Jesus has a God?

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

Trinitarian logic would, by the more snarky among us, seem a bit of an oxy-moron. Not that I would. Having said that, I said "take on faith" as a sort of "cover" for those that want to accept the doctrine without being able to apprehend or understand or explain it, but believe it. It wasn't meant as criticism.

I have met nasty trinitarians. I have met nasty non-trinitarians. I don't think that checkers my view. Were I to take that view, there is a whole gammut of belief I would find hard to swallow.

My point is quite simple; I do not believe that belief or rejection of this doctrine plays any role whatever in salvation, or in an intimate walk with God. If it did, then God went to great lengths to befuddle us mere mortals by not laying it out as nicely (albeit confusingly) as the Athenasian Creed. Therefore, while I enjoy the relative merits and pleasure of a spirited discussion on this and a wide array of subjects, I find that my steam for the trinity is exhausted.

I only interject as I see someone using a verse to support something I don't see it supporting. For instance, when trinitarians use Jesus' words to Philip, "I have been with you so long and yet how is it you say 'show us the Father'" as proving Jesus is God. Well, it certainly lends support to Modalism, as Phillip said "Show us the FATHER" not "Show us GOD", and, since Father and Son are supposed to be unique and distinct persons, I guess this verse needs to be put in the "non-trinitarian" column after all.

I believe that both views--the trinitarian as well as the non-trinitarian--require one to view certain verses through a certain kind of lens to make the view work. I just feel that there are more verses needing such lenses on the trinitarian side. So, what's a boy to do?

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

Hi Dizerner,

Trinitarian logic would, by the more snarky among us, seem a bit of an oxy-moron. Not that I would. Having said that, I said "take on faith" as a sort of "cover" for those that want to accept the doctrine without being able to apprehend or understand or explain it, but believe it. It wasn't meant as criticism.

I have met nasty trinitarians. I have met nasty non-trinitarians. I don't think that checkers my view. Were I to take that view, there is a whole gammut of belief I would find hard to swallow.

My point is quite simple; I do not believe that belief or rejection of this doctrine plays any role whatever in salvation, or in an intimate walk with God. If it did, then God went to great lengths to befuddle us mere mortals by not laying it out as nicely (albeit confusingly) as the Athenasian Creed. Therefore, while I enjoy the relative merits and pleasure of a spirited discussion on this and a wide array of subjects, I find that my steam for the trinity is exhausted.

I only interject as I see someone using a verse to support something I don't see it supporting. For instance, when trinitarians use Jesus' words to Philip, "I have been with you so long and yet how is it you say 'show us the Father'" as proving Jesus is God. Well, it certainly lends support to Modalism, as Phillip said "Show us the FATHER" not "Show us GOD", and, since Father and Son are supposed to be unique and distinct persons, I guess this verse needs to be put in the "non-trinitarian" column after all.

I believe that both views--the trinitarian as well as the non-trinitarian--require one to view certain verses through a certain kind of lens to make the view work. I just feel that there are more verses needing such lenses on the trinitarian side. So, what's a boy to do?

Regards, Brenden.

Knowing God is three persons instead of one "plays no role in an intimate walk with God." Oh really . I mean, the thing is to me, it just seems like you're not being entirely honest. You met "snarky" Unitarians that turned you off to God being one? Uh, no, I don't think so. I really think these Trinitarians got under your skin. You're constantly referencing things they did or said. It's like... "I gave up on thinking about the atonement, I just don't see how it relates to anything important in our day to day life." If it's in God's Word I guess it's there for a reason for me, since I have a high view. After all we are to "meditate therein day and night." Okay, I get it. You've seen some grotesque mistreatment of exegesis, some bizaare personal-agenda-driven "doctrines" that seem to barely say "hi" to the Bible. I see them on this very forum constantly. We can't explain how God can be 3 and 1. We can't explain how Christ can be God and man. We can't explain almost any Biblical doctrine that way, unless you want to make the Bible just a book telling us to "be nice to your fellow man," in which case, why not throw this old antiquated book out. We all know to be nice to our fellow man since we were born without some bizarre old book about angels and sins and Satan and miracles and some Word becoming flesh somewhere and sins being atoned or something and a final judgment and states of the afterlife. So I guess that high view of the Bible drives me to say, "Can you really show me the Trinity doesn't fit in Scripture," and I've never seen Trinitarian Scriptures given, to use your words, "a satisfactory explanation." I'm not kidding myself that I can bring some kind of supernatural revelation to you or anyway else, but I can maybe be a lighthouse that shines just a little here or there and draws people to deeper and more serious thoughts of God. Either way, we all know the difference we can maybe make is just sometimes all too small. So a boy can only do what he can do, and i understand that. It's the story of my life.

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

Actually, some of the ruder or more judgmental things said about me when I was a JW was from Pentecostal Oneness types, not trinitarians--speaking of the religious. The atheists were none-too-pleased either. Except for one young fellow attending a seminary here in Seattle called the Philadelphia Church. He was friendly at first until he was stumped by a few non-trinitarian passages, and then he told me and my door partner to take our "G-damned Jehovah doctrine out of here" in earshot of his room mates, who were quick to apologize for him. I merely replied that he may want to consider what might constitute blasphemy before he trots off to his next Bible class.

Other then that, I hold no malice toward trinitarians. I am much more concerned over the institutional nature and CEO business model of most "local churches" these days than anything else.

As for Scripture; you have frequently appeared to equate a "high view" of Scripture with an over-arching concern about doctrine. I contend that someone can have a "high-view" and not be that concerned. The Scriptures provide far more then topical textism. There are stories, accounts, poetry and prophecy that do their part in enabling us to trust God, work out His dealings with humanity, reflect on His goodness and trust the reliability of His promises. I'm not sure that not having a good working theory of the nature of God or the atonement of necessity leaves us with nothing but dry bones in the Scriptures.

Regards, Brenden.

[21centpilgrim]

A basic question, who is God?

“Which commandment is the most important of all?”
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Dizener- I find it astounding that everything is a 'mystery'. especially so for the trinitarian. A basic question of who is God, a question in which Jesus quoting the Shema, is giving an answer to, we have to amend and abridge with a 1 who in 3 whats. According to the scriptures, even Jesus was not a trinitarian.

[dizerner]

A basic question, who is God?

“Which commandment is the most important of all?”
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Dizener- I find it astounding that everything is a 'mystery'. especially so for the trinitarian. A basic question of who is God, a question in which Jesus quoting the Shema, is giving an answer to, we have to amend and abridge with a 1 who in 3 whats. According to the scriptures, even Jesus was not a trinitarian.

I think you have just as many mysteries, if you believe the Bible to any extent. So why complain about mystery, it makes no sense.

Also. Jesus was a perfect man and a perfect Jew. We both agree on that. As Scripture says he kept the Law perfectly. He believed in One God as the Torah taught and he at all times worshiped that One God perfectly, unlike you or me. I think we run into logical problems describing a perfect human being. Scripture is very clear that "there is no son of man that has not sinned against you" and that "no one is good but God."

Do you think Christ sinned?

[TheEditor]

I think you have just as many mysteries, if you believe the Bible to any extent. So why complain about mystery, it makes no sense.

I would tend to agree. The trouble I have is merely the "having" to accept it to be in good standing with most churches. When one considers the body count over the centuries that has amassed from trinitarian orthodoxy torturing and killing non-trinitarians, I would be ashamed. On the other hand, I suppose had Arius won the debate, there would be trinitarians that were so executed. This is why "party spirit" is one of the works of the flesh.

Regards, Brenden.

[21centpilgrim]

Dizerner,

No, I don't believe that Christ sinned.

Do you believe that the Bible teaches things that are very clear? For example that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God? Of course one could say that any clearly stated thing is mysterious.

[dizerner]

Dizerner,

No, I don't believe that Christ sinned.

Do you believe that the Bible teaches things that are very clear? For example that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God? Of course one could say that any clearly stated thing is mysterious.

I got no problem with that statement though, but if one claimed that were a full picture of Jesus simply because Jesus affirmed Peter at that time, I guess I have a problem with it. Do I think the Bible teaches clear things? Yes, things like "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," but then there's Christ, who didn't sin and fall short of the glory of.. God, the same glory that John said was seen in Isaiah 6. Christ is the One Mediator between God and man because he connects the two, because God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, after Christ gave up the glory he shared with the Father before the world began where he was face to face, and it is said just as a man leaves father and mother so did Christ to become one flesh with the world, by leaving the Father's bosom and tabernacling among us. Because when God looked around "and He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no one to intercede, then His own arm brought salvation to Him" and Simeon said "now mine eyes have beheld thy Salvation for all people." Christ is God's own arm bringing us salvation from our sin. That's what the promised Messiah was to do, to be the intervention of God himself on behalf of his people. And Christ resumes the throne he once had, but in a different office as Judge and Savior of all flesh, the One who "alone treads the winepress" in both OT and NT, and who alone receives all glory and all honor from all creation. Do I simply believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God? Just as I do that he is the Son of Man who comes on the clouds of heaven, and all the earth will mourn for him. God is alone is Judge, God is alone is Savior, God alone is Life, God alone is Creator, God alone is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Bless.

[21centpilgrim]

How many is 'echad?
When Jesus affirms the Shema- he had the opportunity to do what he did on the Sermon on the Mount by pointing to 'you have heard it said........., but I say to you......' and he could have brought clarity as to the true meaning, but he left affirming the oneness of God that the Father is the only true God.

God raised up judges, prophets and kings in the past. Could He not appoint Jesus as Thee Judge, Thee Prophet and Thee King?

thanks

[Jose]

How many is 'echad?

"Echad", as I suspect you understand it, simply means one. One bunch of grapes is still only one singular bunch regardless of how many grapes it has. One team is one team without reference to the amount of members. The quantity of grapes or members does not alter the meaning of the word "one" - "Echad." Some use Gen 2:24 to argue that it means a compound unity, but I think that is not a valid argument. Adam and Eve did not literally become one human being. This word is yet another point of controversy in this whole trinitarian debate.

God raised up judges, prophets and kings in the past. Could He not appoint Jesus as Thee Judge, Thee Prophet and Thee King?

thanks

Yes, God has appointed Jesus to be all those including 'the' Priest. He is truly the word of God in that he communicates his father's words to us, his brethren.

Deuteronomy 18:18 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.'

John 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak."

Hebrews 1:2 (God...)"In these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world."

Luke 9:35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to him."