Doctrine of the Trinity – Is it Fundamental to the Christian Faith

[chessman]

So at some point 'He' came into being. Because God said, "and also henceforth I am 'He'."

At which point was there a different Savior besides God?

Isaiah 43:11-13 I myself am Yahweh, and there is no savior besides me! I myself declared and saved, and I proclaimed. And there was no strange god among you. And you are my witnesses,” declares Yahweh, “and I am God. Indeed, from this day I am the one, and no one can deliver from my hand. I perform, and who can cancel it?”​

Luke 2:10-11 And the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring good news to you of great joy which will be for all the people: that today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, was born for you in the city of David.​

Don't be afraid to call Christ the Lord God and Savior!

 

[MarkT]

At which point was there a different Savior besides God?

Isaiah 43:11-13 I myself am Yahweh, and there is no savior besides me! I myself declared and saved, and I proclaimed. And there was no strange god among you. And you are my witnesses,” declares Yahweh, “and I am God. Indeed, from this day I am the one, and no one can deliver from my hand. I perform, and who can cancel it?”​

Luke 2:10-11 And the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring good news to you of great joy which will be for all the people: that today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, was born for you in the city of David.​

Don't be afraid to call Christ the Lord God and Savior!

At no point.

God is our God and our Saviour through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm saying God was God and also He. The He in this case is the person of the Son. He left God and became flesh. You can say God was the Son, but you can't say the Son was God. Saying the Son was God makes Jesus God instead of the Son of God. God, the Father, begat the Son. The Son did not beget the Father.

 

[Free]

At no point.

God is our God and our Saviour through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm saying God was God and also He. The He in this case is the person of the Son. He left God and became flesh. You can say God was the Son, but you can't say the Son was God. Saying the Son was God makes Jesus God instead of the Son of God. God, the Father, begat the Son. The Son did not beget the Father.

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but God is not the Father, God is not the Son, and God is not the Holy Spirit.

John 1:1 disagrees with you: "Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (ESV)

 

[Runner]

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but God is not the Father, God is not the Son, and God is not the Holy Spirit.

John 1:1 disagrees with you: "Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (ESV)

Just for the record, God's "Word" and God's "Wisdom" are two attributes of God, along with others, that are personified in the OT. The early proponents of the Trinity focused much more on OT passages - including some really unlikely OT passages - than do Trinitarians today. Their approach to biblical hermeneutics was quite different from the modern one. They were fairly quick to identify the Word with the Son and Wisdom with the Holy Spirit.

John's gospel is by far the most Hellenistic (Greek) in its perspective. The Logos (Word) had a well-understood meaning for both Greek and Jewish readers and listeners. A really thorough discussion can be found here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html ("John is using a word which was already full of meaning for Jewish readers in his day. When he asserts that the logos became flesh he is indeed saying something that was never dreamt of by Philo or the Greek philosophers; but in all other respects it is their logos — the cosmic Mediator between God and the world, who is the personification of God's Truth and Wisdom — that John is referring to when he asserts that Christ is its incarnation").

Yes, John 1:1 is a seemingly Trinitarian verse. But it is a mistake to simply read verses such as this in English and blithely conclude "There you go, Jesus is God and the Second Person of the Trinity." I am continually struck by how many of the really divisive doctrines - the ones that divide Christians and that are most offensive to non-Christians - have their origin or at least their greatest support in the distinctly curious, albeit beloved, Gospel of John and Revelation.

 

[chessman]

Just for the record, God's "Word" and God's "Wisdom" are two attributes of God

According to Irenaeus (a Greek speaker from birth) taught by Polycarp and may have very well met John the Apostle as a child, John was speaking of the 2nd person (the Word, the Son), not an 'attribute':

"Chapter XVIII.-God the Father and His Word Have Formed All Created Things (Which They Use) by Their Own Power and Wisdom ..."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book5.html​

 

[Runner]

According to Irenaeus (a Greek speaker from birth) taught by Polycarp and may have very well met John the Apostle as a child, John was speaking of the 2nd person (the Word, the Son), not an 'attribute':

"Chapter XVIII.-God the Father and His Word Have Formed All Created Things (Which They Use) by Their Own Power and Wisdom ..."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book5.html​

I wasn't suggesting that the Gospel of John is using the term Word in the sense of a mere "attribute" of God. I was pointing out that the road to the Trinity was paved by the personification of God's "word" and God's "wisdom" in the OT. Those who, well after the Gospel of John was written, first formulated the doctrine of Trinity, found justification in the OT verses about God's "word" and God's "wisdom." (There are several references to God's "word" in the Psalms.) Of course the author of the Gospel of John is referring to Jesus - no one disputes that. The point is that, when you understand the Hellenistic influences on the gospel, and the way the term Logos would have been understood by Greeks and Jews of the time, John 1:1 does not inevitably lead to the Trinity.

 

[MarkT]

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but God is not the Father, God is not the Son, and God is not the Holy Spirit.

John 1:1 disagrees with you: "Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (ESV)

Yeah. In the beginning the Word was God. Jesus was begotten (according to the LORD's decree) 2000 years ago. The Word has a much longer existence; He goes back to the beginning; the first act of Creation. Proverbs 8:22-36 The workman. "When he marked out the foundation of the earth, there I was beside him, like a master workman." Pr. 8:30

God was the architect. The Word did the work. So in effect the Word was God.

 

[Free]

The Word has a much longer existence; He goes back to the beginning; the first act of Creation.

On the contrary, not only does the Greek grammar of John 1:1 tell us that in the beginning, the Word was already in existence, verse 3 contradicts any notion that the Word was created.

God was the architect. The Word did the work. So in effect the Word was God.

John is not saying that "in effect the Word was God," John is emphatically saying, "the Word was God," in the full sense of what it means to be God. That is supported by the grammar and what is stated in verse 3.

 

[Free]

Just for the record, God's "Word" and God's "Wisdom" are two attributes of God, along with others, that are personified in the OT. The early proponents of the Trinity focused much more on OT passages - including some really unlikely OT passages - than do Trinitarians today. Their approach to biblical hermeneutics was quite different from the modern one. They were fairly quick to identify the Word with the Son and Wisdom with the Holy Spirit.

If the Word is merely an attribute of God, how does it make sense to say that it "was with God" and "was God"? How is identifying the Word with the Son any different than what modern Trinitarians are doing? It is precisely the same: the Word is the eternally pre-existent Son, who became the Son Incarnate.

 

[Randy]

Yeah. In the beginning the Word was God. Jesus was begotten (according to the LORD's decree) 2000 years ago. The Word has a much longer existence; He goes back to the beginning; the first act of Creation. Proverbs 8:22-36 The workman. "When he marked out the foundation of the earth, there I was beside him, like a master workman." Pr. 8:30

God was the architect. The Word did the work. So in effect the Word was God.

About The SON Hebrews 1:10 - JESUS THE SON WAS BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN, THE FIRSTBORN
He also says, "In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

1John 1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

 

[MarkT]

On the contrary, not only does the Greek grammar of John 1:1 tell us that in the beginning, the Word was already in existence, verse 3 contradicts any notion that the Word was created.


John is not saying that "in effect the Word was God," John is emphatically saying, "the Word was God," in the full sense of what it means to be God. That is supported by the grammar and what is stated in verse 3.

The Word was spoken by God. That's what John is saying. The Word came into being. John speaks of the beginning, not before the beginning, to suggest the Word already existed, but rather when he came to be. ie. in the beginning. The beginning of God's Creation is the beginning.

I say in effect because he was the hand of God, the power and the glory.

 

[MarkT]

About The SON Hebrews 1:10 - JESUS THE SON WAS BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN, THE FIRSTBORN
He also says, "In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

1John 1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

He was the first born of all creation, the first born of many brethren. Ro. 8:29

The light was created before the world, so I don't disagree. Except to say the term, 'first born' refers to those who are born of the flesh and the Spirit. Jesus was the first born of all creation.

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;

 

[Runner]

If the Word is merely an attribute of God, how does it make sense to say that it "was with God" and "was God"? How is identifying the Word with the Son any different than what modern Trinitarians are doing? It is precisely the same: the Word is the eternally pre-existent Son, who became the Son Incarnate.

See my post #526. I was simply making a point as to how early Trinitarians used the OT to find a way to argue that a Trinitarian view was not inconsistent with a monotheistic understanding of God - the monotheistic God of Judaism had always had His "word" (Son) and "wisdom" (Holy Spirit). This is a strained interpretation of the OT passages, but it gave them a foundation. I was not suggesting that the Word as used in John is referring to a mere attribute of God. John's reference to the Word clearly identified Jesus as the preexistent Word, but when you understand what this concept meant to the Greeks and Jews it does not necessarily follow that by "was God" John meant "was the Second Person of a Trinity." This was read back into it after the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated: "See, John recognized Jesus was God just like we do."

 

[Randy]

He was the first born of all creation, the first born of many brethren. Ro. 8:29

The light was created before the world, so I don't disagree. Except to say the term, 'first born' refers to those who are born of the flesh and the Spirit. Jesus was the first born of all creation.

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;

Setting that aside HE was with God in the beginning as the scripture states. I think Jesus was before All things .First

 

[chessman]

when you understand what this concept meant to the Greeks and Jews it does not necessarily follow that by "was God" John meant "was the Second Person of a Trinity." This was read back into it after the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated

Again, Ireneaus, a Greek disciple of Polycarp (a disciple of John, a Jew) knew exactly what John meant by "the Word". Same thing as the Trinity means:

And to these things does John also, the disciple of the Lord, bear witness, when he speaks thus in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." And then he said of the Word Himself: "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. To His own things He came, and His own people received Him not. However, as many as did receive Him, to these gave He power to become the sons of God, to those that believe in His name." And again, showing the dispensation with regard to His human nature, John said: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

since He is the Word of God, and very man, communicating with invisible beings after the manner of the intellect, and appointing a law observable to the outward senses, that all things should continue each in its own order; and He reigns manifestly over things visible and pertaining to men; and brings in just judgment and worthy upon all; as David also, clearly pointing to this, says, "Our God shall openly come, and will not keep silence."​

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book5.html​

 

[chessman]

HE was with God in the beginning as the scripture states.

Do you think He was equal with God?

 

[Randy]

Do you think He was equal with God?

Jesus is ALL that the father is yet at the same time He is God firstborn. I think the divinity or fullness of the godhead or diety that dwells in Jesus is the FATHER. AS I have stated before Jesus the Son has His own spirit. AND the Son that was (his spirit) was in the tent of the body God prepared for him. AS Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.

SINCE the fullness of the diety dwells in the Son Jesus is equal in that context. BUT clearly the One who gave that fullness (Jesus's and our God) is the greater.

So yes and no (smile)

 

[Randy]

Jesus- context the living bread that came down from above.
Jesus=Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

John the baptist testifies to the difference between the teaching of man and Jesus John 3:31 NIV
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

 

[chessman]

clearly the One who gave that fullness (Jesus's and our God) is the greater.

When did the Father give the Word His fullness? (not Jesus but the Word that was with God in the beginning)

 

[Randy]

When did the Father give the Word His fullness? (not Jesus but the Word that was with God in the beginning)

First of all Jesus is a living being or person not a word. MY assumption would be at Jesus's beginning at some point in history before the world began. John is testifying about Jesus. Just as the writer of hebrews is testifying about Jesus (about the son)
THE FATHER HAS ALWAYS BEEN JESUS'S GOD AS JESUS IS HIS FIRSTBORN
Hebrews 1:9NIV
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Hebrews 1:6 And gain when God brings the firstborn into the world he states let all Gods angels bow to him