My take on Trinity

[Free]

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.

I’ve addressed this; person is fine and the best we have in English. There is no need to equate “human” with “person” when it comes to God.

We are limited to human language to describe God but must still be as truthful as we can to what he has revealed about himself. We are also made in his image, so there are things about us that reflect who God is. We have wills, love, and can reason, etc.; we do things and have attributes that are indicative of persons.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are described as each doing things that humans do, things which are indicative of personhood. Hence, we are being as truthful as we can when we say they are distinct persons. Each of the other terms you have provided do not indicate anything of personhood, and so fall short of the truthfulness of Scripture. This leaves them with the potential to mislead.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I’ve addressed this; person is fine and the best we have in English. There is no need to equate “human” with “person” when it comes to God.

There IS a need to equate "human" with "person". You're not describing a person, you're describing a deity, a distant, abstract figure no one can relate to, and it's anthropomorphized as a "person". All other deities sit in high places to be served, only Jesus came down from high places, became a humble craftsman from first century Nazerath, served us and died for us, that's what really makes him distinctive.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

If you wanna eliminate those problems and get a dose of clarity, think of the trinity as Jesus being our servant, our peer and our lord - simultaneously. In the OT God was never addressed as the father, he was known as the father only through the son, and a traditional father figure is the closest human model to the roles and functions of God in our lives as our provider, protector, teacher, counselor and adjudicator. The specific rhetoric "three coequal, coeternal persons" is never found anywhere in any translation of the bible, it's not even in the Nicene Creed, so stop makeing an idol out of the trinity doctrine and focus on Jesus only, perceive God and His Spirit from the perspective of Jesus.

 

[Free]

There IS a need to equate "human" with "person".

Why?

You're not describing a person, you're describing a deity,

In whose image we are made.

a distant, abstract figure no one can relate to,

That’s an interesting statement for a Christian to make, especially given what you then say about Jesus.

and it's anthropomorphized as a "person".

You’ve put the cart before the horse. God has revealed certain things about his nature in language we can understand. That language indicates that he has a mind, will, emotions, etc., attributes that persons have, which isn’t surprising since we’re made in his image. We are persons because he is persons; not the other way around.

 

[7thMoon]

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.

Then what are the sons of God or angels?

 

[CherubRam]

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.

How did you reason that a deity is not a person?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Why?


In whose image we are made.


That’s an interesting statement for a Christian to make, especially given what you then say about Jesus.


You’ve put the cart before the horse. God has revealed certain things about his nature in language we can understand. That language indicates that he has a mind, will, emotions, etc., attributes that persons have, which isn’t surprising since we’re made in his image. We are persons because he is persons; not the other way around.

God is beyond the universe he created, he's incomprehensible, when he's addressed as a "person", that's making a god in man's image, and that's really putting the cart before the horse, any human effort to try to decribe him or perceive him is doomed to be in vain. Instead of twisting your mind into a pretzel to justify the Eternal Creator as a "person" by corrupting language like Newspeak in 1984, why don't we just focus on Jesus Christ - and all the setup of his messiahship, all the typology and prophecy of him in the OT? I mean no offense, man, but the traditional trinity doctrine is NOT the way to God, Jesus is.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

How did you reason that a deity is not a person?

How did you reason it is? I said it many times that this is called anthropomorphism and anthropopathism - attributing human form and emotions to non-human entities such as institution, deity, animal, machine, natural phenomenon. Our brain is hardwired in this way, we're doing it all the time without awareness, but that doesn't magically transform any of these entities into real human beings with human form and emotions in reality.

 

[CherubRam]

How did you reason it is? I said it many times that this is called anthropomorphism and anthropopathism - attributing human form and emotions to non-human entities such as institution, deity, animal, machine, natural phenomenon. Our brain is hardwired in this way, we're doing it all the time without awareness, but that doesn't magically transform any of these entities into real human beings with human form and emotions in reality.

Your reasoning is not logical.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Then what are the sons of God or angels?

Likewise, deities, not man. "Sons" in "sons of God" is spoken in the sense of embodiment or personification of a certain outstanding attribute, it's like "sons of liberty", "sons of thunder", "sons of anarchy".

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Your reasoning is not logical.

Yet truthful and biblical.

What is an anthropomorphism? | GotQuestions.org

What is an anthropomorphism? Why does the Bible often describe God using physical characteristics?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[7thMoon]

Likewise, deities, not man. "Sons" in "sons of God" is spoken in the sense of embodiment or personification of a certain outstanding attribute, it's like "sons of liberty", "sons of thunder", "sons of anarchy".

No, it isn't. We are not the sons of God, but the angels are.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, it isn't. We are not the sons of God, but the angels are.

Not in the OT, but yes in the NT, in the church age, if you believe that we're adopted as children of God through Christ.

 

[7thMoon]

Not in the OT, but yes in the NT, in the church age, if you believe that we're adopted as children of God through Christ.

In both the OT and NT. The rabbis think the sons of God are in a human family. We are not progenies of God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

In both the OT and NT. The rabbis think the sons of God are in a human family. We are not progenies of God.

There's no reproduction in heaven, God is nobody's progenitor. Sons of God in the OT were evil angels who defied God and mated with human women (Gen. 6:2), that's how they got those giants. These angels were with Satan the Adversary roaming on the earth, this much is mentioned in Job 1:6. That's another topic for another day.

 

[Free]

God is beyond the universe he created, he's incomprehensible,

Ultimately we can never comprehend him completely and exhaustively, yes, but it would be a serious error to leave it at that. And to think that he is only beyond the universe he created is a serious error as well. He’s with us, in us, and, importantly, in his revelation to us.

when he's addressed as a "person", that's making a god in man's image, and that's really putting the cart before the horse, any human effort to try to decribe him or perceive him is doomed to be in vain. Instead of twisting your mind into a pretzel to justify the Eternal Creator as a "person" by corrupting language like Newspeak in 1984,

And, yet, God has chosen to reveal certain things about himself to us, using language that we understand, as inadequate as it is for such a purpose. We are made in his image, so it stands to reason that our idea of persons and personhood come from
him and are based on him. Just as he reveals some of himself as Father and Son, we understand what that means because he has made us analogous to himself, having father and son relationships. Persons have certain attributes and do certain things, such as live in close, loving relationships with others.

Referring to each hypostasis of the Trinity as a person conveys these revelations from God about himself to us as best as our language is able. Again, the words you suggested are wholly inadequate to convey any such meaning and understanding of God.

why don't we just focus on Jesus Christ - and all the setup of his messiahship, all the typology and prophecy of him in the OT? I mean no offense, man, but the traditional trinity doctrine is NOT the way to God, Jesus is.

This is just begging the question as to who the Jesus is that is the way to God. Is the JW Jesus the true Jesus? The Mormon one? The Gnostic Jesus? The most important question we must answer is, “Who do you say that I am?” If one doesn’t have the right Jesus, they don’t have the Father; they don’t have salvation.

What we think about God are the most important thoughts we can have. We had better study well to have the best understanding of God we can, based on his revelation of himself to us.

 

[7thMoon]

There's no reproduction in heaven, God is nobody's progenitor. Sons of God in the OT were evil angels who defied God and mated with human women (Gen. 6:2), that's how they got those giants. These angels were with Satan the Adversary roaming on the earth, this much is mentioned in Job 1:6. That's another topic for another day.

Not true, some of the angels in Revelation are virgins. Males aren't virgins.

 

[7thMoon]

There's no reproduction in heaven, God is nobody's progenitor. Sons of God in the OT were evil angels who defied God and mated with human women (Gen. 6:2), that's how they got those giants. These angels were with Satan the Adversary roaming on the earth, this much is mentioned in Job 1:6. That's another topic for another day.

God progenated Satan. Not all the messengers of God followed Satan.

 

[GodsGrace]

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

It seems to me that you're addressing the word KURIE - which is fine.

But have you addressed the word GOD?

Why is the translation MY LORD AND MY GOD wrong?
Without going into all the Greek grammar please...
Did Thomas not realize what he was saying?

My Lord and my God.—These words are preceded by “said unto him,” and are followed by “because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed;” and the words “my Lord” can only be referred to Christ. (Comp. John 20:13.) The sentence cannot therefore, without violence to the context, be taken as an exclamation addressed to God, and is to be understood in the natural meaning of a confession by the Apostle that his Lord was also God.

source: Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers



My Lord and my God - In this passage the name God is expressly given to Christ, in his own presence and by one of his own apostles. This declaration has been considered as a clear proof of the divinity of Christ, for the following reasons:
1. There is no evidence that this was a mere expression, as some have supposed, of surprise or astonishment.

2. The language was addressed to Jesus himself - "Thomas ...said unto him."

3. The Saviour did not reprove him or check him as using any improper language. If he had not been divine, it is impossible to reconcile it with his honesty that he did not rebuke the disciple. No pious man would have allowed such language to be addressed to him. Compare Acts 14:13-15; Revelation 22:8-9.

4. The Saviour proceeds immediately to commend Thomas for believing; but what was the evidence of his believing? It was this declaration, and this only. If this was a mere exclamation of surprise, what proof was it that Thomas believed? Before this he doubted. Now he believed, and gave utterance to his belief, that Jesus was his Lord and his God.

5. If this was not the meaning of Thomas, then his exclamation was a mere act of profaneness, and the Saviour would not have commended him for taking the name of the Lord his God in vain. The passage proves, therefore, that it is proper to apply to Christ the name Lord and God, and thus accords with what John affirmed in John 1:1, and which is established throughout this gospel.

source: Barnes Notes on the Bible



John 20:28. Grotius, following Tertullian, Ambrose, Cyril and others, is of opinion that Thomas availed himself of the offered test: surely it is psychologically more probable that the test he had insisted on as alone sufficient is now repudiated, and that he at once exclaims, Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. His faith returns with a rebound and utters itself in a confession in which the gospel culminates. The words are not a mere exclamation of surprise. That is forbidden by εἶπεν αὐτῷ; they mean “Thou art my Lord and my God”. The repeated pronoun lends emphasis. In Pliny’s letter to Trajan (112 A.D.) he describes the Christians as singing hymns to Christ as God. Our Lord does not reject Thomas’ confession; but (John 20:29) reminds him that there is a higher faith than that which springs from visual evidence: Ὅτι ἑώρακάς με … καὶ πιστεύσαντες. Jesus would have been better pleased with a faith which did not require the evidence of sense: a faith founded on the perception that God was in Christ, and therefore He could not die; a faith in His Messiahship which argued that He must live to carry on the work of His Kingdom. The saying is cited as another instance of the care with which the various origins and kinds of faith are distinguished in this gospel.

source: Expositor's Greek Testament

 

[Free]

God progenated Satan. Not all the messengers of God followed Satan.

Are you suggesting that Satan is the literal offspring of God?