Is the trinity "extra-biblical"

[TheEditor]

a solid attempt by human beings to explain the facts that have been revealed. Most likely the best attempt.

Well, certainly the most confusing.....

Regards, Brenden.

[mattrose]

I think the 'confusing-ness' of the doctrine of the trinity has been over-stated.

I don't find it all that confusing. The fact that it has no exact parallels does not make it confusing... just unique.

[TheEditor]

Hi Matt.

"Unique" seems a cute euphamism for something. I would be more happy with a dispensing of the Father/Son analogy entirely. But, since that was what Jesus used, I am obliged to run with it. There are too many holes for my liking, and I suspect that most who are "comfortable" with it, have a lifetime of being spoon-fed the idea, hence it becomes less foreign and less unreasonable. Saying that Jesus shares the same "essence" is one thing. Saying that both Father and Son are "God" in some sense, may be another. But all of this, "same, but different, yet the same, not greater, but equal, but only in the narrow and restricted sense" stuff is just too much for a poor boy like me who didn't do much of that thar' book learnin'.

Regards, Brenden.

[Singalphile]

What puzzles me a bit is the place of the Holy Spirit. Truth be told, I'm sort of a 2.5-itarian in my current understanding, but I think it's okay to round up to 3 (didn't I say that this seems irreverent!).

The Spirit of God or Holy Spirit is mentioned plenty of times in the Old Testament, I think, and yet the idea of His distinct person-hood (as in trinitarianism) never existed back then. (Or did it?) Then there's the spirit of Christ and the spirit of truth and promise, not to mention the seven spirits of God (Rev). Are these different spirits? God is Spirit (John 4), anyway. So I'm not sure about all that. That's why I'll be listening to Steve's "Knowing God - 09. Holy Spirit and His Work" lecture today.

[jriccitelli]

If God was a potato He would be easier to understand (but I suppose we would argue whether He was a vegetable or starch).
If the nature of God was as easy to understand He wouldn't be God (if we are complex, our creator must be all the more so).

Nevertheless, scripture demands a decision; who do you say that I am? Is not a question of where of he was born, or the name his father gave Him (although interesting questions when it comes to Jesus). With the background of monotheistic religion, against the pagan polytheistic religions around them, the promise of a Savior, a Messiah, Yahweh's command of his Oneness, and Yahweh's command to know Him alone as God/Lord/King/Judge/Savior, with those facts and background you are given a very meaningful decision to make when you come to Jesus. His Divinity changes the meaning, value and power His Crucifixion and sacrifice have for you.

If a person wants to keep it simple, or not accept Him as God, or believe something different about His nature, then there is a change in the value and meaning in the atonement for them (remember I lived among Mormons for years).

[jriccitelli]

... If you had read my posts on the matter on other threads, you would know that I believe that Jesus was begotten by God before all ages... (Paidion pg, 1)

Believe me I anticipated you would make exactly these statements when I made my first post, and knew that you would respond with your ‘begotten’ and other creature interpretation soon, but I was writing to what most people see as evident reason to believe Jesus is God.

So how did you decide that "αρπαγμος ηγησατο" means "assert"? Lexicons define "αρπαγμος" as "1) the act of seizing, robbery 2) a thing seized or to be seized" and "ηγησατο" as "did not consider, deem, account, think". Jesus did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized by robbery. If He were already equal to God, there would be nothing to seize. (paidion)

I agree with the lexicons, but ‘your conclusion’ in understanding the lexicon is wrong, that; “there would be nothing to seize”.
The context and purpose of the statement is defined (generally) by the context and point of the passage. Paul is using Jesus as an example of what we should do in humility, the contrast in verse 6 is similar to verse 2:7 where Christ is said to empty himself and morph (same word from verse 6) into a servant. Was Jesus always a servant? Wasn't He also a man? Same contrast, He was always God, but became a (man) servant.

You have neither showed my affirmations to have been false, nor justified your own statement that Jesus "made Himself equal with God". Nowhere do you find that in the Bible” (Paidion)

“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him… and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man’ (John 5)
‘And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself” (Psalm 50:6, 75:7, 96:13)
But God is my King from long ago; he brings salvation on the earth. (Psalm 74:12)
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. (Isaiah 44:6)
"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. (Amen)

[Ryan07]

If god was a potato and you cooked him thus converting the starch into sugar, well, wouldn't that be the messiah sending the Holy Ghost? The potatotarian is a deep philosophical conundrum that we have no hope of solving.

[jriccitelli]

Your may have an analogy: Pleasant words are like honey from a honeycomb- sweet to the spirit and healthy for the body' (Pro.16:24), as He is bread and His blood wine, so the Spirit is to us like honey.

[Paidion]

The Spirit of God or Holy Spirit is mentioned plenty of times in the Old Testament, I think, and yet the idea of His distinct person-hood (as in trinitarianism) never existed back then. (Or did it?)

Right you are, Singalphile. The Hebrews believed in the Oneness of Yahweh. It never entered their minds to conceive of God's spirit as another divine Individual.

Justin Martyr, a Christian who lived from 110 to165 A.D., had a discussion with a Jewish man, Trypho (and some of his companions) which lasted several days. Justin was showing from the Hebrew writings that God had begotten His Son before all ages, and compared this begetting to lighting a small fire from a large one. Justin affirmed also that the Son shared the Name “Yahweh” with the Father. He showed that in Genesis 19:24, there were two individuals who were called “Yahweh”, One in heaven (the Father), and One on earth (the Son) who was talking to Abraham. Justin also showed from many Scriptures that the Son of God was born on earth as a human being and that He was the promised Messiah.

Both Justin and Trypho throughout their dialogue had been referring to the Holy Spirit. It is interesting that at one point, Justin asked Trypho this question:

“Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called Lord and God in the Scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Messiah, who by so many Scriptures was proved to you to have become man?”

Trypho replied, “How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?”

If Justin had been a Trinitarian, this would have been a perfect opportunity to present the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Trinity. But he didn't. Instead, he said:

“I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that which you admitted some time ago.”

[TheEditor]

Nevertheless, scripture demands a decision; who do you say that I am?

I believe Peter was asked that question, and he replied:

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father"

Errr, I guess I missed that....

Regards, Brenden.