A terrific TRINITY Scripture passage

[teddy trueblood]

I joined this forum to discuss "who is God?" ONLY!!

If you want to do the same, then do it!

I do not use the NWT on this forum nor in my trinity files.

Questioning my religion and my motives is not discussing the trinity which this thread is supposed to be about!

 

[Potluck]

Lambano and Exousia part 2

(NASB) John 10:18 "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

(Wey NT) John 10:18 No one is taking it away from me, but I myself am laying it down. I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again. This is the command I received from my Father."

(TEV) John 10:18 No one takes my life away from me. I give it up of my own free will. I have the right to give it up, and I have the right to take it back. This is what my Father has commanded me to do."

(GodsWord) John 10:18 "No one takes my life from me. I give my life of my own free will. I have the authority to give my life, and I have the authority to take my life back again. This is what my Father ordered me to do."

(ISV NT) John 10:18 No one is taking it from me; I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This is a command that I have received from my Father."

The only translation in all of that which doesn't render lambano as the word "take" is the Weymouth New Testament.
I'll be honest. I never heard of it.

You're not convincing me. Obscure bibles really don't trip my trigger.

 

[Potluck]

Oh, about your emphasis on:
This is a command that I have received from my Father.

Page 3

Posted by Asyncritus


And there's still that "take" thing.
Hey, Christ said it I didn't.

 

[patience7]

Two points need to be made here about 1 Cor 8:6. Firstly, if we take this verse to say that the Father alone is God, then it follows that Jesus alone is Lord, to the exclusion of the Father. But I don't think there are many who would deny that the Father is also Lord, so similarly we cannot exclude Jesus from being God based on this verse.

Secondly, notice that in speaking of the Father, Paul says "of whom are all things," and in speaking of the Son he says "by whom are all things." If "of whom are all things" is a statement of God's eternalness, then it follows that "by whom are all things" is speaking of Jesus' eternalness. Indeed, John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17 are in complete agreement with this:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Notice that if Jesus was created, that John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17 would be completely false and contradictory.

It just said in v5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (for there be gods many, and lords many,) Lord is a title and that title is used in speaking of God and of Jesus. No where can I find a direct verse that is clear and to the point that Jesus was God.

If John 1:1 is used to prove the trinity, where is the Holy Spirit in connection with this verse?

Before the creation was the Word and the revealed Word was in God's foreknowledge and was later communicated to man via the spoken word, written word, and incarnate word. The word is God's communication of himself to man. This Word was made manifest in the flesh and is declared by the only begotten Son of God. If we place Jesus Christ as the creator it would make Genesis 1:1 a lie.

Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God and if he were not then why did God say he was? There was ample opportunity for the phrase "God the Son"to be used in God's Word but it wasn't - I wonder why?

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[stovebolts]

Ho boy! Theologians again! What an intricate, convoluted mess of a piece of writing!

Notice anything missing from that masterpiece of convolution? Yeah. Scripture. Wonder why.

My friend,
You are in a Theology forum ;)

Everybody does Theology on who God is, even the athiest. Theology shapes our view of who God is and how he functions in and around us. You, my friend follow a particular theology as well, and to make my point, I didn't see any scripture in your last post, yet you assert biblical authority over the matter.

When doing theology, it is always good to understand ones own bias. It is also good to understand the bias of others.

Theology, once again, is how we understand God and it is this very bias that we all come to the scriptures. That is why exegesis is very important, and understanding ones bias will clearly show how one steps into exegesis to form a particular hermetical through scriptural redaction.

It is clear how you, yourself view God, which in turn shows how you view portions of scripture which pertain to God. Thus, your reply above in quotes is a theological statement based upon your admitted bias.

I do hope you didn't mind a little sawdust being removed from your eye lol

.02

 

[Frodo]

Upon reading through some of these posts, I am left confused about one aspect of the trinity....if the father is god, Jesus is god, and the Holy Spirit is god, doesnt that leave Christians with a polytheistic religion?

1 father (god) + 1 son (god) + 1 spirit (god) = 3 gods

 

[francisdesales]

Upon reading through some of these posts, I am left confused about one aspect of the trinity....if the father is god, Jesus is god, and the Holy Spirit is god, doesnt that leave Christians with a polytheistic religion?

1 father (god) + 1 son (god) + 1 spirit (god) = 3 gods

The "father", "son", and "spirit" desribe relationships within God, not distinct beings. There is only one divine being.

Sort of like describing the relationship between your bodily, your mind and your will.

This is not meant to be a precise analogy, but if we were to "personify" our thoughts and our will, we would see a difference of relationships between our mind and our will, although together they make up one being. It is a difficult thing for us to image this, because we do not send our "spirit", as God does, for example.

Regards

 

[Frodo]

francisdesales , you are not a trinitarian because the doctrine of the trinity teaches that there are three distinct persons in the 'godhead'. Your response depicts god as being a schizophrenic deity who names certain aspects of his being by personal names. If i named my body John, my mind Tom, and my spirit Tony Stewart, I would be a prime candidate for psychiatric evaluation....a mentally sick individual. Besides, how do we explane the events that transpired during Jesus' baptism? Was the body in heaven, the mind in the water, and the spirit flying around in between?

 

[francisdesales]

It is therefore obvious that the identification of “Wisdom” at Prov. 8:22-30 with Jesus has been the view of the majority of Christians THROUGHOUT the Christian era.

True. He is the Logos. The THOUGHT of the Father..

And IF you accept that, then it is clear that the Messiah was CREATED

False !!!

It is EXACTLY your citations of the Church Fathers and many more that LED THEM TO CONCLUDE that the Son of God was NOT created. They could not imagine a "time" when the Father was without the Logos. This was a PRIMARY argument contra Arius!


In addition, Scriptures note that it is THROUGH the Word that ALL creation is made. Thus, nothing was created "prior" to the Word, for logically, the Word could not create "Himself".

Regard

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales , you are not a trinitarian because the doctrine of the trinity teaches that there are three distinct persons in the 'godhead'.

Yes, I am a trinitarian, since I believe that God is Father, Son and Spirit, as expressed in the Nicene Creed. I did not say that God was not three distinct persons. They are distinct ONLY in relationship.

Your response depicts god as being a schizophrenic deity who names certain aspects of his being by personal names.

Do you know what a "schizophrenic" is? I didn't say that the persons all had different personalities, different minds, different wills and did things differently. They each have the fullness of diety. All attributes of being God are proper to the Father, Son and Spirit. They also have ONE divine Will, one divine intellect and one divine act. There are NOT three divine wills, three divine intellects, and three separate divine acts.

If i named my body John, my mind Tom, and my spirit Tony Stewart, I would be a prime candidate for psychiatric evaluation....a mentally sick individual. Besides, how do we explane the events that transpired during Jesus' baptism? Was the body in heaven, the mind in the water, and the spirit flying around in between?

John, Tom and Tony are three distinct persons, in the mind of psychiatrics. To them, though, a "person" consists of the entire self. Being = Person to them. Each person has a distinct will and intellect.

To the theologian of the 3-4th century who understood these ideas from Greek philosophy, a "person" means something entirely different. An entity/being also has a nature, what this entity can do. The person is the "who", the nature is the "what". To the theologians who wrestled with these concepts, they had to attempt to make some formulation of Scriptural and Sacred Apostolic teachings that presented Jesus as divine, sent by the Father AS WELL as the idea of monotheism. The idea of "person" and "nature" was useful for this.

As to the Baptism of Christ, these are ALL visible manifestations for our sake. Discussions on the Trinity ordinarily relate to God Himself. It is a feeble attempt to speak about a Being that is transcendant of any definitions that we may attempt to place on Him. But in the Divine Economy, God's work in the history of man, God's entire self is fully present when any expression of God is present. Thus, when the Spirit is "sent", it does not suggest that God's Spirit moves across space and time from point "a" to point "b", since God is present EVERYWHERE.

Regards

 

[Former Christian]

Francisdesales

A question if I may. In what way does your view differ from Modalism?

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

My friend,
You are in a Theology forum ;)

Everybody does Theology on who God is, even the athiest. Theology shapes our view of who God is and how he functions in and around us. You, my friend follow a particular theology as well, and to make my point, I didn't see any scripture in your last post, yet you assert biblical authority over the matter.

When doing theology, it is always good to understand ones own bias. It is also good to understand the bias of others.

Theology, once again, is how we understand God and it is this very bias that we all come to the scriptures. That is why exegesis is very important, and understanding ones bias will clearly show how one steps into exegesis to form a particular hermetical through scriptural redaction.

It is clear how you, yourself view God, which in turn shows how you view portions of scripture which pertain to God. Thus, your reply above in quotes is a theological statement based upon your admitted bias.

I do hope you didn't mind a little sawdust being removed from your eye lol

.02

I think, SB, that it is the professional theologians that I object to most strongly. 'Professional' means, in my book, someone who gets paid for whatever they're doing.

How they get paid, of course, varies. The churches pay them; the publishers pay them; the parishioners pay them.

You will say, of course, that the apostles got paid in some form or the other (Paul refused to be paid). But these were people who were appointed by the Lord Himself - and were therefore entitled to something for their efforts.

It is when the church departed from this spirit-appointed model that things went awry. Hundreds of 'theologians' sprang up and their writings are with us to this day.

It would be difficult to convince me that those writers didn't get paid. Writing was an expensive and inconvenient game in those days: and cost money. We can see traces of them in the NT - very big traces, especially in the Revelation and Luke 1.

So when I read the guy you quoted, I have a very jaundiced view of his opinion and profession. And I hold much the same view of the current crop and their predecessors.

A doctrinal statement of that magnitude ought to have had reams of scripture quotations - but they're remarkable for their absence.

There's a good reason for that: there's very little support to be had in scripture for what he was writing - and you know the old statement by Isaiah: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

So thanks for the offer of removing my sawdust - but there are big planks about!

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales

A question if I may. In what way does your view differ from Modalism?

FC

I see a distinction between the Father and Son (and the Spirit) that goes beyond "modes" or "energies". Modalists blur the line to such a degree that there are not three separate persons. Thus, the Father dies on the cross, rather than the Son. The Son is merely a mode of the Father. We are not saying "three modes or charecters in one person", which is the Sabellian understanding (Eastern Modalism).

The distinctions of the "persons" of the Trinity is found in relationship to each other. Not modes of operation.

Thus, the Father eternally begets the Son.
From the Father and Son eternally process the Spirit.

The very word "Father" and "Son" speak of the charecter of that relationship between the Father and His Logos eternally begotten. And since God is not bound by time, there is never a "time" where the Father is without the Son. Thus, eternally begotten, not chronologically begotten.

As I said before, God works as an entire "nature" when acting here in the world. Not as a variety of modes. We, as humans, appropriate to a "person" OUTSIDE of the Godhead, God's action in the universe that does not include Himself. (understand we are not Easterners who consider God as PART of the universe, thus the distinction between God Himself and the universe created).

Thus, we humans appropriate to the Father, "the Creator", although the Bible speaks of the Spirit and the Son as present and part of creation. The Word was not created chronologically, but is NOW being begotten in that NOW of eternity that encompasses all time. While the Son is called "the Redeemer", who would exclude the presence of the Father and the Spirit during Jesus' mission? And of course, the Spirit of God, the Sanctifier, the One Who makes us holy, according to human appropriation, is not excluding the Father and the Son, for they both make the Spirit manifest in the Church by "their" abiding presence.

Now, this is very complex stuff, so forgive me if I am not being clear or have said something that is not explained technically as well as the dogmatic declarations of the Church on this matter.

Regards

 

[Free]

It just said in v5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (for there be gods many, and lords many,) Lord is a title and that title is used in speaking of God and of Jesus. No where can I find a direct verse that is clear and to the point that Jesus was God.

The verses I gave leave no other alternative. There is no other logical explanation for what those verses state than Christ as existing for eternity past, which is an attribute of God alone. I'm not sure why you bring up the "gods" mentioned in verse 5 since the Bible is clear that there is only one true, living God. True, there are those things which people worship as gods, made by human hands or given divine status where there is none, but the Bible recognizes this and implicit in verse 5 is that these are not at all real gods, they can't be.

If John 1:1 is used to prove the trinity, where is the Holy Spirit in connection with this verse?

John 1:1-3 doesn't prove the Trinity but it proves the deity of Christ and his equality with the Father, which is essential to understanding the Trinity.

Before the creation was the Word and the revealed Word was in God's foreknowledge and was later communicated to man via the spoken word, written word, and incarnate word. The word is God's communication of himself to man. This Word was made manifest in the flesh and is declared by the only begotten Son of God.

We must be very careful in what we assume the word "Word," or logos, actually means. This is a whole study unto itself. It can mean several things at different levels, including speech, thought, and reason. I would argue that John's strongest meaning here is seen as an appeal to the Greek idea of the logos being the rational principle of the universe. Iirc, to them it would be roughly the equivalent of God.

If we place Jesus Christ as the creator it would make Genesis 1:1 a lie.

How so? If one presumes that Jesus isn't God and that God isn't triune, then this becomes a case of the fallacy of begging the question. If we don't want to say he is the Creator, we must still acknowledge that he was involved somehow in the complete creation process, since he proceeds anything that has ever been created.

Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God and if he were not then why did God say he was? There was ample opportunity for the phrase "God the Son"to be used in God's Word but it wasn't - I wonder why?

There could be any number of reasons why "God the Son" doesn't appear in Scripture, however, it is very important to note that this in no way means that he isn't God.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Right but once again this would be begging the question. No one is denying that Jesus is the Son of God but just what that phrase means is up for debate.

And herein lies the problem. You want this verse, among others, to say something that completely contradicts the verses I have given. This is all too common in these debates and is what I was speaking of in my discussion with Former Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity attempts to take into account all that Scripture reveals about God and Christ, namely, that Jesus is truly God and he is truly man.

We cannot sacrifice those passages that says he is man in favor of those that says he is God anymore than we can sacrifice those that says he is God in favor of those that says he is man. Any proper Christology must take into account both clear teachings of Scripture. And even then, it must all agree with the grand theme of Scripture that God himself is the Savior of the world, the redeemer of creation.

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

While I agree with what you said about Theologians, I have to take issue with your criteria.

I’m not a Theologian by any means. What I know, you could say from a human standpoint, I’m self taught. But one thing I’ve learned. Due to the denominational nature of Christianity, people don’t see the Bible alike. And when one quotes the Bible, they’re liable to not see what you’re saying if they take issue with your understanding of a Bible quote. One can present all the Scriptures in the world, but it will be futile if others understand the Scriptures differently.

So I tend to write without any quotes so they’ll come out against an idea instead of the Bible. I quoted the Bible (Genesis) to Savedbygrace57 once, and he called it a fairytale simply because his interpretation didn’t agree with my underlying premise of the free will of man. When people are so biased by their own viewpoint to not see any value in another’s viewpoint, and so biased that they even call the Scriptures a fairytale when presented as evidence against their viewpoint, I tend not to talk to them anymore. What’s the use? They’re obviously there only to propagate, not to discuss differences. Such already know the truth to their own satisfaction. They are in practicality, Christian Jihadists, Christian Fundamentalists, out to kill what God has made alive in Christ.

But I’m thankful for them. Because of their influence, I am what I am today. A lot more open minded, and a lot less judgmental. A lot better at understanding what the Scripture says, and a lot less “Scriptural†in my presentations. A lot more willing to ask questions, and a lot less willing to dictate a particular position on anybody, as do the Christian denominations and denominationalists.

Biblical quotes generally limit one’s audience to only those who already agree with a particular interpretation of those quotes. Whereas if there are no Biblical quotations, an idea is more apt to stand on it’s own merit, and not fall under the weight of a bias.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Francisdesales

While God is not presented in complexity in the Bible, most people think of God in that way. It’s according to what people want their God to be. Not how God wishes us to view him. God wants us to see him simple enough so that we know him as a personal God who desires to be a part of our daily lives. God desires us to view him by way of relationship. And this is pretty much according to your viewpoint about the nature of God, and how you feel he exists. A relationship rather than personhood. So I find your view interesting, rather than complicated.

There is one Protestant Bible teacher (now deceased) who probably would have agreed with you more than disagree. Everyone called him a Modalist. But actually he held a position in between the Protestant orthodox view and Modalism. Thus his view was neither, but elements of both were evident. He didn’t like the term person either. He said he sometimes had to use the term so that people could understand him. And he pointed out that God isn’t limited by time, as you did.

The reason I did a double take on what you said, is because the Catholics I’ve before dealt with, to a man, believed in the idea of personhood of the three. So, I’ve before heard of the idea that you present. Just not from a Catholic.

But thanks for bringing this idea back into my remembrance. It may be of help in solving the dilemma that I have about the personhood of God and the obvious plurality regarding God presented in the Old Testament. I’ve found that Traditional ideas are pretty much worthless when they attempt to describe Biblical ideas.


One more question if I may. You differentiated between the Son being eternally begotten and chronology begotten. The Catholic idea that was presented to me is that the Son has two different natures that are unified in one person. The Divine and the human being one in the person of the Son. And that the Son is only begotten with reference to his human nature. Thus he was begotten in time, but existed eternally. They brought up the Scripture, “this day I’ve begotten youâ€. How do you understand this matter?

FC

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales

While God is not presented in complexity in the Bible, most people think of God in that way. It’s according to what people want their God to be. Not how God wishes us to view him. God wants us to see him simple enough so that we know him as a personal God who desires to be a part of our daily lives. God desires us to view him by way of relationship. And this is pretty much according to your viewpoint about the nature of God, and how you feel he exists. A relationship rather than personhood. So I find your view interesting, rather than complicate

There are a number of concepts about God that are not so simple. Such things that we have no experience of, such as eternity, omniscience, and immanence. Analogies are quite difficult to find that express such concepts that enable us to wrap our minds, to some degree, around them.

There is one Protestant Bible teacher (now deceased) who probably would have agreed with you more than disagree. Everyone called him a Modalist. But actually he held a position in between the Protestant orthodox view and Modalism. Thus his view was neither, but elements of both were evident. He didn’t like the term person either. He said he sometimes had to use the term so that people could understand him. And he pointed out that God isn’t limited by time, as you did.

The reason I did a double take on what you said, is because the Catholics I’ve before dealt with, to a man, believed in the idea of personhood of the three. So, I’ve before heard of the idea that you present. Just not from a Catholic.

Most of "mainstream Protestantism" that preceded the 20th century is orthodox in the sense that they also proclaim the tenants of the Nicene Creed. Thus, the idea of Trinity transcends Catholic/Greek Orthodox/Classic Protestant boundaries. However, I think that Catholic/Orthodox are the only ones who have a proper perspective on the importance of this doctrine. Protestants generally see "trinity" as esoteric, secondary to "Jesus died for your sins". The Catechism (and Orthodox would agree) that the Trinity is CENTRAL to our faith and explains the act of the Son on the Cross.

But thanks for bringing this idea back into my remembrance. It may be of help in solving the dilemma that I have about the personhood of God and the obvious plurality regarding God presented in the Old Testament. I’ve found that Traditional ideas are pretty much worthless when they attempt to describe Biblical ideas.

They are only "worthless" to people not familiar with Neo-Platonism, the predominant philosophical viewpoint of the era when "trinity" was formulated into terms. Once you understand the definitions and the background, it is much easier to understand the idea of "Person" and "Nature" and "Hypostasis". You probably would be more correct in stating that "I, a modern person, don't understand the usage of terms of the ancients"... Thus, it would be incumbent upon you to study philosophy to understand how these Christians attempted to reflect ON SCRIPTURES what and who God was. We do the same thing today, using OUR language and mindset and paradigms - and no doubt, future people will be saying the same about us, because we don't talk like them in the future...

One more question if I may. You differentiated between the Son being eternally begotten and chronology begotten. The Catholic idea that was presented to me is that the Son has two different natures that are unified in one person.

Correct, this is the "Hypostatic Union", something unique only to the Son of God.

The Divine and the human being one in the person of the Son.

The Son of God took on flesh in time, while REMAINING the Son of God, the Logos/Intellect of Divinity.

And that the Son is only begotten with reference to his human nature. Thus he was begotten in time, but existed eternally.

The Son of God is begotten eternally in His Divine Nature. He was conceived, took on flesh, in the womb of Mary. So the Son joined His Divine Person to a human nature. Uniquely having two natures.

They brought up the , “this day I’ve begotten you”. How do you understand this matter?

It is an adoption formula that generally is interpreted as "before" creation - which technically, there is no "time" before creation, since time was created, as well. Since "eternity" is not past or future, but PRESENT, the bible certainly can say "on this second, I begotten you", and be correct...

Regards

 

[teddy trueblood]

Potluck wrote:

The only translation in all of that which doesn't render lambano as the word
"take" is the Weymouth New Testament.
I'll be honest. I never heard of
it.

You're not convincing me. Obscure bibles really don't trip my
trigger.

If you had really examined (and responded to) my first post on lambano and exousia you would have seen other trinitarian translations and encyclopedias which backed up the "authority" and "receive" meanings.

Here are some: New English Bible (NEB); REB; The Emphasized Bible; Weymouth; Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

Surely you don't expect most TRINITARIAN Bibles to render this in a way that would do away with one of their few 'proofs?"

Again, if you would have examined my 2 posts on this, you would have seen that lambano is translated more often as "receive" than as "take." It is the translator's choice if context is not clear.

Since the context of the NT is that the Father raised up the Messiah from death, lambano as "received" is the obvious choice for these scriptures.

Jesus did not speak English (obviously). The words from the NT Greek text show that he spoke lambano and exousia. It is translator's choice for these words, but all the evidence is against the usual trinitarian rendering.

 

[Frodo]

So im left still wondering...are there three gods or one god? Are there three persons (however you wish to define the word...i will stick with Webster's definition) or one person? If there are three persons who are all called 'god', then there are three gods...if there is one god, then is it Jesus, Jehovah or the Holy Spirit? Without being disrespectful, I could care less what Christians and 'scholars' from centuries ago said or wrestled with in there minds. And please, don't try to cloud the issue with lofty speech and empty words. ;)

 

[teddy trueblood]

So im left still wondering...are there three gods or one god? Are there three persons (however you wish to define the word...i will stick with Webster's definition) or one person? If there are three persons who are all called 'god', then there are three gods...if there is one god, then is it Jesus, Jehovah or the Holy Spirit? Without being disrespectful, I could [couldn't] care less what Christians and 'scholars' from centuries ago said or wrestled with in there minds. And please, don't try to cloud the issue with lofty speech and empty words. ;)

There is one Most High, Almighty, Creator-God, YHWH, also called the Father (Creator).

His creations include some who were given the lesser title of "gods." Scripture shows that certain humans appointed by God to be judges were also called 'gods.' Angels are also called "gods" and "sons of God."

God's first creation was the person who was to become the Messiah when he was sent to earth. He could be called 'a god' or a 'son of god' in the sense of others who were created by God or appointed by God to further His purpose.

When this is understood (as the Israelites always understood who God was), we should have no trouble understanding the confusing "it's a mystery" mess that has been foisted on Christendom since Roman Emperor Constantine imposed a Jesus is equally God doctrine on all those in his Empire in 325 A.D. It was further confused by the Roman Emperor Theodosios in 381 A.D when he had the Holy Spirit included in the God construction.

The Holy Spirit is the invisible Force with which God creates, communicates, "sees," etc. It may be that it is actually a part of YHWH God's being - God, a person composed of 'infinite energy' so to speak. Everything is said to be from (lit. 'out of') YHWH.