The Great Debate: Is Jesus God?

[darinhouston]

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.

Exactly!

Two questions:

(1) to what degree is it relevant (or true) that virtually no one was looking for a Messiah who was God?
(2) logically speaking, what good does it do to have a doctrine that there is only one God if one can simply assert a seeming contradiction as being a separate personality within a complex unity of a Godhead? Where does that end? What if one of Egypt's gods were simply suggested to be not another god but another aspect or person of the godhead? In some sense, maybe Paul alluded to something like that at Mars Hill.

[Perry]

(2) logically speaking, what good does it do to have a doctrine that there is only one God if one can simply assert a seeming contradiction as being a separate personality within a complex unity of a Godhead? Where does that end?

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of the trinitarian position. There's nothing inherently illogical about imagining three persons on one being. For instance, here's a real life example of two persons who share a great deal of their being. (Be sure to watch the whole video! It's not very long.)

Now I'm not saying that this is an exact portrait of what trinitarians advocate. Actually, I think it's a far better example than many of the examples they often give. Neither of these two young ladies are who they would have been without the other one. It's woven into the very fabric of who they are. My point is that looks to me like we have here a real-world example of two persons who share much of their being. We even see references to the seeming dilemmas created by this situation. (Do they get two pay-checks or one? etc) There's no violation of logic here. If this can exist as a reality on a physical level, how much more fully could it exist in the spiritual realm?

In some sense, maybe Paul alluded to something like that at Mars Hill.

You'll have to elaborate on that one a bit. I don't see anything in Paul's reference to the unknown god anything other than a springboard into talking about the true God.

[darinhouston]

I'm not saying it would be illogical. I'm just saying carrying it out logically, it could be seen to negate any meaningful exclusivity intended in the statement. Unitarians claim they take the Shema more seriously than a Trinitarian. That's all. I haven't watched the video, but from your comments this doesn't sound very trinitarian and sounds more like the postulate I made above where Jesus' God-ness is meant not to refer to His flesh but to the Spirit of God that indwelt Him. They share the same spirit. This spirit pre-existed but not in a unique "son-form" to suggest the separate eternal personality of a complex godhead that the Trinitarian formulations suggest. Again, this is not my position, just a postulate.

As to Mars Hill, maybe that wasn't a perfect analogy (hence I said in "some sense"). But, Paul did much more than simply use the unknown god they were worshiping as a springboard to talk about the real God. He did do that, but he went further and told them that it was the one and same God but they simply didn't know it. This might have suggested to them that God is a complex being perhaps embodied in a number of forms. I don't think that's what Paul was saying, but it could have been taken that way.

[jriccitelli]

Perry wrote; 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'

I'm sorry but I must address this; Are you saying that humans who lived prior to the development of the terms; heterosexual - monogamous or herbivore didn’t practice such things? It seems Adam and Eve lived as such without knowing there was a word for it.
Are you saying that Christians who lived prior to the development of Trinitarian theology did not actually practice or believe the Father and Son are 'both' God?
Were Christians who lived prior to the terms - Sabellianism - Arianism and Tritheism 'less Christian than those who came after' the argument doesn't work either way

I addressed this as it reminded me of the fallacy that Jehovahs Witnesses often repeat; 'The word Trinity is not in the Bible' (I remind them that the words - Theology - Soteriology - monotheistic - polytheistic - etc. are neither in the Bible, but never the less the concepts are in the bible)

I'm sorry if you understood my reference of making 'God into the image of man' as harsh, the verse just comes to mind as I have conversed with people unable to accept God having two (or three) persons of His own. (maybe this was 'not' the problem for you, I am not sure)
As you related to the woman with MPD, we are trying to impose what we understand or know about personhood and spirit upon God, when we do not really understand what these things really are composed of. We are thinking 'God cannot be three persons' in one, because 'we are not three persons' in one. And as you said Perry, it is not an illogical hypothesis at all, just hard to perceive.
My previous post was not trying to say we shouldn't try to understand how it works, but rather I am giving reasons to why it can work (as you did). The whos, whats and persons are simplifications of Grammar in an attempt to simplify this. Having God going through modes, transitions, expressions and apparitions is no less simplistic in definitions. The essence and complexity of God are no less an issue in either theory.

It's not hard to see why Apologia and apology are so related, but the question at the top of the thread does ask; 'Is Jesus God?', so Darin I do not see why there should be any offense in trying to present the case for the Deity of God, as Trinitarians see it.

The debates and arguments within the Church caused the Church to define the doctrines, the creeds did not start the debates, the debates caused the creeds. The Nicene creed was a response to Arius, as the church had to respond to Marcion, and as there had to be a response to indulgences in the sixteenth century, Luther didn’t invent Sola Gratia it was always there.
God revealed Himself as two persons not us, not me, not Constantine. Any how, what I am trying to explain is the difficulty that some people have with the trinity (or binity) is that we are not talking about two Gods, we are talking about two persons.
There is nothing in scripture that would disallow God having two persons, in fact the Old Testament hints at it, and the Gospels announce it.

[jriccitelli]

What do you make of this prayer (and many prayers) where Jesus talks to the Father?;

"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.22 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. (John 17:1-26)

[darinhouston]

What do you make of this prayer (and many prayers) where Jesus talks to the Father?;

"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.22 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. (John 17:1-26)

I think they're a bit mysterious but pretty cool. I'm not sure why you ask. They seem to support the position I'm proferring.

There is a sense in which Jesus is one with the Father. He seems to have given them the same thing so they could be one as well and that their word can carry that same ability to others. I take this as referring to the Holy Spirit, which according to my postulate is what makes Jesus one with God but in a unique way -- since He was fully and completely filled with that Spirit, He enjoys/ed a oneness greater than we can because it is His entire being which is enlivened by that Holy Spirit.

This doesn't sound like a very good prooftext for you -- it actually suggests Christ's "sameness" with us and not his uniqueness (even though I certainly do affirm his uniqueness).

[Perry]

Are you saying that humans who lived prior to the development of the terms; heterosexual - monogamous or herbivore didn’t practice such things? It seems Adam and Eve lived as such without knowing there was a word for it.

Nope. I'm not saying it at all. You're examples make it clear that you've totally missed my point. I'm not arguing the semantics of the word “trinity”, nor am I saying that the nature of God's existence depends at all upon any theological framework that men use to describe it. In fact, I'm saying exactly the opposite. It seems to me that it's the trinitarians who think they've got God all figured out. God exists, in whatever form, quite independent from how we try to describe him. He is what He is.

Your assumption that the early church held a trinitarian view prior to the development of the theology, assumes a couple of things. First, it assumes a-priori that the trinitarian view is correct. But that's the very thing being debated. You can't use the assumption that your view is correct as a defense that your view is correct.

Second, even if it is correct, that doesn't mean the early church thought in those terms.

As an example, we now have a view of physics that suggests that Newtonian physics does not go far enough in describing how the universe operates. As measurements of the physical world got more accurate, there were observed phenomena that Newtonian physics couldn't explain. In fact, some of the new evidence seemed contrary to it. So along comes Einstein, and gives us a theory that does a better job of coordinating the entirety of the observed data. His new theory explained everything that Newton's explained, and then some. It fit the data more completely.

The point here is that, prior to Einstein, physicists did not use his model in their thinking. Even though Einstein's view seems more correct, and even though the full reality existed prior to Einstein's better description of it, no one thought in those terms. Even so, they conducted their lives quite successfully.

Same with early Christians. Any later theories that describe the nature of God, even if they describe Him better, do not retroactively impose themselves on those Christians who predated the new theory. And that doesn't make those early Christians less Christian.

When you say:

The problem non-trins have is in trying to make God into the image of man...

you're suggesting that anyone who doesn't adopt your view is automatically has a particular view of God. That's just silly. Some “non-trins” may view God as a four-headed dragon. There are limitless views that “non-trins” may hold. Some of them may even exist in non-contradiction with the Biblical evidence.

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. I have nowhere said that the trinitarian description of God is false. What I've continually said is that it goes further than the Bible does. Trinitarians, it seems to me, feel that their view is an obvious outgrowth that can be logically reached from the totality of the Biblical evidence available. They may be right! I've never denied that. I'm just saying that it is, indeed, and outgrowth, and a pretty convoluted one at that. There are simpler models that other people feel fit the Biblical evidence just as well.

As you related to the woman with MPD, we are trying to impose...

Man, you really need to get your facts straight. I've never given any example of any person with MPD. It would be better if you would attempt to understand my position before you try to refute it.

I find your reference to John 17 very interesting. To me, these verses have always weakened the case for the trinitarian. In the verses, and even the words that you specifically underlined, Jesus asks that we all may be one with each other in exactly the same way that he and the father are one. Do you think his prayer was answered? Does that make you and me a trinity?

[jriccitelli]

Sorry about not having time to check your video out. I usually read and write while I wait for people to wake up here, so I am not able to check out YouTube before I leave for work.
This video is a good example of; 'something being other than what we had imagined' and all that was necessary was to look into the facts (the video), two girls joined together at the waist, not one girl with MPD. The point made here is that once you describe the truth with simple enough words the facts are hard to misunderstand.
Once you use simple language it is harder to get the wrong understanding, God expects His Words to carry meaning also, and from what I am hearing around here is that the Words Father and Son carry no meaning.

In fact I thought you were 'supporting' my view point by suggesting that there was a video that demonstrated the possibility of two or more personalities in one person. I was not refuting anything about the video. I am 'trying' to understand your position, albeit I am speaking to reasons for and against the Divinity of Jesus in general.

I am looking for good arguments from the other side as to 'why' God cannot be two (or three) persons, and I prefer scripture, as I have given verses that show He does have two (or three) persons (I do not see how you interpret prayer to God, and references to Father and Son as 'not' descriptive of having two persons).

The reasoning and answers I have read in this thread have been going something like this; it is not relevant - I am content not knowing - that’s just people labeling people heretics - it's only a creed - it was developed later - it's just a tidy package. These are not answers. It's very difficult to hear these statements when the thread asks the important question; 'Is Jesus God?' It is hard to respond to these vague statements, but I can't let these be the 'reasons' for disbelieving the Trinity. Creeds are nice because they give you an idea to what the opposing arguments are, and what you stand for, but it is not the 'creed' one defends.
I appreciate the Muslim saying; 'Who has no son nor partner, and that none has the right to be worshipped but Him alone - God is not Jesus, and Jesus is not God' at least I know where they stand.

You both laid out your beliefs in four or five points (Apr 20) but I did not see the particular reasons, from scripture, for the opposing beliefs, or the reasons against the Trinity (as Paidion did). Darin thanks for explaining your reasoning in your last post.

When I said non-trins it was in a context of quote; 'Ancient monotheists who were not Trinitarians that fought hard to promote their doctrines… much as it is today, non-trins …their example of the apostasy and evil of Christianity (Muslims, Jews, Jehovah Witnesses, Armstrongism for example)'.

[darinhouston]

I am looking for good arguments from the other side as to 'why' God cannot be two (or three) persons, and I prefer scripture, as I have given verses that show He does have two (or three) persons (I do not see how you interpret prayer to God, and references to Father and Son as 'not' descriptive of having two persons).

I don't believe any of us have even suggested God cannot be two or three persons. You say you prefer Scripture, but this is extra-scriptural regardless whether it is the case. You deduce it from Scripture, but you haven't heard us apparently when we suggest that the deduction may not be necessary or the most likely deduction. If Jesus is God, then this complex unity of "persons" is a reasonable theory, but it's a theory no matter how you slice it. The whole debate is whether Jesus is the Yahweh God and if so in what sense.

Just to clarify terminology, we are not debating here Jesus' divinity (a word you just used), but His Deity. "Divinity" to me connotes authority and pedigree as we might use the term royalty to refer both to the King himself, and all those in the Royal court such as a prince or perhaps even a baron. "Deity" in my nomenclature refers to that one and true God, Yahweh, first cause eternal being (though being may not be right, but it's all I've got in my vocabulary). His Divinity in this sense is without question.

You have placed the burden on us, the questioner, but as you say Scripture is the foundation and your reliance on creeds and tradition to suggest a presumption is misplaced. What we have said is we have formulated a postulation that takes Scripture at its basic and plain meaning and ignoring tradition have a postulate that seems to be sufficient to make sense of that Scripture without the credal positions evolved over the years to quell rebellions, etc. Error seems to frequently come from correcting error, so it's not unexpected that one might see significant errors develop over time. We're exploring this Sola Scriptura. We have started there and made a postulation. It is up to the trinitarian in this thread to rebut and prove the multiple personality position from Scripture. First, we must prove that Jesus is God before we advance to formulas that make that not deny the very fundamental premise that there is only one God from all eternity.

By the way, with regard to "Father" and "Son" it is you who seem to be ignoring the plain meaning of those terms. Nothing in them connote unity as a single being/entity. They instead connote separateness/otherness/derivation. If you start with the premise that Jesus is the same Yahweh of the OT, then using those terms does bring separate personhood to mind, but that's exactly where the debate begins. We haven't concluded that fundamental question yet, so using the terms to suggest the Trinity (or binity) is putting the cart before the horse.

[Perry]

jriccitelli,
I appreciated your last post, and I understand if your a little frustrated with me. I'm not trying to be dodgy in my position. I appreciate your remaining stalwart in defense of your beliefs. I wouldn't keep engaging you on this if I didn't think I might learn something.

My criticism of trinitarianism is, ultimately, pretty limited. It has more to do with the significance that, at least some, trinitarians place on their conclusions, than on the basics tenants of the belief itself.

When you get a moment, check out this 55-second video of Normam Geisler and tell me if you agree with his conclusion, that “if you don't have the view of God that is trinitarian, you don't have salvation.”

Just to clarify terminology, we are not debating here Jesus' divinity..., but His Deity.

I admit that I'd be a little squeamish about saying “Jesus is not Deity” or, to recast the title of the thread, “Jesus is not God”. That's an uncomfortable proposition for me. The reason I think most trinitarians are so adamant is that they cringe at the slightest whisper of a hint of any suggestion that may remotely detract ''anything'' from the glory or quality of the person of Jesus. I cringe at this also.

By saying this, I don't mean to imply that you or Paidion are in any way attempting to denigrate the person of Christ, or that you somehow have less respect for the person of Christ than I do. I don't think that at all, but I can see how jriccitelli might.