Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

Why is the Father excluded from the salvific formula because the Son is sent to do the saving? (Brenden

The Father and the Son are One, there is no exclusion of the Father.

... because the Son is sent to do the saving?

The Savior could 'only be God', but God knew He would die on a cross, and although He could rule the Universe all the while being on a cross, God just decided this is how He would do it. The anthromorphic imagery does not take away from the fact that two persons can participate as one in this event. And One of the two cannot naturally do it without the other, because they are indeed One. Why can't one do it for the other? There is no reason why they couldn't do 'whatever' they wanted. That they did do all this for us is the amazing thing.

God alone is Savior, that cannot change.

What would be wrong (and unwise) is to have a Savior other than God.

I can't see how God cannot use Jesus to be the Chief Agent of our Salvation and still be the Savior

I don't know if i want a 'chief agent' when I need a savior, when it comes to 'saving' there is only one who can save man, God himself. God declared it. (A savior is a savior, I do not need a chief agent to save me, as if a chief could, and wouldn't that make him a savior? So changing the word, or adding some other word, does not change the fact that I need a true Savior)

[TheEditor]

God has exalted Him to His right hand as Chief Leader and as Saviour, to give Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:31

The meaning of the word "chief leader" was translated "chief agent" consistently in the NWT, so I chose it to be snarky... but the point I am making is it was God that chose the Son to be this "Chief Leader of our salvation." I don't know what problem you have with that. Besides, you do have an 'agent' or 'advocate' or 'mediator' [since the words are similar in the Greek] by your profession of faith. The other points still stand.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

i choose not to point out the NWT specifically because i didnt want to appear snarky. My first bible was a NWT, and it was probably the one i came to faith with. There is no phrase that says 'Chief Leader of our salvation' the two are different occupations. Leader is just that, like the head of a tribe or family, it is not necessary to Savior, anymore than say shepherd, or friend.

but the point I am making is it was God that chose the Son to be this...

Still most the JW arguments are all using the incarnation passages and phrases, and trying to apply them to the argument. It is clear that Jesus always existed, that He came from above, He came for a purpose, He is a King, the Judge, the Life, the Creator, etc. but non of these things either were demonstrated in His earthly role where He has humiliated, poor, beaten and killed. Obviously there are verses that explain his earthly role and others that explain His heavenly purpose and origin. It is like using passages about David’s shepherd role in order to argue David was not a king.

The mediation part was being in the form of man and going through pain and death, this is not something even a mediator, a king or a Creator generally does either, but it was something God could do, remember Jesus said I will raise 'myself' up. The future vision and prophecies of Jesus have Him exaulted to sit on Gods throne, so obviously there has been a role that Jesus fulfilled, and verses that attend to the lowering and humbling of Himself as a servant and 'willing' sacrifice.

So again: Who should we trust in to save us from our sins? God or Jesus?

[PR]

OK Brenden, sorry about the delay, let me see if I'm understanding your question here:

Let's consider what the Jews believed Jesus was saying.

"The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken--do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"
John 10:34-36

The Jews considered it blasphemy, because they considered Jesus claim to be the Son of God to be tantamount to claiming deity. It is worthy of note that the term "ho theos" is not found in this passage, but that's another discussion. Jesus however, does not say "You are right, I am making myself equal with God the Father." Rather, he offers what appears to be corrective counsel when he quotes from the Psalms. How do you account for that? Whay would he equivocate on an issue that, to your lights, the Jews were correct on, namely, that he was claiming to be God in this passage?

So you are saying that Jesus's reference to Psalm 86:2 indicates that He wasn't claiming Diety in this discourse with the Jews?

If that's the case, I would disagree. When you look at the entire passage, it's clear that Jesus was saying that He is much more than "a god."

Let's look at the entire discourse in context:

John 10:22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands. ESV

So let's break this down (I'm referencing The Apologists Bible Commentary):

The scene begins with the Jews gathering around Jesus in the Temple portico, asking Him to tell them in plain terms if He is the Messiah (v. 24).

Jesus answers by giving two reasons they should already know the answer to this question: His words and His works (v. 25).

Jesus says that the reason they do not know He is the Messiah is not because He has failed to speak clearly or to manifest who He truly is through His miracles, but because they lack faith (vv. 25 - 26).

Jesus says that His sheep know Him and hear His voice, but the Jews are not His sheep (vv. 26 - 27).

To this point, while Jesus may well have provoked his listeners to anger, there is nothing in what He has said that warrants the charge of blasphemy. But then Jesus says, "I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish" (v. 28).

Here Jesus claims for Himself the Divine prerogative of granting life to His sheep. The Jews knew that only YHWH gives life (Deut. 32:39), let alone eternal life. Then Jesus equates His power to keep His sheep firmly in hand with His Father's power to do the same thing (vv. 28 - 29).

The Jews knew that the Father was "greater than all," but when Jesus said that He had the same power to preserve His sheep as His Father has, this was a clear claim to equality with God. Jesus further drives the point home with His assertion that He and His Father are "one" (v. 30).

It is at this point - and with good reason, from their perspective as unbelievers - that the Jews prepare to stone Jesus. Jesus immediately challenges them by returning to one of the two reasons He has given for making clear that He is the Messiah - His works: "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning me?" (v. 32).

This is not an evasive response - and it does not follow that Jesus' subsequent response will be evasive, either. The Jews reply that they are not stoning Him for His works, but for claiming to be God, which is blasphemy, according to their Law (v. 33).

Some have argued that the Jews are accusing Jesus of nothing more than being "a god," on the basis that the Greek word theos ("God") lacks the article in this verse and on Jesus' use of Psalm 82 . While many nouns without the article in Greek are indefinite, many others are not. Context, once again, is our sure guide for determining meaning. If the Jews believed that "a god" could grant eternal life or was equal to the Father in the power to preserve the Sheep, there might be some warrant for theos in this verse being rendered "a god." But this is manifestly not the case; while some might be called "gods," in the OT, none were ever said to have Divine powers such as these. Further, the Law against blasphemy did not pertain to those claiming to be 'a god,' but was specific to defaming the name of YHWH (Lev. 24:16), which any man did who claimed to be God or equated his power with YHWH's power. The Jews would be risking their lives if they were to stone Jesus on the grounds of the Temple for anything other than a Law clearly defined in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Immediately after quoting Psalm 82 in His defense, Jesus again returns to the testimony of His works (vv. 37 - 38).

Jesus then repeats what He has previously asserted in slightly different words: "The Father is in Me and I in the Father." This further appeal to an intimate relationship in which the Father's intimacy with the Son is no less than the Son's intimacy with the Father incites the Jews beyond talking and Jesus must elude them and flee. It may be said here that if Jesus' appeal to Psalm 82 is meant as nothing more than an answer to the charge of blasphemy, as some commentators allege, He has completely undermined His defense with new claims of unity and equality with His Father. It would seem untenable, given that He knew the hearts of his accusers, that Jesus would provoke the Jews with such a statement, unless it was a logical extension of what He has just said.

Here's a link to The Apologists Bible Commentary material that I am referencing: http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_34.htm

A long post, but the question needed to be answered in context. And I really didn't go into Psalm 82. You can use the link above to find more detail in that area.

Let me know if that helps Brenden. I'm not big on debating, but I firmly believe that Jesus is God and am happy to answer any questions as best as I can.

Thanks,

Phil

[jriccitelli]

Phil, you might note that Jesus did a double wham, because the context of Psalm 82 makes Jesus' accusers the false gods of the psalm passage. They stood as judges, were as Jesus presents an understanding and fulfillment to the passage. It is not a passage that argues for Jesus divinity, it was a passage they meant to undermine and contradict him with
, like the Mormons do, but it turned out as their own judgment (Jesus, just brilliant)

[TheEditor]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the dialogue. Of course, I am familiar with the "orthodox" position on the passage in discussion. I, unfortunately can't wrap my head around what the commentator is saying--at least, not in how he is using it to prove his point.

This is not an evasive response - and it does not follow that Jesus' subsequent response will be evasive, either. The Jews reply that they are not stoning Him for His works, but for claiming to be God, which is blasphemy, according to their Law

I never said Jesus was "evading" anything. I can only read the natural flow of words, so I will try to do so again. Jesus interchange with the Jews goes as follows:

The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?--John 10:34, 35.

It sure reads to me that Jesus is using logic. From the preceeding I read:

a) That the Jews want to stone Jesus because they belived He was making himself equal to God by calling himself God's Son.
b) That Jesus pointed out the fallacy in their thinking by reminding them that if the appointed judges of Israel could be called "gods"--and these were only "to whom the word of God came", then how could they rightly accuse him of blasphemy if he, as the one sent by God, refers to himself as God's Son?

Seems like a reasonable argument to me.

So, it seems a plain reading still yields the point I was making. Many other commentators read it the same way. Maybe they aren't "apologetic" enough.

Here Jesus claims for Himself the Divine prerogative of granting life to His sheep. The Jews knew that only YHWH gives life (Deut. 32:39), let alone eternal life. Then Jesus equates His power to keep His sheep firmly in hand with His Father's power to do the same thing

Yes, Jesus did make this claim, you are correct. And it was indeed a "divine prerogative" as you say. Jesus said:

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. -- John 5:26, 27

Again, Jesus says he has this right to "grant life" because the Father has given him that right and authority.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

My first bible was a NWT, and it was probably the one i came to faith with. There is no phrase that says 'Chief Leader of our salvation' the two are different occupations. Leader is just that, like the head of a tribe or family, it is not necessary to Savior, anymore than say shepherd, or friend.

Interesting. You canme to faith with a Arian translation. So did I. I'm not sure if you meant no such phrase referring to the NWT, but if you were, ther are 4 such occurrences, two in Acts and two in Hebrews. The one in Acts uses the expression "Chief Agent of our salvation". It's probably a bad rendering, and I don't see any reason why it was chosen, as it doesn't shore up any paradigm other than which the rest of the NT says about Jesus role as 'mediator', but there you go. Fred Franz liked to be different...

Still most the JW arguments are all using the incarnation passages and phrases, and trying to apply them to the argument

Most of the trinitaian rebutals try to parse betwen the incarnation, and post ressurection; unless it suits the argument better to say otherwise. Why, for instance, would a trinitarian argue that when Jesus says "the Father is greater than I", it is because, while on earth in the incarnation, Jesus Father truly is "greater" than he, and at the same time, quote Jesus in other passages, while in the same incarnative state, as being equal to God? Seems you can't have it both ways.

Also, post-ressurection and pre-ascension, Jesus called his Father "His God". In the Revelation, which is post-ascension, Jesus calls God "His God" four different times.

So again: Who should we trust in to save us from our sins? God or Jesus?

Why JR, do you continue to offer this false choice? I see no dilemna in saying that I owe to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ my salvation. What's the problem here.

By the way, this is now the 3rd or 4th post in which you have failed to address the many other verses and conundrums I have raised. That's okay, as you said about the JWs grabbing their briefcase, this is usually the point where the house-holder said "It's a mystery!" and slammed the door in my face...

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

There is frustration on both sides of the door for sure sometimes, but our door is always open. And many many days I have spent reasoning with doorknockers when I was supposed to mow the grass and clean the shed. My wife and me always invite whomever in. We always have good conversation, and we never get mad or give up seeking the answers

“… it is because, while on earth in the incarnation, Jesus Father truly is "greater" than he, and at the same time, quote Jesus in other passages, while in the same incarnative state, as being equal to God? Seems you can't have it both ways"

We aren’t having it both ways; there is only one way. Either Jesus is equal with God, or He is not equal with God, yet nothing can be equal to God. The Divinity of Christ as God is the only way to reconcile Jesus’ claims, statements and position with God’s Oneness. JW's turn Jesus into another being that is unheard of in scripture, a being equal with God.
God 'can' take the form of a servant, or an angel, or a man, that is not unheard of in scripture, but He is still God when He does so. This is how we understand the incarnation and the verses with His incarnation and sacrifice in mind, in relation to the preposition that speaks of Gods oneness. Thus there is no contradiction in this, and Jesus was telling the truth.
Revelation progress’s throughout the book and in chap. 22 you have the lamb sitting on the same throne as God. Don’t you find this a bit presumptuous for anyone to do including an angel or exalted servant? They are sitting on the ‘same’ throne. It seems that we will never be able to see God without seeing Him through His sacrifice. The Lamb will always be before us, not that God always existed as a lamb but that ‘we’ wouldn’t exist if it were not for the sacrificial Lamb of God, who is: His begotten Son. The Son was begotten 'for us', this was an anthropomorphic demonstration of the love He always had within Himself and between the two persons of His nature (or ‘three’ persons within himself).

If we can’t accept His Deity, it is going to be even harder to understand and accept how we can be so assuming to sit down ‘with’ Him on God's throne (Rev. 3:21). Rev. 3:21 is amazing and hard to understand, but that does not take away from the preposition that none can assume to be equal or compared with God. The culmination of things is that ‘only those in Him’ can be with Him, and that 'He' has overcome ‘because’ of His sacrifice, majesty and Holiness. I thought I mentioned the chapter 1:8 verse already. How do JW's get around that verse, where Jesus calls Himself the Alpha and Omega?
You might note also that the ‘My God’ verses in Revelation chap. 3 are pre-he who overcomes, pre-pillar in the Temple, pre-writing the name, and of the coming new city. So this is still understood as proceeding Gods fulfillment and full revelation of what and who He is when we see Him in His full Glory.

This formula is rife throughout the NT, that of doing things through the office of Christ to the glory of God the Father. What is the logical implication of these verses to the unpredjudiced mind? (Brenden, pg 10)

The incarnation is rife throughout the NT just as Jesus is rife throughout the OT.
God and scripture are ‘extremely’ prejudiced when it comes to the worship, Oneness, One and Only-ness, and uniqueness of the One true God. There is no equal to God, and nothing is to be compared or likened to God as if something could. This is more than rife throughout scripture, and it is the first commandment of Moses. The ‘logical’ implication is that there is none other, none can compare, none can come along side, no one can be united with God, and a teacher of the Law would be blaspheming to suggest anyone could come close, let alone the blasphemy of assuming yourself as comparable, united and one with God.

Yet this is what Jesus did, over and over again. Jesus made Himself equal with God.
A bible believer should recognize that it is total blasphemy for anything in the Universe to assume equality with God.

[robbyyoung]

Hello everyone, did I miss something here? How in the world can you have a discussion concerning the Trinity without addressing the following scriptures:

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am YAHWEH; and beside me there is NO SAVIOUR.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Does anybody see Yeshua in these passages?

God Bless!

[Paidion]

There are two different senses in which we can consider one person being equal to another: (1)in one's essential nature and (2) positionally.

Jesus is equal to his Father in his essential nature—that is, He is equally divine. He is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3). And that is because the Father begat Him as the first of his acts, before all ages. But postionally, the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Son always was and always shall be subservient to the Father.

Dogs beget dogs and their offspring is canine.
Cats beget cats and their offspring is feline.
Man begets man and their offspring is human.
God begets God and his offspring is divine.

Jesus may be called "God" or "Divinity" or "Deity" because that is his essence.
This fact does not imply that there are two Gods, in the absolute sense of "God". For Jesus called His Father "The only real God" (or "true" God if you prefer).

And this is lasting life, that they know you the only real God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

Jesus not only calls his Father "The only real God" but with that little conjunction "and" indicates that He Himself is someone other than "the only real God."

So the Father is the only real God. Does this belief indicate that I am a unitarian? In one sense, yes. But my belief that the Son is just as divine as the Father disqualifies me as a unitarian in the usual sense. I also believe that the Son is a second divine Individual, and though fully united to the Father, is not the same Person. This belief coincides with Jesus talking to his Father as to another Person. To me "one part of God talking to another part" is nonsense.

The Father and the Son share the name "Yahweh". Justin Martyr indicated that Both are included in Genesis 19:24

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

Justin said that the One in heaven was the Father who sent the brimstone and fire, while the One on earth with whom Abraham was conversing was the Son who was the agent of the destruction.

As a teenage, I attended a Baptist church, and was a Trinitarian at the time. But I had some questions about the Trinity. The pastor's wife said to me, "There's only one God, you know!" Somehow it came through to me that she was saying that there is only one PERSON, and I knew that was not classic Trinitarian belief. So I asked her who Jesus was talking to, when He prayed. She responded, "Don, haven't you ever talked to yourself?" I have discovered that there are a significant number of Modalists who think they are Trinitarians.

As I have written previously, I believe the Holy Spirit is not a third divine Individual, but the very Persons of the Father and the Son and they extend their Personality throughout the Universe. So the Father and the Son, not only share the name "Yahweh", but they also share the same Spirit or divine Personality. That is how united the Son is with his Father, and He prayed that his disciples might be one and He and the Father are one. That would be a very close unity indeed! — one which has not yet been achieved here in this life.

For me — seeing the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in this light,while still affirming the Deity of Christ, does not involve the scriptural contradictions or "mysteries" which are inherent in Trinitarianism and Modalism.