The Word as a person of the trinity

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by steve7150 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:07 pm

The first word is more than "came." With the prefix "ex" it means "came out of" or "emerged." Then the second word "ek" also means "out of". So Jesus was quite emphatic that He had emerged OUT OF the Father (or was begotten from the Father).

He wasn't the Father. Nor was He created by the Father. But the Father BEGAT, or generated, or produced Him OUT OF Himself. So the Son was uncreated, and was yet begotten. Because He was begotten, He is "God" in the sense of being of the same essence as the Father, and unlike everything else (including angels). Thus He is divine, and the ONLY divine Individual other than the Father. Does this mean there are two Gods? No, if we are using "God" with reference to the divine essence. Yes, we are using "God" with reference to divine Individuals. So I have no problem in affirming that Jesus is God in the first sense, but not "God" in the sense of being the same divine Individual as the Father (modalism).

So the Son is in a class by Himself. I do agree that He is uncreated. Does imply that He is God the Father? No. Does that imply that He is divine? Yes.






OK as the KJV actually says "out of the Father" so then since the KJV has been the favorite bible version of traditional Christianity since it was published, why do you think that the traditional view of the Trinity has been that the Father,Son and Spirit have always eternally co-existed?

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by darinhouston » Sat Feb 23, 2013 2:59 pm

Paidion, I'm exploring some of the "time" issues -- I understand St. Augustine was of the impression that neither time nor space existed prior to the formation of the Universe. That is my understanding as well (and yours perhaps, though I'm not sure you equate the formation of the Universe with the begetting of Jesus -- in your scheme, there must have been "time" before the creation if He create it, no?). Anyway, I think St. Augustine was right. Time only has meaning as it relates to mass/objects moving through space, so it has no meaning without both (and neither existed prior to the beginning). But, that doesn't mean there wasn't "EXISTENCE" prior to the "Beginning" (whatever marks the beginning). I don't think God being "outside of time" really explains it but it is probably closer than "there was nothing before time." Causality and temporality only have meaning (at least our meaning) within our time-space continuum. We can't fathom reality outside of our own, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even now, even a naturalist would recognize limitations on causality even in our reality, so to think we can fathom this is hubris. In any event, a Christian must realize that the Spiritual reality is very much "REAL" even though it is unbound today by our space-time continuum. Before the "singularity" God was. Time didn't exist as we know it, but something like it may well have.

We are as limited as a period in a sentence trying to understand a sphere. I have been working slowly through a piece of fiction for years picking it up and putting it down that addresses some of this dimensional existentialist challenge. It is called "Flatlands - A Romance of Many Dimensions" and is in the public domain. Here's a taste...
Part I: This World

"Be patient, for the world is broad and wide."
1. Of the Nature of Flatland

I CALL our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my happy readers, who are privileged to live in Space.
Imagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows - only hard and with luminous edges - and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen. Alas, a few years ago, I should have said "my universe": but now my mind has been opened to higher views of things.

In such a country, you will perceive at once that it is impossible that there should be anything of what you call a "solid" kind; but I dare say you will suppose that we could at least distinguish by sight the Triangles, Squares, and other figures, moving about as I have described them. On the contrary, we could see nothing of the kind, not at least so as to distinguish one figure from another. Nothing was visible, nor could be visible, to us, except Straight Lines; and the necessity of this I will speedily demonstrate.

Place a penny on the middle of one of your tables in Space; and leaning over it, look down upon it. It will appear a circle.

But now, drawing back to the edge of the table, gradually lower your eye (thus bringing yourself more and more into the condition of the inhabitants of Flatland), and you will find the penny becoming more and more oval to your view; and at last when you have placed your eye exactly on the edge of the table (so that you are, as it were, actually a Flatlander) the penny will then have ceased to appear oval at all, and will have become, so far as you can see, a straight line.

The same thing would happen if you were to treat in the same way a Triangle, or Square, or any other figure cut out of pasteboard. As soon as you look at it with your eye on the edge on the table, you will find that it ceases to appear to you a figure, and that it becomes in appearance a straight line. Take for example an equilateral Triangle - who represents with us a Tradesman of the respectable class. Fig. 1 represents the Tradesman as you would see him while you were bending over him from above; figs. 2 and 3 represent the Tradesman, as you would see him if your eye were close to the level, or all but on the level of the table; and if your eye were quite on the level of the table (and that is how we see him in Flatland) you would see nothing but a straight line.

[missing figures]

When I was in Spaceland I heard that your sailors have very similar experiences while they traverse your seas and discern some distant island or coast lying on the horizon. The far-off land may have bays, forelands, angles in and out to any number and extent; yet at a distance you see none of these (unless indeed your sun shines bright upon them revealing the projections and retirements by means of light and shade), nothing but a grey unbroken line upon the water.

Well, that is just what we see when one of our triangular or other acquaintances comes toward us in Flatland. As there is neither sun with us, nor any light of such a kind as to make shadows, we have none of the helps to the sight that you have in Spaceland. If our friend comes closer to us we see his line becomes larger; if he leaves us it becomes smaller: but still he looks like a straight line; be he a Triangle, Square, Pentagon, Hexagon, Circle, what you will - a straight Line he looks and nothing else. You may perhaps ask how under these disadvantageous circumstances we are able to distinguish our friends from one another: but the answer to this very natural question will be more fitly and easily given when I come to describe the inhabitants of Flatland. For the present let me defer this subject, and say a word or two about the climate and houses in our country.
We are a dot and perhaps we see a line when we think of God. But, that line could be merely one facet of a 3, 4, 5 or any dimensional reality we can't comprehend. Reality within that object is incomprehensible and is not limited to the space of that line.

I highly recommend an illustrated version of the book. They're available online.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by Paidion » Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:32 pm

Darin wrote:Paidion, I'm exploring some of the "time" issues -- I understand St. Augustine was of the impression that neither time nor space existed prior to the formation of the Universe. That is my understanding as well (and yours perhaps, though I'm not sure you equate the formation of the Universe with the begetting of Jesus -- in your scheme, there must have been "time" before the creation if He create it, no?). Anyway, I think St. Augustine was right. Time only has meaning as it relates to mass/objects moving through space, so it has no meaning without both (and neither existed prior to the beginning). But, that doesn't mean there wasn't "EXISTENCE" prior to the "Beginning" (whatever marks the beginning). I don't think God being "outside of time" really explains it but it is probably closer than "there was nothing before time."
Darin, as long as you keep writing about "before time" it would seem that you do not understand "the beginning of time." I don't mean this in an insulting way. I know you are highly intelligent. But I just want to repeat, "THERE IS NO 'BEFORE'!" The expression "before time began" is an oxymoron, for the very word "before" must be used in a temporal sense. Let's call the beginning of time "B". If you make any assertion whatever concerning either events or existence before B, then either your assertions are meaningless, or time actually began prior to B. But if time actually began before B, then B wasn't the beginning of time.

I do agree with you that there must have been time between the begetting of God's Son and God's creation of the universe through His Son. However the time might have been very short—possibly a split second—between the begetting of the Son and the first creative event. According to Genesis, the creation took 7 days. But for all practical purposes, it can be said that God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" as per Genesis 1:1.

I wrote that the begetting of the Son marked the beginning of time because I consider that as the first event which ever occurred. (The early Christians said that God begat His Son "before all ages"). So the first period of time was that period (however long) between the first and the second event.

I thank you for that reference to Augustine. I didn't know that he thought that neither time nor space existed prior to the formation of the Universe. I am inclined in that direction, because I hold to a quite simplistic concept of time and space. "Space" is the distance between objects. No objects; no space. Time is the "temporal distance" between two events. No events; no time.

In any case, I am not saying, "There was nothing before time." I'm saying that there wasn't a "before time." We are so accustomed to thinking of a time before any and all events of which we are aware, that we can't seem to get our minds around the concept that there was an actual beginning to time with no "before". If there was a beginning to time then even the question, "Did God exist before the beginning of time?" is meaningless, for it assumes that there was a time before the beginning of time.

The big question is probably thought to be, "How could that first event ever occur (the begetting of the Son) if there was no God and no time before that? Again this is a problem only because the idea of a "before" is very persistent in our minds. We really can't say any more about it. God begat His Son—and time began! What more can be said? If we find this unintelligible, then what alternative is possible? As was pointed out in my previous post, an infinite regression of time into the pass poses far more insurmountable problems—logically.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by darinhouston » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:53 pm

Paidion, I understand what you're trying to say and it's largely a semantics issue -- we do need something to refer to the "before" even if it has little temporal value and we have really nothing else to use. Even your statement that God begat Jesus AND THEN time began connotes the same thing -- just prospectively instead of retroactively. I think you're clinging to the wrong thing on this one. Also, I respect your simplistic view of space, but few if any physicists would agree. Space didn't exist before objects were placed in it. It is understood to be a "something" even if that something is a lack of things (another semantic mess we've gotten ourselves into for sure).

Whatever words we use -- God existed and nothing else. He still exists and the universe and time were created and exist. The question is whether Jesus and/or the Spirit or the Word existed along with "God and nothing else". Not sure how else to avoid the terminology you chafe at.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by Paidion » Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:10 pm

Hi Darin,

I just want to make two comments in response to your post above, and then I'll let this thing go (for the sake of time :D )
You wrote:Even your statement that God begat Jesus AND THEN time began connotes the same thing- just prospectively instead of retroactively.
I dont think I made that statement. I said that the begetting of Jesus MARKED the beginning of time.That is, the begetting and the beginning of time were SIMULTANEOUS (for want of a better word).
You wrote:It [space] is understood to be a "something" even if that something is a lack of things.


If space were something if there was no matter, how would conditions differ from space not existing at all? If there is no difference, then the statement that space is something even if there is no matter, is meaningless. It's a bit like the statement that last night everything in the universe doubled in size. If this makes no difference in our objective observation of the universe, then the statement is meaningless.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by darinhouston » Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:55 pm

responding to mattrose...

I hope all recall I'm trying to address this topic as fairly as I can from a skeptic/critic's perspective as I explore my Christology through our year-long study of the life and teachings of Christ at church. If I can honestly maintain that position, that will be instructive to my exercise.
The interesting thing is.... the person insisting that Jesus not be called God has to disprove ALL of these texts, eh? That being said, the less verses we 'prove,' the less insistent we should be in using 'God' as our main label for Jesus.
There may be an cumulative effect, though they aren’t all equal and if the assumptions of the exclusive usage of “theos” most hold isn’t true (which Strong's seems to indicate is not), then there really is no cumulative effect.  Sometimes I think we trivialize the term "Lord" so much that we see it as common -- apart from the semantic range below I'm not so sure even in the most direct usage the two terms were so far apart in some common usage.
Within the Gospels, I think there are a number of places where Jesus is either directly or indirectly referred to as God
We've talked about John 1:1 quite a bit

Jesus came to tabernacle with us, just as God did in the OT
So, how does Jesus tabernacle with us?  actually, it was the "WORD" that tabernacled among us -- it seems reasonable to our theology that Jesus was the tabernacle -- the Spirit dwelt in Him until pentacost after which HE (His spirit -- the spirit of God -- I think it's the same spirit) had a new dwelling place -- the church.  None of this is uniquely supporting of a Trinitarian position.
His opponents knew that only God could forgive sins as He was 
In Mark 2 and Luke 5, the “experts” initially accused Jesus of blasphemy since (they thought) only God can forgive sins, but they were wrong.  After Jesus performed the miracles, they didn’t maintain their objection – “they all” were amazed and glorified God.  First of all, Jesus’ response was not “but I am God” but (paraphrased) “you fools – you have a false premise --  why are you thinking such things?  I have the authority to do so and I’ll prove it to you by doing something even harder to prove that also comes from such authority.”  Also, they didn’t worship Jesus as God – they praised God.  They had a false premise – they forgot that God alone has that power, but that power along with other powers can be given to others.  Jesus clearly had “all authority” from God.  That doesn’t mean he was God.
His opponents knew that He claimed to be God according to John 10:33
In John 10:33, the word Theos is used.  Most of the time in the NT, that is used of the one true God, but among the semantic range of theos (even in Strongs) is  “whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way; a) God's representative or viceregent; 1) of magistrates and judges.”  I don’t believe the context of the discussion necessitates a theological claim that Jesus was saying He was the Lord God  Jehova there.  But, Jesus’ response  suggests at least he didn’t think that was what they were claiming (or he was being evasive).  He justified his claim that He and the Father are “one” (following a discourse not about his Deity but his Authority) not by saying “but I am – go ahead and stone me” but by quoting a passage where others were called “gods” (those to whom the word of God came).  He then further distinguishes himself as one sent From God and GIVEN authority, etc.  This is pretty weak to me, although it’s certainly compelling to many.  Again, Jesus had every opportunity to say “you’re right, but if it’s true you can’t stone me.”
Thomas said, "My Lord and my God." 
OK, this is an excited utterance.  Again, though, he didn’t say: “my Lord, I see you are the Almighty God.”  It would have been nice if he had done, but also note -- a few verses later, when John closes the passage, He said “these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”  He didn’t say “the Son of God, even God Himself” (why not? ) This would have been an incredible revelation  which would overwhelm the Messianic one and since John clearly is trying to explain Jesus’ “divinity” he most definitely would have been motivated to add clarity to this point if he had such clarity to give.  If Thomas meant what you say he did, this would be an easy task instead of the obscure and confusing references in John 1 and elsewhere (and a pretty important thing to know if true considering the Jews’ strong monotheism.   To that end, if in these last days, Jesus’ “God-ness” had become so apparent as to have supported such an unconfronted assertion then wouldn’t that have been the main thrust of Christianity?  But, it was primarily about his fulfillment of the role of Messiah, not His “God-ness” that revolutionized the world.  What a bold claim – if made, it would have made more waves than “merely” (I hesitate even using that term) being the sent one, the redeemer (as big as that is, a real claim by the apostles that He was in fact God himself would have been extraordinary!)  There simply is insufficient support for me to assume that the apostles had any sort of real Trinitarian beliefs about Jesus (whether it’s true or not, it’s clear to me they didn’t recognize it as so).
Romans 9:5 refers to the Messiah/Christ... who is God over all
Translations differ on the punctuation and word order – “who is over all, God blessed for ever” or “who is God over all, blessed forever.”   Also, suffers from the casual use of theos mentioned before.  (see usage above re: theos)
Philippians 2:6, of course, says that Jesus is in very nature God
Looks like you’re using NIV perhaps, -- though it may be trivial difference, “who, existing in the form of God” isn’t exactly the same thing as saying “in very nature God.”  And neither of them says He IS God.  It would make the remaining phrase of the sentence nonsensical (didn’t regard equality with God a thing to be grasped).  Steve suggests that means “clinged to” to suggest the kenosis perhaps but no translation says that.  Even subordination allows for equality within an administrative hierarchy.  I don’t know what Paul meant by this, but it still doesn’t sound like something one would say if you were talking about Jesus actually being God. 
God himself calls Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8
There are many who would see this as referring to Jesus only in a secondary sense and to Solomon in the primary sense (begging the question of whether it could be an exclusive reference to "God" as we use the term. Even if referring to the Messiah, that sort of negates the trinitarian usage since if so, the Jews would have been seeing the term as applicable to the Messiah too whom they NEVER saw in the context of God notwithstanding that Psalm. So, that cuts against a prooftext usage of the term when used in phrases like this as relating literally to the God of the Universe.
Many scholars would argue that Titus 2:13 calls Jesus "God and Savior"
Yes, and many translators make it clear that these are referring to two separate people. ("looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;") Luke 9:26 tells us that both things happen at the appearance -- that is, both the glory of God and the Glory of the Savior will appear (along with the glory of also the angels).
1 John 5:20 seems to be saying that Jesus is the true God and eternal life
Seems a reference to John 17:3 I think there might be a grammatical issue here -- the verses leading up to it don't seem to conclude in that verse. Again, this would be a remarkable conclusion if he meant what Trinitarians say and deserving of more than that.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by darinhouston » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:55 pm

Nothing?

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by mattrose » Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:29 pm

haha, sorry Darin. I did read it, but I've been really busy lately. Hopefully I'll get a chance to get to it soon :)

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by mattrose » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:54 pm

darinhouston wrote:I hope all recall I'm trying to address this topic as fairly as I can from a skeptic/critic's perspective as I explore my Christology through our year-long study of the life and teachings of Christ at church. If I can honestly maintain that position, that will be instructive to my exercise...There may be an cumulative effect, though they aren’t all equal and if the assumptions of the exclusive usage of “theos” most hold isn’t true (which Strong's seems to indicate is not), then there really is no cumulative effect.  Sometimes I think we trivialize the term "Lord" so much that we see it as common -- apart from the semantic range below I'm not so sure even in the most direct usage the two terms were so far apart in some common usage.
I think you will need to be careful, in your exploration, to be fair to the trinitarian perspective about what sort of evidence IT would expect to find in the Scriptures. Would a trinitarian expect to find a statement like "God is three"? Certainly not. Would a trinitarian expect to find a statement like "I am the Father"? No. We would expect them to be in unity, not identical. Would we expect Jesus to claim to be above or even equal to the father, directly? Not necessarily. In trinitarian theology, the 2nd person is voluntarily submitted to the first. My point is, you can't fault trinitarians for not having verses that they themselves would not expect (or desire) to have.

What trinitarians would expect is for Jesus to act like Yahweh, talk like Yahweh, do things that Yahweh does, etc. And that's exactly what trinitarians insist that we do find. We'd also expect the biblical authors to talk about Jesus like they talk about the Father, use OT references about Yahweh inter-changeably for either the Father or Son (or Spirit), and worship Jesus as Yahweh. And, again, that's exactly what we find.
So, how does Jesus tabernacle with us?  actually, it was the "WORD" that tabernacled among us -- it seems reasonable to our theology that Jesus was the tabernacle -- the Spirit dwelt in Him until pentacost after which HE (His spirit -- the spirit of God -- I think it's the same spirit) had a new dwelling place -- the church.  None of this is uniquely supporting of a Trinitarian position.
I'm sorry. I just find this altogether confusing. It almost sounds like you're saying that the body of Jesus was just a vessel (a regular human) that temporarily had the privilege of hosting the Spirit of God. I don't think that makes any sense of the passage at all. I don't think the passage uniquely supports Trinitarianism either. It could support the idea that God, who existed as 1 person, allowed a component of Himself (His Word) to take on a life of its own (as Jesus, a separate person). But I'm not sure how that is any less confusing, or convincing, than trinitarianism...
His opponents knew that only God could forgive sins as He was 
In Mark 2 and Luke 5, the “experts” initially accused Jesus of blasphemy since (they thought) only God can forgive sins, but they were wrong.  After Jesus performed the miracles, they didn’t maintain their objection – “they all” were amazed and glorified God.  First of all, Jesus’ response was not “but I am God” but (paraphrased) “you fools – you have a false premise --  why are you thinking such things?  I have the authority to do so and I’ll prove it to you by doing something even harder to prove that also comes from such authority.”  Also, they didn’t worship Jesus as God – they praised God.  They had a false premise – they forgot that God alone has that power, but that power along with other powers can be given to others.  Jesus clearly had “all authority” from God.  That doesn’t mean he was God.

Here is an example of almost insisting on something that trinitarians wouldn't expect to find anyways. We wouldn't expect worshipers to conclude "Trinity!" at this point. Nor would we expect Jesus to correct them. Revelation is progressive. We would expect them to, more and more, that Jesus was a very special and unique person. Once again, this passage doesn't insist that Jesus was God... but it does show there was some confusing overlap (which is saying a lot, seeing as it is coming from staunch monotheists).
In John 10:33, the word Theos is used.  Most of the time in the NT, that is used of the one true God, but among the semantic range of theos (even in Strongs) is  “whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way; a) God's representative or viceregent; 1) of magistrates and judges.”  I don’t believe the context of the discussion necessitates a theological claim that Jesus was saying He was the Lord God  Jehova there.  But, Jesus’ response  suggests at least he didn’t think that was what they were claiming (or he was being evasive).  He justified his claim that He and the Father are “one” (following a discourse not about his Deity but his Authority) not by saying “but I am – go ahead and stone me” but by quoting a passage where others were called “gods” (those to whom the word of God came).  He then further distinguishes himself as one sent From God and GIVEN authority, etc.  This is pretty weak to me, although it’s certainly compelling to many.  Again, Jesus had every opportunity to say “you’re right, but if it’s true you can’t stone me.”
You write as if trinitarians think Jesus' mission was to prove His deity... but why would that be the case? I don't think Jesus was particularly interested in proving His deity. I think he was particularly interested in fulfilling his mission. The Bible is not a systematic theology. The point is, these verses fit pretty well with the thesis that there was a trajectory pointing toward Jesus' deity.
OK, this is an excited utterance.  Again, though, he didn’t say: “my Lord, I see you are the Almighty God.”  It would have been nice if he had done, but also note -- a few verses later, when John closes the passage, He said “these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”  He didn’t say “the Son of God, even God Himself” (why not? ) This would have been an incredible revelation  which would overwhelm the Messianic one and since John clearly is trying to explain Jesus’ “divinity” he most definitely would have been motivated to add clarity to this point if he had such clarity to give.  If Thomas meant what you say he did, this would be an easy task instead of the obscure and confusing references in John 1 and elsewhere (and a pretty important thing to know if true considering the Jews’ strong monotheism.   To that end, if in these last days, Jesus’ “God-ness” had become so apparent as to have supported such an unconfronted assertion then wouldn’t that have been the main thrust of Christianity?  But, it was primarily about his fulfillment of the role of Messiah, not His “God-ness” that revolutionized the world.  What a bold claim – if made, it would have made more waves than “merely” (I hesitate even using that term) being the sent one, the redeemer (as big as that is, a real claim by the apostles that He was in fact God himself would have been extraordinary!)  There simply is insufficient support for me to assume that the apostles had any sort of real Trinitarian beliefs about Jesus (whether it’s true or not, it’s clear to me they didn’t recognize it as so).
Ugh... I have to admit, Darin... I find this dialogue a little frustrating at this point. Trinitarians wouldn't EXPECT Jesus to have said "even God Himself." We don't believe that Jesus = the Father OR that Jesus = The Trinity. We believe that Jesus is the Son. And we think that the Son of God is divine by definition. And we don't see why there's such a big distinction between being divine and being considered deity.

Furthermore, John 1 wasn't confusing (and needed no clarification via commentary on Thomas' words). The early church struggled MORE with the doctrine of the humanity of Christ than with the deity of Christ. And that's an astounding reality. The fact that the Gospel writer left Thomas' statement in, as 'excited' as it may have been... is telling.
Translations differ on the punctuation and word order – “who is over all, God blessed for ever” or “who is God over all, blessed forever.”   Also, suffers from the casual use of theos mentioned before.  (see usage above re: theos)
I won't pretend to be an expert in Greek. I will only point out that many experts in Greek think its saying Jesus is "God over all" which seems to be a pretty fantastic claim that Jesus is in some sense God.
Philippians 2:6, of course, says that Jesus is in very nature God
Looks like you’re using NIV perhaps, -- though it may be trivial difference, “who, existing in the form of God” isn’t exactly the same thing as saying “in very nature God.”  And neither of them says He IS God.  It would make the remaining phrase of the sentence nonsensical (didn’t regard equality with God a thing to be grasped).  Steve suggests that means “clinged to” to suggest the kenosis perhaps but no translation says that.  Even subordination allows for equality within an administrative hierarchy.  I don’t know what Paul meant by this, but it still doesn’t sound like something one would say if you were talking about Jesus actually being God.
 

To me it sounds very much like that. It sounds like Jesus shared in the nature of God, but was willing to humble himself to the realm of flesh for us.
There are many who would see this as referring to Jesus only in a secondary sense and to Solomon in the primary sense (begging the question of whether it could be an exclusive reference to "God" as we use the term. Even if referring to the Messiah, that sort of negates the trinitarian usage since if so, the Jews would have been seeing the term as applicable to the Messiah too whom they NEVER saw in the context of God notwithstanding that Psalm. So, that cuts against a prooftext usage of the term when used in phrases like this as relating literally to the God of the Universe.
Christians read the Bible Christologically (Jesus taught us to do this). I feel like (though I'm hardly one that says this sort of thing often), you're over-complicating things. The passage says that God (the Father) said of the Son (Jesus) "Your Throne, O God." The most simple way to take this is that the Father recognizes the Son as God.
Yes, and many translators make it clear that these are referring to two separate people. ("looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;") Luke 9:26 tells us that both things happen at the appearance -- that is, both the glory of God and the Glory of the Savior will appear (along with the glory of also the angels).
Again, the very presence of ambiguity argues my position more than yours. If they were against the deity of Christ, they would have made sure to avoid all appearances of supporting it.
Seems a reference to John 17:3 I think there might be a grammatical issue here -- the verses leading up to it don't seem to conclude in that verse. Again, this would be a remarkable conclusion if he meant what Trinitarians say and deserving of more than that.
Same deal, your position seems to require a very un-careful authoring of the NT. Just my opinion.

I apologize for the shortness (and lack of details) in my response. I have never been a fan of discussing so many passages at once, so it was wrong of me to post so many at once. I'd also like to re-iterate that I don't think its heretical to explore like you are exploring. I do the same myself.

If your overall point is that we should be less dogmatic about doctrines like the Trinity, I wholly concur. If your point is that there is actually a different view that makes better sense of the material we have... i have yet to see the case.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by darinhouston » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:44 pm

Hindsight's a funny thing, no?

The question isn't whether someone predisposed to Trinitarianism "could" find evidence in hindsight that supports their theory, but whether they teach the doctrine.

I understand progressive revelation, but see these not as progressively revealing a truth, but distinct and separate verses each being sufficiently ambiguous to be used to support a position in hindsight but not being sufficiently clear to present an affirmative case, progressive or not.

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”