The Great Debate: Is Jesus God?

[Perry]

Hi Darrin,

I believe I'm the one trying to let it remain untamed. It is the Trinitarian formulations that seem to be forcing things in a box.

I agree! That's what I was trying to say in my post. I'm certainly not qualified to be an apologist for why the early church needed to wrap things up into a neat little Trinitarian package, when I myself see no need for such a package.

I was merely speculating, in an off the cuff way, about what I think may have motivated them. I don't, on the face of it, think that those motives were necessarily bad, nor do I think the motives of those who currently promote Trinitarian theology are bad. I think that, like us, they are trying to make sense, as best they can, from what the scriptures seem to be telling them. They're just reaching different conclusions.

More important to me, is the significance that tends to be placed on those conclusions. (i.e. If you're unwilling to adopt the creed, you're a heretic.)

I have to say it's at least relevant that this doctrine could VERY easily have been taught very easily and that the Apostles and Jesus seem to be going out of their way to avoid it or beat around the bush or paint it in abstract passages.

The first thing that popped into my mind as I read this was, “Well, we got some pretty straightforward, unambiguous, non-abstract passages that describe the creation, but that sure hasn't created agreement about what they mean.” As I say, it was the first thing I thought, and it may not be all that relevant, but I do think that the “nature of God” may be at least as complex as the thing He created, and therefore not easily described. That's precisely why I maintain a certain degree of skepticism about any theology that attempts to describe that nature in neat, tidy creeds.

...I suggest a doctrine equating Jesus with God would need to be equally clear.

I think there are some pretty unambiguous passages that make that clear, and that many of them appear in this thread already. But that's just my opinion.

[jriccitelli]

"I think there are some pretty unambiguous passages that make that clear" There is a statement with which I concur. I agree that is the reason for the declarative creed of the Trinity.

It is not that 'Trinitarians' go around making a big deal of, and imposing the Trinitarian view on people, in fact the doctrine is severely understated throughout modern Christianity. It seems it was many of the Ancient monotheists who were 'not' Trinitarians that 'fought hard to promote' their doctrines, although maybe just as hard as the Trinitarians defended the doctrine. Maybe it should not have been made into a 'creed', because often creeds are defended without knowledge of their meanings, so, creeds are necessary, as well as problematic.
It certainly was not the Trins only who were on the offense. Much as it is today, non-trins are very aggressive in promoting their dogma and professions, usually using the Trinity as their 'example' of the apostasy and evil of Christianity (Muslims, Jews, Jehovah Witnesses, Armstrongism for example) The ancient councils were drawn up because of the huge dissention, disagreements and debates - not because Trinitarians would not just 'let it go', or gave up on an answer - the Trinity is the explanation of the unambiguous scriptural facts.

It certainly was not because the Trinitarians had come up with the idea on their own out of thin air, it was because of the glaring fact that;

1. Jesus Himself the Son called God his Father. 2. Jesus had conversation with God and yet was God Himself. 3. There is Only One God.

You just can't deny this and brush it under the rug. After all it is a focal and primary aspect of Jesus and the incarnation. John is no small player among the bible writers, it could be said that John knew Jesus best, and maybe that is why this expanded revelation of Gods person was given to John. John certainly expounds a deeper perspective to our relationship with God in his epistle (1John), where other writers do not go into such detail. Jesus is not rambling incoherently when He speaks about His Father.

[Paidion]

1. Jesus Himself the Son called God his Father. 2. Jesus had conversation with God and yet was God Himself. 3. There is Only One God.

If #3 is true, then #2 CANNOT be true unless either 1) Jesus Is the Father and He was talking to Himself or 2) You are using the word "God" in two different senses in #2.

Which of the two IS it?

[darinhouston]

It certainly was not because the Trinitarians had come up with the idea on their own out of thin air, it was because of the glaring fact that;

1. Jesus Himself the Son called God his Father. 2. Jesus had conversation with God and yet was God Himself. 3. There is Only One God.

But, the second half of number 2 begs the fundamental question, and none of it speaks to the third "person" of the Trinity so at best it deals with the binity. If Scripture unambiguously declares Jesus as God in the same way we mean God when we speak of the Father and the Only One True God, then I would at least affirm the binity. The heart of the debate is two-fold: (1) is Jesus God in that way; and (2) has it always been such from the beginning.

By the way, if you have heard it yet, I'm curious what you make of the vowel pointings in the Masoretic text of what we commonly see as adnoai to be the more common adoni with reference to Jesus? This is the sort of thing that creates ambiguity even where there is no ambiguity in a particular modern translation. Paidion's extensive translations of John 1 point this out very well, also, I think.

[Paidion]

The following verses seem to preclude even a Binity. For they distinguish the one God (presumably the Father) from Christ:


Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, AND Jesus Christ whom you have sent.


1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.


1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, AND there is one mediator between God men, the man Christ Jesus,

[darinhouston]

Here is Paidion's treatment of John 1

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3457

[jriccitelli]

I wanted to finish my point that; you cannot engage a Jehovah Witness, Muslim, or Apostolic without 'them' quickly mocking the Christian acceptance of Jesus being God, and the argument to which 'they' often have great joy in pointing out is that; 'How can Jesus be God if Jesus prays to God?'
(Like election or predestination, Christians have no problem with election, nor have to define it, until Calvinists come around and try to redefine it)

The problem non-trins have is in trying to make God into the image of man (a model airplane can look like a real airplane; wings, etc., but this does not mean that a real airplane 'must' be made of plastic and glue).

The Problem is not in the definition of God* but in the definition of person(s).

The Bible expresses a wider definition of person, and self, than we are accustomed to.
The bible allows, and asks, us to enter into a 'oneness with others' that we do not understand.
So Gods definition of oneness of persons is different than our own, and proof is that God asks us to 'move' from what we are, that is; we are 'not currently' one with another. God asks us to enter into something 'new', that is; 'one with another'.
God is revealing what He 'is' to show us what we might become (albeit, possibly only in image).

(*There is only One God, we both agree on that, albeit you are demanding two definitions as when Paidion said; "You are using the word "God" in two different senses in #2". No I am not)

[jriccitelli]

'The Logos of God was Deity. He was not God Himself. Nor was He part of a Trinity. He Himself in His prayer declared His Father to be the only true God' (Paidion)

'Christ, the Expression of God' (Paidion)

'The Son of God was the only God who was begotten' (Paidion)

I would have to spend more time reading Paidion's translation, I am not quite sure exactly how Paidion arrives at this, but it seems to hinge on the word translated 'deity' allowing one to be less than God. But this refers back to point #3; 'there is Only One God'. In other words; the word Deity is 'defined' in scripture not by the Greek language, but by the Hebrew (Torah) meaning (the context), no matter what word you use to translate Deity or Lord the 'definition' is given through argument and proclamation within scripture.
If; there is only One Lord and One Deity (and all others are false or lesser lords) and the biblical mandate is; to not revere, bow down to, or give Gods Glory or place in our lives to any other but Him alone, then we ought to fear any thought of doing so, since God is a Jealous God, and there is no other Rock but the Lord;
"There is no one holy like the LORD, Indeed, there is no one besides You, nor is there any rock like our God. (1 Samuel 2:2)

I would have to ask Paidion; Who is 'your' Lord?

God is a lot of things; not only the son - not only the father - not only love - not only Jealous - not only Judge - but also Water - but also fire - but also Light - but also invisible- but also all powerful - but also meek - but also etc.
God is obviously a bit of a magnificent paradox (seemingly), if you cannot understand how God can be so many things how can you understand he is more than one person.
Where Eli (Theos) and Adonai are 'generally' descriptions of 'what' rather than 'who', the definition is 'redefined' within the context of scripture by the 'there is only One God' (a creed) because scripture itself has an objective of redefining the idea of God among humans; 'there is only One God', not more'.
God, I think, meant this point (a Son and a Father) to stand out much like the point made with the 'Cross', no matter how much you try to get around it, it comes back to; 'Why the Cross?' 'Why did he have to die?' there is no getting around such a statement.

Darin said; 'the second half of number 2 begs the fundamental question'
Yes that is my point, it needs an answer.

Darin said; 'and none of it speaks to the third "person" of the Trinity'
I never brought up the third person, other than noting once or twice, that this reasoning 'could' also apply to the Holy Spirit.

Darin said; 'then I would at least affirm the binity'. Awesome, this is what is necessary in order to call Him Lord (since; there is Only One Lord) I agree, there does not seem to be a mandate to confess the Holy Spirit as God, or Lord (but certainly a mandate not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, etc.).

[darinhouston]

Darin said; 'then I would at least affirm the binity'. Awesome, this is what is necessary in order to call Him Lord (since; there is Only One Lord) I agree, there does not seem to be a mandate to confess the Holy Spirit as God, or Lord (but certainly a mandate not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, etc.).

I have to say I didn't follow much of the preceding, but I disagree that affirming at least a binity is necessary in order to call Jesus Lord.

[Perry]

The problem non-trins have is in trying to make God into the image of man (a model airplane can look like a real airplane; wings, etc., but this does not mean that a real airplane 'must' be made of plastic and glue).

I hope you'll take me at my word when I say this is absolutely not the case with me.

From my perspective, a Christian need not go so far as to embrace the trinitarianism to remain in conformity to the teachings of the Bible. I certainly hope you'll agree that there's no reason to believe that the Christians who lived prior to the development of trinitarian theology were less Christian than those who came after.

In my view, then, it is the trinitarians who are going further than is biblically necessary, with their definitions of “beings” and “persons” and “essences” and “whos” and “whats” and “three-in-onenesses” and “perichoresis” and “godhead” and all the rest. They do all this while simultaneously affirming that we shouldn't actually try to understand how it works, because, hey, it's beyond our ability to comprehend anyway. Then, worst of all, branding you as heretical for being skeptical about whether these linguistic gymnastics are really accomplishing all that much.