Trinity.

[Paidion]

When Philip was asked by Jesus "Do you not know me"? What was he responding to? Philip said, "Show us the Father"--He did not say "Show us God". If Jesus and the Father are two seperate persons, in what sense did Jesus mean this when he gave his answer? Trinitarians like to argue that Jesus said "If you've seen me you've seen God". But this is not what he said. He said "If you've seen me you've seen the Father". Because Jesus is the exact representation of the Father's very being. All of this can be affirmed without bringing one to trintitarianism. I'm not confused about trinitarianism. I just can't affirm it.

EXACTLY!

Trinitarian thought actually never got off the ground until the 4th century. There may have been the odd individual who thought something like a Trinitarian prior to that, but it was rare.

Interestingly enough, Modalism or "Oneness" pre-dated the advent of Trinitarianism. Its proponents were just as mistaken, but in a different way.

Arianism in some respects was closer to that of early Christianity. They also believed that Jesus was begotten before all ages, and that He was "fully God" as Arius himself wrote in a letter to Eusebius. One of their errors seems to have been that they believed Jesus was begotten "out of nothing", rather than out of God Himself. Another was their idea that there was a time at which the Son did not exist.

[TheEditor]

Can you confirm everything Scripture says about God, and Jesus, without contradiction?
Belief in 'everything about God', is represented 'exactly in Jesus', would have to bring one to believe that Jesus is God.

I am a litle confused by this statement.

Sorry But i was trying not to post a long post. But I had written offline prior:

Well, it did still seem a rather lengthy post.

... you have had very little dialogue with trinitarians above only the most surface proclamations like "Jesus is God" (Brenden)

I went on to explain it and I rarely had anyone argue it didn’t make sense. A couple people told me that even as young children they understood the drawing of a circle with two circles within was enough to explain it.

You were clearly talking with the wrong people.

I did a search on ‘trinity and confused’, and that brought me to anti-Trinitarian sites and Islam sites. Not Christian sites. Confused seemed to be what the other sites were, not the Christian sites.

This isn't supposed to be a positive argument for the trinity, is it? Would you expect otherwise? Would you expect people who affirm something to be true to host websites proclaiming their affirmations to be confusing?

I did a search on the Trinity, and or ‘Can you explain the Trinity?’ and here is one;
Our Answer: You and I live in a three-dimensional world. All physical objects have a certain height, width, and depth. One person can look like someone else, or behave like someone else, or even sound like someone else. But a person cannot actually be the same as another person. They are distinct individuals. God, however, lives without the limitations of a three-dimensional universe. He is spirit. And he is infinitely more complex than we are. That is why Jesus the Son can be different from the Father. And, yet the same.
It seems some are happy with that answer, or just believing God alone is Lord, and Jesus is Lord. And others are happy enough explaining God as three combined as one like the egg, or water, or lemonade, a triangle, etc. or that Christ is a Theophany/Christophany not unlike in the OT. Yet if you want to understand what ‘spirit and persons’ are ‘composed of’ it is going to get confusing sure, but then don’t you believe Jesus is in you? Is that confusing or is it because we can’t see invisible things?

There are all kinds of things being conflated here. I am not arguing that a thing cannot be true and incomprehensible. I look at the universe and see that to be the case. Heck, I look at computers and wonder WHY they work--not HOW.

If the Scriptures affirmed the doctrine in no uncertain terms; if they were replete with references as they are about the Ransom (which, by the way, I also don't fully understand, but accept that however it works, it is satisfactory in God's view), then I would have no problem saying "Okay, I can accept that". But, as you are aware, it is a doctrine that at best is a deduction based upon inferences from Scripture.

God is much more dogmatic and stubborn about this than me.

I highly doubt this. If He were nearly as dogmatic as you proffer, I would submit He would have authored the Nicene Creed via the quill of the Apostle Paul (or better yet Jesus) to make sure we got this thing clear. But the entirety of Jesus' ministry seemed to be about teaching us how to live, and to table the academics just a little. After all, the Jews had plenty of religious academics going on, but the fruit was rotten.

as many also ‘believe’ it is confusing.

In this you imply that people who find it confusing only "believe" it to be so. Given my definition of the English word "confusing" in the previous post, how can you argue otherwise? Or is this the result of reasoning as follows:

JR believes himself to be a logical person. He affirms a thing that some find confusing. So either a) It is confusing (and yet the rational JR believes it) or b) it only appears to be confusing to some people (therefore the rational JR believes something that really is not confusing). It therefore causes less dissonance for JR to affirm "b" over "a"?

JR quoting me: I used to relish hours and hours of such conversations, because, after all, I was in a "cult" (Brenden)

I also often heard them use your line, much like the following statement when talking with a passerby, that: “How can there be so many denominations if they are all following the true God?” (or something like that). This is completely misleading, and comes from a misconception of why there are, and what the differences are between denominations.

True. It's a straw man argument.

You were speaking as if all denominations divided over and had their own interpretation of the Trinity (Modalists aside).

Where did I say this?

I can walk into most every Protestant denomination in the world and agree with and fellowship with them in bible study. I do not divide over non-essentials.

You may have gotten along well with CT Russell:

"I could go into nearly any Methodist or Presbyterian congregation and feel sure I could have a good time with them. I believe many of them are well meaning. The fact that they are not as far advanced in Bible study as ourselves and do not see the divine plan as clearly as we do need not hinder us from having good fellowship with them to the extent they do see. If they love God, if they revere the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and if they are seeking to walk honestly, and soberly, and decently, let us be glad to give them recognition to that extent."

Denominations are mostly divided over secondary issues.

Yes they are. I guess one can decide what "secondary" is. As to the first part;

I know that the Deity of Christ, His nature and origin was the principle difference between truth and error. And an error over who He was resulted in everything in error, because all is founded on who Jesus is.

It was the trinitarian church that gave us eternal torment, transubstantiation and a whole host of heirarchical problems. Did that come as a result of an error over "who He was result[ing] in everything in error, because all is founded on who Jesus is"(?)

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

A few more thoughts on this confusing issue:
I might note that the Watchtower used the word confusing, and I did not imply that you are still referring to the trinity as confusing. But I might remind us of where this started; I was addressing Paidion’s comments, in his Improvisational analogy:

But the problem isn't our inability to understand; the problem is the inherent contradiction of the concept… Our poor, finite minds cannot comprehend it, but yet it is true. All the mathematics in the world cannot explain it, so we just have to accept it by faith… You are merely making what appears to be statements, but taken together, they are meaningless nonsense!" (Paidion, Aug 30)

‘If I shed my tradition for the sake of argument/understanding/clarity, I'm afraid this sounds like virtual nonsense’ (Darin, Aug.19)

I am not saying this is what Darin or you believe, but I am trying to clear up the confusion. As Darin’s post of this author correctly points out:

5. It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture. Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs being propounded by those around them. In the first century, there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately, erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ. (Darin quoted: Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, Aug 22)

That is what I am saying; the culture of the disciples at that time believed there was one God, God had no-equal, and yet Jesus was demonstrating everything that God alone possessed was in himself. The conclusion was demonstrated by the disciples ‘believing and understanding’ all this of Him ‘after’ His resurrection by confirming faith in Him. To believe Jesus was a being other than God would be the same as denying everything God and His Prophets have declared. How we ‘explain’ a Theophany is one thing, but who else could He be?

Multiple Deity’s and gods are more confusing than the One God of scripture (just study Hinduism, or Greek mythology to see). God did not suddenly agree with all the pagan religions and introduce a Deity that was Gods Equal. God came down and explained Himself. The nature of God is complex, but we should not be confused, nor does Jesus expect us to be, nor did He attempt to confuse us. We are clear that God is One: and Jesus and Him are One. We can also be sure that God is not introducing us to someone equal, but ‘not’ God. The Trinity ‘clears up’ what is otherwise confusing and irrational, that is the belief in two gods, or how Jesus can refer to the Holy Spirit as a person (and the Trinity has revealed how God will dwell with man).

I had to bring this up because Paidion is trying to make Jesus into a Divine being that is Deity and man and not God, yet the Son of God, yet neither created or eternal, all while saying Trinitarians are confused;

However, Trinitarians make statements such as "God was born on earth as a human being." How are they using the word "God" when they say this? I have never heard them explain it, and most people find it confusing. They don't mean "The Trinity" was born as a human being, and they don't mean the Father was born as a human being. So what DO they mean? (Paidion, Aug 31)

(Matt responded with) You said above that you use "God" in reference to the Son in indicating his Deity. But now you say you avoid calling Him "God" because of the confusion this can cause. Was it a typo, above? Or is your way of describing God just as confusing as the Trinitarians? (Matt, Aug 31)

(I responded with) That is confusing, I can’t imagine any wise Protestant theologian saying "God was born on earth as a human being", you may as well say Mary is the mother of God’ (Me, Sept. 1)

(You responded with) If I rejected and left the Watchtower philosophy of "You know, the trinity is a God-dishonoring, confusing doctrine..’ (Brenden, Sept.6)

(I responded to the JW position) Using the word confused is misleading, as anything complex and detailed is not the same as confusing. God is not a Potato and Electricity and Biology is not confusing it is complex. I believe it is a lie to teach that it is confusing, humans can make anything confusing’ (Sept 7)

(You responded with) You do realize that I was using one frame of reference that I used to have so as to make a point, right? You also do realize that the term "confusing" can have an objective and a subjective definition, right?
(Yes I did, I was responding to what I have been saying all along)

(You continue with) JR believes himself to be a logical person. He affirms a thing that some find confusing. So either a) It is confusing (and yet the rational JR believes it) or b) it only appears to be confusing to some people (therefore the rational JR believes something that really is not confusing). It therefore causes less dissonance for JR to affirm "b" over "a"? (Brenden, Sept 8)

I found this abit confusing Brenden, I understand what your saying though, but I dont agree. What I have been saying all along, the confusion, dissonance and inconsistency is greater for those who have other views than the Trinity, than it is for those who agree with the trinity. We can know 'who' Jesus is without being confused. And it is wrong to 'teach' that the answer is a mystery, confused or unknown.

(Brenden wrote) Most of my arguments with trinitarians when I was a JW and cared about such things, no matter how well versed the trinitarians were in the doctrine (and I set my sights on clergymen because I enjoyed the argument) ended with them saying "Some things of God are a mystery". Really? No doubt this statement is true, since no human can maintain such an idea unless one is a lawyer. Usually, the reasonable person will admit that it is a mystery.

It is this kind of reasoning amongst Christians I am arguing with, and disappointed with. I don’t often say Jesus is God, because this does not explain the ‘whole revelation’ of God. Paidion is confused by the statement yet it has been explained to him over again that this is not an explanation of all God is. I noticed Paidion’s confusion way back, he then brings his own confusion into the conversation when he suggests it is so simple to believe his idea of begotten;

I think we need to be clear when we state "Jesus is God". This statement can be quite confusing in the various ways it can be interpreted. Some even say, "God was born as a human being" or "God died for our sins" … But strangely, Trintarians frequently make such statements also. I find this hard to fathom… To me, the resolution of the problem is so simple when we view it from the first and second century point of view, that the Son was begotten by the Father "before all ages, the first of God's acts" or as I see it, at the beginning of time. (Paidion, Feb 2, 2011, Jesus truly in the Gospels)

IMO i find the term "Jesus is God" at best confusing and at worst misleading. My impression when I hear it is, that Jesus is God Almighty and it then gives the RCC a reason to call Mary the Mother of God. I prefer to say Jesus is divine and Mary is the mother of Jesus. (7150, May 24, Is the Trinity "extra-biblical")

(You responded with) Well, certainly the most confusing... (May 24, Is the Trinity "extra-biblical")

(Matt responded with) I think the 'confusing-ness' of the doctrine of the trinity has been over-stated. I don't find it all that confusing. The fact that it has no exact parallels does not make it confusing... just unique. (May 24, Is the Trinity "extra-biblical")

[Paidion]

and then he [Paidion] brings his own confusion into the conversation when he suggests it is so simple to believe his idea of begotten...

First it is not "his idea of begotten". I clearly stated in a statement which you quoted that it was "the first and second century point of view, that the Son was begotten by the Father 'before all ages, the first of God's acts.' "

So tell me, JR, how does the begetting of the Son before all ages become "my idea of the begotten". Do you not accept the fact that it was the common view of first and second century Christianity? Or do you presume that I invented it out of the blue? Well... in an attempt to disillusion you of that presumption, I offer the following quotes:

These things , my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. (Ignatius [30-107 A.D.] to the Magnesians, ch. 11, paragraph 2)

The cross of Christ is indeed a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to the believing it is salvation and life eternal. “Where is the wise man? where the disputer?” Where is the boasting of those who are called mighty? For the Son of God, who was begotten before all ages and established all things according to the will of the Father. (Ignatius to the Ephesians, ch. 18, paragraph 2)

I write this letter to you from Philippi. May He who is alone unbegotten, keep you stedfast both in the spirit and in the flesh, through Him who was begotten before all ages! ... (Ignatius to Antiochans, ch. 14, conclusion)

The cross of Christ is indeed a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to the believing it is salvation and life eternal. “Where is the wise man? where the disputer?” Where is the boasting of those who are called mighty? For the Son of God, who was begotten before all ages, and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Spirit. For says [the Scripture], “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and He shall be called Immanuel.” He was born and was baptized by John, that He might ratify the institution committed to that prophet. (Justin Martyr [110-165 A.D] 2nd Apology, ch 18)

“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the Scriptures, that God begat before all created things a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; ... just as we see happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following: ‘If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from of old, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From of old, He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begat me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable world, and delighted in the sons of men. Now, therefore, O son, hear me. Blessed is the man who shall listen to me, and the mortal who shall keep my ways, watching407 daily at my doors, observing the posts of my ingoings. For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and [my] will has been prepared by the Lord. But they who sin against me, trespass against their own souls; and they who hate me love death (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 61)

And even as late as the fourth century, in the original Nicene Creed, the begetting of the Son before all ages was taught:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father;
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father,
Through whom all things were made; both things in heaven and things on earth;
Who for us people, and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man;
He suffered, and was raised again the third day,
And ascended into heaven
And he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead,
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
And in one baptism of repentance for deliverance from sins,
And in one holy universal Church,
And in the resurrection of the flesh,
And in everlasting life.

Therefore, I ask you, JR, in the interest of truth and accuracy, to withdraw your reference to "his [Paidion's] idea of begetting", as if it were an idea that I concocted on my own.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[jriccitelli]

Paidion, I already debated you on this matter in another thread, so I am familiar with your idea of begetting, your not alone in this (although I have never come across someone defending it), but it is as different from the common Trinitarian view as any. You take one truth about Jesus, that I and the fathers you quote believed: that He was begotten of the Father before all ages, but then you put in there your belief that His person came out of father, and you add that Jesus is not God, nor a part of creation. Then you seem to interpret begotten from the passages to mean he was literally begotten, like a human begets. Trinitarians generally hold that Jesus always existed just as the father always existed, and that the term Son and begotten is anthromorophic to declare His unique role and personhood in relation to all Creation. And like dizerner said, I too am OK with Jesus having also having a created nature with which He interacts with man and creation (the begotten aspect of His being), but His person and nature is 'not' created. He is God of God, and always has been God.

Justin for one believed in One God and that Jesus was God.

[Homer]

A couple thoughts:

We see quotes by early church fathers about Jesus being "begotten before all ages". But where are the scriptures that say this? Were the early church fathers engaged in speculation? Or could their statements be of the same kind as this:

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Was Jesus actually slain before the world was created or is this a reference to God seeing the crucifixion outside time?

[Paidion]

We see quotes by early church fathers about Jesus being "begotten before all ages". But where are the scriptures that say this? Were the early church fathers engaged in speculation? Or could their statements be of the same kind as this:

Did your read the quote from Justin Martyr? He actually quoted one passage (from the Septuagint of course) which says this:

The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From of old, He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begat me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable world, and delighted in the sons of men. (Prov 8:22-32 Septuagint)


Now of course, one may say that Proverbs 8 is about Wisdom, and not about the personal Son of God. It's true that it is about Wisdom. But is not the Son the personification of Wisdom?

He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. (1Cor 1:30)

Several early Christian writers other than Justin understood Proverbs 8 as a description of the Son having been begotten by God and having been in the beginning with Him.

The following words of Jesus Himself, speak of his emergence out of the Father. Here is a literal translation:

I emerged out of the Father and have come into the universe [possibly "world"]. Now I am leaving the universe (possibly "world") and going to the Father. (John 16:28)

The word I translated as "emerged" is ἐξηλθον which literally means "came out of). Then there is another "out of" namely "ἐκ". The first "out of" ends with a "ξ" because it comes before a vowel. So the whole clause is:

ἐξηλθοντ ἐκ του πατρος (exālthon ek tou patros).

But notice that Jesus doesn't say that He is going back INTO the Father, merging with the Father so as to no longer be a separate Person. Rather He is going TO the Father or TOWARD the Father, and remain a distinct Individual. ("pros" usually means "toward")

πορευομαι προς τον πατερα (poreuomai pros ton patera)

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Was Jesus actually slain before the world was created or is this a reference to God seeing the crucifixion outside time?

I think this is a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Clearly Jesus wasn't actually slain before the world was created (nor was He continually slain since the foundation of the world). "Outside time" has no meaning for me, and so I also reject the idea of "seeing the crucifixion outside time" or "seeing all out actions outside time" since the latter is inconsistent with our ability to choose, because all the things He would "see" could not turn out otherwise because of our choices.

I see "slain before the foundation of the world" as simply a plan of which God thought long ago — His plan to provide a means of salvation for mankind.

[jriccitelli]

I am not sure how Trinitarians would understand becoming one as the Father and the Son are one. Would they become part of a huge "Godhead"? (Paidion, Sept. 9, Strategies for unity)

Like Darin correctly alluded to earlier: God is God, and we are men. The Father and Son ‘are’ one, Jesus prayed that we may become one as they ‘are’. We never ‘become’ God, we will only live ‘in’ God, like He lives ‘in’ us. The term Godhood points to ‘what’ God is: divine that is. Substitute ‘Deity’ when speaking of God. He came from above, we came from below.

I think scripture puts us in the Body of Christ, or into the Church, rather than expressing we are in God - like as in God is everywhere.

[TheEditor]

The Father and Son ‘are’ one, Jesus prayed that we may become one as they ‘are’. We never ‘become’ God, we will only live ‘in’ God, like He lives ‘in’ us. The term Godhood points to ‘what’ God is: divine that is. Substitute ‘Deity’ when speaking of God. He came from above, we came from below.

I think scripture puts us in the Body of Christ, or into the Church, rather than expressing we are in God - like as in God is everywhere.

"For just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body, so also is the Christ." (1 Corinthians 12:12)
"Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Peter 1:3-4)

I don't know JR, these expressions seem to elevate the church a bit more than you let on.

Regards, Brenden.