Trinity.

[TheEditor]

Hi Jose,

I wouldn't say that the idea of a heavenly counsel is unbiblical. There does seem to be some Scriptural support for such a notion:

"And he went on to say: “Therefore hear the word of Jehovah: I certainly see Jehovah sitting upon his throne and all the army of the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left.  And Jehovah proceeded to say, ‘Who will fool Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And this one began to say something like this, while that one was saying something like that.  Finally a spirit came out and stood before Jehovah and said, ‘I myself shall fool him.’ At that Jehovah said to him, ‘By what means?’  To this he said, ‘I shall go forth, and I shall certainly become a deceptive spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ So he said, ‘You will fool him, and, what is more, you will come off the winner. Go out and do that way.’" (1 Kings 22:19-22)

I'm not too keen on the book of Enoch or the watchers business. But I think the idea of a heavenly council is not too Grecian to me. Besides, most myths have some fundamental underpinning of truth.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

I have often thought that the development of the trinity doctrine was a result of over-thinking the nature of God; an attempt to qualify the unqualifiable. Had "divine quality" been left as the standard, and this business of shifting between "nature" and "identity" had not developed, we may not have had the impasse that took place in the 300s. Whatever the case, we are stuck with it now, and we now have an additional 1600 years of language flux and entrenched paradigms. I doubt it will ever be resolved.

You raise some interesting points about having divinity apart from God, but I don't think that the proposition holds any more then "What if Jesus had sinned?" Saying "somehow being in the Father, such that Christ could be removed from the Father and his "God-stuff" would go *poof*" is kind of akin to that, wouldn't you say? We are dealing with what is, not what would happen if thus and so were different.

Still, I see Jesus role as pointing to the Father; reconciling a world to the Father; teaching us to pray to the Father, and on and on. If Jesus wanted to make it clear that He was (at any time) God's equal, he sure didn't make that a point of his teaching.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

There are several scriptures that may be said to refer to "God-stuff".

1. Hebrews 1:3. It is stated here that the Son is the exact image of God's essence. I have translated "χαρακτηρ" (charaktār) as "exact image". The English word "character" is derived from this word. The Online Bible Greek Lexicon states that the word means "a precise reproduction in every respect—a facsimile." I have translated "ὑποστασις" (hupostasis) as "essence". The English "theological" word "hypostasis" is an English transliteration of the word. Lexicons define it as "the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing." So when we speak of God's hypostasis, we speak, of His "God-stuff", to use the crude term. Notice that Heb 1:3 doesn't aver that the Son shares the Father's essence, but rather is the "precise reproduction" of His essence. I leave it to the theologians to argue as to whether or not this is the same thing. However, whether He shares the Father's essence, or is a reproduction of the Father's essence, He is not the Father. They are two distinct divine Individuals. Justin Martyr compared the begetting or generation of the Son to lighting a small fire from a larger one. The small fire is of the same essence as the larger one, and yet is distinct from it. As I see it, and as the second-century Christians saw it, God generated, or begat, or produced his Son before all ages. They said it was the FIRST of God's acts. The word is "γενναω" (gennaō) from which the English word "generate" is derived.

2. John 1:1 states that the Logos was "θεος" (theos). This word is usually translated as "God" or "god". The lack of an article plus the specific word arrangement indicates that "God" is the kind of thing the logos was, just as in the clause "Your word is truth" in which "truth" is the kind of thing thing God's word is. The word arrangement is the same. This word arrangement also appears in the clause "God is love", where "love" is the kind of thing God is. So since "God" is the kind of thing the Logos is, then this clause is affirming that the Logos was "God essence" or "God stuff". I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this concept. Aren't you of human essence? Am not I? Are not we all? That doesn't imply that you are I, or that John is Joe, or that there is only one human. So why should the fact that the Father and the Son are both of God essence, imply that they are the same Individual? So does this mean that there are two Gods—the Father and the Son. Well there are Two who are of God essence. But there is only One, the Father, who is "the only true God", as Jesus indicated in John 17:3.

3. Paul wrote, "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." ( Col 2:9 ESV)

The word translated as "deity" is "θεοτης" (theotās). This seems to be another reference to "God essence" or "God-stuff." While Jesus walked this earth, the fullness of humanity dwelt in Him bodily. But now, the fullness of deity dwells within his resurrected body.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

But there is only One, the Father, who is "the only true God", as Jesus indicated in John 17:3.

But see here:

1 John 5:20 New American Standard Bible

20. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

[Jose]

Hi Jose,

I wouldn't say that the idea of a heavenly counsel is unbiblical. There does seem to be some Scriptural support for such a notion:

"And he went on to say: “Therefore hear the word of Jehovah: I certainly see Jehovah sitting upon his throne and all the army of the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left.  And Jehovah proceeded to say, ‘Who will fool Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And this one began to say something like this, while that one was saying something like that.  Finally a spirit came out and stood before Jehovah and said, ‘I myself shall fool him.’ At that Jehovah said to him, ‘By what means?’  To this he said, ‘I shall go forth, and I shall certainly become a deceptive spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ So he said, ‘You will fool him, and, what is more, you will come off the winner. Go out and do that way.’" (1 Kings 22:19-22)

I'm not too keen on the book of Enoch or the watchers business. But I think the idea of a heavenly council is not too Grecian to me. Besides, most myths have some fundamental underpinning of truth.

Regards, Brenden.

Hi Brenden,

Thanks for the input. I have no issue at all with there being a heavenly council. In fact, I believe God was speaking to one in Genesis 1:26, and at other times as you pointed out.

It wasn't the notion of a council itself that sounded Grecian to me, but the way Robby spoke of it. He described a council of many Gods that is headed by a Supreme God with Jesus as a God of high status among them. That sounded too much like a Greco-Roman pantheon to me.

Robby also said there are many "elohim" and Jesus is one of them. He referred to Psalm 82, but it's not clear to me if by "elohim" he meant actual deities or if he meant gods in a generic sense as when it refers to judges, angels or idols.

I asked Robby:

"Are you saying that Yahweh is the only one who is "the God" and that Jesus is one of many Elohim in the same way that Baal is Elohim?"

And Robby answered:

"Hi Jose,

Yes, that's what John 1:1-2 is saying. THE GOD is in view and God (Yeshua) is in view."
________________________________

There's still something I'm not getting. I think maybe my questions weren't worded clearly enough.

[Jose]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

But there is only One, the Father, who is "the only true God", as Jesus indicated in John 17:3.

But see here:

1 John 5:20 New American Standard Bible

20. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Hi Homer,

This is from biblicalunitarian.com

1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (KJV)

1. Many Trinitarians claim that the final sentence in the verse, “This is the true God,” refers to Jesus Christ, since the closest noun to “This” is “Jesus Christ.” However, since God and Jesus are both referred to in the first sentence of the verse, the final sentence can refer to either one of them. The word “this,” which begins the last sentence, is houtos, and a study of it will show that the context, not the closest noun or pronoun, must determine to whom “this” is referring. The Bible provides examples of this, and a good one is in Acts 7:18 and 19 (KJV): “Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. The same (houtos) dealt subtilly with our kindred…, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.” It is clear from this example that “the same” (houtos) cannot refer to Joseph, even though Joseph is the closest noun. It refers to the other king earlier in the verse, even though that evil king is not the closest noun.

If it were true that pronouns always referred to the closest noun, serious theological problems would result. An example is Acts 4:10 and 11: “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This [houtos] is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner” (KJV). If “This” in the last sentence refers to the closest noun or pronoun, then the man who was healed is actually the stone rejected by the builders that has become the head of the corner, i.e., the Christ. Of course, that is not true.

An even more troublesome example for those not recognizing that the context, not noun and pronoun placement, is the most vital key in determining proper meaning, is 2 John 1:7: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (KJV). The structure of this verse closely parallels the structure of the verse we are studying. If one insists that the final phrase of 1 John 5:20 refers to Jesus because he is the closest associated noun, then that same person is going to be forced by his own logic to insist that Jesus Christ is a deceiver and an antichrist, which of course is absurd. Thus we conclude that, although the last phrase of 1 John 5:20 may refer to Jesus Christ, it can just as easily refer to God, who appears in the phrase “Son of God” and, via the possessive pronoun “his,” in the phrase “his Son Jesus.” To which of the two it refers must be determined from studying the words in the verse and the remoter context.

2. Once it is clear that the last sentence in the verse can refer to either Jesus or God, it must be determined which of the two it is describing. The context and remoter context will determine to whom the phrase “true God” applies. The result of that examination is that the phrase “true God” is used four times in the Bible beside here: 2 Chronicles 15:3; Jeremiah 10:10; John 17:3 and 1 Thessalonians 1:9. In all four of these places, the “true God” refers to the Father and not the Son. Especially relevant is John 17:3, which is Jesus’ prayer to God. In that prayer, Jesus calls God “the only true God.” These examples are made more powerful by the consideration that 1 John is a late epistle, and thus the readers of the Bible were already used to God being called the “true God.” Add to that the fact that John is the writer of both the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John, and he would be likely to use the phrase the same way. Thus, there is every reason to believe that the “true God” of 1 John 5:20 is the heavenly Father, and there is no precedent for believing that it refers to the Son.

3. From studying the immediate context, we learn that this very verse mentions “him that is true” two times, and both times it refers to the Father. Since the verse twice refers to the Father as “the one who is true,” that is a strong argument that “the true God” in the last part of the verse is the same being.

4. Not all Trinitarians believe that the last sentence in the verse refers to the Son. A study of commentators on the verse will show that a considerable number of Trinitarian scholars say that this phrase refers to the Father. Norton and Farley each give a list of such scholars. In his commentary on 1 John, Lenski writes that although the official explanation of the Church is to make the sentence refer to the Son:

This exegesis of the church is now called a mistake by a number of commentators who believe in the full deity of Jesus as it is revealed in Scripture but feel convinced that this houtos clause speaks of the Father and not of His Son. ” [1]

Buzzard, pp. 137 and 138

Farley, pp. 72-75

Norton, pp. 196-199

Racovian Catechism, pp. 78-89

Snedeker, pp. 466-468

Endnote:

1. E. W. Bullinger, Commentary on Revelation (Kregel Pub., Grand Rapids, MI, 1984), pp. 147 and 148.

[dizerner]

I'd like to flesh out this idea of "God-stuff" because I'm actually surprised at how often this softened version of "God" seems more acceptable to people. If God-ness, or Divinity, or God-stuff, or the quality and essence of the substance of God, can be applied to Christ, what does that really mean for us? Because it seems people object more to the role and authority of the Father being applied to Christ, than the essence of the Father being applied to Christ. So I attempted to formulate a few qualities I feel are essential to being divine.

Definition of God-stuff:

1. Uncreated.
2. Independently self-existing, not dependent on anything else.
3. Creator of all things.
4. Supreme Ruler of all things.
5. Upholds all things that have been created.
6. Majestic and beautiful, that is, all glorious.
7. Alone supplies ultimate spiritual salvation to human beings (not secondary physical help).
8. Limitless power.
9. Limitless knowledge.
10. Infinite perfection.

Now if we take these general ideas, I think we can do two different things with them:

Firstly find Scriptural support that they apply to Christ. I think there are verses that apply all ten of these things to Christ.

And secondly, and more importantly, consider whether these qualities can be lessened, cut, or diluted in any way. For example, can you have have lesser perfection? I wouldn't think so. Lesser "uncreatedness"? It seems not. In fact I only see two areas that could be concievably lesser: Lesser gloriousness? Perhaps, but debatable. And lesser Supreme Ruler? This one is tricky, as the Godhead could form a hierarchy within itself, if it so desired.

[jriccitelli]

Jose, Since you seem to be able to know whether it is the Father or the Son spoken of in John, who is John speaking of here below?
‘By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked’ (1 John 2:3-6)
Who are we in, in whom should we abide, and who’s commandments do we keep? Jesus, right?

‘These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. 27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. 28 Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming. 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him. (1 John 2:26-29)
Who is Him and His? Who’s anointing abides in us, and in whom do we abide? Who is He that is righteous, and then who are we born of? Is it Him or is it Him? Jesus right, or are we born of the Father? ‘See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are.

Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him’ (1 John 4:11-16)
Who then abides in us here? And if love abides in us, and we in Him, and He is the love of God, and that God is love, and He that abides in us, wouldn’t that mean He is Him?

[Jose]

I'd like to flesh out this idea of "God-stuff" because I'm actually surprised at how often this softened version of "God" seems more acceptable to people. If God-ness, or Divinity, or God-stuff, or the quality and essence of the substance of God, can be applied to Christ, what does that really mean for us? Because it seems people object more to the role and authority of the Father being applied to Christ, than the essence of the Father being applied to Christ. So I attempted to formulate a few qualities I feel are essential to being divine.

Definition of God-stuff:

1. Uncreated.
2. Independently self-existing, not dependent on anything else.
3. Creator of all things.
4. Supreme Ruler of all things.
5. Upholds all things that have been created.
6. Majestic and beautiful, that is, all glorious.
7. Alone supplies ultimate spiritual salvation to human beings (not secondary physical help).
8. Limitless power.
9. Limitless knowledge.
10. Infinite perfection.

Now if we take these general ideas, I think we can do two different things with them:

Firstly find Scriptural support that they apply to Christ. I think there are verses that apply all ten of these things to Christ.

And secondly, and more importantly, consider whether these qualities can be lessened, cut, or diluted in any way. For example, can you have have lesser perfection? I wouldn't think so. Lesser "uncreatedness"? It seems not. In fact I only see two areas that could be concievably lesser: Lesser gloriousness? Perhaps, but debatable. And lesser Supreme Ruler? This one is tricky, as the Godhead could form a hierarchy within itself, if it so desired.

HI dizerner,

Before anyone attempts to show how any of these attributes that you list can or cannot be applied to Christ, can you define who you mean by Christ, since you believe him to be a hybrid God-man? When you refer to Christ, do you mean the human being, the eternal second person being or the fusion of the two? I'm not being facetious; I'm only looking for a definition of terms, otherwise this will turn out to be another long, drawn out debate.

Thanks

[Jose]

Jose, Since you seem to be able to know whether it is the Father or the Son spoken of in John, who is John speaking of here below?

Hi JR,

Could you show me the post in which I claimed to know whether the Father or the Son is being spoken of in John?