Jesus is God?... or not? When & how did you first find

[mutzrein]

This issue of the Trinity intrigues me. I have made it clear in other places that I am not a learned man. Apart from attending churches and the odd bible study I’ve never formally studied scripture, attended bible college or been subject to any form of doctrinal education.

Many within Christendom who hold to a particular belief (be what it may) seem to have been taught what certain things mean in scripture and how it (scripture) should be interpreted.

What interests me is this. On the issue of the trinity, were you taught it? Were you brought up to accept it? Were you told that belief in the trinity was necessary for salvation? Did you become a Christian and then find out about it? And other stuff like that if you don't mind sharing it.

I’d sure be interested to know how y’all came by the understanding of the trinity and when it happened. And for those who don’t adhere to the trinity, how and when was your belief formed?

Thanks

 

[gingercat]

When I accepted to become Christian I never knew I had to accept trinity. It is so strange.

I am from Okinawa Japan and I don't believe Okinawan Christians know anything about Trinity in over all.

According to American Christians, they are not Christians.

This is nothing but gimmick to ostracize Christians who don't know trinity.

 

[mutzrein]

Thankyou Ginger

Did you attend a church in Japan before moving to the US?

When did you first hear of the trinity?

Regards

 

[gingercat]

Thankyou Ginger

Did you attend a church in Japan before moving to the US?

When did you first hear of the trinity?

Regards

Actually, I don't remember. I have been Christian only for 7 years; I accepted Jesus in States.

I have been to my country a few times for evangelizing. In Okinawa, they are concentrating on been good Christians and don't study any particular theology like OSAS, predestination, trinity etc.

I have been studying the Bible directly from the Bible itself and have not studied Bible scholars' theologies.

I believe I am considered an ignorant Christian by churches' standard.

 

[Sothenes]

This issue of the Trinity intrigues me. I have made it clear in other places that I am not a learned man. Apart from attending churches and the odd bible study I’ve never formally studied scripture, attended bible college or been subject to any form of doctrinal education.

Many within Christendom who hold to a particular belief (be what it may) seem to have been taught what certain things mean in scripture and how it (scripture) should be interpreted.

What interests me is this. On the issue of the trinity, were you taught it? Were you brought up to accept it? Were you told that belief in the trinity was necessary for salvation? Did you become a Christian and then find out about it? And other stuff like that if you don't mind sharing it.

I’d sure be interested to know how y’all came by the understanding of the trinity and when it happened. And for those who don’t adhere to the trinity, how and when was your belief formed?

Thanks

I've been a Christian since October of 1980 which will be coming up making it 26 years for me. I spent three years prior to that just reading the Bible before I was a Christian which means that I read the Bible without any doctrinal comments and it is partly from my reading the Bible alone that I learned not to always trust men. I went a few times to an Episcopal church because my foster dad taught Sunday school there though it wasn't my choice in a church. What they did hand me was a booklet containing three of the creeds such as the Anathasian Creed, the Nicean Creed and the Apostle's creed because it was the church's position at the time to affirm the historic doctrines of the Christian faith.

I don't care where you go in America but the fact is that all Bible believing churches in Christianity and churches such as Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian (PCA and PCUSA), Calvary Chapel, Assemblies of God, Lutheran, etc., etc., etc, all believe in the Trinity. I could make an exhaustive list.

I use to be part of a fundamental message forum made up of different believers from different churches and they all held to the doctrine of the Trinity. No matter what online ministry that has any worth, they have a doctrinal statement and most doctrinal statements are telling of what they believe. They all believe in the authority of scripture, justification by faith, and the trinity. I believe scholars like Dr. Walter Martin who basically said that this is the historic Christian faith and it is in the Bible. I have "The Creeds of Christiandom" and I would wager that the majority of Bible believing churches believed in the trinity and the above essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith. Go to carm.org or watchman.org or equip.org and their doctrinal statements all affirm the trinity. The minority position is from Arias (fourth century) and it is a heresy invented after the departure of the apostles and if you group the church as a whole (believers and unbelievers) the minority position would be that a scattered minority do not believe in the Trinity.

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

God's is lower case and plural in Deuteronomy 18:20. The only way for the Father (God), Jesus and the Holy Spirit to all be God would be if they are one (Deuteronomy 6:4): "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:" and that requires Jesus to be God or I have to disregard any New Testament because the verses below mention God in relation to different persons:

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him (Jesus), My Lord and my God.

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?

Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

There you have it. They are either three Gods or the three Gods are one. If there are three Gods then I have to reject it in light of Deuteronomy 18 or I have to conclude that they are one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4) and that Jesus is God.

Any person can read and see that both the Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are called "God" in these verses. If I asked people if "God" is contained there, an honest person would have to say,"Yes".

If you lived in only a horizontal dimension, you could only see a triangle on the floor. If you added a dimension as to hight, you could see two triangles. How could they possibly be one triangle? If you looked at the triangle from above which is a third dimension, you would see a cone and that they were connected.

If you want me to believe that Jesus is not God then I would have to reject your scriptures because the Father is called God, Jesus is called God and the Holy Spirit is called God and Deuteronomy 18 says to reject the plurality of Gods which leaves anyone into a dilemma as to accept that Jesus is God or reject the scriptures.

Arguments looking at the different persons inside the Trinity and calling them separate are only recognizing that there are distinct persons and wasting my time by them trying to prove that God is not Jesus by the three persons in the Trinity being separate and distinct.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t10.html
Anyone who studies Dr. Robert Bowman's Doctrine of the Trinity will see that he has over 800 Bible verses cited on the doctrine.

http://www.waltermartin.org/articles.html#doctrine

http://www.answers.org/theology/trinity_biblical.html

http://answers.org/theology/i_believe_the_creeds.html

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm

http://www.watchman.org/jw/answers.htm

 

[Georges]

Re: Jesus is God?... or not? When & how did you first f

This issue of the Trinity intrigues me. I have made it clear in other places that I am not a learned man. Apart from attending churches and the odd bible study I’ve never formally studied scripture, attended bible college or been subject to any form of doctrinal education.

Many within Christendom who hold to a particular belief (be what it may) seem to have been taught what certain things mean in scripture and how it (scripture) should be interpreted.

What interests me is this. On the issue of the trinity, were you taught it? Were you brought up to accept it?

Myself, as a born and bred Lutheran, I was taught the trinity as early as I can remember....actually, I was never taught anything other than there is a trinity and if I didn't believe it I was going to hell....so for 40 years I've accepted it as "that's the way it is"...

Were you told that belief in the trinity was necessary for salvation?

Yes....it was heavily implied.

Did you become a Christian and then find out about it? And other stuff like that if you don't mind sharing it.

I've always believed in God ever since I can remember...I still do more strongly than ever....I just don't accept the classical definition of the trinity.

I’d sure be interested to know how y’all came by the understanding of the trinity and when it happened. And for those who don’t adhere to the trinity, how and when was your belief formed?

My change from being a trinitarian to becoming a monotheist came from my first love of learning Bible prophecy....10 years of that lead me to the Jewish roots of Christianity and a questioning of just about all of the Protestant doctrines I have come to learn over my trinitarian life. Probably conclusively the deciding factor was after I read a document called
"The Great Debate"...From the website.....www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/Library/Doctrine/Trinity/Debate/TGD1.pdf

It is a document of a set of questions (in Chart form) asked to 4 Groups of Christians (Trinitarian, Arian, Oneness, Unitarian)....It involve each Group aswering questions on the deity of Christ, the HS etc....very interesting to read.....I would suggest everyone read it...just to see for example, if the Trinitarian answers agree with yours (if you are a trinitarian).

While reading the responses, (each group compared to each other), I found myself remembering that I was taught as the "trinitarian representative" had answered, but found myself agreeing with the "Arian rep" on almost every question posed.

Also, the document, goes almost verse by verse and covers every conceivable Trinitarian verse in the OT and NT. Each group gives their interpretation of these verses....

It is a very interesting read.



Thanks

 

[thessalonian]

Monkeys cannot beget kittens. Fish do not beget birds, lizards do not beget turtles, yet God's only begotten son is a human? We do know that he is Son of Man by his birth through Mary. But he is also God's only begotten son. Eternally begotten.

 

[AHIMSA]

Now I personally do not find the deity of Jesus to be so clear, besides a few obscure passages, particualarly in the Gospel of John, I think it's difficult to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was God.

Firstly, Jesus' claim to be the son of God:
There are other biblical figures that were considered to be the son of God. If you look in the gospel of Mark, some copies even record that Jesus was "a son of God", which is an important distinction between "the Son of God".

Secondly, there is Jesus' claim to be "The Son of Man". This has prophetic connotations as Ezekiel was always refered to as "The Son of Man". More importantly is the prophecy of the Son of Man in the book of Daniel, where "there was one like a son of man, he approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence" Daniel 7:13

While the Son of Man is worshipped, it is clear that he is not God, for he approached the Ancient of Days and is led into his presence. What this suggests is that Jesus was claiming himself to be the Prophet of Prophets, a grade above the other biblical heroes, one so close to God that he was led into his presence and given great authority and even worshipped. You may say that worshipping the Son of Man is heresy to Judaism, and thus by implication, he must be God to be consistent with Jewish beliefs.But this is not neccessarliy true. Before the Temple was destroyed there were many ideas about what Judiasm meant, and thus scholars often speak of "judaisms", the religion was not completely unified until after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, when all hints of paganism and alien influences were eliminated. It is this Judaism that rejects the book of Daniel as part of the Bible.

I think we can see, from the Bible, that Jesus is clearly one through whom God is experienced, a vessel of God's presence, just like the Temple or the Ark. It is not the Temple or the Ark itself that is worshipped, yet they are revered as sacred and holy, they kneel at the sight of it, and they worship God through it. Which I think is a very consistent metaphor for Christ.
He is described as the image of God, or his representation on earth, but this does not imply godhood. It is a careful distinction and the Bible always stops short of calling him God. Having him constantly praying, crying to God when he feels abandonded.

For example, Jesus forgives sins. Many say this is a mark of his godhood, yet when the passage is read carefully, after Jesus forgives the man's sins the people praise God "who had given such authority to men". Jesus later gives this same authority to his disciples, yet no one thinks of them as being God.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him (Jesus), My Lord and my God.

Yet we must note that Thomas says my Lord and my God, not neccessarliy calling Jesus God, but again, seeing God through Jesus.

Any strong evidence for the godhood of Jesus is found in John, with "the Word was with God and the Word was God" and Jesus saying "Before Abraham was, I am". Again, there is no direct claim to divinity, as the Word could have found itself incarnated in Jesus, or Jesus could have empited his self so that he recieved the Word fully, thus becoming God's perfect image. We simply can not say exactly what the author of John was thinking. All we know is that the revolutionary claim of Jesus= God, or the Second Per son in the Trinity, is never actually made in the Bible.

Yet, when studying scripture and the development of the Bible, this presents a problem. As the Gospel of John was written between 90 and 120 CE, the final gospel, one certainly would wonder why it is that the other three gospels fail to make any such claims about his godhood, especially considering the importance of that doctrine in modern day Christianity. What this suggests is that the idea of Christ's godhood was a development, not something originally held, but that begins to express itself by the time the gospel of John was written. Christ's godhood comes to fruitation only centuries after his death, when he is eventually declared to be of the very subsatance of God in the 4th century after his birth.

 

[thessalonian]

Christ's godhood comes to fruitation only centuries after his death, when he is eventually declared to be of the very subsatance of God in the 4th century after his birth.

Ever heard of Irenaus or Ignatius? Apparently not. Your history is off.

What do you suppose is the significance of Jesus being "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD" vs. us being adopted sons of God?

 

[ChristineES]

Although I first learned the Trinity from a Baptist member of a church, I discovered that Jesus was God while reading The Bible for myself. I won't repeat the verses that convinced me, as I have posted them before. As I have stated many times before, I am not here to convince those of you who don't believe Jesus is God, but rather to tell what I believe and why I believe it. That is all I can do. :-D

 

[AHIMSA]

I will look into Ignatius, but the point is that neither of the first three gospels make any real implication that Jesus is God, that was an idea that did not begin to emege until the Gospel of John. (Which, as I can see, is around the time of Ignatius)

 

[thessalonian]

I will look into Ignatius, but the point is that neither of the first three gospels make any real implication that Jesus is God, that was an idea that did not begin to emege until the Gospel of John. (Which, as I can see, is around the time of Ignatius)

Ignatius actually knew John according to historical records. If your looking for explicit unquestionable statements then your probably right about the first three. But then people on this board have found ways to question the obvious one in John that you speak of as well. If they don't want to believe, they won't and Jesus could have said I AM GOD (I am wasn't good enough) and they still wouldn't believe it.

 

[thessalonian]

Here is a link with quotes and references.

http://www.letusreason.org/Trin1.htm.


Clement of Rome is also quoted. He was alive at the time of the apostles as well and is said to be the Clement mentioned in scripture.

 

[AHIMSA]

The link wouldn't work. There is also the question of forgeries surrounding some of the documents ascribed to Ignatius, while no doubt, many of them are authentic.

The problem with the Gospel of John is that it is what we might call a "spiritual gospel".In many instances, it has little concern for what historically transpired. In the modern day, most scholars recognize that John did not author this gospel himself. It was clearly written by an educated Greek, or possibly several writers or even a community of people, that may or may not have had links to the Apostle John himself. I am inclined to say that they did not unless John was privy to knowledge that the other gospel writers themsevles did not have. Considering the significane of Jesus' divinity in widespread Christianity in the modern day, it seems very peculiar that Matthew, Mark or Luke did not record any of the astounding sayings that are recorded in the Gospel of John, which puts forth many statements that are foundational to today's orthodox interpretations. Ideas such as Jesus being "the Word", his various "I am statements" such as "I am the Way the Truth and the Life" and "I am the Bread that was sent down from heaven". Only the most orthodox Christian scholars today will actually ascribe those sayings to the historical Jesus himself. What the author(s) of John were doing was to place, what were considered by him and others to be spiritual truths, into the mouth of Jesus.

We can observe the "ascension" of Jesus into divinity by looking at the gospels themselves:

the Gospel of Mark 65-70: Jesus becomes a son of God during his baptism by John, just before his ministry.
the Gospel of Matthew80-90: adds the virgin birth story (the first time this appears in the early church). Here Jesus becomes the son of God at birth (thus Jesus appears to be very aware of his mission by the time he is baptized, where as no such thing is known at his baptism in Mark)
The Gospel of Luke (a shortime after Matthew): Makes additions and remoulds the birth narratives.
The Gospel of John 90-120: Jesus is the son of God before time began. (which is why the birth narrative is ommitted)

Its a clear evolution of theology.

 

[mutzrein]

Thankyou Sothenes

I appreciate your response and will check out the links you have posted. Looks like quite a bit to wade through. :

 

[mutzrein]

Thankyou Georges

Most revealing for me to hear of one who has walked a similar path. Of course I don't have the same understanding of the Jewish roots you mention but to know the things that I have had revealed to me are actually supported by what you have said in some of your posts on the topic, have encouraged me greatly.

 

[mutzrein]

Monkeys cannot beget kittens. Fish do not beget birds, lizards do not beget turtles, yet God's only begotten son is a human? We do know that he is Son of Man by his birth through Mary. But he is also God's only begotten son. Eternally begotten.

Thankyou Thess. I'm at a bit of a loss to know what you are getting at here.

What I do know is that I am born of God. As scripture says, "Spirit gives birth to spirit."

 

[mutzrein]

Thankyou AHIMSA

You make some interesting points, especially about differentiations between the gospels. Actually as a non-trinitarian I don't see any inconsistencies in what is spoken of in John.

Nevertheless may I ask how you arrived at your conclusions. Were you brought up to believe these things in a family or 'church' environment or have you come to your own conclusions without these influences.

 

[Imagican]

Monkeys cannot beget kittens. Fish do not beget birds, lizards do not beget turtles, yet God's only begotten son is a human? We do know that he is Son of Man by his birth through Mary. But he is also God's only begotten son. Eternally begotten.

And Thess, I agree with what you have offered ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. For Christ WAS begotten BEFORE He took on flesh. Christ existed BEFORE man. Christ was instrumental in the CREATION of man for man was created FOR Christ. But his still does NOT two 'Gods' make. Christ IS the SON of God and this we KNOW without doubt. The SON of God does NOT mean God the Son. I know I know, in 'trinitarianism' it DOES mean this. But according to scripture it doesn't.

If God empowers the Son to have 'the same' power AS God, this STILL doesn't make the Son God. Just as Moses was empowered by God to DO certain things, this didn't make Moses God. Jesus Christ even tells us that the words that He brought to us were NOT His own, but 'GIVEN' Him by the Father. He states that His power was GIVEN Him by the Father. And He states that He DID the Father's WILL, NOT HIS OWN.

If these are NOT prime indications that Jesus and God ARE NOT THE SAME, I don't know what it will take for others to understand. YES, because Jesus COMPLETELY submitted to the Will of God, they ARE ONE. Just as we are told that WE TOO can be the Sons of God. If we utterly submit to the Father, then we too are capable of becoming the Sons of God. But, becoming Sons is simply being an heir to the Father, it does not make US the Father. We would certainly then become ONE with the Father, but we would NOT BE the Father.

Look folks, I have a mother, a father, and a brother. Each of us is a complete individual. BUT we are ALL a part of the SAME Family. Father, Son, Mother, Brother. In essence we are ONE family. But, this does NOT make us all the SAME. I believe that it is NO different with the Family of God. Those that are members of His Family are ONE in purpose. Yet there are still individuals as members of the ONE BODY.

Let me back up for a second. Mutz, I was saved for well over a year before I was accosted by 'trinitarians' who INSISTED that I MUST accept 'trinity' or I had NO salvation. I had at this time developed quite a relationship with the Father through the Son, therefore I was totally confused about this 'trinity' thing. I started to study and through this study, I learned what 'trinity' IS. I KNOW the Father, through His Son and I have experienced FIRST HAND the Spirit, but I know NO 'trinity' and I KNOW what 'trinity' is and where it came from and, I believe I know why.

I trust in the simplicity that IS Jesus Christ and I know ONLY ONE GOD.

 

[Vic C.]

Being born into an Italian, RC family, I was taught it. For a while though, I abandoned it for a more Binitarian belief. As I got back into Bible studies several years ago, I took a look at it again and believe and accept there is a Triune God. Many who don't quite grasp the depth of this doctrime still insist it is a polytheistic belief. It is not; trinitarians are monothestic. A deep study of Deuteronomy 6:4 sealed it for me.

http://dianedew.com/godhead.htm

excerpt from "THE GODHEAD":

Copyright © 1976, 1977 by Diane S. Dew

I. The doctrine of the Trinity (or, Godhead) – attacked by cults (such as the Watchtower Society,
or Jehovah's Witnesses) so that they can also deny the deity of Jesus – is one of the most basic
fundamentals of Christianity.

A. Although the word "trinity" is not in the Bible, the concept of the three-in-one, the triune
God, is. The term "Godhead," referring to the three-in-one, can be found in Acts 17:29
and Colossians 2:9. (Many other words or concepts "not in the Bible" are scriptural
nonetheless: i.e., theology, Bible, etc.)

B. The doctrine of the Godhead can be summed up in the literal Hebrew translation of one verse.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our Gods (plural) is Jehovah a unity."


II. The concept of the Godhead (Trinity) is evident in scripture as early as the first chapter of the
book of Genesis.

A. The Hebrew word Elohim (translated "God" in Genesis 1:1) actually indicates more than
one divine personality. This same plural form is used over 2,500 times in the Old Testament.

B. In the account of creation recorded in the book of Genesis God speaks plurally of His
own Person.

Genesis 1:26, 27 (See also Genesis 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:3, 8.) "Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness ... So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him."