Trinity.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

Perhaps I am a bit cranky lately. There has been a tremendous amount on my 'table' as they say, recently, and the pressures of life are myriad. I was specifically thinking of our interchanges on pages 12 and 13 on this thread. But there are others as well. It seems whenever I raise a "conundrum" question, you usually reply with the aformentioned "Is Jesus or his Father the Lord?" question. It seems like a dodge to me. (My reference to Jesus question on John was merely a reference to his refusal to answer the Pharisees since they wouldn't answer him).

In the final analysis I can see no reason why a person can't merely say, "I accept the trinity, not because it makes any sense; not because there are no Scriptural objections, but because I merely affirm it." Need I really list all of the Scriptural objections? Does anybody want to soberly deny the fact that, if one read the Scriptures without a pre-conceived notion regarding the trinity, that they wouldn't come about it on their own? What one would come to believe is that Jesus is, in some sense, divine or theos, in some sense, the same that his Father is. And, that the nature of the relationship between the two is, in some sense, beyond the pale of human understanding, and is given to us in terms of "Father and Son". In fact, I think I'm being generous by even going that far in what a person's Christolgy would be by a plain reading of the text.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Singalphile]

Does anybody want to soberly deny the fact that, if one read the Scriptures without a pre-conceived notion regarding the trinity, that they wouldn't come about it on their own?

I would love to get 100 adults who have zero knowledge of anything biblical and have them read through the Bible and write a report on the most important teachings and the nature of God, etc. We need to get some people on that.

I do want to soberly deny this. You absolutely can come to this fact with just the Bible, and many have. Not everyone derives their doctrine from church history, theology, preaching, peers, or organizations. ... Having said that, I have all the respect in the world for people that seriously think Scripture doesn't indicate that Jesus is God, but still accept everything Scripture says concerning Him.

But "Trinitarianism" does not equal "Jesus is God". Trinitarianism is something like "God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is." (*) I have to agree with TheEditor that it's not too likely that a person is going to come up with this formulation on his own.

I am more or less Trinitarian in my understanding, and I do think that a person reading carefully through the New Testament could independently conclude something kind of close to that, if required to give his or her thoughts about it.

But I still think that if God's nature could be expressed clearly and perfectly in words and if it's so important to understand it, then there would be chapter or two wherein it is clearly taught. However, Trinitarianism is clearly not taught (or else it is taught unclearly), but there are enough hints at it that I think it's more or less correct.

[jriccitelli]

I came to realize Jesus was God all on my own. I had never attended a church service, or understood much of anything about God. And I had no conceptions of Jesus before reading the bible, that I can remember (My only interests were secular). I read genesis and Exodus first, which may have influenced me, and a couple weeks later while reading thru the NT i remember thinking to myself Jesus 'is' God! (I remember the exact moment). To me it never seemed odd, amazing though, that God would come down, make himself a body (be put into a cell and be born as we are) and walk among us. I think modalism would be the obvious conclusion then, but then we have the conversation between the Father and the Son. Everything Jesus did and said mirrored what God said of Himself, this of course is Blasphemy, and un-Hebrew and un-biblical, unless of course this was God. Nothing said God 'could not' do this, and everything says God has no equal, and Jesus 'did' make himself equal with God.

You may not have to 'grasp' that God and Jesus are the One God, at first, but as we are commanded to know Him, you realize you cannot have 'another' God, or anything equal with God (you otherwise end up with another god, or a created equal)

'Denying' Jesus 'could' be God and making him into a created god, or equal to God goes against what scripture has already said, and may 'reveal' serious misunderstanding or underlying unbelief of His word (you can quote me on that). Teaching there are other Gods, or teaching God has an equal would be blasphemy.

[Homer]

dizerner wrote:

This is where you get Scriptures like "the lamb slain before the foundation of the world" even though we believe He was slain at a definite point in time.

Likewise Jesus, I believe, was not begotten before time began. He was begotten when the Holy Spirit came upon the virgin Mary; we are clearly informed by John, who wrote of Jesus being begotten, that prior to His coming to earth as a babe He existed as "The Word".

And dizerner wrote:

Jesus, if I am to love you more than my own life, more than friend or family, more than wealth or fame, indeed, as number one in my life, aren't you encroaching on a sacred shrine in my heart reserved only for the One who is worthy of all?

Excellent point, and just what I have been getting at. If Jesus, in some way, some how, is not the One God, how is it proper to worship Him, as He is worshipped at least as much, and in the same way, as the Father in many churches today? I have not seen a good answer on this.

TheEditor wrote:

The act of bowing may or may not have a religious meaning.

This is apparently in response to what I pointed out regarding Peter's rejection of worship of himself, Acts 10, and the Angel did the same in Revelation 22. But it would seem that Peter and the angel did perceive a religious overtone, else why the objection? Humility, perhaps?

Singalphile, referencing TheEditor's comment, wrote:

But "Trinitarianism" does not equal "Jesus is God". Trinitarianism is something like "God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is." (*) I have to agree with TheEditor that it's not too likely that a person is going to come up with this formulation on his own.

And this is where the trinitarian formula loses me. When I read "three persons", I read three individuals and thus three Gods.

TheEditor wrote:

I am not sure what to make of the "throne" in Revelation that you cited. Being a symbolic book, I don't know if much can be made one way or another, since this is the throne that believers are also said to occupy. (Revelation 3:21)

I'm thinking God the Father, as scripture says, is spirit and invisible. When we see God on His throne, we will see Jesus. The Father is God in one form, Jesus is the one same God in another form, able to communicate with one another. And God appeared in the OT as "the Angel of the Lord", a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus.

Best I can do with it at this point in time.

[Paidion]

Paidion, true two Gods would be at odds with one another (as I sometimes explain to the Mormons). We agree then, there is One God, Yeshua and Yweh are one, and they are the One God, right?

No I don't agree that Jesus and the Father are one God, although it is true that Jesus and the Father share the name "Yahweh", and that there is a sense in which Jesus can be called "God", though not in the proper sense. Both Yahwehs are mentioned in Gen 19:24, one in heaven the source of the judgment on Sodom, and one on earth talking to Abraham (whom Abraham addresses as "Yahweh"), who is the means by which the Yahweh in heaven brought about the judgment.

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven. (Gen 19:24)

As to the fact that there is one God, yes I agree that there is only one God in the proper sense, and so did the apostle Paul:

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)

In this verse, Paul clearly distinguishes between the one God — the Father, and the one Lord — Jesus Christ.

The fact that Jesus is divine, having been begotten (or generated, not created) by God and out of God, before all ages, doesn't imply that He is a second God or that God created Him. Rather God has sent Him, whom He had begotten to Earth as Lord.

Prov 8:22-30, a translation of the Septuagint. The Septuagint, as you know, translated the Tetragrammaton as "lord". I have taken the liberty to use "LORD" to indicate that it is Yahweh. It is Wisdom who speaks, and this Wisdom was believed, for earliest Christianity, to have been the Son of God Himself:

The LORD made me the beginning of his ways for his works. Before the age, He established me in the beginning, and before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me.

The LORD made countries and uninhabited [regions] and the highest inhabited [regions] under the sky.

When He prepared the heaven, I was present with him; and when he divided his throne upon the winds, and when He made mighty the clouds above, and when He laid the fountains under the sky, and when he made mighty the foundations of the earth:

I was beside Him, betrothed to Him; I was that in which He delighted; and day by day I rejoiced in his presence at all times.

Here is the way Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) explained the generation of the Son:

“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the Scriptures, that God begat before all created beings a Beginning, a certain rational power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, 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 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 also 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.

Justin also indicated that Jesus could be called "God". I think Justin had in mind the sense that Jesus was fully divine as was the Father, the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3), so that He can be called "God" in the sense of John 1:1 and John 1:18 (the only begotten God).

Even as late as 325 A.D., the earliest form of the Nicene Creed stated that the Son of God was "begotten before all ages", and this was accepted by the Trinitarians of the day. It was only later Trinitarians who changed the words to "eternally begotten".

[PR]

Charles Stanley's sermon today, 8/13/14, is titled "The Truth about the Trinity".

http://www.intouch.org/broadcast/today-on-radio

He may help shed some light for those of you who find the doctrine of the Trinity unclear.

And if you disagree, then you can take it up with him!

Phil

[Paidion]

He may help shed some light for those of you who find the doctrine of the Trinity unclear.

I think I understand the doctrine as well as any Trinitarian (I once was one), and better than some who think they are Trinitarians, but are actually Modalists.

However, I simply think the doctrine is erroneous. It is widely accepted because of tradition. Also some churches affirm that holding to the doctrine is essential to being a Christian and that anyone who claims to be a Christian and does not accept it, is a heretic.

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

@Dizerner,

So every objection again boils down to:
1. He's created.
2. He says the Father is God and acts as a man.
3. Nowhere does He explicitly claim to be God.

I don't think all objections boil down to this. These may be primary, but not all. Some have to do with God sending, assigning, giving and otherwise authorizing Jesus to do things, including giving him authority. These do not sound like the things that transact between co-equal, co-eternal beings.

Also, you said that the term "God-hybrid" could be appropriate. Do you realize that this is enough to get you tossed out on your ear for heresy in many churches? Welcome to the club.

@JR,

You wrote:

'Denying' Jesus 'could' be God and making him into a created god, or equal to God goes against what scripture has already said, and may 'reveal' serious misunderstanding or underlying unbelief of His word (you can quote me on that). Teaching there are other Gods, or teaching God has an equal would be blasphemy.

So I quoted you on that. Interestingly, most trinitarian churches are responsible for perpetuating many errors that you and I may agree are errors. Eternal torment, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, purgatory, Limbo, heirarchy, etc. Curiously, that first one, eternal torment, is denied by almost all non-trinitarian groups. I always heard from fundamentalist preachers that "error begets eror"....

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

To me this question is a practical matter of high importance and we seem to be unable to get beyond an academic discussion. Again I ask:

Jesus, if I am to love you more than my own life, more than friend or family, more than wealth or fame, indeed, as number one in my life, aren't you encroaching on a sacred shrine in my heart reserved only for the One who is worthy of all?

Excellent point, and just what I have been getting at. If Jesus, in some way, some how, is not the One God, how is it proper to worship Him, as He is worshipped at least as much, and in the same way, as the Father in many churches today? I have not seen a good answer on this.