Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

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

You seemed to think 1 John 5 was not speaking of Jesus, your quote says they do or do not. Are you saying you do not know then? Why post a piece from biblicalunitarian.com that argues that God is the true God, and not Jesus here, If you don't know yourself? I asked you, as a rebuttal to the piece, how can you know whom is who in each passage at all? Because at the end of the day they are completely intertwined and when speaking of one, we are often speaking of the other, unless you can tell me who is Him, or He, in each case, why are you making a case out of it?

I don't think John, or God, were unaware that it is almost impossible to tell One from the Other in many cases. But that is no problem, because they are one in the same, God. No problem! Scripture can speak of both as One and the same, no problem, and so do I.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

The article Jose linked is a known argument. I used it many times in the past when I was banging on doors. The fact remains that that particular passage in 1 John 5 should be considered as referring to the Father, or at best left ambiguous. Be that as it may, you ask about the other passages in 1 John and are attempting to cause confusion, it seems, in order to deflect from the confusion already surrounding this doctrine.

The fact is that Christians are said Scripturally to be "born of God" and that "birth" is said to be from the Father through the medium of the Son. Christians are "born of God" because they are "in Christ" who himself is the "firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8:29) Since believers are not referred to as being "born of Christ", then the Father would be the logical one to fill the identity in this verse. But, since the book of Hebrews tells us that the Son is the "exact representation of [God's] very being, then the sense is the same: Everyone born of God would do what is righteous.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

I think, as I mentioned in my previous post to you that you raise some interesting points. The fact of the matter is, as can be seen by JR's last post, there seems to be a bit of fudging when it comes to who or what we identify as "God". For sake of accuracy and to avoid what some may see (I don't) as an irreverence towards God, I will use "divinity" instead of "God-stuff".

Is the divine nature different than what God is? Can the Son be divine without being God? Can we see where it becomes a bit dicey when we play loose with our terms?

Words such as "Godhead" (as opposed to the more accurate "divine quality") put people in mind of depictions like this:




If we use "God" as a pronoun, much like Yahweh/Jehovah in some cases, but in other cases use it as an adjective (such as the word "divine") then the resultant confusion is obvious.

I think those who have issues with the trinity are concerned about whether or not it is a true teaching and a true representation of the nature of God. I believe that serious trinitarians are the same; they do not want to withhold from the Son an honor that they feel is due him.

Maybe it is partly because of debates like this that gave rise to the old saying that the Bible is an old fiddle upon which any tune can be played.

If God has declared that that all honor be given to His Son during this time for an administration to gather together the things in Heaven and the things on Earth; If this is the vehicle, method, mode, etc. that he has chosen, then I can accept that and square that with a non-trinitarian paradigm. I don't feel constrained to believe in a doctrine that some say is the only way to interpret the verses in question and be "consistent". The same "logic" that forces a person into a trinitarian paradigm would force me to say such a conclusion is patently absurd. I am then told that the conclusion is true, even if absurd, and that it likely is a "test" of my faith; that God is "blinding you" to it. Well, let me tell you, I spent the first 30 years of my life in an Organization that used those tactics to keep my mind enslaved to it. Not again.

If the trinity is not true, and trinitarians go to their end and meet with their judgment, aren't they hoping that God and Christ will know their hearts and not judge them negatively on that basis alone? Don't others have a right to expect the same? Were all of Christ's stripes endured only to have the resultant judgment be "You didn't quite have that 'God notion' figured out. Sorry, no admission." ?

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

Hi Jose,

Your quote from the Unitarian site in response to Homer with regards to the verse he quoted in addressing me, makes the same point I would have made, except that my response would have been briefer and less thorough. Thank you for that quote. In one sense, I'm unitarian in that I believe in the "only true God" to whom Jesus prayed in John 17:3. But unlike modern Unitarians, I believe in the pre-existence of the Son of God prior to his being born as a man. Also, unlike modern Unitarians, I believe in the deity of the Son of God, that is, that He is just as divine as is his Father, and yet has a different position from the Father. He always was subject to his Father, was subject to Him as a human being on earth, and continued to be subject to Him in his resurrected, immortal state, and as a life-giving Spirit. The Father is still the God of the Son.(Rev 3:2,12)

[Homer]

Hi Brenden,

You wrote:

The fact remains that that particular passage in 1 John 5 should be considered as referring to the Father, or at best left ambiguous.

Why should it be so considered since doing so results in a sort of tautology:

"We are in Him who is true....He is the true God."

The natural way to read it, with no preconception, is that the reference is to Christ.

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer,

It may be tautological. Interestingly, even trinitarian scholars will say that it is referring to God the Father, though they seem to be split. If it were as certain as some of the scholars say, I wouldn't expect any trinitarian scholar to interpret it as referring to God the Father. And yet some do, which tells me something.


But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting. Little children, guard yourselves from idols. (1 John 5:20-21)

The seeming redundancy could be explained, I suppose, by the warning about idols given at the end. But the "true one" as a title (at least in this epistle) is clearly the Father, as I highlighted in the verse above. I will concede that IF John were referring to Jesus in that expression, then this would be far and away the most persuasive Binatarian passage, eclipsing even John 1:1--which is fairly easily dealt with.

(CEV) We know that Jesus Christ the Son of God has come and has shown us the true God. And because of Jesus, we now belong to the true God who gives eternal life.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

I was going to write that it makes sense referencing the Father but you made me think it through again Homer. It starts off making the point that the Son is in question, not the Father:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the Father loves also the one begotten by him.

Then gradually moves to describing the gift of the Son:

And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life.

And finally moves to the affirmation God gives us:

We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the evil one. We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Following the objects, the true God is clearly referencing the Father, however the thing one might miss is, being in his Son is equated to being in the Father, and the description "eternal life" after True God, has only applied to the Son previously and not somehow apart from the Son. Thus I truly think think Jesus Christ and the Father are both being referenced by "the true God and eternal life" because being in the one who is true is by virtue of being in his Son, who is for us, eternal life. The Father and Son are only accepted or rejected both together, you cannot accept one and not the other. I think it shows their incredible unity. Of course as an aside I would also see the "discernment" and "anointing" spoken of as a reference to the Holy Spirit constantly teaching and confirming the Father and Son.

eclipsing even John 1:1--which is fairly easily dealt with.

That gave me a chuckle. I never would imagine that description.

[Jose]

You seemed to think 1 John 5 was not speaking of Jesus, your quote says they do or do not. Are you saying you do not know then? Why post a piece from biblicalunitarian.com that argues that God is the true God, and not Jesus here, If you don't know yourself?

Hi JR,

I truly desire to have a meaningful and edifying dialogue with everyone here, but what often happens is that we (in general) speak past each other, or we have differing definitions for words, or as in this case, assumptions are made without noticing was was actually said or not said. Consequently a lot of time and effort is wasted afterwards in just trying to clear things up.

Look at what I actually said.

Hi Homer, this is from biblicalunitarian.com

From that, you came out on the offensive saying "Since you know who's being talked about in John, tell me, who's being talked about in....1 John 2:3-6, 1 John 2:26-29, 1 John 4:11-16?"

I thought to myself, hold on, did I say that I knew anything? In this post here you said "You seemed to think that 1 John 5 was not talking about Jesus." Again, how did you get that I seemed to think anything from me saying, "Hi Homer, this is from...?" Can you see that you are making assumptions about what I know, without me having said anything?

Do I agree with the article? I think I do, but I haven't chewed on it long enough to know if I'm in full agreement with all of it or not. It's not like I posted it and said here's my creed, and I'm sticking to it.

Why did I post it? Because it was information directly related to the scripture that Homer had asked Paidion about. I posted it so it would be available to anyone interested in an explanation that they may not have been aware of. Homer or anyone else is free to look at it or ignore it. If someone cares to read it, they can decide for themselves if it makes a better case than the trinitarian explanation does.

I asked you, as a rebuttal to the piece, how can you know whom is who in each passage at all? Because at the end of the day they are completely intertwined and when speaking of one, we are often speaking of the other, unless you can tell me who is Him, or He, in each case, why are you making a case out of it?

As I see it, you're not really giving a rebuttal to the article, you're objecting to what you think I said in favor it. You also didn't deal with the verse in question, nor did you say anything about why you thought the explanation in the article was wrong.

I don't think John, or God, were unaware that it is almost impossible to tell One from the Other in many cases. But that is no problem, because they are one in the same, God. No problem!

I think there is a problem, or at the very least, two. There is an identity problem and a problem with definitions within trinitarianism.

To most trinitarians, the term "God" can be used to mean whomever they wish it to mean in any given passage without it really having a designated definition. For the trinity to work, God sometimes means Jesus, sometimes it's the Father, at other times it's both. Sometimes God means the trinity, and sometimes it refers to the essence, substance or "God-stuff." God has popularly been defined as 3 whos and 1 what. The trinity doctrine tries to hold on to monotheism by saying that the one God is the nature that the three "whos" share; the "what" is the object that defines monotheism. I object, God is not a what! Knowing God is not about knowing a substance. God is a father, not an "ousia."

There is a problem of identification also. I don't deny that some passages are challenging, but you believe that Jesus and God (by God here, you mean the father) most of the time, can't be identified one from the other, and that they are in fact, one in the same God. So you see, now when you say they are the same God, you're switching terms; you're not identifying them as the same being (because they're not), but as the same "substance." To sum up, in one instance you define God as the father, in the other you define God as an essence.

The trinity doctrine is that God IS three. From everlasting to everlasting, God is three. What that means to me is that every time we read the word Theos in the bible, we should be able to substitute it with the word trinity, because Theos just is a trinity. Are you willing to do that? Would you be willing to say, for example, "for the trinity so loved the world, that they begat and gave one of themselves, so that whoever believes in that only begotten one should not perish, but have eternal life?"

[Homer]

From the beginning of this discussion the question for me is why we worship Jesus when He affirmed that God alone was to be worshipped and served. If Jesus is not God, why do we worship Him? Now it has been said that God (The Father) has told us to, that everything has been turned over to Jesus but this is a temporary state. This seems to be the case, but where do we find in scripture any statement or command from The Father that we are now to worship Jesus? But if He (Jesus) is God we need no command and of course we would worship Him.

It seems to me both are God with differing roles. If Jesus has been put in charge of everything, why did He instruct us to pray to the Father?

In regard to John 1:1, here is what I think we can know:

"In the beginning was the Word", the Word clearly being the Christ, the beginning an obvious reference to preexistence as we are clearly informed (v.3, Colossians 3:16) that all things were created by Him. Yet God is said to be the creator.

"and the Word was with God"; here we are informed that the Word, the Christ was always with God. Zodhiates points out that the verb een, in both the first and second clause, is the durative imperfect of the verb eimi, "to be", indicating that there never was a time when the Word was not with the Father. They are coetaneous.

"and the Word was God" is a clear reference to the Word being of the same "stuff" that God is. There is no reason whatever, in the Greek, to insert an "a" here as in "a God". John goes on to inform us that "no one has seen God", there is no "a" there either, nor should there be as there is only one God.

If there was only one human in existence and this being was cloned and you had another who was the same "stuff" we would naturally conclude we have two humans. Likewise the Father and Son, being the same "stuff" would logically be two Gods unless the binitarian or trinitarian concept is true.

[robbyyoung]

Hello and God Bless,

One of the definitions of θεός (theos), according to the scholars, is:

Whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way –

1. God's representative or vicegerent
2. of magistrates and judges

A better understanding of Elohim and The Jewish mindset will aid greatly over the greek dialect.

Matthew 3:16 talks of The Spirit of God, “The Spirit” wasn’t “The God” rather, of “The God” His representative or vicegerent.

Now we can apply this seemingly obvious definition or interpretation to many of the texts that seems to support a Trinitarian doctrine. Furthermore, “theos” or “Elohim” most assuredly has a Judge reverence applied to John 20:28 “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God (or judge).” Here’s why; Thomas knew very well what he was saying, for he was present during Yeshua’s teaching concerning the resurrection and judgment, He, Yeshua, being The Judge (Elohim) says the following – John 5:22-23 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Now if you think this is a stretch of the imagination how about the following Jewish understanding of Elohim being ascribed to Humans, such as; Moses is Elohim to pharaoh because he stands as God's representative in the court of Egypt (Exod 7:1). He is also Elohim to his brother Aaron (Exod 4:16), i.e. in God's place of authority. The messianic king may be called Elohim in Psalm 45:6: "Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever."

In either case, Yes, Thomas finally got the message and who his Lord and Judge was and is. Therefore, the Trinitarian doctrine doesn’t seem to account for the idea of “The God” and His representatives throughout scripture. Divine or not, it appears that “The God” can empower His reps as He chooses.

God Bless.