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 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:31 am

Just to list a few

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.









Yes but since there is one God and if Jesus is God but also "a person" , that seems to add up to two God's , so how can it be reconciled other then saying "it's just a mystery."

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 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:51 am

I wouldn't call it a mystery.

A mystery, to me, is something that I can't make sense of at all, but believe anyway.

I can make sense of the trinity doctrine, though it is a surprising revelation that there is a plurality of persons that constitute 'God'. It doesn't necessitate that we believe there are two 'gods'... it necessitates that we redefine our definition of the term 'God'

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

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by steve7150 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:31 am

it necessitates that we redefine our definition of the term 'God'






See this may be the crux of the problem when we call Jesus and the Holy Spirit "GOD". I'm undecided about the Holy Spirit but i can call Christ "divine."

This is just my personal feeling or intuition but i doubt "God Almighty" had in mind that we redefine our definition of God moving from the OT to the NT.
I know the argument that the OT looks different when we have the light from the NT to shine on it, but this seems like a stretch. It's also a possibility that these references to Jesus as God may use the word "God" as a title for authority or in some way other then "God Almighty."

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 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:46 am

I don't see it as a problem at all. Revelation happens progressively. We understand more of God as the stream of revelation flows.

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 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:22 pm

steve7150 wrote:I know we are going off on a tangent perhaps but the description i used was that i thought the rays of the sun were part of the Sun but not "the Sun." So i wonder if you or i asked 10 people whether they thought the rays of the Sun were part of the Sun , what the results might be?
If my guess is right in that most people would agree that the rays of the Sun were part of the Sun , is it possible Jesus might have been or still is an extension of God?
I don't know what other people would "say," but it's pretty obvious to me that "rays" originate and emanate from the sun. Those constituents which they derived from may at once have been a part of the sun, but they didn't exist before they emanated and once so done, they no longer are "part of" the sun. The analogy falls apart quickly (as all do -- even the Trinitarian formulation which is itself a sort of analogy, nothing more, nothing less).

Rays aren't "tentacles" like we see depicted in cartoons.

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 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:39 pm

JR wrote:“Sui generis”; Are you saying we should there is another class of beings? A class where they are neither God nor man? Jesus was God and man, no new class, His Spirit is God and lived in a tabernacle of creation, just as we are spirit (created spirit, not God) and we live in a body of flesh.
I think we do have a new class. Only the Son of God was begotten, generated, produced by God out of HIMSELF. Jesus Himself said ( John 16:28 Greek words transliterated to English characters):

"exālthon ek tou patros kai elālutha eis ton kosmon..."

"I emerged out of the father and came into the cosmos ("universe" or "world" if you insist).

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.
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 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:36 pm

Paidion wrote: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.
I agree. He came from the Father and shares the nature of divinity but perhaps just as a prince comes forth from the King and shares in royalty as a result of sharing his royal blood -- that is not the same thing as saying He WAS God before or after He came from or emerged from or came out of Him, etc. anymore than saying the prince IS the King even though He shares the royal nature (ala the Medieval notion of the "divine right of Kings"). We don't know whether Jesus existed (as the Word or the Son or at all in any form of "existence") prior to that "emergence." Just a few verses earlier, Jesus also said the Spirit of Truth would emerge (in like fashion?)

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 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:21 pm

Thanks, Darin. And we also don't know whether there was any time "prior to that emergence." In my opinion, there wasn't. Therefore there was no time at which the Son did not exist.

This could lead to the question, "Did the Father exist before that emergence?"
If there was no time prior to the begetting of the Son, then the question is meaningless.

I have no problem with the statement that the Father and the Son always existed (that is, since the beginning of time). Then the question might be asked, "If the begetting of the Son marked the beginning of time, then how could the Father beget the Son, before that begetting?" Same answer. There was no "before." Next question, "So God had a beginning?" No. The idea that God had a beginning implies that there was time BEFORE that beginning. I think the idea of the beginning of time is one of the most difficult concepts for man to wrap his mind around, and I don't pretend to have succeeded.

The problem is not solved by assuming an infinite regression of time into the past. Rather that assumption poses many more problems such as, "Why did God beget the Son and create the heavens and earth when He did and not trillions of years earlier? What was He doing trillions of years prior to that? How can there be time at all, if it had no beginning? How did God get out of the "infinite past" into any sense of a present time?

There is another solution proposed by modern thinkers. Yes, time had a beginning, but God exists outside of time, and "sees" all events, past, present, and future as if they were an "eternal present." I quickly dismissed this concept because I cannot comprehend it. What would such existence mean? Either the concept of existing outside of time is meaningless, or else I don't have the intelligence to make sense of it.
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
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Word as a person of the trinity

Post by Homer » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:08 pm

Paidion,

I do not think you have come close to resolving the "time" business. If time had a beginning in some absolute sense, then God was totally inactive prior to when time began. If he did even one thing prior to time beginning, then there had to be ongoing time when he did it. Do you believe God existed in "eternity past"?

John's choice of "the Word" for Jesus was surely inspired as the best possible descriptor of who Jesus was before He was begotten in the virgin Mary. IMO John meant to inform us that Jesus, prior to the incarnation, was always with the father. Zodiates' definition of logos is "intelligence, word as expression of intelligence". Makes good sense to me.

I think we are in over our heads on this one. Way over.

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 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:04 pm

Homer wrote:Paidion,

I do not think you have come close to resolving the "time" business. If time had a beginning in some absolute sense, then God was totally inactive prior to when time began. If he did even one thing prior to time beginning, then there had to be ongoing time when he did it. Do you believe God existed in "eternity past"?

John's choice of "the Word" for Jesus was surely inspired as the best possible descriptor of who Jesus was before He was begotten in the virgin Mary. IMO John meant to inform us that Jesus, prior to the incarnation, was always with the father. Zodiates' definition of logos is "intelligence, word as expression of intelligence". Makes good sense to me.

I think we are in over our heads on this one. Way over.
Right on, Homer -- but I don't see how anyone could even pretend to think that "intelligence" is a person. (I tend to think of it not as naked "intelligence" but "plan, idea, will" - more the purpose of that intelligence.

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”