The Word as a person of the trinity

[darinhouston]

good morning steve7150,

ok that's what i thought, but i think that would confuse two separate categories or maybe types (not sure what word), of which christ jesus has the preeminence. i agree that paul is wrapping up his thought, but to make "firstborn from the dead" to clarify "firstborn of every creature", i believe is to mistake his point. that jesus has the preeminence over the original creation (regardless of what form that nature takes, which is the question this thread is asking). and also in this new creation that God is starting with the church, he has the preeminence, being the firstborn from the dead. jesus is the only man to have thus far overcome death by his resurrection.

so i think what paul instead means to lay out with "firstborn from the dead", is to demonstrate the multiple ways that christ truly in all things has the preeminence by showing parallels between two major works of God.

if this is true, i wonder if clearer light might be shed by it on the nature of the word before becoming flesh. in the context of this passage, it seems unarguably clear that paul is using 'head' as 'source' or beginning from which all things come forth.

grace and peace to you.

Let's move "firstborn" discussion to a new thread. I'll start one shortly.

[jriccitelli]

Paidion your response was really well written, But you ended with; ‘It is also correct to say that that the Father "produced" or "generated" the Son. His Son was divine like Himself’ (Note also; I did say ‘Orthodox (in a general sense)’ that’s all I meant)
And although Darin posted a synopsis of begotten (all of which is true), It did not address what Paidion (and possibly the Nicene creed) misconstrues; the terms Firstborn and Only Begotten are not related terms (from what I remember).

And Darin, you answered these questions (on pg.8) with;

There is, indeed, a big difference -- and I agree with your description of "us," but the corollary isn't necessary the case -- that's the very debate we're having.
In general, yes. A complex being might be conceived to test this but safe point.
Essentially, this is probably safe, but presuppositions creeping in here. The complex being scenario is creeping its head.
Now, we're in uncharted territory and our revelation is a bit ambiguous, this is why we have the inquiry we are addressing.Perhaps this is the excluded middle you have ignored -- clearly, Jesus is sui generis. Again, we don't know this for sure -- hence the debate.

These are the most evasive, dubious answers I’ve seen yet!
It seems your retreating to the ‘we don’t know for sure/ that’s why we are having this debate response (you have used this before, I think regarding the Trinity topic). Jesus asked, “Do you believe this?” Many times, in fact the scriptures are quite full of ‘do you believe, and trust, so that you may know, don’t you know me’, etc. It seems God has revealed enough for us to make a decision, and God seems to think that what He ‘has’ revealed is enough for us to decide. And that decision is our life, and salvation ‘If you believe you will live’.

I think Jesus gave enough scripture for us to make a decision. Despite “unnecessary corollary, general, complex, safe points, creeping presuppositions, complex beings and their scenarios, sui generis, uncharted territory and ambiguous revelations” we still need to make a decision;
“Who do you say I am?” (I’m serious, are you really undecided, or?)

I tried to boil it down to the simplest denominator (and I am no newbie to discussions with JW’s).
There is no sense in going any further if the primary foundations are ignored.
It seems you are trying to say there is a third substance in the Universe besides the two I stated;

There are only two types of things in the universe; Created and uncreated.
Only God is uncreated and ‘everything’ else is created.

So which category does Jesus fall into? There is only One God, is Jesus in the God category or not?

[darinhouston]

JCritelli, I'm not accustomed to that tone from you, but perhaps you aren't accustomed to the clarity and precision typically required in theological discourse of this nature. In any event, perhaps I should have simply refused to play your reductionist logicians game. But, if you have a problem with terms like "sui generis," then maybe I should simply point out that attempts to categorize the uncategorical reality of Jesus, the Son of God - the very definition of one who is in a "category by himself" are, themselves, disengenuous. Yes, Jesus expected his seekers to declare (or decide) who He is, but again this is a category error. The context of those discourses clearly related to His role as Messiah, as the Son of God, or were a rhetorical question or deflection to refuse to resolve certain mysteries of the type we are discussing here. With regard to "Son of God" and other roles fulfilling Scripture, there was very specific revelation that they merely had to "accept." We are discussing not His role as Messiah or "Son of God," but His very nature of which very little clear revelation has been given. For some today, it is sufficient, but no honest man can say it is as clear as the revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God as revealed and prophesied in the Tenach. We are talking about a Jesus who we refer to as "fully God" and "fully Man" -- and you are trying to force Him into earthly categories? A man who, if you are correct, did not exist at all at in one aspect at a point in the future and yet existed fully throughout eternity? And you are forcing a dichotomous ontological cateogory that derives only from our understanding of the cosmos and our 4 dimensional understanding of the Universe and beyond? Please!

This has been my main point in my critical approach to modernTrinitarianism -- it reduces Jesus and God to our understanding, at the risk of simplifying God or putting Him in a box we can manipulate to our comfort. If we needed to make a decision on whether Jesus was God himself, the One Almighty and eternal God - the Great I Am, then our Scriptures have a funny way of making that requirement clearly known.


To quote a famous philosopher -- if I choose not to decide, I still have made a choice -- I'm comfortable that God will accept that based on the revelation and capacities I have for such a choice.

[jeremiah]

good morning john,

you said:

Jesus asked, “Do you believe this?” Many times, in fact the scriptures are quite full of ‘do you believe, and trust, so that you may know, don’t you know me’, etc. It seems God has revealed enough for us to make a decision, and God seems to think that what He ‘has’ revealed is enough for us to decide. And that decision is our life, and salvation ‘If you believe you will live’.

I think Jesus gave enough scripture for us to make a decision. Despite “unnecessary corollary, general, complex, safe points, creeping presuppositions, complex beings and their scenarios, sui generis, uncharted territory and ambiguous revelations” we still need to make a decision;
“Who do you say I am?” (I’m serious, are you really undecided, or?)

come on man, you are not engaging a jehovah's witness on this forum, but a brother in Christ! to try and apply to jesus asking someone who they say he is, and him meaning whether or not he is God the son is stretching the scriptures at best and absurd at worst.

the nature of God is important, but our definition of how the the son relates to the father is not an essential for God to accept us into Christ. we can no sooner come to a full understanding of such a defintion than could a flea live long enough to study every square inch of mount everest and write of what he observed.


till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ...grace and peace to you.

[mattrose]

I've always liked Steve's list of 'essential' beliefs (based largely on the 'must' language in Scripture).

Off the top of my head, I believe they are as follows
1. You must believe that God exists
2. You must believe that God cares (rewards those who seek)
3. You must believe that Jesus came in the flesh (that Jesus was incarnate)
4. You must believe that Jesus is who Jesus claimed to be
---Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, Lord, Messiah, etc.

I have no problem with a fellow Christian insisting on only using biblical language to describe Jesus. If Darin would rather use terms like "Word, Son of God, Lord, Messiah, etc." as opposed to "God, 2nd Person of the trinity, deity, etc." that should not be a problem for anyone, in my opinion.

All that being said, there are dozens of verses that I think make the second group of words legitimate as well. Indeed, I think Jesus is specifically called 'God' in the Bible, multiple times. But since the verses are somewhat debateable, I can't rightly hold Darin, or anyone, to conclude as I do on those interpretations.

[jriccitelli]

‘but in any event perhaps you aren't accustomed to the clarity and precision typically required in theological discourse of this nature’

I was going to be apologetic, but after rereading your first line I would have to say I grew up having to discern quite a few things, and I know what is important and what is not. I have enough evidence to support my reading skills and high intellect. I do try reducing the amount of BS in my writing and I try to make it relevant to all readers – not just those in academia – and you may excuse me for my blue-collar approach, because I think the Scriptures are also very down to earth in their style, as is God.

I have read enough Greek Philosophy and sales literature, and listened to politicians to recognize rhetoric and fluff. And I have read dozens of highbrow baloney in numerous religious and ‘academic’ theology texts, which often lead to nothing. I could go on, but this is exactly what I want to avoid.

Sorry if you take it the wrong way, I only strung together your words so you could see the pattern.
I’m glad I did, after all, the question was a simple question. I have seen this before in debates (or from politicians) a long string of words that seem to do everything but answer the question. Your terms of corollary, isn't necessary the case, presuppositions creeping in here, creeping its head, uncharted territory and ambiguous revelations, I do not see why you say these things;
“Corollary, isn't necessary the case”; Here O’Israel our Lord is One, is not a proven preposition?
“A complex being might be conceived to test this but safe point”; I am not even sure where that is going, do you mean we have to conceive an idea, or Jesus was the being, testing what safe point?
“Presuppositions creeping in here”; What are you calling a presupposition, that God is the Only God, that Jesus made himself out to be God, or what?
“uncharted territory and our revelation is a bit ambiguous”; What is new about this discussion? What revelation is ambiguous, are you talking about the Gospels or what, are you saying it is ‘too’ ambiguous?
“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.

Anyways, you can simply believe Jesus was the Messiah, but when faced with Scripture you start to see there are decisions to make, and Scripture encourages and commands us to make a decision (before it is too late).
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and people of Jewish and Muslim faith see the clear distinction and difference in believing or not believing Jesus was God. If we don’t believe ‘we’ fall into another category or religion.
The question was is Jesus God, if Jesus is in a different new category is he then not God and not man?
Or is He God and man? There is no new category. We are a created spirit in a body, He is God in a created body, no new category’s. We will, and have Gods Spirit in us when we believe, but we are never God.
Jesus was a man because he indwelt a body of flesh, and He is God because that is who He is.

I guess you have not decided if Jesus is God, but would you argue that he is not?

[darinhouston]

Fresh question:

From Matthew 28:18,

18And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

Qns: When was it given to Him? What is the natural inference from this verse?

[jeremiah]

hello john,
you said:

...because I think the Scriptures are also very down to earth in their style, as is God

was that a pun? if it was, well done, because the word of God truly came down to earth.

grace and peace.

[steve7150]

18And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

Qns: When was it given to Him? What is the natural inference from this verse?

User avatar
darinhouston

Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am




To me the inference is that he is saying He is Lord of everything and our judge. As to when it was given to him, i'm just guessing but i think it may connect with Phil 2.7 when he agreed to humble himself to become like us and in effect become our Savior by dying for our sins. It may have also been when he died on the cross and was resurrected. Maybe connected to his statement on the cross "it is finished."

[jriccitelli]

The question was is Jesus God, if Jesus is in a different new category is he then not God and not man?

Just wanted to clarify, I didn’t mean there is no other species, as in angels and animals, I meant there is no-thing in the Universe that does not fit in the two category’s; created things – and non created things (God).