A terrific TRINITY Scripture passage

[Potluck]

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

I don't expect the JW translation to support anything of the Trinity either. It's all been edited out by "choice".

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.

If we used that logic that because one meaning is used more often than another we'd have total chaos in scripture.

Besides that's a very weak argument for changing scripture. But I suppose anything will do so long as it gets changed to say what you want it to say.

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.

"Since the context of the NT is that the Father raised up the Messiah"

You are making that assumption. Jesus said what Jesus said.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

The context of the NT clearly demonstrates Jesus is God. That is unless you edit it.
But hey. You can pick and choose the bibles you want, extract what you like from each to create a compilation of what you think scripture should look like and call the compiled "bible" a name that's catchy and in tune with the selected belief. You can then swap meanings to tweak things in more detail as you've already demonstrated. And you've shown there is a rather large pool of possible translations, commentaries and the like to choose from.

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.

If I have such a wide scoop of selection I suppose I can find evidence for anything I care to support.


Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

Jesus said "I am the resurrection".
As I posted before he testified to this before His body was raised from the dead. I believe He is indeed the resurrection since He said so.
Since Jesus IS the resurrection it follows He had a lot to do with the raising of His body from the dead.
He also stated that HE is the life. Life is in Him, always was in Him and always will be in Him. The flesh died, was buried and rose again. That in no way meant He no longer had any power or lost the life He said He was. He never lost that. Ever. The body does not have power except in sin, but then, there was no sin found in Him. This is how He can state that He has the power to do as He said He would do. He IS the resurrection and the life. And He stated so before He died on the cross.

Accepting who Christ really is reveals a whole new level of love, glory and mercy in our Lord and Savior. You really are missing out on a lot.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

I ask you:
Do you believe He lost who He said He is? The life. Can you honestly tell me He is the life but lost that identity when His body died?

 

[Former Christian]

Francisdesales

“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.â€

Well, that’s true of course. But all of the thinking about them that’s been done hasn’t brought us any nearer to understanding them. As you said, they are outside of our experience. It should be enough to know that God says he’s eternal, knows all, and is a personal God. But people being what they are, will bog themselves down with things they can’t understand, nor were intended to understand. Otherwise the Bible would tell us all about it and we would understand them.


“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...â€

I have come to believe that trying to understand the Bible through currently popular cultural ideas is a big mistake. All we come up with is a mixture of Bible and culture that’s not really conducive to understanding or living either. And if some outside philosophy was involved in the doctrinal wars of the fourth century, it’s no wonder that there were those who just didn’t go along. Creating their own ideas through a different take on the philosophy or through a different philosophy altogether.

My schooling didn’t include philosophies or religions. So what little I know about them I learned on my own. And that wasn’t much because I just couldn’t force myself to be interested. The only philosophy that I’ve ever been interested in is the cultural philosophy of America; and the only religion I’ve ever been interested in is Christianity. Just happens to be what’s here before me and I’m involved with personally. I see the human essence and failure of the American cultural philosophy. And I see the human essence and denominationalism of the Christian religion. Kind of made me lose interest in both. And though I have a lot of respect for many of the celebrated Buddhists, due to their activism on behalf of the planet and it’s inhabitants, including humans, I’ve never been much interested in their religion.


What you said about the nature of the Son seems the same as it was presented to me by Catholics in former days. Without thinking about it too much, it sounds pretty much the same as my own understanding of the matter. Jesus Christ is both the Son of God and the son of man. And it took both aspects to reconcile man to God.

I don’t agree that “the Trinity is CENTRAL to our faith and explains the act of the Son on the Cross.†Too many versions of it to be central. And if it’s so central, one would think that Paul or someone would have explicitly explained it in the New Testament. Rather than waiting for four hundred years to go by before it was formulated for the first time. Don’t get me wrong. I’m at this point a Trinitarian. More Protestant version than Catholic or Orthodox version. I just don’t see it as being so central that our salvation depends on it, as some do. The Trinity is more a philosophical doctrine than a theological one. And that becomes clearer to me knowing that Neo-Platonism was initially involved. Personally, I use it to fill in some holes in my thinking. But it doesn’t fill all the holes. What’s central to me is what was central to Paul. Jesus Christ and him crucified.

To think about any aspect of the essence of God is a rarity for me. Usually I just accept things that are obvious in the Bible. The only reason I’m thinking about the personhood of God is because it seems to be different than how the Trinity is usually defined, which ordinarily doesn’t mention the personhood of God.

Well anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me.

FC

 

[teddy trueblood]

Potluck wrote:

"Since the context of the
NT is that the Father raised up the
Messiah"

You are making that assumption. Jesus said
what Jesus said.

In English we use “rise” and “raise” with two distinctly different meanings. “Rise” is what a person or thing does by itself to itself: “I rise every morning at dawn;” “the sun will rise soon.”

“Raise,” on the other hand, is what a person does to some other object or person: “He raised the flag.” “The flag was raised.” The object does not “rise” by itself in this case, but is actually “raised” by someone else! If “raise” is to be used with one’s own self as the object, it must be so stated or plainly understood: “I raised myself so I could see better”!

An examination of all the passages dealing with Christ’s resurrection shows that this is also the intent of nearly all of them. Therefore, when we see “God, having raised up his servant” (Acts 3:26, RSV), we understand God as being one person who raised up someone else (His servant, Jesus). And at Gal. 1:1 we see - “God the Father, who raised [Jesus Christ] from the dead.”

The noted trinitarian NT Greek expert Dr. Alfred Marshall writes:
“our Lord ‘was raised’ as are the dead generally (they do not ‘rise’). See 1 Corinthians ch. 15, etc.” - p. xxxvi, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, 1980.

We also see at Eph. 1:17, 19, 20 -
“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory ..., according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand [cf. Ps. 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34-36; and Ro. 8:34] in the heavenly places” - RSV.

And 1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -
“how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God [John 17:3] and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus” - RSV. Also see Acts 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37; Ro. 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 2:12; 1 Peter 1:21; etc.




Probably the only place you could find where there appears to be a statement that the Son raised himself (in contrast to the many scriptures to the contrary) would be John 2:19-22.

John 2:19, 21, 22 -
“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ .... But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised [not ‘he raised himself’] from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this.” - RSV.

Rather than ignoring this scripture, since at first glance it seems to contradict all the many others about Jesus being raised up by the Father alone, we should make every attempt to understand it in agreement with the other scriptures on the subject.

Obviously Jesus was speaking figuratively here, whereas the other scriptures concerning his being raised are to be understood literally. Figurative Bible language often leads to difficulties in interpretation.

However, Jesus was speaking figuratively of his actual body which his enemies really did destroy (“destroy this temple and ...”). Therefore, one understanding might be that Jesus was merely stating that after the Father had already returned Jesus’ life to a body (“raised” him to life) Jesus was then physically able to raise up that life-filled body: He literally was able to raise himself to his feet again; he raised his own body up from a prone position!

Another possibility could be that because of his perfect faithfulness and obedience to God, Jesus himself provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead. It might be said that, in a sense, because of his faithful course in life, Jesus himself was responsible for God’s resurrection of him.

A similar style of expression may be seen at Luke 8:48 when Jesus had healed a woman he said to her: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she actually heal herself, then? No; it was power from God the Father through Christ that healed her because of her faith!

Even noted trinitarian NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson tells us
“Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).” - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, p. 183.

Whatever the answer to any possible confusion generated from this single figurative usage at John 2:19, we must not ignore the many literal statements which clearly state that the Father alone actually raised Jesus to life.



Any cut-and-paste material is from my own original files. These files which I have originated have also been posted at numerous places on-line at various times over the past 15 years.

 

[handy]

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. ;)

Genesis 1:24 "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

OK, so I'm sitting here when I should be in bed and my husband is 40 miles away, hopefully as sound asleep as I should be.

He's there, I'm here, so...are we two flesh or one?

According to the Scriptures...we are one flesh. But, how can that be? He's male, I'm female...perhaps the Scriptures doesn't mean "flesh" in the physical sense...

Nope...a quick check via Blue Letter Bible certainly indicates that the word is physical in nature.

So, again? Does God consider us two or one flesh?

The simple answer is we are one flesh. Well, what then does that mean?

I dunno...really, I don't. I don't think anyone truly does. It's clear from the Scriptures that God is very much serious when two people marry they become one "flesh" ...He condemns any violation of the marriage bed, He hates divorce, He has made it clear that He considers a man and wife "one flesh"...in some very deep spiritual sense that we really cannot truly understand.

So, price of tea in China time...

Is God One, Three, or is there some inexplicable way that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Three-in-One.

According to the whole of the Scriptures...I believe that God is Three-in-One...Father, Son and Holy Spirit and yet but One God.

Now, what does that mean?

I dunno. I don't think any human on the planet truly understands. The whole concept seems almost as crazy as a man and a woman being considered one flesh. Frankly, the Holy Spirit is pretty clear that the Father, Son and Spirit are all to be considered One God...and that husband and wife are to be considered one flesh. But, He doesn't clearly explain what exactly He means by that.

I don't have a problem with "I don't know" as an answer to a difficult question. I know that throughout the ages, learned men and scholars have tried their hand at explaining it and the end result is threads like this which prove that we've only managed to muddy the water.

 

[francisdesales]

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.

Say what??? Where did you get this from? Neither emperors "imposed" anything upon the Church Councils. Constantine even favored the Arius definition of Christ, over the Nicean definition...

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.

The NT speaks of the Spirit as a Person, not a "force" or an "energy".

Regards

 

[Potluck]

Teddy,
He didn't have to raise Himself from the dead. Just earthly His body. Why does Jesus have to be in the flesh to perform miracles? He IS the resurrection and the life even without flesh.
And yes, I agree. There is scripture clearly stating God raised His body from the dead.
That's my point.
Jesus is God.

The bibles you posted and keep posting as evidence that supposedly are the correct translation don't all correlate. Some say "take", some say "receive" some say "raise" and some say "rebuild".
These "bibles" are obscure, little known and not at all commonly used by Christians. I can understand why that is. They don't support one another even on other issues. Picking some from one, a little from another and a bit from yet another one doesn't make a good basis for Christian belief.

You base your argument on obscurity and substitutions of meanings. By editing one verse another supporting it is orphaned standing alone prone to attack and this you do without pause or hesitation.
I don't understand the motivation to degrade Christ's divinity, His deity except you simply don't want to believe His true identity.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

Jesus said "I am the resurrection".
As I posted before he testified to this before His body was raised from the dead. I believe He is indeed the resurrection since He said so.
Since Jesus IS the resurrection it follows He had a lot to do with the raising of His body from the dead.
He also stated that HE is the life. Life is in Him, always was in Him and always will be in Him. The flesh died, was buried and rose again. That in no way meant He no longer had any power or lost the life He said He was. He never lost that. Ever. The body does not have power except in sin, but then, there was no sin found in Him. This is how He can state that He has the power to do as He said He would do. He IS the resurrection and the life. And He stated so before He died on the cross.

Accepting who Christ really is reveals a whole new level of love, glory and mercy in our Lord and Savior. You really are missing out on a lot.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

I ask you:
Do you believe He lost who He said He is? The life. Can you honestly tell me He is the life but lost that identity when His body died?

I ask you:
Do you believe He lost who He said He is? The life. Can you honestly tell me He is the life but lost that identity when His body died?

Is Jesus the resurrection, and the life or isn't He?

 

[francisdesales]

But all of the thinking about them that’s been done hasn’t brought us any nearer to understanding them.

Sure it has. We have a teaching Church that has reflected on God for 2000 years on what He has revealed to man. The problem is when people ignore that teaching and ignore what the Spirit has already said on a variety of subjects. Many people seem to think that God has been silent to the world until THEY came around to define things for the world, as if 2000 years of thought is worthless...

I have come to believe that trying to understand the Bible through currently popular cultural ideas is a big mistake. All we come up with is a mixture of Bible and culture that’s not really conducive to understanding or living either. And if some outside philosophy was involved in the doctrinal wars of the fourth century, it’s no wonder that there were those who just didn’t go along. Creating their own ideas through a different take on the philosophy or through a different philosophy altogether.

There is difference between allowing the culture of the day interject and overturn HOW we live vs. allowing the culture to help define the best way to express WHAT we believe...

In other words, allowing the modern thought of the day overturn 2000 years of teaching on marriage VS utilizing the language of the day to describe what it is that we believe about "Trinity", using modern terms to aid in our understanding.

I don’t agree that “the Trinity is CENTRAL to our faith and explains the act of the Son on the Cross.” Too many versions of it to be central.

The number of versions has no bearing on what is truly central to Christian faith. Divine revelation of Who God is provides us a paradigm for What God does.

And if it’s so central, one would think that Paul or someone would have explicitly explained it in the New Testament.

They were ATTEMPTING to do just that!!!

Mark's Gospel is predicated on one question. WHO is Jesus. Paul expounds on this in telling us who Jesus is, in relation to God. Over and over, we find such verses reflecting on the Apostlic teaching, given first orally, then becoming the basis for understanding the written.

Rather than waiting for four hundred years to go by before it was formulated for the first time. Don’t get me wrong. I’m at this point a Trinitarian. More Protestant version than Catholic or Orthodox version. I just don’t see it as being so central that our salvation depends on it, as some do.

I am not stating that our "salvation depends upon it". Salvation doesn't depend upon such knowledge. I am saying it is central to understanding our faith. It is a core teaching. To state that "salvation depends upon such knowledge" is to call us "Gnostics", which we clearly are not.

The Trinity is more a philosophical doctrine than a theological one. And that becomes clearer to me knowing that Neo-Platonism was initially involved.

I think you need to get a better background on this before you comment further on it.

Personally, I use it to fill in some holes in my thinking. But it doesn’t fill all the holes. What’s central to me is what was central to Paul. Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Behind that proclamation is WHO Jesus is!!! What is the significance of a man named Jesus dying on the cross? Nothing. It would have spelled the end of that religious movement - unless this Jesus who was Crucfied, was the Messiah - and more...

The "variety" of Christians overlook this fundamental aspect of our faith. The NT focuses on the signifance of WHO Jesus is - THIS is what makes WHAT He did significant for us! And CONTINUES to. The Trinity teachings are the dogmatic expressions of the witness of Scriptures and Sacred Tradition - that Jesus is God.

Really, would it matter to you or me if a man died on a cross 2000 years ago, if he was NOT God??? It is this understanding that makes that historical event significant TODAY!

Trinity is an essential aspect of our faith, since it makes the Paschal Mystery of Jesus of Nazareth significant for me, 2000 years later. I would call this knowledge "central" to our understanding, wouldn't you???

Regards

 

[patience7]

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.

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.

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.

John 1:1-3 proves that Jesus Christ was the Word - God's words - incarnate. (I did notice that you changed the words " the same" to "he" in John 1:2) God's thoughts, speech and reason given to his Son to declare Him and make Him known as the one true God, his Father.

v.2 The same (the Word) was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made by him - All things were made by God through His words - "And God said"

Colossians 1:14,15 In these two verses the subject is Jesus Christ then in v16 & 17 the subject is God - which would not contradict that God is the creator; then the subject changes back to Christ. To avoid contradictions the word of God needs to be rightly divided. (Although, I know that this will not be "right" to you)

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.

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.

And it in no way means that he is.

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.

That's what I never have understood about the Trinity doctrine - to say that "Jesus is God" then to say "Jesus is the Son of God", to me, is a complete contradiction.

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.

Yes, these debates have gone on forever and probably will go on forever! Again, to me, the doctrine of the Trinity attempts to contradict all that scripture reveals about God and Christ. That God was Jesus' Father, that Jesus was a man, born of God, being always obedient humbling himself to the will of God his Father, denying his own will to that of His Father's even to the point of death. For by one's man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19, context Romans 5:12-19)

Most scriptures used to say he is God - the meaning is implied. Scriptures that are used to say he is man and the Son of God are clear and concise.

Yes, on one point we can agree that all Scripture must harmonize one with the other.

 

[Free]

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. ;)

A couple of serious problems with your questioning. First, to say that you "could care less what Christians and 'scholars' from centuries ago said or wrestled with in there minds," is to say that you are not really interested in knowing the truth of the matter. It is also ignoring one of God's ways of teaching us.

Second, to ignore the definition(s) given of what is meant by "person" as it pertains to the Trinity, with the understanding that our language is very limited in describing God, and prefer the definition given by Webster, is to directly contradict your request to not "cloud the issue with...empty words." You are clouding the issue by emptying the definition of "person" as it pertains to an understanding of the Trinity.

What we have is one true, living God, that is beyond dispute. But what Scripture reveals is that there is a threeness within that oneness of God. The Father is God in nature, the Son is God in nature, the Holy Spirit is God in nature but they are somehow distinct, not different roles, within the one being that is God.

 

[Free]

John 1:1-3 proves that Jesus Christ was the Word - God's words - incarnate. (I did notice that you changed the words " the same" to "he" in John 1:2) God's thoughts, speech and reason given to his Son to declare Him and make Him known as the one true God, his Father.

v.2 The same (the Word) was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made by him - All things were made by God through His words - "And God said"

As I stated though, you are taking an all too narrow meaning of what John means by "Word." That John used logos has very significant meaning to the Greeks, much more significant than mere spoken words. Not to mention that there is no basis for understanding it to mean "God's words":

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NKJV)

The word for "with" is the Greek word pros and speaks of intimate relationship. So not only does it not make sense to speak of anyone, let alone God, having their words with them, it also makes no sense to say that someone was in intimate relationship with their words. We are in relationships with people, with other beings, not our words.

On that same line of thought, it makes absolutely no sense to say that God's words were God. Just as we would never say that our words were human, God's words are not God, nor divine. Words are words, they don't have a nature.

Colossians 1:14,15 In these two verses the subject is Jesus Christ then in v16 & 17 the subject is God - which would not contradict that God is the creator; then the subject changes back to Christ. To avoid contradictions the word of God needs to be rightly divided. (Although, I know that this will not be "right" to you)

No, the subject absolutely does not change:

Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.
Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, (NKJV)

Clearly Jesus is the subject of the entire section, and then some. Grammatically there is no way that the subject changes to the Father for verses 16 and 17. Not to mention it is in perfect agreement with 1 Cor 8:6 and John 1:3.

And it in no way means that he is.

: Of course not. How could the lack of the phrase "God the Son" ever prove that the Son is God?

That's what I never have understood about the Trinity doctrine - to say that "Jesus is God" then to say "Jesus is the Son of God", to me, is a complete contradiction.

Not all may agree with me but I would argue that the phrase "Son of God" is a reference to Christ's nature as God. But even if not, there is no contradiction. No trinitarian will disagree that Jesus is the Son of God.

Yes, these debates have gone on forever and probably will go on forever! Again, to me, the doctrine of the Trinity attempts to contradict all that scripture reveals about God and Christ. That God was Jesus' Father, that Jesus was a man, born of God, being always obedient humbling himself to the will of God his Father, denying his own will to that of His Father's even to the point of death. For by one's man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19, context Romans 5:12-19)

On the contrary, the Trinity denies neither the many passages which state that Christ is God in nature, nor those that state he is human. He is the God-man. It is your position which, as we have seen above, must reinterpret the plain meaning of words or passages to fit. Even with the Romans quote above, as with all that say Jesus is a man, etc., ignore the larger context of the entirety of Scripture, which includes passages clearly stating Christ's nature as God.

You are sacrificing the deity of Christ for his humanity whereas the doctrine of the Trinity sacrifices neither but reconciles and harmonizes both, as a proper Christology must do.

Most scriptures used to say he is God - the meaning is implied. Scriptures that are used to say he is man and the Son of God are clear and concise.

Even if a meaning is implied, it is no less clear or concise than something stated explicitly. In fact, most, if not all, of what I have given so far is explicit.

Yes, on one point we can agree that all Scripture must harmonize one with the other.

Yes, they must but so far your position does not harmonize them; no anti-trinitarian position does.

 

[patience7]

As I stated though, you are taking an all too narrow meaning of what John means by "Word." That John used logos has very significant meaning to the Greeks, much more significant than mere spoken words. Not to mention that there is no basis for understanding it to mean "God's words":

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NKJV)

The word for "with" is the Greek word pros and speaks of intimate relationship. So not only does it not make sense to speak of anyone, let alone God, having their words with them, it also makes no sense to say that someone was in intimate relationship with their words. We are in relationships with people, with other beings, not our words.

On that same line of thought, it makes absolutely no sense to say that God's words were God. Just as we would never say that our words were human, God's words are not God, nor divine. Words are words, they don't have a nature.

The Word was God - God is His Word. A relationship is built on words. My words portray who I am. You can't have a relationship without words because you wouldn't know anyone intimately without speaking to them and learning of them through their words.

No, the subject absolutely does not change:

Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.
Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, (NKJV)

Clearly Jesus is the subject of the entire section, and then some. Grammatically there is no way that the subject changes to the Father for verses 16 and 17. Not to mention it is in perfect agreement with 1 Cor 8:6 and John 1:3

I agree that in v14,15,18, etc. the subject is Jesus. In v16,17; I guess I didn't know that Jesus "created" anything. It was God, who in the beginning "created" and that has to carryout through the scriptures.

Not all may agree with me but I would argue that the phrase "Son of God" is a reference to Christ's nature as God. But even if not, there is no contradiction. No trinitarian will disagree that Jesus is the Son of God.

On the contrary, the Trinity denies neither the many passages which state that Christ is God in nature, nor those that state he is human. He is the God-man. It is your position which, as we have seen above, must reinterpret the plain meaning of words or passages to fit. Even with the Romans quote above, as with all that say Jesus is a man, etc., ignore the larger context of the entirety of Scripture, which includes passages clearly stating Christ's nature as God.

You are sacrificing the deity of Christ for his humanity whereas the doctrine of the Trinity sacrifices neither but reconciles and harmonizes both, as a proper Christology must do.


Even if a meaning is implied, it is no less clear or concise than something stated explicitly. In fact, most, if not all, of what I have given so far is explicit.


Yes, they must but so far your position does not harmonize them; no anti-trinitarian position does.

I do not see that I am sacrificing the fact that Jesus had a divine nature; nor am I forgetting that he also was a partaker of flesh and blood. Harmonizing the nature of God and the nature of Jesus is not the same thing as "harmonizing scripture".
I really don't understand why trinitarians are Christians while non-trinitarians aren't? We both believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners and God raised him from the dead so that we could walk in newness of life and become partakers of the divine nature. It doesn't seem right to me.

 

[francisdesales]

The Word was God - God is His Word. A relationship is built on words. My words portray who I am. You can't have a relationship without words because you wouldn't know anyone intimately without speaking to them and learning of them through their words.

The relationship is not built WITH what we say or anyone else says. I don't have a relationship with my wife's words. Her words reflect who she is. The relationship is built WITH another person.

The Word of God is Personified. In other words (sorry for the pun), we can atttribute personal adjectives to "The Word".

The Word cried.
The Word was hungry.
The Word was angry.

Words, as you describe them, are not personal. They have no feelings of themselves. They have no ability to love back or feel.

Nor is a relationship made BETWEEN a word and a person. Thus, philosophically minded people, whether from now or the 2nd century BCE, realized that the Word of God was a Person with personal charecteristics, not just an utterance. A mere utterance does not love the one who emits the utterance. My words don't love me back...

I agree that in v14,15,18, etc. the subject is Jesus. In v16,17; I guess I didn't know that Jesus "created" anything. It was God, who in the beginning "created" and that has to carryout through the scriptures.

And thus, we recognize that the Word of God WAS God - and the Word of God became flesh. Jesus. Thus, if you do the math, Jesus = God.

I really don't understand why trinitarians are Christians while non-trinitarians aren't? We both believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners and God raised him from the dead so that we could walk in newness of life and become partakers of the divine nature. It doesn't seem right to me.

First of all, the son of every being we can point to is of the same nature as the father, correct? If your father was a frog, you are a frog. If you are a human, you are not a frog. If your father was God, you must share in that nature of divinity. While men are called 'sons of God', it is meant in an adoptive sense, since Jesus is called the ONLY Son of God. This is a big difference.

And thus, Christians believe that Jesus was God. Otherwise, what truly is the point of a man dying on the cross? If Jesus was just like us, a "son of God" in the same sense as you and me, HOW does that effect ME 2000 years later??? How does this person like you and me free us from sin, 2000 years later???

That is the core belief of Christians - that that Man's work was and is vital for all those who believe IN Him. Scripture is clear that we put our trust in God - and yet, Jesus tells us over and over to put our trust in HIM. If Jesus is not God, He was either a liar or deranged.

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

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!

Thank you for acknowledging your Bias. One of the first things to bring out when doing theology is one's bias.

However, before you come to such a conclusion that his statement is without scriptural backing, one ought not assume so quickly. At the least one should take 30 minutes and read at least Book 1.

On Christian Doctrine, in Four Books | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

That being said, I believe Augustines response to your above bias is stated in his preface,

To reply briefly to all these. To those who do not understand what is here set down, my answer is, that I am not to be blamed for their want of understanding. It is just as if they were anxious to see the new or the old moon, or some very obscure star, and I should point it out with my finger: if they had not sight enough to see even my finger, they would surely have no right to fly into a passion with me on that account. As for those who, even though they know and understand my directions, fail to penetrate the meaning of obscure passages in Scripture, they may stand for those who, in the case I have imagined, are just able to see my finger, but cannot see the stars at which it is pointed. And so both these classes had better give up blaming me, and pray instead that God would grant them the sight of their eyes. For though I can move my finger to point out an object, it is out of my power to open men's eyes that they may see either the fact that I am pointing, or the object at which I point.

While I do not agree with all that Augustine wrote on other subjects, I do understand how he came to his conclusions. Also, I do agree on his views in regard to the Trinity.

Grace and Peace.

 

[Asyncritus]

As I stated though, you are taking an all too narrow meaning of what John means by "Word." That John used logos has very significant meaning to the Greeks, much more significant than mere spoken words. Not to mention that there is no basis for understanding it to mean "God's words":

All this theorising about Greeks makes no sense whatsoever in finding out what John, a Jewish fisherman-writer, meant by logos.

He wasn't writing for Greeks. He was writing for his fellow Jews, and Greek philosophy and/or mythology meant nothing to him, and were anathema, with their accounts of the frolicking and evil of their gods.

Hardly a great recommendation for the beginning of a Jewish gospel!

He was writing to and for Jews, so that they would believe that Jesus was the Son of God - an expression whose meaning could not be understood properly by a non-Jew.

He was writing for people who were soaked in the Word of God from their childhood and would easily understand his allusions and references to the OT.

They all knew these great prophecies:

2 Sam 7.14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;

Ps 2.7 ¶ I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.

No Greek would do so.

I don’t think you have recognised the magnitude of the problems facing your interpretation of John 1: 1 -12

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NKJV)

The word 'the' is absent. It is in 'a' beginning. So which one?

No-one on the trinitarian side ever seems to bother asking 'which beginning' is he talking about? They just assume that its Gen 1.1.

It is obvious that he is alluding to Gen 1.1 - but why? Is he saying that Jesus was present at the creation of the world, and made it all?

It would be most irrational for someone writing for Jews to say such a thing. Why? Because they all knew their scriptures, and knew full well that God made the world.

If Jesus had made the world, Genesis would have said so quite clearly - it is too important a point to miss out - but it doesn't.

Therefore the allusions to creation are made because there is a New Creation going on here, and Christ is the Author and Perfecter of it. It is the spiritual creation that is being referred to here. And that is a provable statement.

He is the beginning of the creation of God. (Rev 3.14)

However you may understand that, it is clear that God created Jesus and put Him at the Head of the New Creation.

Proof:

We first note that only light and darkness are mentioned. No trees, animals, birds, planet - anything physical. Why not?

Because those things have no relevance to the message he is trying to get across. Light and darkness - anybody could see what that meant - and it wasn't literal light and literal darkness.

Similarly, Jesus is the light of the world. Nobody could possibly think that is a literal statement.

So why do you think that logos is a physical entity? In the spiritual context, it simply cannot be.

The word for "with" is the Greek word pros and speaks of intimate relationship.

That may be so, but I draw your attention to the fact that John the Baptist was in no less an 'intimate' situation - and you would be VERY hard pressed to maintain that he was literally in the position described:

There was a man sent from God = παρα θεου (para theou). Para means alongside, by the side of:

NAS:
παρα para; a prim. prep.; from beside, by the side of, by, beside:--

Now to assume that John the Baptist was also literally in heaven, at the side of God, is to be absurd.

No Jew would even dream of thinking so, and certainly neither John did either.

So consistency demands that pros ton theon be also regarded non-literally. We cannot be literal and non-literal by whim or doctrinal fancy.

The only safe way to find out what the phrase really means is not by consulting the theologians, but by examining how it is used in the NT, particularly in John’s writings. After all, he probably knew what he meant.

The first startling thing we notice, is that the predominant meaning of pros is to and unto. I’ve lost count of the number of times it is translated like that in the NT. If you have an Online Bible or similar, then it is really worth a look.

4314. προς pros; a prim. prep.; advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place):--

‘WITH’ is a completely misleading translation: because NOWHERE ELSE in John’s gospel, not even in the same chapter, is pros translated ‘WITH’.

Jn 1.29 ¶ On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!

42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him,

13.1 ¶ Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

14. 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

12 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

16.10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;


16 ¶ A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father

...then said some of his disciples among themselves[…] Because I go to the Father?

28 ¶ I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

20. 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

So I’m afraid your idea of ‘intimacy’ is somewhat misplaced and needs to be shelved immediately.

The rest of your post hinges on that meaning, which you can now see cannot be sustained.

 

[Former Christian]

Francisdesales

Terrific Trinity Scripture passages are proposed daily. Some are worth considering. Some aren’t. I’m only on this thread because I proposed a problem that I have with the Trinity. I’m searching for an answer to this problem, and you offered one worth considering. I’m thankful. But that’s as far as we can go.

I’m not Christian. I’m not Catholic. We in general don’t see things in the same light. What you believe makes sense to you. What I believe makes sense to me.

According to the doctrinal purists in Christianity, I‘m a Relativist. And they’re right. I’m growing daily in knowledge and understanding. Of the natural and the supernatural. What I presently believe is true, is true to me alone. I present it and let others do with it what they will. It’s rarely agreed with by Jews, Orthodox, Catholics, or Protestants. I ask questions about what others believe if I’ve a mind to. Each individual is unique in their beliefs. Even though they adhere to a particular Christian denomination that dictates a doctrinal purity centered in themselves. I’m tolerant of the beliefs of others because no one knows anything perfectly due to human limitations. Even if one happens to belong to a Christian denomination that believes it somehow has overcome human limitations. And I’m not just referring to Catholicism. I’ve learned not to argue about what I or others believe. It’s a waste of time and effort.

Since we can’t determine who’s truly a believer and who isn’t, I count the practice of closed communion in Christianity against fellow believers for any reason other than open sinful behavior, a practice of denominationalism. Which is why I count the claim of the Catholic Church to be the one true Church a false claim. It’s as much a denomination as are all denominations that practice closed communion based on doctrinal distinctions against those who they otherwise consider brethren.

The Lord’s Table is intended to be a participation in a unity and a redemption we already have. Jesus initiated the ritual knowing that the Apostles understood very little. What little unity they had was in the person of Christ, not in their doctrinal understanding, with the exception perhaps of Judas. Christianity, by its practice of closed communion, says possession is due to our understanding of doctrine, denominational doctrine. Which, of course, would make me an unbeliever, since my understanding of unity and redemption agrees with no known denomination.

The study of Christian history sometimes leads a person to espouse a particular denomination of Christianity. Jaroslav Pelikan converted from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy at the age of 75, due to his lifelong study of Christian history. The study of Christian history led me out of Christianity altogether. Because it revealed to me that the nature of Christianity is human rather than Divine.

I don’t need to believe in the Trinity to believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and the son of man; that he has both a Divine nature through the Holy Spirit and a created human nature through his mother Mary, that are united in the one person of Jesus Christ. That may seem like I believe in two Gods. But to my way of thinking it doesn’t. Any more than my believing that we being sharers of the Divine nature adds to the number of Gods.

You may think that you have a better understanding of God than I simply because you believe in the Trinity, and a better understanding of God than non-Catholics simply because you believe in the Catholic version of the Trinity. But none of us knows any more about God than what God has revealed about himself, in spite of all our explanations that lead us to think otherwise. And don’t be fooled into thinking that an adherence to an explanation of an organization makes it any less your own explanation.

The various versions of the Trinity are nothing more than attempts to understand God through the practice of Biblical interpretation, a practice of explanation. It’s thus philosophical more than theological. Because it comes from the mind of man, rather than from the mind of God. I seriously doubt that many would come up with a version of the Trinity if they hadn’t already been taught to believe it or to be against it. And the only reason a version of the Trinity was formulated in the first place was because some took issue in an extreme way with an extreme belief that excluded the possibility of Jesus having a Divine nature. Some three hundred years after the New Testament was written.

I agree with the claim of Scripture Alone that Protestants generally don’t even believe themselves in practicality, who would rather believe in their own Biblical interpretations than in what the Bible says for itself.

I oppose the practice of Biblical interpretation. Many have claimed that it’s not possible to understand the Bible apart from the practice of Biblical interpretation. And thus I practice Biblical interpretation myself, even if I deny it. The day I agree with that claim will be the day that I believe the Bible is nothing more than the writings of men. Because the practice of interpretation is only legitimate in relation to the writings of men who are absent or dead and can’t explain their writings in person. But until then, I will NOT consider the life of the Bible to be in the diversity of its interpreters, many of whom think of themselves as the only authoritative interpreter. I will continue to consider the life of the Bible to be God through the only legitimate Bible teacher Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. And it is God through Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit (Trinity or not) that I will continue to follow. Not any organization or man who thinks more of themselves than they ought.

Divine Revelation ended with the last letter written by John the Apostle, called today the Apocalypse or Revelation. The first century believers had the essence of what is now the New Testament in either oral or written form in it’s entirety before the end of the first century. The historical account of the authorization of the Bible in the latter fifth century was a removal of what wasn’t intended to be in the Bible through the providence of God. History reveals, rather than a development of doctrinal understanding, the increased practice of Biblical interpretation. Beginning before the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century where it first became most obviously expressed; to the present state of doctrinal diversity, that so clearly reveals the human, rather than Divine, nature of Christianity.

God has given Christianity up to its own diversity while continuing to care for those who have opened their eyes enough to see beyond Christian denominationalism. Have opened their ears enough to hear what the Spirit is saying to the ekklesia. Have opened their minds enough to be transformed by the renewing of their mind through the Holy Spirit.


“Trinity is an essential aspect of our faith, since it makes the Paschal Mystery of Jesus of Nazareth significant for me, 2000 years later. I would call this knowledge "central" to our understanding, wouldn't you???â€

No. I would call this knowledge central to your understanding and anyone who has the same understanding of the connection between the Trinity and the Paschal Mystery that you do.

Whatever Jesus teaches through the Bible is currently significant to me, not because it’s 2000 years later or 2000 years old. Rather because it’s significant to me today, and the reality it describes can be experienced today. The Bible has significance in every generation, not because of history or because it points to things that happened 2000 years ago. Rather because of its relationship to that which is its life, the eternal timeless God through Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. That’s what makes the Bible a timeless book. Apart from that connection, the Bible is just a writing of men that’s connected to human history. Those who interpret the Bible are in fact claiming that the Bible is the writing of men. And people like me believe that the Bible is the written word of God, in spite of the interpreters.

Simply remembering the Paschal Mystery, as many Protestants do, does not make the Paschal mystery significant, except to the memory, to the mind. It’s the current experience through the Holy Spirit of the Paschal Mystery in the Eucharist that makes it significant to more than just the mind. The human nature of Christianity, as expressed by its denominationalism, hinders that expression for Christians. Indeed, whether it can even be experienced in a denomination is open to question. Denominations, by their very nature, experience denominationalism. The Paschal Mystery is an experience that’s non-denominational. If it can be experienced in a denomination, it’s experienced in spite of the practice of closed communion, by any believer present in the ritual, whatever form the ritual may take.

The form of the ritual is important as a revelation of a particular experience. But even more important is the reality that can potentially be experienced in connection with the ritual through the Holy Spirit. A statement, or lack thereof, concerning a particular version of the Trinity, in no way affects the experience. No such statement was mentioned by Jesus when he initiated the ritual. But no doubt there are Trinitarians who can somehow interpret such a statement into that account.

FC

 

[John Zain]

Former Christian,

Have you ever had a "spiritual experience" of some kind when you just knew that
you had experienced God, God definitely was involved, etc.?

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

Doubting my salvation?

FC

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales

I’m only on this thread because I proposed a problem that I have with the Trinity. I’m searching for an answer to this problem, and you offered one worth considering. I’m thankful. But that’s as far as we can go.

Glad I was able to offer something worthy of considering.

According to the doctrinal purists in Christianity, I‘m a Relativist.

That's the problem with relativism. It all depends upon subjective "truths", rather than accepting objective truths that are not subject to our own personal opinions. In other words, everyone is right. To me, that doesn't make sense. But I understand its allure and popularity today - the modern culture that you told me earlier to avoid...!

Since we can’t determine who’s truly a believer and who isn’t, I count the practice of closed communion in Christianity against fellow believers for any reason other than open sinful behavior, a practice of denominationalism.

Than Paul was practising it, as well.

Which is why I count the claim of the Catholic Church to be the one true Church a false claim.

Based upon a faulty logical progression...

No one can have "the truth". Thus, any claims to the contrary are false.

IF the premise is false, the conclusion is false...

The Lord’s Table is intended to be a participation in a unity and a redemption we already have. Jesus initiated the ritual knowing that the Apostles understood very little. What little unity they had was in the person of Christ, not in their doctrinal understanding, with the exception perhaps of Judas. Christianity, by its practice of closed communion, says possession is due to our understanding of doctrine, denominational doctrine. Which, of course, would make me an unbeliever, since my understanding of unity and redemption agrees with no known denomination.

I don't think that things are so black and white in the eyes of God, nor in the Church's eyes. First, there are varying degrees of "unity". We are united by our one baptism, our one faith in Christ, but NOT completely, because we don't sit at the Eucharist of our Lord, WHo has deigned to share of HIMSELF with US! Now, some people refuse to believe. The Lord said it would be so. It is not our place to judge what God will do with them. But I don't think it is entirely negative, because we see the Spirit's work in many of these Christians who are not part of the visible Church.

The study of Christian history sometimes leads a person to espouse a particular denomination of Christianity. Jaroslav Pelikan converted from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy at the age of 75, due to his lifelong study of Christian history. The study of Christian history led me out of Christianity altogether. Because it revealed to me that the nature of Christianity is human rather than Divine.

I don't see how a study of Christianity could possibly lead anyone to Protestantism. I think Pelikan's conversion is typical, one becomes Catholic or Orthodox. I do not find the history of Christianity as a condemnation of the entire institution of Christianity. I see it as a failure of weak men.

I don’t need to believe in the Trinity to believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and the son of man;

The basis and background of 'Trinity' comes from consolidating the TWO seemingly contradictory ideas - that Jesus is God and that the Father is God, but certainly a different person than Jesus... There is no other acceptable scheme that answers all the Scriptural issues otherwise, esp. when we consider that the Spirit is not a force, but also a person - without becoming polytheism.

Any more than my believing that we being sharers of the Divine nature adds to the number of Gods.

You don't share in the Divine nature ontologically. You are not "the only Son of God", God by nature, begotten. You are adopted. You can't share in the totality of Divinity, only share in SOME aspects of it. And ALL creation shares in this at some level, since God IS being ITSELF. Thus, anything that exists and has being shares in some way in the Divine nature - existence...

None of us knows any more about God than what God has revealed about himself, in spite of all our explanations that lead us to think otherwise.

God has revealed Himself as a Triune God. Those who don't accept that have a poorer understanding of God. This doesn't mean that they will not be saved, as I mentioned already. But that understanding of God is lacking, since the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the individual in their relativistic subjective "truth".

I agree with the claim of Scripture Alone that Protestants generally don’t even believe themselves in practicality, who would rather believe in their own Biblical interpretations than in what the Bible says for itself.

It's a self-defeating proposition.

I oppose the practice of Biblical interpretation.

I am not sure what you mean by this...

I will continue to consider the life of the Bible to be God through the only legitimate Bible teacher Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. And it is God through Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit (Trinity or not) that I will continue to follow. Not any organization or man who thinks more of themselves than they ought.

Which is to be expected of a relativist. I don't have that problem, because I believe that God established a Church to guide us to truth. I believe truth can be known. It is a matter of looking to the Scriptural paradigm of "preachers, teachers, and apostles" given to the Church for a particular reason.

Divine Revelation ended with the last letter written by John the Apostle, called today the Apocalypse or Revelation. The first century believers had the essence of what is now the New Testament in either oral or written form in it’s entirety before the end of the first century.

Hindsight is 20-20. No one knew anything about the CONTENTS of the so-called NT. No one knew which books belonged or didn't belong. It was only a matter of lengthy practice and decisions of leaders led by God that established the Canon much later.

History reveals, rather than a development of doctrinal understanding, the increased practice of Biblical interpretation.

I don't see the "rather" there. I see doctrinal development AS the practice, in part, of interpretation of Scriptures (and Tradition and Liturgy and common life and practice...) If you read Pelikan, you would know that.

God has given Christianity up to its own diversity while continuing to care for those who have opened their eyes enough to see beyond Christian denominationalism. Have opened their ears enough to hear what the Spirit is saying to the ekklesia. Have opened their minds enough to be transformed by the renewing of their mind through the Holy Spirit.

I could have said the same thing, but we would probably mean different things by it. I agree that we ned to open our eyes and accept the diversity that is Church. The Catholic Church is very diverse, and even includes people who don't even realize that they are Catholic (in some sense), since they, too, were buried into the death of Christ by baptism.

Whatever Jesus teaches through the Bible is currently significant to me, not because it’s 2000 years later or 2000 years old. Rather because it’s significant to me today, and the reality it describes can be experienced today.

I don't think Christianity is primarily dealing with moral codes or "rules of a good life" that we can pick up like a self-help book. The Jews received a code, and they found they could not keep it. Only by having God present - Jesus Christ - in our hearts are we able to love as God loves, a self-giving love that brings us our of slavery that our culture tries to immerse us in. What Christians experience is Jesus Christ and a relationship with God, not a self-help book given to us from on high...

Simply remembering the Paschal Mystery, as many Protestants do, does not make the Paschal mystery significant, except to the memory, to the mind. It’s the current experience through the Holy Spirit of the Paschal Mystery in the Eucharist that makes it significant to more than just the mind.

Correct, when Jesus actually comes to us...

The human nature of Christianity, as expressed by its denominationalism, hinders that expression for Christians.

That is for them to consider. The fullness of the truth that God has given man is available.

The form of the ritual is important as a revelation of a particular experience..

You seem to have a better understanding on sacramentalism than most non-Catholics I meet. That is good. The ritual becomes more "alive" when we are aware of what is happening - hidden behind the signs. Thus, it IS important to have the knowledge of our faith to better experience Jesus in our lives and allow Him to transform us. Faith leads to understanding and understanding allows our faith to mature.

Regards

 

[teddy trueblood]

Free wrote:

“Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in
heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through
Him and forHim.â€

Emphasis added.


Patience answered:

I agree that in v14,15,18, etc. the subject is Jesus. In v16,17; I guess I
didn't know that Jesus "created" anything. It was God, who in the beginning
"created" and that has to carryout through the scriptures.

You have the right idea, Patience. The problem is the translation of the NT Greek word en (which Free and I don’t seem to be able to post).

You see, the word en (ev in Greek letters) is able to be honestly translated (depending on context) as ‘in,’ ‘by,’ ‘by means of,’ ‘through,’ etc. The KJV has rendered it as “by†in Col. 1:16. Many others use “in.†But it seems much better to render it here as “through†or “by means of.†This is because of (A.) your correct understanding of only the Father being the Creator ('Father' may be synonymous with “creator†in scriptural usage) and (B.) the context within the verse itself. Notice that the last sentence in 1:16 parallels the beginning words. So, since the last sentence has the actual Greek word for “through†(di’ or dia) and is correctly rendered as all things were created through him (as does John 1:3), we should render the en in the first part as ‘through’ also.

In other words the Father (YHWH) created all things through him.

The “all things†is also subject to different interpretations based on common usage, but that is another story.

 

[reba]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.