How can the Trinity be monotheistic?

[Imagican]

Paidion,

Wow, you are certainly a wise and astute observer of The Word. And not ONLY The Word, but rife with knowledge and understanding of the history of Christianity as well. You are certainly to be commended in your ability to offer such to others. We are Blessed to have such a one among us.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Paidion]

Thank you for the encouragement, MEC

I wouldn't say he was an expression exactly.

One can say that Christ was an expression of the Father or deny it. That does not alter the fact that, John 1 affirms that He was the expression of the Father. For "expression" is the primary meaning of the Greek word "logos". Though some translators use "word" as the translation, such a translation is more limited. Nevertheless, when you give a "word" in church, you are expressing yourself. By being born as a human being and dwelling among us, Jesus Christ expressed the Father to the world.

 

[Free]

But how could His name be "the Word of God"?That is not a name but a position or a title. Could it be said that George Bush's name is "the President of the United States"? When you see Jesus, you might say, "I am so happy to see you, Lord Jesus!" But would you say, "I am so happy to see you, the Word of God!" I think the sentence in Rev 19:13 should be translated, "His title shall be called "The Word of God".

On what basis do you think that "the sentence in Rev 19:13 should be translated,'His title shall be called 'The Word of God'"? There is no Scriptural basis for this; not once is onoma translated as "title". Your analogy also falls short since "President" is obviously a title and your are presuming that "the Word of God" is a title and not a name. On what what basis do you make this presumption?

Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

Should verse 12 also read "title"? What about the other 175 times it is rendered "name"?

The Greek word "onomos" doesn't mean only "name". It actually can refer to a title or a position. We read in I Peter 4:16

...if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.

If a person suffers as a Christian, that does not mean that "Christian" becomes his name? No. "Christian" is what he is, his position, or his religious profession.

In context:

1Pe 4:14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.
1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.
1Pe 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

We see that "let him glorify God in that name" refers back to verse 14--the name of Christ.

Also, you can't be certain that "Jesus raised Himself from the dead" just because He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He may have been prophesying, with the Father speaking through Him in the first person. Almost every other scripture that addresses the matter states that it is the Father who raised Him from the dead, or says simply that "He was raised" (which suggests that another raised Him). There are a few cases which say, "He arose", but that doesn't mean that He raised Himself any more than I thess 4:16 which states that the the dead in Christ shall rise, means that they shall raise themselves.

And so you have missed or ignored or dismissed the obvious.

"He may have been prophesying, with the Father speaking through Him in the first person." Pure conjecture which either makes Jesus a liar or God a deceiver.

One can say that Christ was an expression of the Father or deny it. That does not alter the fact that, John 1 affirms that He was the expression of the Father. For "expression" is the primary meaning of the Greek word "logos". Though some translators use "word" as the translation, such a translation is more limited. Nevertheless, when you give a "word" in church, you are expressing yourself. By being born as a human being and dwelling among us, Jesus Christ expressed the Father to the world.

Context, context, context. Context is extremely important.

 

[kenan]

OK, I think I have it. Our One God Yahweh is incorporal and indivisible, and the "Trinity" is basically what we call the different roles of God and the ways he interacts with us as humans (?). Is this pretty much the Trinity in a nutshell?

 

[Imagican]

Hebrews 10:

[7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
[9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
[10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
[11] And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
[12] But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
[13] From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

If Christ WERE God, then wouldn't the words above have read;' to do MY will' instead of 'thy will'? And once again, And how does God Himself sit down at the right Hand of God Himself?

Hebrews 9:

[14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

I believe that through this ONE STATEMENT we have a summation of the relationship that couldn't be any clearer. That the 'oneness' refered to over and over again throughout the Bible is in reference to 'one' in Spirit. The scritpure above PLAINLY offers that Christ OFFERED HIMSELF to GOD. It makes NO indication that God offered Himself to Himself.

This shows TWO distinct entities. Call them 'persons' or whatever you like. But TWO distinct individual entities. This is NOT two in ONE. This is TWO period. And it does NOT say that Christ IS 'the right hand of God', it specifically states that Christ SITS at the 'right hand of God'. There is NO way that 'trinity' can reconcile these distinctions. One is forced to talk around and around in circles in order to try and use 'trinity' to define what is offered.

Monotheism is belief in ONE God. That leaves no room for creating more than one. There is Father, who IS God, and there is Son. This is plainly offered throughout scripture. The Son plainly offered that the Father is GREATER than He. So, that leaves us with only two possible understandings: Either the Son is a 'lesser God' of some sort or The Son is simply 'The Son of God'. The first cannot be for there to BE Monotheism. For regardless of the place each God holds, for there to be two, then there is NOT 'only one'. That leaves God and Son.

And how hard is it to understand that God is able to have a Son that is NOT God Himself? That IF God so chose, then sin could be forgiven in ANY way that He deemed fit?

Folks, Christ was/IS the representative of God usward. No doubt about that. But an ambassador does NOT have to BE the incarnation of the one who sends Him.

About 'The Word'. Now, of all the names that Christ could have been given, isn't it OBVIOUS that the name 'Word' was given for a SPECIFIC purpose? And that this purpose is offered plainly through the words of Christ HImself. For Christ offered that the words that He offered were NOT HIS OWN, but given Him BY THE FATHER. So there's the explanation of the use of the word 'Word' as title. For Christ was sent to offer us what God wished for us to HEAR. Christ did NOT simply come to die for our sins. He came also to instruct us as to the existence and nature of God. And this Christ did through Word. How often can we see God manifest in the words offered by Christ? And how long had man been devoid of this information BEFORE God sent His Son to give it to us?

If God is three persons, what place do WE hold in this 'trinity'? For we TOO have been told that WE TOO are able to BE the 'sons of God'. That WE TOO are able to be ONE with God through Christ. So, what part does the FOURTH entity play in a 'trinity'? For we TOO are able to BE the 'children of God'. As God and Christ are ONE so TOO are we able to be ONE with Christ.

And isn't it obvious through the study of ancient and pagan religions that these too had 'multi gods' and gods that were a multiplicity of entities all in the SAME god? Gods with sixteen arms, gods with multiple heads, and gods with multi personalities. But we were introduced NOT to some 'man-made' mystical being that is a creation of OUR imagination. But we have been introduced THROUGH Christ to the ONE AND ONLY 'true God and creator'. And we have been introduced to HIS family; Father and Son. And these two ARE one in Spirit and purpose. But that does NOT make 'more than one God'.

Why do you suppose that there were so many willing to go to their deaths rather than accept a 'triune God'? Why do you suppose that so many were willing to suffer for the sake of a continuation of belief in ONE God? And why do you suppose that the first Christians made NO images of God OR His Son? The truth is NOT always an easy thing to discern or follow. ESPECIALLY when those that oppose such are the ones that weild the power to destroy those that refuse to FOLLOW THEM.

At the time that 'trinity' was introduced, there was NOT unanimous agreement with it. What REASON do we have to assume that the ones that won out in the dispute were the ones that were RIGHT? For the apostles told us to accept NO doctrine that they themselves did NOT offer. And they NEVER offered 'trinity'. At the time that this concept was debated there were those that placed their whole reputation at stake in order to deny this 'trinity'. And how often have we witnessed the wisdom of this world winning out OVER truth? It's like that 'golden rule': He who owns the gold MAKES the rules'. And truth is rarely the basis for ANY rules made by men.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[kenan]

^how do you mean that Christ is the "Son of God"? Is he a "son" like the rest of us? If so, why is it he was chosen to be the sacrifice for our sins? And doesn't it say that he is to be worshiped? Isn't that more polytheistic than believing in the trinity?

 

[Imagican]

^how do you mean that Christ is the "Son of God"? Is he a "son" like the rest of us? If so, why is it he was chosen to be the sacrifice for our sins? And doesn't it say that he is to be worshiped? Isn't that more polytheistic than believing in the trinity?

Kenan.

Christ is the ONLY begotten Son of God. That does not mean that we are unable to share in this 'Sonship'. In the words of Christ Himself: We too are able to BE 'one' with Christ. He was chosen because He was ABLE to be chosen. As WE were created FOR Christ, so too is the indication that Christ WAS 'created' FOR God.

We were NEVER told that we are UNABLE to worship other than God. We are simply NOT to worship ANYTHING but God AS God. While MOST have simply accepted the definition offered by the churches concerning worship, we ACTUALLY worship that which we ADORE. The difference is that we have been commanded BY God NOT to worship ANYTHING but God AS God. Christ is DEFINITELY worthy of our worship.

It's ONLY polytheistic IF we 'create' ANOTHER God and worship IT. That would be TWO Gods'. Yet 'trinity' doesn't even stop here, it goes on to create a THIRD God in the Spirit. Now I ask; why would God be so confusing as to His identity? What purpose could it have served to HIDE His identity for five thousand years and then to ONLY reveal it HUNDrEDS of years AFTER the death of His Son? And not EVEN by those chosen to TEACH of Him to mankind, but to Gentiles that have argued over such questions ever since?

Seems awfully suspicious that Jesus CAME and taught us of His Father. Taught us of His love and how we are to behave. But left this ALL important concept of 'trinity' a complete blank. NEVER once mentioning that there are actually THREE Gods in ONE. And, when we couple this suspicion with the FACT that the apostles WARNED us that there would come those that would alter what we were taught by Christ and His apostles, it becomes apparent 'what trinity' IS. We were specifically WARNED not to accept ANY doctrines that we were NOT taught by THEM. So, I guess to some these words are without meaning.

We worship that which we COVET. That is the plain and simple truth of 'worship'. What it IS and what it is SUPPOSE to be are two different things. We are SUPPOSE to covet that which is RIGHTEOUS. The problem arises when we begin to covet that which we simply have LUSTS for that is NOT righteous. Whether that be money, sex, drugs, power, things that belong to OTHERS, or even OTHER gods. And without an understanding of this MOST are doomed to live with an utter lack of understanding of WHAT 'worship' IS. And without understanding, doomed to worship that which is UNSEEMLY without even being able to understand what it is that they do unrighteously.

kenan,

I have no idea what your understanding is concerning the 'creation' of 'trinity'. If you are unaware of HOW it came to be. Do yourself a favor. Before allowing others to simply 'tell' you what you should believe, do a brief study of WHO and WHY 'trinity' was created and then make your decision of what you will believe. A brief study of the different denominations will plainly show that people are liable to 'make up' what ever they 'choose' to follow. And this has NO bearing on truth. and HOW are we to please God EXCEPT through the following of that which IS truth?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

and before one starts condemning the words that I have offered:

Rom.1
[3] Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
1 cor 15
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Gal.4
[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Phil.2
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Heb.1
[4] Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb.2
[7] Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
[9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
[17] Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Heb.5
[5] So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
[9] And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Heb.7
[3] Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
[16] Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
[20] And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
[22] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
[26] For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

These are NOT 'my words'. These are words offered through scripture and though one could SAY that they are offered out of context, all it takes is a brief attempt to follow these scritptures to SEE that the context IS concerning 'creation'.

So, regardless of what A particular church decided to believe and teach, the words are about as clear as they can be. But, in order to 'create' a God of their own, those that insisted that Christ could NOT have been created and BE God, they simply chose to introduce the concept that He was NOT a 'created being'. Even going against the very words in the Book that they themselves compiled and translated.

And note that some of these words use the word MADE and Begotten in the SAME sentence.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[cyberjosh]

OK, I think I have it. Our One God Yahweh is incorporal and indivisible, and the "Trinity" is basically what we call the different roles of God and the ways he interacts with us as humans (?). Is this pretty much the Trinity in a nutshell?

No, in fact that is not the concept of the Trinity. That sounds more like the heresy called 'modalism', which says there is one God but he manifests himself in three different persons/ways at different times (saying that God has three "modes" of being - which is an incorrect understanding of God). The Trinity says the three persons in the Godhead (very important term/concept in Romans 1:20 - which speaks of the Trinity) have always been (simultaneously) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - each being God but have distinctive roles and personalities.

Traditionally the term Godhead has been an important one in understanding the divine nature of God in the Trinity. Here is what wikipedia has to say on it, although a better discussion could be had on it (wikipedia isn't the best source):

The term "Godhead"

The term Godhead is a term denoting deity or divinity. Though often used interchangeably with the concept of Trinity, the two are not synonymous as Godhead simply means deity or divinity.[1]

The term is only used by some English translations (e.g. the King James Bible) in three passages:

* in Acts 17:29 it stands for the Greek word: θεῖον theion, an adjective meaning "divinity, deity"[2]
* in Romans 1:20 it stands for the Greek word θειÃ΀η theiotÄ“s, a noun meaning "divinity, divine nature"[3]
* in Colossians 2:9 it stands for the Greek word θεÃ΀ηÄο theotÄ“tos, a noun meaning "deity"[4]

The nature of the Godhead is defined differently among different Christian denominations. In most branches of Christianity, including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Protestantism, trinitarianism prevails and the Godhead is viewed as the Holy Trinity, and so the word Godhead is often used interchangeably with Trinity.

Contrasting views of the Godhead include the version of tritheism accepted by some denominations of Mormonism, the unitarianism of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Monotheistic Modalism of the Oneness Pentecostals, the Binitarianism of some Seventh day Church of God groups, the Dualism of Gnosticism, and various other nontrinitarian views of denominations such as the Church of Christ, Scientist, the Unification Church, and Unitarian Universalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_%28Christianity%29

However, see a much better treatment of it here: NET Bible - Godhead.

I recommend reading it all, it explains why the word "Godhead" was used, but a relevant section is stated here:

In this usage the word has long held the rank of a technical term, e.g. the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 1571, Art. I: "And in the unity of this Godhead, there be three persons" (compare the Irish Articles of 1615, and the Westminster Confession, II, 3); Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 6: "There are three persons in the Godhead." Pursuant to the fading of the qualitative sense of the word, there has arisen a tendency, when the qualitative consciousness is vivid, to revive the obsolescent "Godhood," to take its place; and this tendency naturally shows itself especially when the contrast with humanity is expressed.

If you have any questions please ask.

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." (Acts 17:29)

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Romans 1:20)

"For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9)


God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

OK, I think I have it. Our One God Yahweh is incorporal and indivisible, and the "Trinity" is basically what we call the different roles of God and the ways he interacts with us as humans (?). Is this pretty much the Trinity in a nutshell?

Kenan, that is Modalism or sometimes called, Sabellianism. Modalism denies co-existence within the triunity. It is similar to the "Jesus only" beliefs of the Oneness Pentecostals.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sabellianis ... anism.html

http://www.carm.org/oneness.htm

However, Oneness has Jesus praying to Himself and denying a simultaneous existence of three in one violates this passage for sure:

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

We have the Father, the Spirit of God and the Son at the same time.

 

[cyberjosh]

Another thing kenan. In Revelation 4:5 & 5:6 it talks about the "seven spirits of God" when we of course know that God has only one Spirit: Ruach HaQodesh - The Holy Spirit ("There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling" - Ephesians 4:4). This passage is refering to Isaiah 11:2 which speaks of the different aspects of the person of the Holy Spirit, yet we must understand that while the Holy Spirit is one He has seven distinct ministries and ways in which He manifests - meaning how He ministers to (serves) people. But even this is not modalism, because the Holy Spirit is all these things simultaneously, He just reveals them as the need of the person requires.

Now this terminiology and idea of different ways of "ministering" is a slightly different matter from what I have told you about God being comprised of three distinct persons, however the point of understanding multiplicity within unity is the key idea, or perhaps "multifacetedness" (thus distinct - yet unified, like a diamond with many facets) is a better word. Else you must discount Revelation as being true about the Holy Spirit. The same goes for the Church who is the Body of Christ, we are many members but only one Body by the Spirit. Now God's Being and Nature transcends that analogy, but the basic idea is the same. Admittedly a difficult idea to wrap your head around, and a mystery in itself, but nonetheless is the picture that the Bible gives us: Three in One - Multiplicity within Unity.

You said that you are a Christian, so I hope that you truly believe what the Bible says.

And remember this, there are many aspects of God's character:

"God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by diverse portions [times] and in diverse manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; " (Hebrews 1:1-2)

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[MarkT]

The New Testament was written in Greek entirely with capital letters! Every letter in the early Greek manuscripts was a capitalized letter. If you are referring to the capitalization of "Word" in Revelation 19:13, this was done, of course, by translators who took the verse to mean that "the Word of God" was Christ's name. But how could His name be "the Word of God"?That is not a name but a position or a title. Could it be said that George Bush's name is "the President of the United States"? When you see Jesus, you might say, "I am so happy to see you, Lord Jesus!" But would you say, "I am so happy to see you, the Word of God!" I think the sentence in Rev 19:13 should be translated, "His title shall be called "The Word of God".

He is called the Word of God because that's what he is.

 

[MarkT]

In all I'd have to say Christ is much more than just an expression.

That may be so. But don't downplay the fact that He is the expression of God. If Jesus hadn't expressed God to us, we would not know what God is really like. Jesus was compassionate, and so we know that God is compassionate. Jesus was the exact expression of [God's] essence. [Hebrews 1:3]. He was so similar to His Father that He said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
Wow! How well our Lord Jesus expressed His Father to the world.

Jesus also expressed himself. For example, he expressed his anger when he threw out the money changers.

He said, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone'. Mr. 10:18 Of course that was his teaching, and it came from God. But the teaching is true. What was God saying? Wasn't Jesus good? Nope. Not compared to God. This is something to bear in mind, for when he returns, he will smite the nations, and tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. Rev. 19:15

He said, 'I proceeded and came forth from God.' John 8:42 and 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' John 20:17 This is what he said about himself.

Jesus expressed his sorrow, 'my soul is very sorrowful', and going a little further, he fell on his face and prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me' Mt. 26:38

Jesus was like the Father, but like he said, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.' John 13:16 And 'a servant is not above his master', and 'It is enough for the servant to be like his master' Mt. 10:25

 

[MarkT]

One can say that Christ was an expression of the Father or deny it.

If you want to use the word, 'expression', then you must say he was 'the' expression. He wasn't just any expression. The Word was the Light. Jesus said, 'Abraham saw my Day'. Again it was his teaching, but it came from God. So what was God teaching? What do we learn from the Father? We learn that Abraham saw his 'Light'. His Son was the Light.

The word, 'expression' doesn't say much. People express themselves in word and song and dance and music and poetry and art. Jesus was 'the' Word; the light that was with God in the beginning.

That does not alter the fact that, John 1 affirms that He was the expression of the Father. For "expression" is the primary meaning of the Greek word "logos".

Where do you get that?

Though some translators use "word" as the translation, such a translation is more limited. Nevertheless, when you give a "word" in church, you are expressing yourself. By being born as a human being and dwelling among us, Jesus Christ expressed the Father to the world.

As long as you can keep 'the' Word in mind. I don't know what you mean by limited. By expressing yourself, do you mean your thoughts? I agree we can see who people are by their words, if they are truthful. I'd say your words come from you, and if they come from you, then they do tell us about you. In that sense, I agree. We can see the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son by what the Son said about the Father and by what the Father said about the Son. The Word originated with God.

 

[MarkT]

Hebrews 10:

[7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
[9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
[10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
[11] And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
[12] But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
[13] From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

If Christ WERE God, then wouldn't the words above have read;' to do MY will' instead of 'thy will'? And once again, And how does God Himself sit down at the right Hand of God Himself?

Hebrews 9:

[14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

I believe that through this ONE STATEMENT we have a summation of the relationship that couldn't be any clearer. That the 'oneness' refered to over and over again throughout the Bible is in reference to 'one' in Spirit. The scritpure above PLAINLY offers that Christ OFFERED HIMSELF to GOD. It makes NO indication that God offered Himself to Himself.

This shows TWO distinct entities. Call them 'persons' or whatever you like. But TWO distinct individual entities. This is NOT two in ONE. This is TWO period. And it does NOT say that Christ IS 'the right hand of God', it specifically states that Christ SITS at the 'right hand of God'. There is NO way that 'trinity' can reconcile these distinctions. One is forced to talk around and around in circles in order to try and use 'trinity' to define what is offered.

Monotheism is belief in ONE God. That leaves no room for creating more than one. There is Father, who IS God, and there is Son. This is plainly offered throughout scripture. The Son plainly offered that the Father is GREATER than He. So, that leaves us with only two possible understandings: Either the Son is a 'lesser God' of some sort or The Son is simply 'The Son of God'. The first cannot be for there to BE Monotheism. For regardless of the place each God holds, for there to be two, then there is NOT 'only one'. That leaves God and Son.

And how hard is it to understand that God is able to have a Son that is NOT God Himself? That IF God so chose, then sin could be forgiven in ANY way that He deemed fit?

Folks, Christ was/IS the representative of God usward. No doubt about that. But an ambassador does NOT have to BE the incarnation of the one who sends Him.

About 'The Word'. Now, of all the names that Christ could have been given, isn't it OBVIOUS that the name 'Word' was given for a SPECIFIC purpose? And that this purpose is offered plainly through the words of Christ HImself. For Christ offered that the words that He offered were NOT HIS OWN, but given Him BY THE FATHER. So there's the explanation of the use of the word 'Word' as title. For Christ was sent to offer us what God wished for us to HEAR. Christ did NOT simply come to die for our sins. He came also to instruct us as to the existence and nature of God. And this Christ did through Word. How often can we see God manifest in the words offered by Christ? And how long had man been devoid of this information BEFORE God sent His Son to give it to us?

If God is three persons, what place do WE hold in this 'trinity'? For we TOO have been told that WE TOO are able to BE the 'sons of God'. That WE TOO are able to be ONE with God through Christ. So, what part does the FOURTH entity play in a 'trinity'? For we TOO are able to BE the 'children of God'. As God and Christ are ONE so TOO are we able to be ONE with Christ.

And isn't it obvious through the study of ancient and pagan religions that these too had 'multi gods' and gods that were a multiplicity of entities all in the SAME god? Gods with sixteen arms, gods with multiple heads, and gods with multi personalities. But we were introduced NOT to some 'man-made' mystical being that is a creation of OUR imagination. But we have been introduced THROUGH Christ to the ONE AND ONLY 'true God and creator'. And we have been introduced to HIS family; Father and Son. And these two ARE one in Spirit and purpose. But that does NOT make 'more than one God'.

Why do you suppose that there were so many willing to go to their deaths rather than accept a 'triune God'? Why do you suppose that so many were willing to suffer for the sake of a continuation of belief in ONE God? And why do you suppose that the first Christians made NO images of God OR His Son? The truth is NOT always an easy thing to discern or follow. ESPECIALLY when those that oppose such are the ones that weild the power to destroy those that refuse to FOLLOW THEM.

At the time that 'trinity' was introduced, there was NOT unanimous agreement with it. What REASON do we have to assume that the ones that won out in the dispute were the ones that were RIGHT? For the apostles told us to accept NO doctrine that they themselves did NOT offer. And they NEVER offered 'trinity'. At the time that this concept was debated there were those that placed their whole reputation at stake in order to deny this 'trinity'. And how often have we witnessed the wisdom of this world winning out OVER truth? It's like that 'golden rule': He who owns the gold MAKES the rules'. And truth is rarely the basis for ANY rules made by men.

Blessings,

MEC

Good one Imagican! I see we are coming to some similar thinking. I was about to ask them how they fit into the equation, being persons, and sons, and fellow heirs with Christ. That's not to say they could not be in the 'person' of Christ. That would make sense. So I thought better of it. My only disagreement with the Trinity is that they made it a doctrine of the church, and that being said, it doesn't allow for any further growth in the knowledge of God. Except in the light of this doctrine, I suppose, but then if the light in them is darkness .... And besides that, if they don't understand their own doctrine, then how easy will it be for the birds of the air to snatch it away.

There is the danger that the branches will wither without the water that comes from God. But they don't thirst for the words of God. They have the Pope.

I don't know if it should come as a big surprise, but I see some of our brothers do have an excellent understanding of many things despite what we might see as an inferior doctrine. They make images of people. But I can't argue with God if he lets them believe.

 

[kenan]

OK here's where I stand: I believe there is a lot of evidence for a trinity in the Bible, but the fact is that however you describe the trinity, it is and will always be a 3 in 1 being, which is just polytheism in a thinly veiled disguise.

So, to me there are two options: in both of these, God is completely whole and singular, which is the definition of monotheism. 1. The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the names for the forms of God that He has revealed to us, or 2. Jesus was a sinless human whom God chose to be the sacrifice for our sins, and God has elevated Him to his right side, but he is NOT God and, although it is said that prayers should be said in his name and that the only way to God is through Him, he does not merit worship because even Jesus said to worship God in heaven alone. The Holy Spirit is just that, the Holy Spirit of God, not a separate 'person'.

I think the second option is more feasible because the 'modalism' idea does have holes, such as Jesus praying to God (and in effect praying to himself) (I also believe this is a hole in the Trinity, because Jesus is praying to the Father, who is God, and Jesus is also God, so again he is praying to Himself).

 

[MarkT]

This is the way I see it. The Word was God in spirit because he originated in God (as did we). He was set up and brought forth to carry out God's plan. He had glory with God in the beginning. He was with God in the beginning. In life he was like God. In death he was like us. He was raised in his glorified body. He obtained the name of God. He became God. As the heir, he inherited the throne. We see the Father and the Son on the throne. Not one or the other, but both; not the Son alone or the Father alone.

 

[Paidion]

Where do you get that? [that "expression" is the primary meaning of "logos"]

You might say that I get it by osmosis from years of studying Greek, and from the context of the word in the New Testament and other Greek writings.

However, if you want a lexical witness, consider Abott-Smiths Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. When you look up the word "logos" in this lexicon, you find first of all:

I. Of that by which the inward thought is expressed, Lat. oratio, sermo, vox, verbum

Under Roman Numeral "I", you then have six sub-definitions. Here they are, but references, etc. given only in the first:

1. a word, not in the grammatical sense of a mere name (epos, onoma, hrÄÂma) but a word as embodying a conception or idea; Mt 8:8, Lk 7:7, I Cor 14:9,19, Heb 12:19, al.

2. a saying, statement, declaration

3. speech, discourse

4. subject-matter

5. a story, tale, narrative

6. that which is spoken of

A second main definition is given as:

II. Of the inward thought itself:

1. reason

Besides being the expression of God, it is also interesting to think of the Son of God as the very "logic" of God. Indeed, the English word "logic" has come from the Greek "logos".

It is interesting that the expression "logos of God" is also used with reference to the gospel. Our Lord Himself used it in his parable of the sower and the seed (Luke 8:11). Throughout the book of Acts, the expression "logos of God" is used in reference to the gospel.

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the chief expression of God. Possibly the gospel comes next as an expression of God, in the sense that it is the main logos which God wishes to bring to us other than His Son Himself.

 

[Free]

but the fact is that however you describe the trinity, it is and will always be a 3 in 1 being, which is just polytheism in a thinly veiled disguise.

Actually, no.

So, to me there are two options: in both of these, God is completely whole and singular, which is the definition of monotheism.

Not really. Monotheism simply means "one God", which trinitarianism adheres to.

Jesus was a sinless human whom God chose to be the sacrifice for our sins

A couple of major problems with this:

1. It would follow that if anyone else lived a sinless life, they wouldn't need the death of Christ.
2. It ignores the verses which clearly state that Jesus existed prior to his earthly existence.

although it is said that prayers should be said in his name and that the only way to God is through Him, he does not merit worship because even Jesus said to worship God in heaven alone.

Several times Jesus is worshiped in the NT.

(I also believe this is a hole in the Trinity, because Jesus is praying to the Father, who is God, and Jesus is also God, so again he is praying to Himself).

That is a problem of modalism alone. In trinitarianism, the Son prays to the Father, not himself.

My only disagreement with the Trinity is that they made it a doctrine of the church, and that being said, it doesn't allow for any further growth in the knowledge of God.

Either God is a Trinity or he is not. If he is and the Church is correct, then there is no further growth required in that particular aspect. But that does not in any way stop any other growth in the knowledge of God. And of course, your argument presupposes that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't correct, so that cannot be your only disagreement with it.

He became God.

Two major problems with this:

1. No creature can ever become God.
2. This would lead to polytheism for Christianity (while Judaism would remain monotheistic).

 

[Paidion]

This is the way I see it. The Word was God in spirit because he originated in God (as did we). He was set up and brought forth to carry out God's plan. He had glory with God in the beginning. He was with God in the beginning. In life he was like God. In death he was like us. He was raised in his glorified body. He obtained the name of God. He became God. As the heir, he inherited the throne. We see the Father and the Son on the throne. Not one or the other, but both; not the Son alone or the Father alone.

I think we need to make sure we know what we mean when we use the word "God". Mark, you might know exactly what you mean. But it is not clear to us readers. You seem to be using the word several times as meaning "the Father". This is consistent with the scriptures. For very often in the New Testament, the word "God" refers to the Father alone. But you must be using it in a different sense when you say, "He [the Logos] became God." I am sure you don't mean that He became the Father.

Here is the way I see it.
1. There is only one "true God", namely the Father. Here is what Jesus said in His prayer:

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." John 17:3 ESV

In this statement, Jesus not only calls His Father "the only true God", but by use of the conjunction "and", He refers to Himself as someone other than "the only true God".

Here are some more scriptures which indicate that there is One God, and that Jesus is something other than that One God:

... yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
1Corinthians 8:6 ESV

... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:5,6 ESV

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ...

At this point, some will say, "Ah... Paidion does not believe in the deity of Christ." Oh, but I do! I affirm that, the Father is the one true God, and yet Jesus His Son is also Deity. Did you notice I used capitals in reference to the Son? How can the Son be divine if there is only one God? I am not a Trinitarian, so what is my position? Am I a Binitarian? A Binitarian believes that the Father and the Son constitute the One God. A Binitarian is really a Trinitarian with a missing member. No, I am not a Binitarian. Then what is left? I must be a Unitarian. But all the Unitarians I've ever heard of deny the Deity of Christ. Only in the sense that I believe that the Father is the only true God (as Jesus Himself believed) could one call me a Unitarian. I think I take the position of the early church.

I believe, like the early Christians, that the first act of God was the begetting of His Son. And with that event time began. I have a very simple view of time. It is simply a measurement of events taking place. So perhaps I am wrong. Possibly it took the second event, whatever it was, to mark the beginning of time. In any case, there was no time before the begetting of the Son. Indeed, there was no "before". It is a contradiction to say that an event took place before the beginning of time. For is that were true, then "the beginning of time" was not the beginning of time.

Justin Martyr compared the begetting of the Son with the lighting of a small fire from a big one. In this analogy, the big fire represents the Father, and the small one represents the Son. In lighting the small fire, the large one doesn't lose anything or become less in any way. Both fires are of the same substance. Hebrews 1:3 says this about the Son:

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature Hebrews 1:3 ESV

So if the Son is the exact imprint of the essence of the Father, He must consist of the same "stuff", namely Deity. And that is exactly what John 1:1 tells us:

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the logos was Deity.

I realize that the word "theos" is used both for "God" (in my translation) and for "Deity". If both are translated as "God", we have confusion. For if "God" meant "the Father" in both cases, it would be a contradiction for the Logos both to be with the Father, and also to be the Father.
Also, the Greek bears out the fact that this was not John's meaning. For there is an article immediately before the first"theos", indicating that the Father is meant. There is no definite article immediately before the second "theos". Those who prepared "New World Translation" of the JWs realized this and translated the sentence as "The word was with God, and the word was a god." If that had been John's intention, then the sentence would have been in natural order. But it is not. The word "theos" comes before "ÄÂn"[was]. That construction in Greek means that "God" [or "Deity"] is the kind of thing the Logos was. The same order is used in the sentence "God is love." The Greek word for "love" comes before the word for "is". That indicates that "love" is the kind of thing God is.

Dogs beget dogs, and their offspring are canine. Cats beget cats, and their offspring are feline. Man begets man, and his offspring are human. God begets God and His offspring is divine. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Indeed in John 1:18, He is called "the only begotten God in two different early Greek manuscripts (middle of the second century and late second century).

Jesus said to His disciples, that He and the Father would come and make their dwelling with them.
You and I can exist only in one place at a time. But Jesus and His Father can extend their spirit to any place in the Universe, and especially in the hearts and minds of the faithful. The very Persons of the Father and the Son within us is the Holy Spirit. Notice that the Lord Jesus is said to be the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:18. Jesus was Another exactly like His Father, and so Jesus was able to say, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Both Jesus and His Father share the same spirit. They also both share the name "Yahweh". Genesis 19:24 speaks of two, each of whom is called "Yahweh" ---- One on earth and One in heaven. The One on earth, who spoke with Abraham rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah from the One in heaven.

In summary, my position is that there is one true God, the Father, and one Son of God, who is of the same essence as the Father, and therefore Deity, and one Spirit, not a third divine Person, but the very Persons of the Father and the Son, the extension of their Persons within Christ's true disciples.