Lee's Trinity

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example, when I inferred that the Godhead dwelt in Christ on the cross, I was paraphrasing John Gill's exposition of the Bible which says:

"When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him"

You found one commentator that says what Lee said. Got more? I do not presume that any of them are correct all the time. And when it comes to the nature of God, it is all theoretical to us humans. Everyone has a declaration about what things mean.

And in your case, it is to insist that the "hypostatic union" of the Godhead causes the three to be part of and within each other than the undefined thing that unifies them without mixing them up in each other. You have not bothered to provide anything that indicates that Gill thinks that the hypostatic union caused the Father to be on the cross with Christ. Rather, you have read into a term of art not found in the scripture a characteristic of the Godhead that the actual verses do not support. You have presumed that defining hypostatic union provides a better and more clear understanding of the Godhead than the scripture provides. Rather, "hypostatic union" gives an undefined term as the definition of the unity of three that is greater than a round of handshakes. It does not create knowledge about the Godhead that is not provided in scripture. It only gives a name to things that are seen so that rather than trying to define it, we just say this term and understand that we don't really understand.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The footnote in Matthew 27:46

. . .

But in LIFE-STUDY OF MARK,MESSAGE FORTY-EIGHT . . .

Not acceptable proof of anything. Lee cannot defend himself with his own writings.