My take on Trinity

[GodsGrace]

So Thomas was a fool when he said "My Lord and my God"? Why would Jesus just stand there and let him commit blasphemy? Angels never let people continue bowing to them or worshipping them. Why did Jesus allow it?

Many refer back to the OT to explain Christian concepts and doctrine.
This is done very often by the reformed believers also.
I've been concentrating more on the NT lately (years) because God has revealed Himself gradually and I do believe the final and ultimate revelation is in Jesus..

So, yes, I think you've offered a very simple yet very strong reply to the other poster.

 

[CherubRam]

So Thomas was a fool when he said "My Lord and my God"? Why would Jesus just stand there and let him commit blasphemy? Angels never let people continue bowing to them or worshipping them. Why did Jesus allow it?

The Hebrews were using the term elohiym which means "god-s of "The Living One," but the translators of the bible used the term "God." In Christ day the English word "God" did not exist. Yahwah is Elohiym, "God of the living ones," and the people of God are elohiym, (gods of "The Living One.")

The people of Israel were expecting a elohiym for Heaven to visit them. Christ was not asked if he was God, he was asked if he was a elohiym.
John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” ("because you, a mere man, claim to be elohiym.")

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

[d]
Psalm 82:6
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ (elohiym)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

OK I know what you mean now.
The real question, then, is what does PERSON mean in relation to the Trinity.

God Father is not a man, but He is a Person.
God Son was a man, but He is still a Person.
God Holy Spirit is a Person.

There is only One Being.
This One Being consists of 3 Persons.

Each Person has His own qualities and job to do.

If you care to, you could confirm this and in the meantime I'll try to find some links.

Why is God not a man but a person? The Trinity is God, God's manifestation TO his people (Jesus) and God's manifestation IN his people (the Holy Spirit), that's the relation" in the trinity. An inconvenient fact is, the term "manifest" or "reveal" is frequently used in the bible, at least in the NKJV. I pointed it out before that this is more about preferred semantics and identity politics than theology.

 

[Free]

"Person" clearly wouldn't work, as you said.

Yes, in those two particular contexts, as I said. But it works best in defining the three distinct, eternal, coequal, divine persons within the Trinity.

I don't see what we're arguing about since you acknowledge Jesus as God in human flesh.

As long as we agree that Jesus is God the Son in human flesh, who is distinct from the Father.

 

[Free]

Why is God not a man but a person?

Because, as I stated, the use of the English word "person" is the best we have to describe each of the three hypostases in the Trinity.

The Trinity is God, God's manifestation TO his people (Jesus) and God's manifestation IN his people (the Holy Spirit), that's the relation" in the trinity. An inconvenient fact is, the term "manifest" or "reveal" is frequently used in the bible, at least in the NKJV. I pointed it out before that this is more about preferred semantics and identity politics than theology.

Not really. The relation in the Trinity is ontological--the Father begets the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both (or just the Father, depending on who you ask). That is, there was never a "time" prior to creation (including the creation of time), that the Trinity did not exist. God has always existed as three persons, not just after creation, as your statement implies.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why is God not a man but a person? The Trinity is God, God's manifestation TO his people (Jesus) and God's manifestation IN his people (the Holy Spirit), that's the relation" in the trinity. An inconvenient fact is, the term "manifest" or "reveal" is frequently used in the bible, at least in the NKJV. I pointed it out before that this is more about preferred semantics and identity politics than theology.

Hi Carry Your Name
The word PERSON creates some problems for understanding the Trinity.
I'm wondering if I shouldn't start a thread on this.
I'll tag you in. It might be a good idea.

 

[GodsGrace]

Because, as I stated, the use of the English word "person" is the best we have to describe each of the three hypostases in the Trinity.


Not really. The relation in the Trinity is ontological--the Father begets the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both (or just the Father, depending on who you ask). That is, there was never a "time" prior to creation (including the creation of time), that the Trinity did not exist. God has always existed as three persons, not just after creation, as your statement implies.

Maybe it's because some understand PERSON to mean HUMAN.

 

[Free]

Maybe it's because some understand PERSON to mean HUMAN.

Yes, the two are equated because that is our experience. Being in physical bodies necessarily means that "person" means and individual "human;" but God is spirit, he is immaterial, so we cannot simply equate the two terms.

 

[daninthelionsden]

The Hebrews were using the term elohiym which means "god-s of "The Living One," but the translators of the bible used the term "God." In Christ day the English word "God" did not exist. Yahwah is Elohiym, "God of the living ones," and the people of God are elohiym, (gods of "The Living One.")

The people of Israel were expecting a elohiym for Heaven to visit them. Christ was not asked if he was God, he was asked if he was a elohiym.
John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” ("because you, a mere man, claim to be elohiym.")

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

[d]
Psalm 82:6
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ (elohiym)

This still does not address Thomas nor Christ's response......

 

[tigger 2]

So Thomas was a fool when he said "My Lord and my God"? Why would Jesus just stand there and let him commit blasphemy? Angels never let people continue bowing to them or worshipping them. Why did Jesus allow it?

...........................................
Apparently you have not carefully read all of posts #2 and #3 above (or simply don't understand them).

 

[daninthelionsden]

...........................................
Apparently you have not carefully read all of posts #2 and #3 above (or simply don't understand them).

Welllll.....for a simpleton like myself, it would seem that while you and CherubRam appear quite learned in the languages, you seem unable/unwilling to address the specific exchange between Thomas and Jesus. My simple mind only sees your verbal eloquence as a possible smokescreen to avoid a direct question with a direct answer. Why did Thomas worship/confess Jesus as Lord/God and why did Jesus let him do so???????? Does the Greek usage here of Lord/God blow your little battleship out the water?

 

[tigger 2]

MY God (part 1)

Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same person you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (not, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God”).

Notice that the reason given for Thomas to “be believing” is that he can see Jesus’ hands and their wounds. Likewise, after Thomas says “My Lord and my God,” Jesus reaffirms that Thomas now believes (as did the other disciples after seeing - Jn.20:20) that Jesus has been resurrected (not that he is God) “because you have seen me” (:29).

Certainly Jesus wouldn’t mean, “you believe I am God because you can see me.” Instead, this is proof that Jesus, Thomas, John, and the other disciples did not believe Jesus was equally God with the Father! How? Because John himself has made it manifestly clear that “no one [no human] has ever seen God” - 1 John 4:12, RSV. (See the SF study; also OMN 3-5.)

“For the NT God is utterly invisible (Jn. 6:46; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Col. 1:15). ‘God does not become visible; He is revealed,’ ... yet the resurrection narratives especially stress that the risen Christ is visible.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 518, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

Therefore, since no man has ever directly seen God (who is the Father only - John 5:37, 6:46; 17:1, 3) but men have only indirectly “seen” God through representations such as visions, dreams, etc., Jesus is saying: “Believe I have been resurrected and that I am obviously not God because you see me directly (and even touch me so you can be sure I’m not a vision or an indirect representation).”

What about the rest of the context? (1) As noted before, Thomas did not bow down, worship, etc. upon learning that it was really Jesus and saying 'my lord and my god.' He could not have just discovered that he was in the presence of God and acted the way he did! (2) It’s also obvious that Jesus did not understand Thomas to be calling him equally God with the Father in heaven. But did John, in spite of the incredible contradiction of a previous statement (like 1 John 4:12 above) at John 1:18 that “no man hath seen God at any time,” somehow think that Thomas understood Jesus to be God?

Well, no other disciple of Jesus ever made a statement to him which could honestly be construed as meaning Jesus is God! So, (3) if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement that way, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident? - “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

 

[7thMoon]

Welllll.....for a simpleton like myself, it would seem that while you and CherubRam appear quite learned in the languages, you seem unable/unwilling to address the specific exchange between Thomas and Jesus. My simple mind only sees your verbal eloquence as a possible smokescreen to avoid a direct question with a direct answer. Why did Thomas worship/confess Jesus as Lord/God and why did Jesus let him do so???????? Does the Greek usage here of Lord/God blow your little battleship out the water?

Has it occurred to you that Thomas confesses them both? I don't believe you don't understand the Greek usage.
ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου <-- Do you understand this?

 

[tigger 2]

My God (part 2 here is near the end of my study and skips 3/4 of the evidence)

Trinitarian apologists insist that “My God” here in John 20:28 is a noun of address. They point out that most of the time in the NT when God is being addressed the vocative (thee) is not used. Instead they say the nominative (theos) is used (as found in John 20:28).

For example Daniel B. Wallace writes in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 58, Zondervan, 1996:

“V. Nominative for Vocative (Nominative of Address) .... 2. Articular ....

John 20:28

.. εἶπεν αὐτῷ·...... ὁ κύριος μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
...said to him, ................ ‘My Lord and my God!’


In all but two instances in the NT (both in the same verse, Matt 27:46), God is addressed with the nom[inative], most likely due to Semitic influence.”

Wallace is a strong trinitarian and usually does not hesitate to bend over backwards to make a scripture appear to support the trinity. So no one should be surprised by this statement. But in listing this verse as an example of a nominative theos and a nominative kurios being used as vocatives or nouns of address is very poor indeed.

The two parts of the statement must be considered as being used in the same manner. That is, if “My God” is being used by John (and Thomas) as a noun of address, then “my Lord” in the same statement must be considered to be a noun of address also (and Wallace agrees - note the bold print for kurios and ‘Lord’ also). And yet, as we saw in my footnote above, “My Lord” is not being used as a noun of address! Therefore, “My God” is also not being used here as a noun of address! The whole phrase is not being used in address in spite of the fact that most trinitarians want it to be and insist that it is.

((Examples of ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ being used together as vocatives can be found in the Book of Revelation (11:17; 15:3; and 16:7 ). Notice that ‘Lord’ in address is always (as everywhere else in the NT) in the vocative case (kurie) while its companion word ‘God’ is always in the nominative case (theos).)

Therefore, since kurie is not used at John 20:28, the phrase is not intended as an address by John.

Here are all the uses of "Lord" in address in the NT:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-uses-of-vocative-noun-of-address.html

 

[7thMoon]

“V. Nominative for Vocative (Nominative of Address) .... 2. Articular ....

Or rather an incomplete statement or sentence.

 

[CherubRam]

This still does not address Thomas nor Christ's response......

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God,

John 20:28
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my (God / elohiym!)” (god of "The Living One."

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

John 20:17
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Yahshua said:
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Yahshua said that Yahwah is the only true God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

As long as we agree that Jesus is God the Son in human flesh, who is distinct from the Father.

The only thing I don’t agree is the use of the word “person”. If God is not a man (or a woman), God is not a person.

 

[CherubRam]

The only thing I don’t agree is the use of the word “person”. If God is not a man (or a woman), God is not a person.

1. A living being.
   
   
2. An individual of specified character.
   
   
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Not really. The relation in the Trinity is ontological--the Father begets the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both (or just the Father, depending on who you ask). That is, there was never a "time" prior to creation (including the creation of time), that the Trinity did not exist. God has always existed as three persons, not just after creation, as your statement implies.

That’s because salvation through Jesus was not a plan B to fix the fall of man, Jesus was “the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world” (Rev. 13:8), that was the original plan prior to creation, but make no mistake, this plan was FULFILLED at around AD/CE 30, not “prior to creation”. Likewise, Jesus as the Word of God did exist prior to creation, I never stated or implied he didn’t; but the Word didn’t become flesh until he did at around the beginning of the first century.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

1. A living being.
   
   
2. An individual of specified character.
   
   
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

You forgot the most important part: a HUMAN being. A dead man is still a person, a robot, an animal or a deity is not.