        There is always something that we can learn from each other :)


        --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, travelingman1352 <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > I was wondering if the scripture that you were
        > thinking of was 1 Pet. 1:3, 4?
        >
        > "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according
        > to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the
        > resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible and
        > undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for
        > YOU."
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
        > ---------
        >
        > If I understand you correctly on this, I like your train of thought. But
        > I think that even though Trinitarians may agree that all heavenly
        > persons do have the same spiritual form (including the original angels
        > and those who have the heavenly hope), they may get around this by
        > saying that they are referring to a different kind of nature when
        > talking about the actual 'Godhead'. The triune Godhead's nature as
        > opposed to the nature of all divine beings.
        >
        > This reminds me of a scripture that I would like to share that you may
        > appreciate:
        >
        > "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be
        > ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father
        > and of the holy angels." -Luke 9:26
        >
        > By using Trinitarian's own faulty reasoning against them, one could illustrate their absurdity by making
        > the argument that the holy angels in this verse are a part of the
        > 'Godhead'. You could also ask them, "If the Holy Spirit is an equal
        > member of a trinity, then where is the "glory of the Holy Spirit" in
        > this scripture? [;)]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
        > wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > Hello All,
        > >
        > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and I'd
        > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
        > >
        > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
        > standard,
        > > the
        > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
        > >
        > > a.. Separate in person
        > > b.. Equal in nature
        > > c.. Submissive in duty
        > >
        > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God, but
        > > one being.
        > > There are three persons in one being.
        > >
        > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person, for
        > > this
        > > would be self-contradictory.
        > >
        > >
        > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
        > point.
        > >
        > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity equal
        > in
        > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says this)
        > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does that
        > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
        > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once
        > those
        > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
        > >
        >

      • ginosko92
        Travelingman I found it!! 2 Peter 1:4: 4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent (A
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 14, 2009

          Travelingman I found it!!  2 Peter 1:4:

          4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent (A)promises, so that by them you may become (B)partakers of the divine nature, having (C)escaped the (D)corruption that is in (E)the world by lust.   (NASB)


          --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, travelingman1352 <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          > I was wondering if the scripture that you were
          > thinking of was 1 Pet. 1:3, 4?
          >
          > "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according
          > to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the
          > resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible and
          > undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for
          > YOU."
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
          > ---------
          >
          > If I understand you correctly on this, I like your train of thought. But
          > I think that even though Trinitarians may agree that all heavenly
          > persons do have the same spiritual form (including the original angels
          > and those who have the heavenly hope), they may get around this by
          > saying that they are referring to a different kind of nature when
          > talking about the actual 'Godhead'. The triune Godhead's nature as
          > opposed to the nature of all divine beings.
          >
          > This reminds me of a scripture that I would like to share that you may
          > appreciate:
          >
          > "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be
          > ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father
          > and of the holy angels." -Luke 9:26
          >
          > By using Trinitarian's own faulty reasoning against them, one could illustrate their absurdity by making
          > the argument that the holy angels in this verse are a part of the
          > 'Godhead'. You could also ask them, "If the Holy Spirit is an equal
          > member of a trinity, then where is the "glory of the Holy Spirit" in
          > this scripture? [;)]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
          > wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Hello All,
          > >
          > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and I'd
          > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
          > >
          > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
          > standard,
          > > the
          > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
          > >
          > > a.. Separate in person
          > > b.. Equal in nature
          > > c.. Submissive in duty
          > >
          > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God, but
          > > one being.
          > > There are three persons in one being.
          > >
          > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person, for
          > > this
          > > would be self-contradictory.
          > >
          > >
          > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
          > point.
          > >
          > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity equal
          > in
          > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says this)
          > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does that
          > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
          > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once
          > those
          > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
          > >
          >

        • travelingman1352
          Excellent! I did some looking up on that scripture and found some excerpts that hopefully you may find useful: In the Christian Greek Scriptures, certain
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 14, 2009

            Excellent!

            I did some looking up on that scripture and found some excerpts that hopefully you may find useful:

            "In the Christian Greek Scriptures, certain words derived from the·osì (god) appear and relate to that which is divine. The related words theiìos, thei·oìtes, and the·oìtes occur at Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, and 2 Peter 1:3, 4." (Insight Book; "Divine" pp.2)

            "Finally, at 2 Peter 1:3, 4 the apostle shows that by virtue of "the precious and very grand promises" extended to faithful anointed Christians, they "may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust." Elsewhere in the Scriptures, Christians are referred to as `sharing' with Christ in his sufferings, in a death like his, and in a resurrection like his to immortality as spirit creatures, becoming joint heirs with him in the heavenly Kingdom. (1Co 15:50-54; Php 3:10, 11; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:2-4; Re 20:6) Thus it is evident that the sharing of Christians in "divine nature" is a sharing with Christ in his glory." (Insight Book; "Divine" pp.8)

            "Divine Nature. Also, there is a different nature belonging to those in heaven, spirit creatures of God. The apostle Peter speaks to his fellow Christians, spiritual brothers of Jesus Christ, of "the precious and very grand promises, that through these you may become sharers in divine nature [phyìse·os]." (2Pe 1:4) That this is a sharing with Christ in his glory as spirit persons, Peter shows in his first letter: "God . . . gave us a new birth [a·na·gen·neìsas he·masì, "having generated us again"] to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you." (1Pe 1:3, 4) "Divine nature" requires a change in nature through death and resurrection, as made plain by the apostle Paul at First Corinthians chapter 15. He explains that the Christian must die and must be resurrected in a different body, a spiritual one, which requires a change.—1Co 15:36, 38, 44, 49, 51." (Insight Book; "Nature" pp.3)


             

             

            --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Travelingman I found it!! 2 Peter 1:4:
            >
            > 4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent (A
            > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
            > ;#cen-NASB-30484A> )promises, so that by them you may become (B
            > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
            > ;#cen-NASB-30484B> )partakers of the divine nature, having (C
            > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
            > ;#cen-NASB-30484C> )escaped the (D
            > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
            > ;#cen-NASB-30484D> )corruption that is in (E
            > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
            > ;#cen-NASB-30484E> )the world by lust. (NASB)
            >
            >
            > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, travelingman1352
            > no_reply@ wrote:
            > >
            > > I was wondering if the scripture that you were
            > > thinking of was 1 Pet. 1:3, 4?
            > >
            > > "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according
            > > to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the
            > > resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible and
            > > undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for
            > > YOU."
            > >
            > >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
            > \
            > > ---------
            > >
            > > If I understand you correctly on this, I like your train of thought.
            > But
            > > I think that even though Trinitarians may agree that all heavenly
            > > persons do have the same spiritual form (including the original angels
            > > and those who have the heavenly hope), they may get around this by
            > > saying that they are referring to a different kind of nature when
            > > talking about the actual 'Godhead'. The triune Godhead's nature as
            > > opposed to the nature of all divine beings.
            > >
            > > This reminds me of a scripture that I would like to share that you may
            > > appreciate:
            > >
            > > "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be
            > > ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father
            > > and of the holy angels." -Luke 9:26
            > >
            > > By using Trinitarian's own faulty reasoning against them, one could
            > illustrate their absurdity by making
            > > the argument that the holy angels in this verse are a part of the
            > > 'Godhead'. You could also ask them, "If the Holy Spirit is an equal
            > > member of a trinity, then where is the "glory of the Holy Spirit" in
            > > this scripture? [;)]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Hello All,
            > > >
            > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and
            > I'd
            > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
            > > >
            > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
            > > standard,
            > > > the
            > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
            > > >
            > > > a.. Separate in person
            > > > b.. Equal in nature
            > > > c.. Submissive in duty
            > > >
            > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God,
            > but
            > > > one being.
            > > > There are three persons in one being.
            > > >
            > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person,
            > for
            > > > this
            > > > would be self-contradictory.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
            > > point.
            > > >
            > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity
            > equal
            > > in
            > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says
            > this)
            > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does
            > that
            > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
            > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once
            > > those
            > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
            > > >
            > >
            >

          • ginosko92
            Thanks for sharing that information. It was very good! Just so I understand this correctly, the divine nature mentioned in 2 Peter then is a not the same
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 14, 2009
              Thanks for sharing that information. It was very good!

              Just so I understand this correctly, the divine nature mentioned in 2
              Peter then is a not the same nature that Jehovah and Jesus share?


              --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, travelingman1352
              <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Excellent!
              >
              > I did some looking up on that scripture and found some excerpts that
              > hopefully you may find useful:
              >
              > "In the Christian Greek Scriptures, certain words derived from
              > the·osì (god) appear and relate to that which is divine. The
              > related words theiìos, thei·oìtes, and the·oìtes occur
              at
              > Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, and 2 Peter 1:3, 4." (Insight
              > Book; "Divine" pp.2)
              >
              > "Finally, at 2 Peter 1:3, 4 the apostle shows that by virtue of "the
              > precious and very grand promises" extended to faithful anointed
              > Christians, they "may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped
              > from the corruption that is in the world through lust." Elsewhere in
              the
              > Scriptures, Christians are referred to as `sharing' with Christ
              > in his sufferings, in a death like his, and in a resurrection like his
              > to immortality as spirit creatures, becoming joint heirs with him in
              the
              > heavenly Kingdom. (1Co 15:50-54; Php 3:10, 11; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:2-4; Re
              > 20:6) Thus it is evident that the sharing of Christians in "divine
              > nature" is a sharing with Christ in his glory." (Insight Book;
              "Divine"
              > pp.8)
              >
              > "Divine Nature. Also, there is a different nature belonging to those
              in
              > heaven, spirit creatures of God. The apostle Peter speaks to his
              fellow
              > Christians, spiritual brothers of Jesus Christ, of "the precious and
              > very grand promises, that through these you may become sharers in
              divine
              > nature [phyìse·os]." (2Pe 1:4) That this is a sharing with
              Christ
              > in his glory as spirit persons, Peter shows in his first letter: "God
              .
              > . . gave us a new birth [a·na·gen·neìsas he·masì,
              > "having generated us again"] to a living hope through the resurrection
              > of Jesus Christ from the dead to an incorruptible and undefiled and
              > unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you." (1Pe
              1:3,
              > 4) "Divine nature" requires a change in nature through death and
              > resurrection, as made plain by the apostle Paul at First Corinthians
              > chapter 15. He explains that the Christian must die and must be
              > resurrected in a different body, a spiritual one, which requires a
              > change.—1Co 15:36, 38, 44, 49, 51." (Insight Book; "Nature" pp.3)
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
              > wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > Travelingman I found it!! 2 Peter 1:4:
              > >
              > > 4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent (A
              > >
              >
              <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
              \
              > \
              > > ;#cen-NASB-30484A> )promises, so that by them you may become (B
              > >
              >
              <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
              \
              > \
              > > ;#cen-NASB-30484B> )partakers of the divine nature, having (C
              > >
              >
              <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
              \
              > \
              > > ;#cen-NASB-30484C> )escaped the (D
              > >
              >
              <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
              \
              > \
              > > ;#cen-NASB-30484D> )corruption that is in (E
              > >
              >
              <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:4;&version=49\
              \
              > \
              > > ;#cen-NASB-30484E> )the world by lust. (NASB)
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, travelingman1352
              > > no_reply@ wrote:
              > > >
              > > > I was wondering if the scripture that you were
              > > > thinking of was 1 Pet. 1:3, 4?
              > > >
              > > > "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for
              > according
              > > > to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through
              > the
              > > > resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible
              and
              > > > undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens
              > for
              > > > YOU."
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
              \
              > \
              > > \
              > > > ---------
              > > >
              > > > If I understand you correctly on this, I like your train of
              thought.
              > > But
              > > > I think that even though Trinitarians may agree that all heavenly
              > > > persons do have the same spiritual form (including the original
              > angels
              > > > and those who have the heavenly hope), they may get around this by
              > > > saying that they are referring to a different kind of nature when
              > > > talking about the actual 'Godhead'. The triune Godhead's nature as
              > > > opposed to the nature of all divine beings.
              > > >
              > > > This reminds me of a scripture that I would like to share that you
              > may
              > > > appreciate:
              > > >
              > > > "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be
              > > > ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the
              > Father
              > > > and of the holy angels." -Luke 9:26
              > > >
              > > > By using Trinitarian's own faulty reasoning against them, one
              could
              > > illustrate their absurdity by making
              > > > the argument that the holy angels in this verse are a part of the
              > > > 'Godhead'. You could also ask them, "If the Holy Spirit is an
              equal
              > > > member of a trinity, then where is the "glory of the Holy Spirit"
              in
              > > > this scripture? [;)]
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
              no_reply@
              > > > wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Hello All,
              > > > >
              > > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given
              and
              > > I'd
              > > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
              > > > >
              > > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
              > > > standard,
              > > > > the
              > > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
              > > > >
              > > > > a.. Separate in person
              > > > > b.. Equal in nature
              > > > > c.. Submissive in duty
              > > > >
              > > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being
              God,
              > > but
              > > > > one being.
              > > > > There are three persons in one being.
              > > > >
              > > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one
              person,
              > > for
              > > > > this
              > > > > would be self-contradictory.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
              > > > point.
              > > > >
              > > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity
              > > equal
              > > > in
              > > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says
              > > this)
              > > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does
              > > that
              > > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
              > > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead
              once
              > > > those
              > > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • moto_bl
              Hi ginosko, You mentioned the standard, orthodox doctrine. It is funny that many Trinitarians differ on their own definition of the Trinity. Here is a link to
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 16, 2009

                Hi ginosko,

                You mentioned the standard, orthodox doctrine. It is funny that many Trinitarians differ on their own definition of the Trinity. Here is a link to many definitions:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1621


                 

                --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Hello All,
                >
                > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and I'd
                > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                >
                > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the standard,
                > the
                > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                >
                > a.. Separate in person
                > b.. Equal in nature
                > c.. Submissive in duty
                >
                > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God, but
                > one being.
                > There are three persons in one being.
                >
                > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person, for
                > this
                > would be self-contradictory.
                >
                >
                > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the point.
                >
                > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity equal in
                > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says this)
                > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does that
                > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
                > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once those
                > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                >

              • ginosko92
                Moto all I can say is indeed a God of confusion! ... I d ... but ... for ... equal ... this) ... that
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 16, 2009
                  Moto all I can say is indeed a "God" of confusion!


                  --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, moto_bl <no_reply@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi ginosko,
                  >
                  > You mentioned the standard, orthodox doctrine. It is funny that many
                  > Trinitarians differ on their own definition of the Trinity. Here is a
                  > link to many definitions:
                  >
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1621
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/1621>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hello All,
                  > >
                  > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and
                  I'd
                  > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                  > >
                  > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
                  > standard,
                  > > the
                  > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                  > >
                  > > a.. Separate in person
                  > > b.. Equal in nature
                  > > c.. Submissive in duty
                  > >
                  > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God,
                  but
                  > > one being.
                  > > There are three persons in one being.
                  > >
                  > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person,
                  for
                  > > this
                  > > would be self-contradictory.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
                  > point.
                  > >
                  > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity
                  equal
                  > in
                  > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says
                  this)
                  > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does
                  that
                  > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
                  > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once
                  > those
                  > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                  > >
                  >
                • teddy_trueblood
                  Hi, ginosko, Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the trinity, can you tell me the original source for this definition of the Conservative
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 16, 2009
                    Hi, ginosko,

                    Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the trinity, can you
                    tell me the original source for this definition of the "Conservative
                    Evangelical" trinity?


                    --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Hello All,
                    >
                    > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and I'd
                    > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                    >
                    > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
                    standard,
                    > the
                    > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                    >
                    > a.. Separate in person
                    > b.. Equal in nature
                    > c.. Submissive in duty
                    >
                    > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God, but
                    > one being.
                    > There are three persons in one being.
                    >
                    > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person, for
                    > this
                    > would be self-contradictory.
                    >
                    >
                    > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
                    point.
                    >
                    > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity equal
                    in
                    > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says this)
                    > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does that
                    > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
                    > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once
                    those
                    > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                    >
                  • ginosko92
                    Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here on yahoo. ... I d ... but ... for ... equal ... this) ... that
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 17, 2009
                      Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here on yahoo.


                      --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                      <no_reply@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Hi, ginosko,
                      >
                      > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the trinity, can you
                      > tell me the original source for this definition of the "Conservative
                      > Evangelical" trinity?
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Hello All,
                      > >
                      > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and
                      I'd
                      > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                      > >
                      > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
                      > standard,
                      > > the
                      > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                      > >
                      > > a.. Separate in person
                      > > b.. Equal in nature
                      > > c.. Submissive in duty
                      > >
                      > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God,
                      but
                      > > one being.
                      > > There are three persons in one being.
                      > >
                      > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person,
                      for
                      > > this
                      > > would be self-contradictory.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
                      > point.
                      > >
                      > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity
                      equal
                      > in
                      > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says
                      this)
                      > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does
                      that
                      > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
                      > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once
                      > those
                      > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                      > >
                      >
                    • teddy_trueblood
                      I understand, ginosko. But I m trying to find where it actually originated. I didn t find its original source on johnoneone. I ve googled for it, but still
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 17, 2009
                        I understand, ginosko. But I'm trying to find where it actually
                        originated. I didn't find its original source on johnoneone. I've
                        googled for it, but still didn't find it.




                        --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here on yahoo.
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                        > no_reply@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Hi, ginosko,
                        > >
                        > > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the trinity, can
                        you
                        > > tell me the original source for this definition of the "Conservative
                        > > Evangelical" trinity?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                        > > wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Hello All,
                        > > >
                        > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and
                        > I'd
                        > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                        > > >
                        > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
                        > > standard,
                        > > > the
                        > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                        > > >
                        > > > a.. Separate in person
                        > > > b.. Equal in nature
                        > > > c.. Submissive in duty
                        > > >
                        > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God,
                        > but
                        > > > one being.
                        > > > There are three persons in one being.
                        > > >
                        > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person,
                        > for
                        > > > this
                        > > > would be self-contradictory.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
                        > > point.
                        > > >
                        > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity
                        > equal
                        > > in
                        > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says
                        > this)
                        > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does
                        > that
                        > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
                        > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once
                        > > those
                        > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • ginosko92
                        Teddy this is the link to the original post on Johnoneone group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 17, 2009

                          Teddy this is the link to the original post on Johnoneone group:

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102


                          --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood <no_reply@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > I understand, ginosko. But I'm trying to find where it actually
                          > originated. I didn't find its original source on johnoneone. I've
                          > googled for it, but still didn't find it.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here on yahoo.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                          > > no_reply@ wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Hi, ginosko,
                          > > >
                          > > > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the trinity, can
                          > you
                          > > > tell me the original source for this definition of the "Conservative
                          > > > Evangelical" trinity?
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                          > > > wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Hello All,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given and
                          > > I'd
                          > > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
                          > > > standard,
                          > > > > the
                          > > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > a.. Separate in person
                          > > > > b.. Equal in nature
                          > > > > c.. Submissive in duty
                          > > > >
                          > > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being God,
                          > > but
                          > > > > one being.
                          > > > > There are three persons in one being.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one person,
                          > > for
                          > > > > this
                          > > > > would be self-contradictory.
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
                          > > > point.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity
                          > > equal
                          > > > in
                          > > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says
                          > > this)
                          > > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does
                          > > that
                          > > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
                          > > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead once
                          > > > those
                          > > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >

                        • teddy_trueblood
                          Thanks, ginosko. You ve probably seen that I have posted on johnoneone asking about this. My real question is, where did they come up with c. submissive in
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jul 19, 2009


                            Thanks, ginosko.  You've probably seen that I have posted on johnoneone asking about this.  My real question is, 'where did they come up with c. submissive in duty?' 

                            All the actual trinity statements I have seen say the 'three' are equal in everything.  So how can all three be submissive (and to whom)?

                            ....................................................

                            --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > Teddy this is the link to the original post on Johnoneone group:
                            >
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102
                            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102>
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                            > no_reply@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > I understand, ginosko. But I'm trying to find where it actually
                            > > originated. I didn't find its original source on johnoneone. I've
                            > > googled for it, but still didn't find it.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                            > > wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here on
                            > yahoo.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                            > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Hi, ginosko,
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the trinity, can
                            > > you
                            > > > > tell me the original source for this definition of the
                            > "Conservative
                            > > > > Evangelical" trinity?
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                            > no_reply@
                            > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Hello All,
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was given
                            > and
                            > > > I'd
                            > > > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is the
                            > > > > standard,
                            > > > > > the
                            > > > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > a.. Separate in person
                            > > > > > b.. Equal in nature
                            > > > > > c.. Submissive in duty
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being
                            > God,
                            > > > but
                            > > > > > one being.
                            > > > > > There are three persons in one being.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one
                            > person,
                            > > > for
                            > > > > > this
                            > > > > > would be self-contradictory.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to the
                            > > > > point.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the trinity
                            > > > equal
                            > > > > in
                            > > > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he says
                            > > > this)
                            > > > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature, does
                            > > > that
                            > > > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How do
                            > > > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the godhead
                            > once
                            > > > > those
                            > > > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >

                          • ginosko92
                            Teddy I did see your post on the Johnoneone board. I can only think of 1 Cor 11:3, or 1 Cor. 15:28 where it defines the submissiveness of the Son to the
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jul 20, 2009
                              Teddy I did see your post on the Johnoneone board.

                              I can only think of 1 Cor 11:3, or 1 Cor. 15:28 where it defines the
                              submissiveness of the Son to the Father. In other words they share the
                              same essence, and that's where the equality is. However the Father is
                              still greater than the Son when it comes to authority. As I told moto
                              the other day indeed a "God" of confusion.


                              --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                              <no_reply@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Thanks, ginosko. You've probably seen that I have posted on johnoneone
                              > asking about this. My real question is, 'where did they come up with
                              c.
                              > submissive in duty?'
                              >
                              > All the actual trinity statements I have seen say the 'three' are
                              equal
                              > in everything. So how can all three be submissive (and to whom)?
                              >
                              > ....................................................
                              >
                              > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                              > wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Teddy this is the link to the original post on Johnoneone group:
                              > >
                              > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102
                              > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102>
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                              > > no_reply@ wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > I understand, ginosko. But I'm trying to find where it actually
                              > > > originated. I didn't find its original source on johnoneone. I've
                              > > > googled for it, but still didn't find it.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                              no_reply@
                              > > > wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here on
                              > > yahoo.
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                              > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Hi, ginosko,
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the trinity,
                              > can
                              > > > you
                              > > > > > tell me the original source for this definition of the
                              > > "Conservative
                              > > > > > Evangelical" trinity?
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                              > > no_reply@
                              > > > > > wrote:
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Hello All,
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was
                              given
                              > > and
                              > > > > I'd
                              > > > > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is
                              the
                              > > > > > standard,
                              > > > > > > the
                              > > > > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > a.. Separate in person
                              > > > > > > b.. Equal in nature
                              > > > > > > c.. Submissive in duty
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of being
                              > > God,
                              > > > > but
                              > > > > > > one being.
                              > > > > > > There are three persons in one being.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one
                              > > person,
                              > > > > for
                              > > > > > > this
                              > > > > > > would be self-contradictory.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and to
                              > the
                              > > > > > point.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the
                              > trinity
                              > > > > equal
                              > > > > > in
                              > > > > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters he
                              > says
                              > > > > this)
                              > > > > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine nature,
                              > does
                              > > > > that
                              > > > > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead? How
                              > do
                              > > > > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the
                              godhead
                              > > once
                              > > > > > those
                              > > > > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • teddy_trueblood
                              ginosko, Yes, I understand the equal in essence bit (although I disagree with the usual trinitarian definition of that essence ). And it is perfectly clear
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jul 20, 2009
                                ginosko,

                                Yes, I understand the 'equal in essence' bit (although I disagree with
                                the usual trinitarian definition of that 'essence').

                                And it is perfectly clear that the Christ is subordinate to the Father.
                                But how is the Father submissive?

                                The Father alone is God, so everyone else is subordinate to Him.




                                --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > Teddy I did see your post on the Johnoneone board.
                                >
                                > I can only think of 1 Cor 11:3, or 1 Cor. 15:28 where it defines the
                                > submissiveness of the Son to the Father. In other words they share the
                                > same essence, and that's where the equality is. However the Father is
                                > still greater than the Son when it comes to authority. As I told moto
                                > the other day indeed a "God" of confusion.
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                > no_reply@ wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Thanks, ginosko. You've probably seen that I have posted on
                                johnoneone
                                > > asking about this. My real question is, 'where did they come up with
                                > c.
                                > > submissive in duty?'
                                > >
                                > > All the actual trinity statements I have seen say the 'three' are
                                > equal
                                > > in everything. So how can all three be submissive (and to whom)?
                                > >
                                > > ....................................................
                                > >
                                > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                                > > wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Teddy this is the link to the original post on Johnoneone group:
                                > > >
                                > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102
                                > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102>
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > I understand, ginosko. But I'm trying to find where it actually
                                > > > > originated. I didn't find its original source on johnoneone.
                                I've
                                > > > > googled for it, but still didn't find it.
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                > no_reply@
                                > > > > wrote:
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here on
                                > > > yahoo.
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com,
                                teddy_trueblood
                                > > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > Hi, ginosko,
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the
                                trinity,
                                > > can
                                > > > > you
                                > > > > > > tell me the original source for this definition of the
                                > > > "Conservative
                                > > > > > > Evangelical" trinity?
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                > > > no_reply@
                                > > > > > > wrote:
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > Hello All,
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was
                                > given
                                > > > and
                                > > > > > I'd
                                > > > > > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity is
                                > the
                                > > > > > > standard,
                                > > > > > > > the
                                > > > > > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > a.. Separate in person
                                > > > > > > > b.. Equal in nature
                                > > > > > > > c.. Submissive in duty
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of
                                being
                                > > > God,
                                > > > > > but
                                > > > > > > > one being.
                                > > > > > > > There are three persons in one being.
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but one
                                > > > person,
                                > > > > > for
                                > > > > > > > this
                                > > > > > > > would be self-contradictory.
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good and
                                to
                                > > the
                                > > > > > > point.
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the
                                > > trinity
                                > > > > > equal
                                > > > > > > in
                                > > > > > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters
                                he
                                > > says
                                > > > > > this)
                                > > > > > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine
                                nature,
                                > > does
                                > > > > > that
                                > > > > > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead?
                                How
                                > > do
                                > > > > > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the
                                > godhead
                                > > > once
                                > > > > > > those
                                > > > > > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > >
                                > >
                                >
                              • ginosko92
                                Teddy, according to trinitarians the Father is not submissive to any of the other persons of the Godhead. That s where the confusion is: the Father, Son, HS
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jul 20, 2009
                                  Teddy,

                                  according to trinitarians the Father is not submissive to any of the
                                  other 'persons' of the Godhead. That's where the confusion is: the
                                  Father, Son, HS are co-equal and co-eternal and yet the Son is
                                  submissive to the Father, let alone the whole blasphmy against the HS.
                                  How is that possible if the HS is 3rd in place to the Father and the Son
                                  and yet we can speak against Jesus and be forgiven and the Father is not
                                  even in the picture!! That's what you get when you deal with a man made
                                  doctrine!


                                  --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                  <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ginosko,
                                  >
                                  > Yes, I understand the 'equal in essence' bit (although I disagree with
                                  > the usual trinitarian definition of that 'essence').
                                  >
                                  > And it is perfectly clear that the Christ is subordinate to the
                                  Father.
                                  > But how is the Father submissive?
                                  >
                                  > The Father alone is God, so everyone else is subordinate to Him.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                                  > wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Teddy I did see your post on the Johnoneone board.
                                  > >
                                  > > I can only think of 1 Cor 11:3, or 1 Cor. 15:28 where it defines the
                                  > > submissiveness of the Son to the Father. In other words they share
                                  the
                                  > > same essence, and that's where the equality is. However the Father
                                  is
                                  > > still greater than the Son when it comes to authority. As I told
                                  moto
                                  > > the other day indeed a "God" of confusion.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                  > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Thanks, ginosko. You've probably seen that I have posted on
                                  > johnoneone
                                  > > > asking about this. My real question is, 'where did they come up
                                  with
                                  > > c.
                                  > > > submissive in duty?'
                                  > > >
                                  > > > All the actual trinity statements I have seen say the 'three' are
                                  > > equal
                                  > > > in everything. So how can all three be submissive (and to whom)?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > ....................................................
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                  no_reply@
                                  > > > wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Teddy this is the link to the original post on Johnoneone group:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102
                                  > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102>
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                  > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > I understand, ginosko. But I'm trying to find where it
                                  actually
                                  > > > > > originated. I didn't find its original source on johnoneone.
                                  > I've
                                  > > > > > googled for it, but still didn't find it.
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                  > > no_reply@
                                  > > > > > wrote:
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here
                                  on
                                  > > > > yahoo.
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com,
                                  > teddy_trueblood
                                  > > > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > Hi, ginosko,
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the
                                  > trinity,
                                  > > > can
                                  > > > > > you
                                  > > > > > > > tell me the original source for this definition of the
                                  > > > > "Conservative
                                  > > > > > > > Evangelical" trinity?
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                  > > > > no_reply@
                                  > > > > > > > wrote:
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > Hello All,
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was
                                  > > given
                                  > > > > and
                                  > > > > > > I'd
                                  > > > > > > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity
                                  is
                                  > > the
                                  > > > > > > > standard,
                                  > > > > > > > > the
                                  > > > > > > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > a.. Separate in person
                                  > > > > > > > > b.. Equal in nature
                                  > > > > > > > > c.. Submissive in duty
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of
                                  > being
                                  > > > > God,
                                  > > > > > > but
                                  > > > > > > > > one being.
                                  > > > > > > > > There are three persons in one being.
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but
                                  one
                                  > > > > person,
                                  > > > > > > for
                                  > > > > > > > > this
                                  > > > > > > > > would be self-contradictory.
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good
                                  and
                                  > to
                                  > > > the
                                  > > > > > > > point.
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the
                                  > > > trinity
                                  > > > > > > equal
                                  > > > > > > > in
                                  > > > > > > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters
                                  > he
                                  > > > says
                                  > > > > > > this)
                                  > > > > > > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine
                                  > nature,
                                  > > > does
                                  > > > > > > that
                                  > > > > > > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead?
                                  > How
                                  > > > do
                                  > > > > > > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the
                                  > > godhead
                                  > > > > once
                                  > > > > > > > those
                                  > > > > > > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                                  > > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • teddy_trueblood
                                  Indubitably!! ... Son ... not ... made ... with ... the ... are ... teddy_trueblood ... here ... ginosko92 ... was ... the ... letters ... godhead?
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jul 20, 2009

                                    Indubitably!!


                                    --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Teddy,
                                    >
                                    > according to trinitarians the Father is not submissive to any of the
                                    > other 'persons' of the Godhead. That's where the confusion is: the
                                    > Father, Son, HS are co-equal and co-eternal and yet the Son is
                                    > submissive to the Father, let alone the whole blasphmy against the HS.
                                    > How is that possible if the HS is 3rd in place to the Father and the Son
                                    > and yet we can speak against Jesus and be forgiven and the Father is not
                                    > even in the picture!! That's what you get when you deal with a man made
                                    > doctrine!
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                    > no_reply@ wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > ginosko,
                                    > >
                                    > > Yes, I understand the 'equal in essence' bit (although I disagree with
                                    > > the usual trinitarian definition of that 'essence').
                                    > >
                                    > > And it is perfectly clear that the Christ is subordinate to the
                                    > Father.
                                    > > But how is the Father submissive?
                                    > >
                                    > > The Father alone is God, so everyone else is subordinate to Him.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                                    > > wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Teddy I did see your post on the Johnoneone board.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I can only think of 1 Cor 11:3, or 1 Cor. 15:28 where it defines the
                                    > > > submissiveness of the Son to the Father. In other words they share
                                    > the
                                    > > > same essence, and that's where the equality is. However the Father
                                    > is
                                    > > > still greater than the Son when it comes to authority. As I told
                                    > moto
                                    > > > the other day indeed a "God" of confusion.
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                    > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Thanks, ginosko. You've probably seen that I have posted on
                                    > > johnoneone
                                    > > > > asking about this. My real question is, 'where did they come up
                                    > with
                                    > > > c.
                                    > > > > submissive in duty?'
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > All the actual trinity statements I have seen say the 'three' are
                                    > > > equal
                                    > > > > in everything. So how can all three be submissive (and to whom)?
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > ....................................................
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                    > no_reply@
                                    > > > > wrote:
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Teddy this is the link to the original post on Johnoneone group:
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102
                                    > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102>
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                    > > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > I understand, ginosko. But I'm trying to find where it
                                    > actually
                                    > > > > > > originated. I didn't find its original source on johnoneone.
                                    > > I've
                                    > > > > > > googled for it, but still didn't find it.
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                    > > > no_reply@
                                    > > > > > > wrote:
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here
                                    > on
                                    > > > > > yahoo.
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com,
                                    > > teddy_trueblood
                                    > > > > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                    > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > Hi, ginosko,
                                    > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the
                                    > > trinity,
                                    > > > > can
                                    > > > > > > you
                                    > > > > > > > > tell me the original source for this definition of the
                                    > > > > > "Conservative
                                    > > > > > > > > Evangelical" trinity?
                                    > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                    > > > > > no_reply@
                                    > > > > > > > > wrote:
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > > Hello All,
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was
                                    > > > given
                                    > > > > > and
                                    > > > > > > > I'd
                                    > > > > > > > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity
                                    > is
                                    > > > the
                                    > > > > > > > > standard,
                                    > > > > > > > > > the
                                    > > > > > > > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > > a.. Separate in person
                                    > > > > > > > > > b.. Equal in nature
                                    > > > > > > > > > c.. Submissive in duty
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of
                                    > > being
                                    > > > > > God,
                                    > > > > > > > but
                                    > > > > > > > > > one being.
                                    > > > > > > > > > There are three persons in one being.
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but
                                    > one
                                    > > > > > person,
                                    > > > > > > > for
                                    > > > > > > > > > this
                                    > > > > > > > > > would be self-contradictory.
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good
                                    > and
                                    > > to
                                    > > > > the
                                    > > > > > > > > point.
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the
                                    > > > > trinity
                                    > > > > > > > equal
                                    > > > > > > > > in
                                    > > > > > > > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters
                                    > > he
                                    > > > > says
                                    > > > > > > > this)
                                    > > > > > > > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine
                                    > > nature,
                                    > > > > does
                                    > > > > > > > that
                                    > > > > > > > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead?
                                    > > How
                                    > > > > do
                                    > > > > > > > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the
                                    > > > godhead
                                    > > > > > once
                                    > > > > > > > > those
                                    > > > > > > > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                                    > > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    >

                                  • moto_bl
                                    Their god is indeed a god of confusion . Have you ever noticed that when some people have strong beliefs in something, the emotions attached to that belief
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jul 20, 2009

                                      Their god is indeed a "god of confusion".

                                      Have you ever noticed that when some people have strong beliefs in something, the emotions attached to that belief can blatantly ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary? For example, when some Trinitarians are faced with clear, scriptural passages that directly refutes the Trinity doctrine, they will just say that the tri-nature of God is a "mystery" and can't be explained. For some reason, to them this seems to be a perfectly logical solution. Yet the majority of people roll their eyes when some people believe...but cannot prove...the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and alien abductions, and end up calling them "mysteries" that cannot be explained.

                                      If the nature of God truly is a "mystery", then scriptures like John 17:3 become very confusing: "And this is the way to have eternal life...to know you, the only true God," (NLT)

                                      God is not so cruel as to tell us that we need to know Him in order to gain eternal life but then not be able to receive it because His very nature is a "mystery"!


                                       

                                       

                                      --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Teddy,
                                      >
                                      > according to trinitarians the Father is not submissive to any of the
                                      > other 'persons' of the Godhead. That's where the confusion is: the
                                      > Father, Son, HS are co-equal and co-eternal and yet the Son is
                                      > submissive to the Father, let alone the whole blasphmy against the HS.
                                      > How is that possible if the HS is 3rd in place to the Father and the Son
                                      > and yet we can speak against Jesus and be forgiven and the Father is not
                                      > even in the picture!! That's what you get when you deal with a man made
                                      > doctrine!
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                      > no_reply@ wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > ginosko,
                                      > >
                                      > > Yes, I understand the 'equal in essence' bit (although I disagree with
                                      > > the usual trinitarian definition of that 'essence').
                                      > >
                                      > > And it is perfectly clear that the Christ is subordinate to the
                                      > Father.
                                      > > But how is the Father submissive?
                                      > >
                                      > > The Father alone is God, so everyone else is subordinate to Him.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                                      > > wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Teddy I did see your post on the Johnoneone board.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I can only think of 1 Cor 11:3, or 1 Cor. 15:28 where it defines the
                                      > > > submissiveness of the Son to the Father. In other words they share
                                      > the
                                      > > > same essence, and that's where the equality is. However the Father
                                      > is
                                      > > > still greater than the Son when it comes to authority. As I told
                                      > moto
                                      > > > the other day indeed a "God" of confusion.
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                      > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Thanks, ginosko. You've probably seen that I have posted on
                                      > > johnoneone
                                      > > > > asking about this. My real question is, 'where did they come up
                                      > with
                                      > > > c.
                                      > > > > submissive in duty?'
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > All the actual trinity statements I have seen say the 'three' are
                                      > > > equal
                                      > > > > in everything. So how can all three be submissive (and to whom)?
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > ....................................................
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                      > no_reply@
                                      > > > > wrote:
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Teddy this is the link to the original post on Johnoneone group:
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102
                                      > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne/message/5102>
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
                                      > > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > I understand, ginosko. But I'm trying to find where it
                                      > actually
                                      > > > > > > originated. I didn't find its original source on johnoneone.
                                      > > I've
                                      > > > > > > googled for it, but still didn't find it.
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                      > > > no_reply@
                                      > > > > > > wrote:
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here
                                      > on
                                      > > > > > yahoo.
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com,
                                      > > teddy_trueblood
                                      > > > > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                      > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > Hi, ginosko,
                                      > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the
                                      > > trinity,
                                      > > > > can
                                      > > > > > > you
                                      > > > > > > > > tell me the original source for this definition of the
                                      > > > > > "Conservative
                                      > > > > > > > > Evangelical" trinity?
                                      > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, ginosko92
                                      > > > > > no_reply@
                                      > > > > > > > > wrote:
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > > Hello All,
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was
                                      > > > given
                                      > > > > > and
                                      > > > > > > > I'd
                                      > > > > > > > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity
                                      > is
                                      > > > the
                                      > > > > > > > > standard,
                                      > > > > > > > > > the
                                      > > > > > > > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > > a.. Separate in person
                                      > > > > > > > > > b.. Equal in nature
                                      > > > > > > > > > c.. Submissive in duty
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of
                                      > > being
                                      > > > > > God,
                                      > > > > > > > but
                                      > > > > > > > > > one being.
                                      > > > > > > > > > There are three persons in one being.
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but
                                      > one
                                      > > > > > person,
                                      > > > > > > > for
                                      > > > > > > > > > this
                                      > > > > > > > > > would be self-contradictory.
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good
                                      > and
                                      > > to
                                      > > > > the
                                      > > > > > > > > point.
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the
                                      > > > > trinity
                                      > > > > > > > equal
                                      > > > > > > > > in
                                      > > > > > > > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters
                                      > > he
                                      > > > > says
                                      > > > > > > > this)
                                      > > > > > > > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine
                                      > > nature,
                                      > > > > does
                                      > > > > > > > that
                                      > > > > > > > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead?
                                      > > How
                                      > > > > do
                                      > > > > > > > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the
                                      > > > godhead
                                      > > > > > once
                                      > > > > > > > > those
                                      > > > > > > > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                                      > > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      >

                                    • Paul Leonard
                                      HI, The emotional part is really the key. It is like Christmas, hard to leave behind because of the emotions evoked. The Trinity is even worse because; first
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jul 20, 2009
                                        HI,

                                        The emotional part is really the key.

                                        It is like Christmas, hard to leave behind because of the emotions evoked.

                                        The Trinity is even worse because; first their salvation is tied up with it and then their family and friends believe it.

                                        To reject it means not only saying they are NOT saved, but saying they have been lied to and their family has been lied to and their dead relatives are not with Jesus and .... It goes down hill from their.

                                        Then of course they must accept that WE are right and that means a further separation from family and friends.

                                        The facts get lost in the feeling of potential loss.

                                        --- On Mon, 7/20/09, moto_bl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                        From: moto_bl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Subject: [JWquestions-and_answers] Re: Equal in nature
                                        To: JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com
                                        Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 2:28 PM

                                         

                                        Their god is indeed a "god of confusion".

                                        Have you ever noticed that when some people have strong beliefs in something, the emotions attached to that belief can blatantly ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary? For example, when some Trinitarians are faced with clear, scriptural passages that directly refutes the Trinity doctrine, they will just say that the tri-nature of God is a "mystery" and can't be explained. For some reason, to them this seems to be a perfectly logical solution. Yet the majority of people roll their eyes when some people believe...but cannot prove...the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and alien abductions, and end up calling them "mysteries" that cannot be explained.

                                        If the nature of God truly is a "mystery", then scriptures like John 17:3 become very confusing: "And this is the way to have eternal life...to know you, the only true God," (NLT)

                                        God is not so cruel as to tell us that we need to know Him in order to gain eternal life but then not be able to receive it because His very nature is a "mystery"!


                                         

                                         

                                        --- In JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com, ginosko92 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Teddy,
                                        >
                                        > according to trinitarians the Father is not submissive to any of the
                                        > other 'persons' of the Godhead. That's where the confusion is: the
                                        > Father, Son, HS are co-equal and co-eternal and yet the Son is
                                        > submissive to the Father, let alone the whole blasphmy against the HS.
                                        > How is that possible if the HS is 3rd in place to the Father and the Son
                                        > and yet we can speak against Jesus and be forgiven and the Father is not
                                        > even in the picture!! That's what you get when you deal with a man made
                                        > doctrine!
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com, teddy_trueblood
                                        > no_reply@ wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > ginosko,
                                        > >
                                        > > Yes, I understand the 'equal in essence' bit (although I disagree with
                                        > > the usual trinitarian definition of that 'essence').
                                        > >
                                        > > And it is perfectly clear that the Christ is subordinate to the
                                        > Father.
                                        > > But how is the Father submissive?
                                        > >
                                        > > The Father alone is God, so everyone else is subordinate to Him.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com, ginosko92 no_reply@
                                        > > wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Teddy I did see your post on the Johnoneone board.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > I can only think of 1 Cor 11:3, or 1 Cor. 15:28 where it defines the
                                        > > > submissiveness of the Son to the Father. In other words they share
                                        > the
                                        > > > same essence, and that's where the equality is. However the Father
                                        > is
                                        > > > still greater than the Son when it comes to authority. As I told
                                        > moto
                                        > > > the other day indeed a "God" of confusion.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > --- In JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com, teddy_trueblood
                                        > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Thanks, ginosko. You've probably seen that I have posted on
                                        > > johnoneone
                                        > > > > asking about this. My real question is, 'where did they come up
                                        > with
                                        > > > c.
                                        > > > > submissive in duty?'
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > All the actual trinity statements I have seen say the 'three' are
                                        > > > equal
                                        > > > > in everything. So how can all three be submissive (and to whom)?
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ....
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > --- In JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com, ginosko92
                                        > no_reply@
                                        > > > > wrote:
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > Teddy this is the link to the original post on Johnoneone group:
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/JohnOneOne /message/ 5102
                                        > > > > > <http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/JohnOneOne /message/ 5102>
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > --- In JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com, teddy_trueblood
                                        > > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > I understand, ginosko. But I'm trying to find where it
                                        > actually
                                        > > > > > > originated. I didn't find its original source on johnoneone.
                                        > > I've
                                        > > > > > > googled for it, but still didn't find it.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > --- In JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com, ginosko92
                                        > > > no_reply@
                                        > > > > > > wrote:
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > Teddy it was posted on another board. Johnoneone board here
                                        > on
                                        > > > > > yahoo.
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > --- In JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com,
                                        > > teddy_trueblood
                                        > > > > > > > no_reply@ wrote:
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > Hi, ginosko,
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > Since it differs from the orthodox definitions of the
                                        > > trinity,
                                        > > > > can
                                        > > > > > > you
                                        > > > > > > > > tell me the original source for this definition of the
                                        > > > > > "Conservative
                                        > > > > > > > > Evangelical" trinity?
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > --- In JWquestions- and_answers@ yahoogroups. com, ginosko92
                                        > > > > > no_reply@
                                        > > > > > > > > wrote:
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > > Hello All,
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > > on the Johnoneone board a definition of the trinity was
                                        > > > given
                                        > > > > > and
                                        > > > > > > > I'd
                                        > > > > > > > > > like you guys to give your imput on this:
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > > The conservative Evangelical definition of the Trinity
                                        > is
                                        > > > the
                                        > > > > > > > > standard,
                                        > > > > > > > > > the
                                        > > > > > > > > > orthodox doctrine. They are:
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > > a.. Separate in person
                                        > > > > > > > > > b.. Equal in nature
                                        > > > > > > > > > c.. Submissive in duty
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > > They are separate persons, all holding the position of
                                        > > being
                                        > > > > > God,
                                        > > > > > > > but
                                        > > > > > > > > > one being.
                                        > > > > > > > > > There are three persons in one being.
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > > The mistaken view is that there are three persons, but
                                        > one
                                        > > > > > person,
                                        > > > > > > > for
                                        > > > > > > > > > this
                                        > > > > > > > > > would be self-contradictory.
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > > I think this breif descrption is actually pretty good
                                        > and
                                        > > to
                                        > > > > the
                                        > > > > > > > > point.
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > > What I don't understand is how are the 3 members of the
                                        > > > > trinity
                                        > > > > > > > equal
                                        > > > > > > > > in
                                        > > > > > > > > > nature? If Peter says (I forget where in the two letters
                                        > > he
                                        > > > > says
                                        > > > > > > > this)
                                        > > > > > > > > > that those with the heavely hope aquire such divine
                                        > > nature,
                                        > > > > does
                                        > > > > > > > that
                                        > > > > > > > > > mean that these individuals will be part of the godhead?
                                        > > How
                                        > > > > do
                                        > > > > > > > > > trinitarians equate this scripture in relation to the
                                        > > > godhead
                                        > > > > > once
                                        > > > > > > > > those
                                        > > > > > > > > > in heaven aquire this divine nature?
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        >

                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.