Trinity.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

A yolk is both, a yolk is part of the egg, and it is egg, but it is not the whole egg.
Jesus is both, Jesus is part of the God and Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the whole God.

According to the Catholics (and my understanding from far too many hours debating clergymen back in the day) "they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire"."

Methinks you are being heterodox....

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

I appreciate the humor, but you know it is only symbology. I did use a circle and lemonade also, as easier ways to see the trinity. Speaking of circles and triangles, you said;

... they are both "god" (like we are "human") and they are "one". But they are two seperate persons. The problem is, the Creeds state that each member of this supposed trinity is "fully god" apart from the others. So it's not, 1+1+1=1, it's 1=1 and 1=1 and 1=1, as well as 1+1+1=1. A bit difficult. (Brenden, Aug 15)

person + person + person = 3 persons. Not, 3 persons equal 3 gods, you are mixing terms.
Just like if you have a family with 4 persons: person + person + person + person = 4 persons, not 4 families.
If the 3 persons = 1 God, like 3 sides make a triangle then there is no problem.
With triangles 1 + 1 + 1 = 180, so there.

The problem is you are mixing terms, and I’m sure you will also recognize that you added a term that was not in your equation. Addition and subtraction don’t explain much of the material world, so neither will it be good for a multi-dimensional object, let alone spiritually-dimensional objects. I believe God has more dimensions than we can imagine so even algebra and calculus, etc. may not be enough to comprehend His being. If you consider terms like triangles and the study of structure, changes and shapes as with trigonometry, and the multiple areas of mathematical sciences such as physics, space and theorems you find God is still greater than these could define. Yet you grow closer to what God can be, take the triangle, a triangle has three sides but if you stretch it flat or look at it from the side, it is only one line.

Not to make physics or science explain God, but science and logic ‘allow’ for a Trinity, and so does scripture. You have the premise or axiom, that God is One, and yet even before this was established we have the communication among the Creators in Genesis 3:22, and the Creator forming us in our (thier) image. “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. And also from one being (Adam), they create two! (I am not debating this verse again here, just answering your points, as you suggested so as to get back to point I have made from the beginning: You cannot have two Lords)

[jriccitelli]

Speaking of conundrums, I have many of my own that have kept me firmly in the camp of the "Unsure-ians": Why does Jesus have a God? (Brenden, June 19, pg.10)

Again, why is Jesus a servant, yet he is our King? Why was Jesus a sacrifice, yet he is the Priest? Why is Jesus poor, yet coming with a great reward? Why was Jesus meek and humble, but coming in Glory and might? Why was Jesus a man, yet coming as God? Why do you call Jesus Lord, if the Lord He is God?
“WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM? OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM? 7 “YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 8 YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET" (Hebrews 2, i am not yelling, the type just copies this way)

God would not deal directly with us, His presense would kill us, so he has used theophanies and mediators. Christ was the covering through which we could approach God. We must go through a Mediator, this has a purpose but it does not disallow God to be incarnate.
This is the incarnate Christ, God came as an incarnation, are you saying there were no theophanies, why would you think a Theophany could reveal all that is God? (this was explained to Job, Moses, and the Prophets)
In the following passage one of the visitors talking to Abraham is called YWEH, yet in the same line YWEH asks if anything is too difficult for YWEH. It seems like YWEH is speaking of Himself in the third person. It seems this Theophany/incarnation of God is self-aware of the incomplete totality of His own visitation, or incarnation. God does explain to Moses that men could not see the full manifestation of God (if that is at all possible) and live.
And YWEH said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old?’ 14 “Is anything too difficult for the YWEH? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son.” (Genesis 18:13)

‘And whatever it is that you do in word or in work, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through him’ (Colossians 3:17) 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, June 19, from pg. 10)

Abraham’s faith was in God, yet it was ‘through his son’ that the promise came. Without the Son there would be no reward or reason for the promise God gave to Abraham. Although Abraham’s faith was in God the Father, Abraham’s faith was rewarded and his hope was centered upon Abraham’s own Son, and it was through this son whom the promise came. I would think most Christians understand that we did not come to know, or come to have a relationship directly with God the father, if it were not for the sacrifice for sins by The Son. For the Hebrew offered everything through the priests. And as believers we must go through the office of Jesus’ priesthood, and with the blood of his sacrifice, in and through the death of his Son, and in the power of his resurrection, and live through the power of His Spirit. Man could never have a relationship directly to God, since Adam and Eve sin had separated us from Him. This has never changed, and never will. God decided He would atone for us and provide the lamb, an unblemished Lamb. This mediation would not allow imperfection to take part in the offering. Yet man, priest and angels alike were all imperfect, so like God said, God would make the sacrifice Himself, He would be the Priest, and the perfect sacrifice. This was a mystery, and the mystery became a reality, and the truth was to be received by faith although the mandate and requirements for our atonement were known, as well as the inability of animal sacrifice to remove sin.

The faith of Abraham was rewarded and centered upon his own Son, yet we know his faith was equivalently in God. That is what should come to mind.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I was not actually joking about the yolk analogy; I was commenting directly on your statement:

Jesus is part of the God and Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the whole God.

According to the Catholics (and my understanding from far too many hours debating clergymen back in the day) "they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire"."

According to trinitarianism, Jesus is not "part" of God, he is God wholly, as are both of the others, Father and Spirit, and someohow the three when put together, still equal One God. This is the "mystery" of the trinity.

I am not clear on your comments regarding Abraham. Abraham's faith in the promises of God was rewarded. It appears you are "typing" Christ in Isaac here, which is fine, but I don't think that Isaac as a "type" of Christ was why Abraham's faith saved him (If that was what you were saying).

Read the entirety of Hebrews chapter 11. You will see that a saving faith in God is entirely possible outside of Christ's office as Mediator. What is not possible, apparently, is the special adoption as sons of God outside of the Mediatorship of Jesus.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

I believe God has more dimensions than we can imagine so even algebra and calculus, etc. may not be enough to comprehend His being.

I have always found that when Trinitarians are confronted with the illogic of the concept of the Trinity, such as Brenden has offered, they ultimately fall back on some such statement as, "The Trinity if too great to be comprehended by our limited mortal minds." But the problem isn't our inability to understand; the problem is the inherent contradiction of the concept.

Here an analogous situation. I give you the following information:

1. There is only one loaf of bread on the table.
2. Yet there are three loaves of bread on the table.
3. Each of the three loaves is actually the one and only loaf on the table.

If anyone suggests that this does not make sense and is self-contradictory, I reply:
"This bread has more dimensions that we can imagine. 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 reply:
"But just what is it that I am to accept by faith? You are unable to sensibly define the bread on the table. You are merely making what appears to be statements, but taken together, they are meaningless nonsense!"

And I wrap it up with:
" It has meaning for me. For many years, this has been the position of the best thinkers on the subject of the one loaf. Anyone who disagrees, is truly a heretic!"

[mattrose]

Here an analogous situation. I give you the following information:

1. There is only one loaf of bread on the table.
2. Yet there are three loaves of bread on the table.
3. Each of the three loaves is actually the one and only loaf on the table.

What trinitarian do you know that says:
1. There is only 1 God
2. Yet there are 3 Gods
3. Each of the 3 gods is the one and only God
???

I agree with you about the annoyance of people just shrugging their shoulders and shouting 'mystery, mystery' to avoid accusations of contradiction. But there is actually nothing necessarily contradictory about the trinitarian doctrine. They do NOT say there is 1 God AND there are 3 Gods. Nor do they say there is 1 person AND there are 3 persons. What they DO say is that there is 1 God and there are 3 persons.

What you take advantage of, rhetorically, is that trinitarians use language flexibly. They feel free to refer to any 1 of the persons of the trinity as 'God'. This is imprecise language, technically speaking. But communication doesn't usually happen in technical terms.

What I find interesting about you, Paidion, is that you seem to be able to develop a theology consumed by the concept of love without a God who is, by nature, a relational being. In your theology, it seems to me, love is something God does... but it is not essentially who God is. For me, believing that the very essence of God is the loving relationship of the Father/Son/Spirit, it makes sense to construct a theology of love. Frankly, I'm glad you still do so. I just wonder how consistent it is.

[Paidion]

Matt, on what basis do you suppose that in my theology I don't recognize that God IS love?
\

[Paidion]

What trinitarian do you know that says:
1. There is only 1 God
2. Yet there are 3 Gods
3. Each of the 3 gods is the one and only God
???

My bad. Here is the revised version:

1. There is only 1 God
2. Yet there are 3 Persons
3. Each of the 3 Persons is the one and only God

Trinitarians say that the one true God is a Trinity. They also make statements such as, "God was born on the earth as a man." But clearly they don't mean, "The Trinity was born on the earth as a man." So what do they mean by "God" when they make this statement?

[Homer]

The scriptures assure us there is only one God. He is a spirit. The scriptures also inform us that God is invisible, that no one can see or has ever seen God. Yet scripture also says He, in some form, appeared to man:

Exodus 6:2-3 (NASB)

2. God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3. and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.

Several other scriptures could be cited, but this is enough to make my point. For the Trinitarian the explanation poses no difficulty. Let the non-Trinitarians give it a go.

To me, it is easy to see the "Angel of the Lord" as God, in the form of a man, appearing to man. And I reason that this was the pre-incarnate "Word". And then Jesus came, Emmanuel, God with us. All things being possible for God.

[Paidion]

I'm not sure what there is for us non-Trinitarians to explain. First I will quote the passage from the Septugint which seems to have been the translation which the New Testament writers used, and which is probably closer to the original Hebrew:

...and God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am the LORD, and I appeared to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, being their God, but I did not manifest to them my name LORD.

If I remember correctly, the non-Trinitarian Justin Martyr quoted this passage to show that Jesus was the One who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Justin did indicate that Jesus shared the name "Yahweh" with the Father by quoting Gen 19:24 which refers to Yahweh from heaven who brought destruction on Sodom and Gomorrah, and Yahweh on earth who was the agent of this destruction. Justin also said to Trypho:

He who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker and Father of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the earth. (Dialogue ch. LX)

Justin's words are consistent with that of the apostle John, who wrote, "No one has ever seen God" (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12)

The only thing that puzzles me is the statement, "I did not manifest to them my name Yahweh", for Abraham addressed the One who appeared on earth as "Yahweh".

The fact that Jesus has the name "Emmanuel" which means "God with us" (in the sense of "the God"), doesn't imply that Jesus is, in fact, "the God". Jesus clearly addressed his Father as "the only true God" (John 17:3), indicating in the same passage that He Himself was other than the only true God.