Is the Trinity biblical? Is Jesus really God?

[Runner]

All creatures are "mere" creatures compared to the Creator. As for being the "firstborn," as it refers to Jesus, it means that he is preeminent, that he has the rights and position as of a human firstborn son. What it does not mean is that he is created.

According to your theology, which is not my theology. Suggesting "preeminent" as a synonym for "firstborn" is the sort of grasping at straws we all do when what the Bible actually says doesn't mesh with our preferred theology. Why would anyone referring to the Second Person of the Trinity want to convey the notion that "he has the rights and position of a human firstborn son"? (I do not say Jesus was "created." I say He was "begotten," whatever that may mean.)

There is a very clear understanding that Jesus is not the Father but there is also an understanding that Jesus is God in the same way that the Father is God. For instance:

No, I do not believe there is such an understanding. I believe the contrary is true. There are verses where God is referred to as our Savior, which ultimately He is. There are verses where Jesus is referred to as our Savior, which directly He is. My understanding, which I believe has the stronger Biblical support, is that there is only one God, and the Son is subordinate to Him.

No creature was sufficient before to put an end to the sacrifice for sins, so why would it be any different if Jesus was a creature? It means that Jesus could only die for his sins, or perhaps for a limited time for others. So ultimately, Jesus's death is insufficient for everyone's salvation, hence why that is one of the JWs beliefs.

I'm really not following your point here. Salvation through Jesus was God's plan before the foundation of the world. God determined before the foundation of the world that the Atonement would be accomplished through His only begotten Son, so any discussion of "sufficiency" is superfluous. It appears that you are once again confusing "the only begotten Son of God and Lord of creation" with a "mere creature," as though those who reject the Trinity think of Jesus as little more than Adam, Jr.

I love how people at this forum confidently assert what the JW's believe. At least according to their official website, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000461, their view of the Atonement is pretty thoroughly mainstream. If you see something there suggesting "Jesus' death is insufficient for everyone's salvation," let me know.

Do you really want to continue with that fallacious argument? I hear it most from atheists but it does creep into these forums when there is disagreement. Anyone is free to think for oneself, hence why people change beliefs every day around the world. And everyone brings bias to the table and everyone is "religiously indoctrinated," in one manner or another.

What is the supposed fallacy? I merely pointed out that, in my experience, those who are indoctrinated into a religious tradition have difficulty letting go of the beliefs that have been instilled in them even after they have rejected them intellectually. I was blessed by having no religious indoctrination whatsoever and thus have been free to independently undertake my own spiritual quest and arrive at my own beliefs. Anyone raised in a mainstream Christian tradition or now committed to one is inevitably wedded to the Trinity because it is the predominate doctrine; no, I don't believe for the most part that they do think for themselves. I am not saying they are wrong; I am merely saying that I have come to the issue without any predisposition and have reached a different conclusion.

It is mysterious and there is simply no way to fully comprehend it, on that we agree. However, the Bible does give us enough that we can see God is triune. And given that Jesus is the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, and that he is the one through whom alone we have salvation, it very strongly suggests that who he is, is absolutely central to salvation.

I don't believe this is true. We don't "see" that God is triune. We start with a creed that says God is triune and then try to pound that round peg into the square holes of the Bible.

If we believe that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was God's plan for salvation and was sufficient in God's eyes to accomplish the Atonement, I don't see that it matters one iota whether we believe Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity or the only begotten Son of God and Lord of creation.

So you, too, have given into post-modernism like much of the current church. That's too bad.

Not at all. There is some relationship between God and Jesus that is ontologically true. The Trinity may be the ontological reality. What I describe may be the ontological reality. The ontological reality may be something entirely different - "Father" and "Son" may be metaphors for a relationship entirely different from what we picture. Whatever the ontological reality is, it is outside the human realm and human frame of reference.

We can only work from the evidence we have. For me, the evidence points away from the Trinity. If I'm wrong, I'll find out one day. If you're wrong, you'll find out one day. I do not see the "correct" understanding of precisely who Jesus is as being essential to salvation.

 

[chessman]

If we believe that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was God's plan for salvation and was sufficient in God's eyes to accomplish the Atonement, I don't see that it matters one iota whether we believe Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity or the only begotten Son of God and Lord of creation.

Excuse me for butting in to make a quick point (you two carry on) but it DOES matter. The Son (that is Christ-Jesus, the God-Man, the Father’s Son) had to be a voluntary participant (and eternally so) in the Eternal Atonement plan of salvation or it’s not Scriptural Atonement. Nor ethical.
Put simply; If Christ is not God then God didn’t save man. A creature of God did.

 

[chessman]

all this does is establish that Jesus calls Himself "son of" it does not establish the meaning of the term.

First, Jesus isn’t the only person that calls Himself “Son of”. So does The Father:

And having been baptized, Jesus immediately ascended from the water. And behold— the heavens were opened to Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as-if a dove, and coming upon Him. And behold— a voice from the heavens saying, “This is My beloved Son with Whom I was well-pleased”.​

Matthew 3:16-17 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew 3:16-17&version=DLNT

Again (a question you have failed to answer in the past as have other anti-Trinitarians); When did the Father begin to be the Father? Same question, phrased another way; When did the Son begin to be the Son?

Second, there is no mystery as to the reasons Jesus is called “Son of”;

And behold— you will conceive in your womb and give-birth to a son. And you shall call His name Jesus. This One will be great, and will be called ‘Son of the Most-High’. And the Lord God will give Him the throne of David, His father.
...
And having responded, the angel said to her, “ The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most-High will overshadow you. For this reason also the Holy Child being born will be called God’s Son.Luke 1:31-32,35 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 1:31-32,35&version=DLN

He’s called the Son of the Most High because The Holy Spirit came upon Mary and also because He will sit on the Throne of David.

i.e. the God-man. The “Son of” God (thru the Holy Spirit) AND the “Son of” man (thru David). Neither of which literally had sex with Mary.

And all the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, “Amen! Praise and glory, and wisdom and thanksgiving, and honor and power and strength be to our God forever and ever. Amen!”

Who do you think they are worshipping here ?

when the Most High says He is not a man, to understand that scripture to mean the Most High is not a man is a misuse?

When exactly did the Most High say He is not a man?

 

[jaybird]

i think TT makes a good point about the Shema. the Shema says nothing about monthiesm, no where does it command to worship one G-D and not many gods. the Shema is a description about the one G-D. He is one and not many. the Shema is also not proclaimed today like it was in the days of Jesus and the 12.

 

[atpollard]

if he was fully the Most High then He was not a man because men are not the Most High.

It happened like this:

Philipians 2:5-11 NASB

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

(At lest this is how The Most High says it happened).

 

[atpollard]

No, I do not believe there is such an understanding. I believe the contrary is true. There are verses where God is referred to as our Savior, which ultimately He is. There are verses where Jesus is referred to as our Savior, which directly He is. My understanding, which I believe has the stronger Biblical support, is that there is only one God, and the Son is subordinate to Him.

What about Philipians 2:5-7 NASB

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.​

Jesus existed in the form of God
Jesus was equal with God
Jesus emptied himself and was made in the likeness of men.

That sounds Trinitarian to me right out of the gate, not a two-tier 'GOD' and 'lesser begotten Son' that anyone is trying to shove into a Trinity preconceived hole.

 

[Runner]

What about Philipians 2:5-7 NASB

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.​

Jesus existed in the form of God
Jesus was equal with God
Jesus emptied himself and was made in the likeness of men.

That sounds Trinitarian to me right out of the gate, not a two-tier 'GOD' and 'lesser begotten Son' that anyone is trying to shove into a Trinity preconceived hole.

Your summary of Philippians 2:5-7 is not really an accurate summation of what the verses actually say. They do not say "Jesus was equal with God." While your summary "sounds Trinitarian" to you, the verses have in fact been favorites of anti-Trinitarians as well.

Rather than debate the meaning, I would refer you to a scholarly pro-Trinitarian, anti-JW website that discusses these verses in depth: http://wit.irr.org/form-of-god-translation-of-morphe-theou-in-philippians-26. The author is attacking a JW-affiliated scholar who insists that the only way to read these verses (as the JW translate them) is the anti-Trinitarian way.

The part of the article that I found most interesting was the discussion and table of the close parallels between Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20 and Hebrews 1:1-14. (I tried to reproduce the table here but was unable to retain the formatting, so it was a mess.)

After demonstrating the parallels, the author states:

When we compare these rhetorically fine, theologically dense Christological texts, we find a number of conceptual and even verbal parallels. These parallels suggest a pattern of Christological affirmation in the early church on which Paul and other New Testament writers could and did draw as needed for purposes of practical exhortation (Philippians 2) or doctrinal and religious correction (Colossians 1, Hebrews 1). The accompanying table sets out these common elements.

Among these parallel Christological affirmations are statements expressing in very different ways the idea that Christ represents a perfect expression of the very nature of God. However this is understood in the larger system of one’s theology, it is clear enough that in Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3 Christ is said to be in some way a perfect representation, manifestation, or expression of the nature of God. As we have shown, there are highly compelling reasons to take the expression morphē theou in Philippians 2:6 to express the same idea.
​

This is precisely how I read the entire NT with the possible exception of the Gospel of John: In the Incarnation, Jesus is the perfect expression of the very nature of God. This is a very high Christology, but it is entirely consistent with Jesus being the only begotten Son of God and does not require Him to be the Second Person of a Trinity.

What you would like Philippians 2:5-7 to say is, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He was God Himself, took human form and subjected Himself to the will of the Father in all things while He was in the flesh." Alas, this is not what the verses say.

This game of "Oh, yeah, what about these verses?" is an endless and unproductive one. In my opinion, one cannot read the entire NT (including Philippians 2:5-7) with a completely neutral eye and honestly say that he sees the Trinity. I am not part of any Trinitarian or anti-Trinitarian tradition and believe that I do approach the subject with an informed but neutral eye. Once one accepts the Trinity as part of one's creed, then obviously one is going to see hints of the Trinity in verses such as Philippians 2:5-7 that a neutral eye might not see.

Excuse me for butting in to make a quick point (you two carry on) but it DOES matter. The Son (that is Christ-Jesus, the God-Man, the Father’s Son) had to be a voluntary participant (and eternally so) in the Eternal Atonement plan of salvation or it’s not Scriptural Atonement. Nor ethical.
Put simply; If Christ is not God then God didn’t save man. A creature of God did.

Are you aware that there are multiple understandings of the Atonement that are held by Christian scholars of the highest caliber? Are you aware that some Christian scholars have actually argued that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with the prevailing understanding of the Atonement - i.e., it creates conceptual difficulties instead of eliminating them?

Your understanding of how the Atonement "must" have worked in order to be "Scriptural" and "ethical" is simply your understanding. (It happens to be the one urged by Karl Barth.) You have no "inside knowledge" that the rest of us lack. I have no conceptual difficulty with the Atonement being accomplished through the only begotten Son of God.

If you cannot even distinguish between "the only begotten Son of God, through whom and for whom all of creation exists" and "a creature," then you are wedded to a theology that I don't share. What "DOES matter" to you and your theology doesn't matter to me and my theology, maddening to you as that may be.

I am not arguing against the Trinity in the sense of suggesting it is "wrong" or even "un-Biblical." I am simply saying that I do not believe the Trinity is really the direction in which the NT points and that I do not believe that an understanding of Jesus as "merely" the only begotten Son of God, the One through whom and for whom all of creation exists, and the Lord of creation undermines any other Christian doctrine. Your mileage may vary.

 

[chessman]

Are you aware that there are multiple understandings of the Atonement that are held by Christian scholars of the highest caliber?

Yes.

Are you aware that some Christian scholars have actually argued that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with the prevailing understanding of the Atonement - i.e., it creates conceptual difficulties instead of eliminating them?

Yes.

Your understanding of how the Atonement "must" have worked in order to be "Scriptural" and "ethical" is simply your understanding. (It happens to be the one urged by Karl Barth.)

If it’s simply mine, then how is it also Karl Barth’s?

You have no "inside knowledge" that the rest of us lack.

I didn’t say I did. Which is why I referred to Scriptural Atonement, not my understanding of Atonement or various Theories of Atonement.

Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,​

1 Corinthians 15:1-3 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=1 Corinthians 15:1-3&version=LEB

I have no conceptual difficulty with the Atonement being accomplished through the only begotten Son of God.

Me either. What I have conceptual difficulties with is an Eternally past plan/purpose of salvation in which Christ (the Son of God) voluntarily dies for our sins without an Eternally past Christ. Luckily, that kind of an understanding of Atonement doesn’t pass the Epistle’s teaching.

To me, the least of all the saints, was given this grace: to proclaim the good news of the fathomless riches of Christ to the Gentiles, and to enlighten everyone as to what is the administration of the mystery hidden from the ages by God, who created all things, in order that the many-sided wisdom of God might be made known now to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places through the church, according to the purpose of the ages which he carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,​

Ephesians 3:8-11 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Ephesians 3:8-11&version=LEB

I am not arguing against the Trinity in the sense of suggesting it is "wrong" or even "un-Biblical." I am simply saying that I do not believe the Trinity is really the direction in which the NT points and that I do not believe that an understanding of Jesus as "merely" the only begotten Son of God, the One through whom and for whom all of creation exists, and the Lord of creation undermines any other Christian doctrine.

If the only begotten Son of God did not purpose His own voluntary death for our sins from eternity past, then it’s not an Atonement plan from the ages by God (who created all things, according to Paul’s Epistle).

 

[chessman]

I would come away from these letters with precisely the same understanding of Jesus as - wait for it - the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Are you aware that the Jehovah’s Witness teach that Jesus was “created”. And they do so without any Biblical support (obviously) other than Texts that say Jesus is God’s “begotten” Son.

I do not say Jesus was "created." I say He was "begotten," whatever that may mean.)

 

[Free]

i think TT makes a good point about the Shema. the Shema says nothing about monthiesm, no where does it command to worship one G-D and not many gods. the Shema is a description about the one G-D. He is one and not many. the Shema is also not proclaimed today like it was in the days of Jesus and the 12.

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Deu 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Deu 6:6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.
Deu 6:7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
Deu 6:8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
Deu 6:9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Deu 6:10 “And when the LORD your God brings you into the land that he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you—with great and good cities that you did not build,
Deu 6:11 and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and cisterns that you did not dig, and vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant—and when you eat and are full,
Deu 6:12 then take care lest you forget the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Deu 6:13 It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear.
Deu 6:14 You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you—
Deu 6:15 for the LORD your God in your midst is a jealous God—lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth. (ESV)

It is a statement of monotheism and nothing more. It says absolutely nothing about the nature of God. It does actually leave open the possibility of a triune God.

 

[jaybird]

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Deu 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Deu 6:6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.
Deu 6:7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
Deu 6:8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
Deu 6:9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Deu 6:10 “And when the LORD your God brings you into the land that he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you—with great and good cities that you did not build,
Deu 6:11 and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and cisterns that you did not dig, and vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant—and when you eat and are full,
Deu 6:12 then take care lest you forget the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Deu 6:13 It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear.
Deu 6:14 You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you—
Deu 6:15 for the LORD your God in your midst is a jealous God—lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth. (ESV)

It is a statement of monotheism and nothing more. It says absolutely nothing about the nature of God. It does actually leave open the possibility of a triune God.

the Shema has no commands about forbidding the worship of other gods. its a statement about the one true Most High.

 

[Free]

the Shema has no commands about forbidding the worship of other gods. its a statement about the one true Most High.

Of course it is a statement about the one true God; it's saying that he is the only one. Look at the context. It has no bearing on discussing the Trinity. It is neither for nor against the Trinity, although, as I said, it leaves open the possibility of a triune God. What it does not do is prove the Trinity false.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Are you aware that the Jehovah’s Witness teach that Jesus was “created”. And they do so without any Biblical support (obviously) other than Texts that say Jesus is God’s “begotten” Son.

I don't know for certain but Runner seems not to be grounded in the Old Testament, the Bible Jesus taught from. If a person is not well grounded in that Bible they can be lost in the Heresy being taught by these Latter Day New Testament and New Covenant ¿Christians?

 

[jaybird]

Of course it is a statement about the one true God; it's saying that he is the only one. Look at the context. It has no bearing on discussing the Trinity. It is neither for nor against the Trinity, although, as I said, it leaves open the possibility of a triune God. What it does not do is prove the Trinity false.

and what is the statement, that the one true Most High is one. one? one as opposed to what?

 

[th1b.taylor]

the Shema has no commands about forbidding the worship of other gods. its a statement about the one true Most High.

Reading the Shema the Ancient Hebrew it certainly does and the translation offered to you, also does. ~sigh~ edited out

 

[Free]

and what is the statement, that the one true Most High is one. one? one as opposed to what?

Perhaps the NRSV will make the meaning more clear for you: "Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone." Regardless, Trinitarians believe in one God. As I stated previously, it is a foundational teaching of the Trinity.

 

[Free]

We should also consider Paul's deeper explanation of the Shem:

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 8:6 yet 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. (ESV)

Compare: Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (ESV)

Both are in the context of other gods.

 

[jaybird]

Perhaps the NRSV will make the meaning more clear for you: "Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone." Regardless, Trinitarians believe in one God. As I stated previously, it is a foundational teaching of the Trinity.

here is DT 6 4
LXX
4 Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord.

DSS4Q43
4 Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God. Yahweh is one.

when LXX and DSS agree thats usually the most accurate translation.

 

[Papa Zoom]

i thought the bible taught that the Most High can not be tempted and that Jesus was tempted?
i do fully understand that church councils teach that Jesus was fully the Most High and fully man. but IMO church councils are not scripture.
its interesting to me that in Judaism there is no mention of godmen, Jews consider this a pagan concept, the empire that subjugated Judea was pagan and believed in godmen, then that empire becomes "Christian", then they give us new doctrines, and one of these doctrines establishes a godman. and how do they spread this doctrine, through fear and terror. non trinatarianism was the number one leading judgment for those that were burned alive.
how many did Jesus and the 12 burn alive?

Jesus was tempted in his humanity, not his Divinity. Jesus is not God the Father, He's God the Son.

 

[jaybird]

Edited out a deleted previous posters comments

i think its important to test all things like the scripture commands
edit - with respect to mods, i dont believe in reporting anyone.