Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

True Robby, the Oneness we have with God is easy to conceive and conceptualize, just as it is between a husband and his wife. We are asked to be as one as they are one, so this is one of the reasons why I do not see why it is so hard to believe Jesus and the Father are One also. Unity and love would mean we are one, this is a reflection of what believers will become when we are remade into the image of God, that is; the 'Perfect unity that always existed' within the persons of our Triune God. If there is no actual Oneness and Unity in God, we will only be a reflection of an imperfect unity (how sad). That being said:

We can be one with God, just as the Father and Son already are, that’s fine, the point though is there is Only One God. Jesus said (or assumed) he was equal, like, from, and one with God, that is something no-one can do without denying God and the scriptures themselves, in other words committing blasphemy.

God said He was One and Only God, without equal, uncreated, alone, and not a man, this would make Jesus a false prophet, a liar, a lunatic, or is He really the Lord?

Jesus can be a Messiah, but is he is also your Savior, Lord, King, and Judge? The Torah and the Prophets do not allow for a man to claim equality or even similarity with God, let alone take Gods place of Savior, Lord and King. God alone is Holy and separate.

[Homer]

Hi Robby,

You asked:

So obviously, believing He was the Messiah was good enough. Or am I missing something here as well?

Paul, Roman's 10:9, appears to require belief in the resurrection of Jesus. I don't think that was a requirement prior to the event.

[jriccitelli]

(Good morning Homer, good point also)
Thanks Paidion, you did a good job of going through my post (pg. 25), I liked it.

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) said so in his dialogue with Trypho. And Gen 19:24… (Paidion, Aug.23)

First, I am not sure why you would quote Justin’s dialog since it is primarily a defense of the trinity. What is the chapter that Justin notes YWEH is above, and on earth?

What do you mean by "God"? Do you mean God the Father, the Creator of all things? Do you yourself believe Jesus is God the Father? (Paidion, Aug.23)

I am a Trinitarian: Three persons One God. The three constitute the One God.
You said numerous times you understand the Trinitarian position, and I do not believe anything differently from this position; the Father and the Son are two different persons united as One God (from eternity).

‘No, Jesus is not the Father, nor is He some secondary god’ (Paidion, Aug.23)
‘Yes, he is in some sense "God"— in the sense that He is fully divine…’ (Paidion, Aug.23)

OK, then your saying Jesus is not ‘God’, Jesus is not ‘a’ god, but Jesus is in some sense ‘God’. Yet a divine being is a god (you can’t create a category that scripture has already forbidden). The gods forbidden were not restricted to only being the One God, or restricted to being a creator or such, they were many various divine beings of all different roles and origins, all of whom were forbidden.
“Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth… You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces. 25“But you shall serve the LORD your God... You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods’ (Exodus 23:13, 25)
“for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-- (Exodus 34:14)
"You shall fear only the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name. 14 "You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, 15 for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God... " (Deut 6)
(The point being, that this was extremely explicit, it was nothing you take lightly, and nothing we should imagine confusion over)
Just the act of supernatural power was enough to raise the implication of divinity to even men or objects to those of the time, a true prophet and or Scriptural Hebrew would never assume divinity, relation or similitude to divinity for himself:
'When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have become like men and have come down to us." 12 And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes…' (Acts 14)
‘… the people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god’ (Acts 28)

[Paidion]

First, I am not sure why you would quote Justin’s dialog since it is primarily a defense of the trinity. What is the chapter that Justin notes YWEH is above, and on earth?

No way is Justin's dialogue with Trypho a defense of the Trinity. Justin did not believe in the Trinity.

It is chapter CXXVII that refers to Gen 19:24. It is necessary to read it carefully to understand Justin's point. Here is a quote of the relevant part of the chapter:

For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with any one, or be seen by any one, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth, when the people at Sinai were not able to look even on the glory of Him who was sent from Him; and Moses himself could not enter into the tabernacle which he had erected, when it was filled with the glory of God; and the priest could not endure to stand before the temple when Solomon conveyed the ark into the house in Jerusalem which he had built for it?

Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush. Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: ‘And the Lord [Yahweh] rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord [Yahweh] out of heaven."

Justin's point is that clearly it was Yahweh who spoke to Abraham, and that was was none other than Christ, the son of God. For if not then Yahweh must have left heaven and talked to Abraham. And this is not possible since no one has ever seen the Father. So Justin's quote of Gen 19:24 indicates that Yahweh was on earth and also Yahweh was in heaven when the destruction of Sodom took place. But how is this possible? Only if Yahweh on earth was the Son of God, and Yahweh in heaven was the Father.

Both Justin and Trypho throughout their dialogue had been referring to the Holy Spirit. When Trypho spoke of the Holy Spirit, he did not have in mind a different divine Person from the Father. For the Jews' position is unitarian concerning God. But Justin didn't didn't either. His whole discourse was to show that God had a Son who was also divine or "God" (in that other sense of which I wrote. It is interesting that at one point, Justin asked Trypho this question (CH LXVI):

“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.”

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer,

You responded:

So obviously, believing He was the Messiah was good enough. Or am I missing something here as well?

Paul, Roman's 10:9, appears to require belief in the resurrection of Jesus. I don't think that was a requirement prior to the event.

Fair poinr Homer. But I would say there is implicit faith in the resurrection by the thief since he told Jesus to "remember him" when he came into his Kingdom. He must have figured Jesus was getting there.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

You wrote:

just as it is between a husband and his wife. We are asked to be as one as they are one, so this is one of the reasons why I do not see why it is so hard to believe Jesus and the Father are One also.

JR, if this is all it was, I'm wholly on board. If The "Husband" is fully human and a person in his own right; and if the "Wife" is fully human, and a person in her own right, is analogous to the Binitarian idea regarding Jesus and his Father, then I'm fine with that. But I have a feeling that it's not quite this simple.

Regards, Brenden.

[darinhouston]

Homer, I mean no offense (at all) but your last post about "I am" sounded much like the "pin-head dancing" gross theolgoical amplification of the Greek subtleties that we tend to get from James White (and begs the question of whether these modern understandings of Greek grammar came from theological debates or can be shown with clarity -- I dare say even English grammarians today sometimes don't agree on rules such as these and people's writings don't always follow them -- not least of which I assume this was spoken in Aramaic). I am very much in favor of a grammatical-historical approach to theology, but if you look at a word or phrase through a microscope you can lose me really quick. Further, I simply am not equipped to respond to these grammatical arguments. Balanced against biblical theology and the significant number of passages that suggest otherwise, this just seems like a last resort to maintain a tension and "mystery" that just isn't necessary. I don't know what is true here, but I am persuaded that something of this import would have been taught very clearly in light of what WAS taught plainly and clearly if not by Jesus Himself then by His apostles (if we were intended to believe it). To have the Jerusalem debates over things such as dietary laws and circumcision while not even addressing what would UNDOUBTEDLY have been a more significant resistance from the Jewish converts as to the monotheism of God seems to me unfathomable.

Paidion, all respect to Justin and Trypho as well, but it seems they assume facts not in evidence as to the limits of God prior to the Nativity. Isn't it possible that God was able to manifest Himself in any way He deemed necessary or to do so through other agents than the Son? If we want to call "any" manifestation on earth as the Son of God, then so be it, but we no longer have a normal understanding of "person-hood" if we stretch it that far. I believe God manifest Himself in many ways to people in many circumstances. They were all in some sense associated with the Word or could be seen as the Word becoming known to mankind through them. But, they were all imperfect. Only Jesus perfectly reflected the image of God in the way that He could be known by all mankind who were likewise made in His image. What the prior impersonal manifestations could not do, Jesus could do. But, we can't argue rightly that Jesus or some pre-Jesus Son of God personage pre-existed the Nativity just because God couldn't reach earth without Him.

[darinhouston]

Hi JR,

You wrote:

just as it is between a husband and his wife. We are asked to be as one as they are one, so this is one of the reasons why I do not see why it is so hard to believe Jesus and the Father are One also.

JR, if this is all it was, I'm wholly on board. If The "Husband" is fully human and a person in his own right; and if the "Wife" is fully human, and a person in her own right, is analogous to the Binitarian idea regarding Jesus and his Father, then I'm fine with that. But I have a feeling that it's not quite this simple.

Regards, Brenden.

And yet one of the Husband or the Wife lived at a time when the other didn't. Applying this logic to the sui generis "oneness" of the prime mover uncreated eternal God is misplaced. Besides, we are to become One with Christ -- that doesn't make us God.

[Paidion]

Brenden, I'm not sure that would be analagous to the Binitarian idea. Binitarianism is just like Trinitarianism except that the compound God is composed of two divine Persons rather than three. But a husband and wife don't form one compound human being. In a good marriage, the husband and wife are united in goals, purposes, and sometimes even in thinking. It has been said that after many years of marriage, often a husband and wife even begin to LOOK alike. Yet they never become anywhere near as alike as the Father and the Son, the Son being the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 13).

But the early Christian view as I see it, was neither Trinitarian nor Binitarian, but rather as Paul said:

... 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. (1Cor 8:6)

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ... (1Tim 2:5)