Proof of Trinity

[Jesse Stone]

Free #502

Jesse Stone said:
Using the ad hominem argument that I simply don't want to know the truth is unwarranted, unwanted, and unappreciated.
Saying that one is not saved or in darkness because one is a non-Trinitarian is a simple bias of an extremist mind that leads to nowhere. Certainly doesn't lead to discussion or argument as defined by Administrator Reba.

Free replied:
As the pot calls the kettle black. The use of 'extremist' is an ad hominem and a strawman

If I remove "of an extremist mind" would it make a difference?

If "all things" were created through Jesus, then the only logical conclusion is that he isn't created. If Jesus has been created, then at least one thing has been created without Jesus, so those passages are false. If Jesus isn't created, then by definition he is God, since God is the only uncreated being.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15 ESV)

Trinitarians ignore this verse and non-Trinitarians emphasize it. "All things" would naturally exclude the creator. And would exclude the Jesus through whom "all things" were created, whether he is created or not.

But the problem is that the logic isn't sound and I don't know how you can't see it

Make a note of what I said:

"But that too is just a presumption. Even though the logic is sound. To me. Certainly not to a Trinitarian."

It is clearly stated that "God created man in his own image." Man is made in the image of God, not angels or any other created being. Therefore, when God says "Let us make man in our image," he cannot be speaking to angels.

If the angels are not created in the image of God, then whose image are they created in? Are they just functional creations as are earthly plants and animals?

One of the fundamental rules for biblical interpretation is that the OT is to be interpreted in light of the NT

Yes. usually understood according to the idea of progressive revelation. An idea not limited to Protestants since it is also used by Catholics, Mormons, and Moslems with respect to their own unique writings. Just happens I don't think New Testament fulfillment suggests the idea of progressive revelation.

While the OT neither proves nor disproves the Trinity, the NT reveals much more about the nature of God.

Besides the Trinity?

Only the doctrine of the Trinity takes into account all that is said about God. I would change my mind if I found compelling arguments to the contrary, but I have yet to see one.

Probably never will. The Catholics have a saying: once one has found the truth, one no longer needs to search for the truth. That truth of course being their own truth. Many Protestants follow the same idea without realizing it. Saves a lot of Christians from finding themselves in the situation that I'm in. Which in turn saves them from having any real empathy (due to lack of experience) for the situation I'm in. Which in turn explains why they can't understand why I don't just take their "standard" answers as fact.

As for personal pronouns, there really is no problem since it is the one God who is speaking to his people.

At least you mentioned the problem. It seems that all that I said prior to my simple ending statement of the problem I have with the Trinity, intended to get those matters out of the way, has been used as fodder for red herrings. As if they wanted to talk about anything so long as it wasn't the primary problem. Disappointing to say the least. But I said what I said so I take responsibility for my mistake. The only reason I responded to your post is because you mentioned the problem.

But just to say it's no problem is neither helpful nor compelling to me. Yes, it is the one God who is speaking. And he uses language that suggests he is one person, not two or more. And the people referring to God use pronouns that suggest that they also thought he was one person. Either Jehovah is a deceitful God or there has to be a better answer than "no problem since it is the one God who is speaking". An answer that in itself suggests that God is one person.


I admit there are several New Testament passages that lend themselves easily to a Trinitarian interpretation. There are also several New Testament passages that lend themselves easily to a non-Trinitarian interpretation. But before I can accept that the New Testament reveals a Trinitarian God, I have to have a reasonable answer (reasonable to me, probably the wrong thing to say that could be turned into something it is not) to an Old Testament problem that suggests to me that God is not a Trinitarian God. That you at least made an attempt at an answer speaks well of you, whether I agree with it or not.

According to the modern (maybe not so modern) idea of proper interpretation, I'm running in the wrong direction. To me I'm just running in the direction that revelation has been revealed. Not only historically, but in the order the writings are compiled.

If "The Church" compiled the Bible, as Catholicism claims, then the idea of progressive revelation understood as Old Testament according to New Testament is reasonable. Like the science of men, the latest findings interpret earlier findings. If men compiled the Bible, and understand it like scientists understand the universe, then the Bible has man as its author. No reason to think that a God had anything more to do with writing it than with compiling it. But if God compiled the Bible and men just acknowledged an already universally accepted content, culling out that which was only locally accepted content, which is more reasonable to me if the Bible is to be regarded as the written word of God; then God either compiled the Bible in the wrong direction (the New Testament should be first and thus read first in order to understand the Old Testament) - or - he compiled it in the right direction (Old Testament first so that the New Testament can be understood properly according to prior revelation).

Thinking the best place to start reading a book is at the beginning, I read the Bible Old Testament first. I understand the Bible Old Testament first. If any interpretation is being done, I am interpreting what comes after according to what has gone before. I understand that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah because the Old Testament prophetically says he is. Jesus of the New Testament account fulfills the Old Testament prophetic account. And not only in those parts of the prophetic account quoted by New Testament writers. I do not interpret the Old Testament prophetic account to conform to the New Testament account. Nor do I interpret the Old Testament to conform to a Trinitarian interpretation of the New Testament. If that's what makes me an "anti" Trinitarian, then it is what it is.

 

[Free]

If I remove "of an extremist mind" would it make a difference?

Yes.

If "all things" were created through Jesus, then the only logical conclusion is that he isn't created. If Jesus has been created, then at least one thing has been created without Jesus, so those passages are false. If Jesus isn't created, then by definition he is God, since God is the only uncreated being.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15 ESV)

Trinitarians ignore this verse and non-Trinitarians emphasize it. "All things" would naturally exclude the creator. And would exclude the Jesus through whom "all things" were created, whether he is created or not.

No one is ignoring the verse. I have addressed it at some point in this thread. The problem is that non-trinitarians over emphasize it in that it somehow trumps the two verses which immediately follow. If we take "firstborn" to mean that there was a time when Jesus didn't exist, then that would be in direct contradiction with what is stated in verses 16 and 17. So instead we have to look for a legitimate way, using Scripture, to make sense of it. What we see then is that the most sense comes from the understanding that "firstborn," like many biblical words, has more than one meaning depending on context.

Whatever we do, we cannot do what the JW New World Translation does and falsely insert "other" in between "all" and "things," as it completely changes what is being said. And of course "other" does not appear in the Greek.

As for your reasoning--that since "all things" excludes the Creator that it excludes Jesus whether or not he is created--it just isn't sound. You are begging the question with regard to a plain reading of the text. A plain reading of the text naturally excludes the Father from being any one of those created "things," because he is God, the Creator. That we know. So when we come to "all things" in reference to the Son, we have zero reason to then think that the text is now saying the Son is one of those created things. That just doesn't make any sense. Therefore, a plain reading of the text leads to the only reasonable conclusion that Jesus is not one of those created things, which means he is also God.

And again, without taking this passage in isolation, this is supported explicitly in John 1:1-3 and 1 Cor 8:6. They are all in perfect agreement on the matter.

Make a note of what I said:

"But that too is just a presumption. Even though the logic is sound. To me. Certainly not to a Trinitarian."

Noted, but what is it that you are wanting me to understand?

If the angels are not created in the image of God, then whose image are they created in? Are they just functional creations as are earthly plants and animals?

More or less. Angels were created for a purpose (for example, the word "angel" itself means "messenger"; they are also said to minister to the saints) but nowhere is it stated that they are created in God's image.

Yes. usually understood according to the idea of progressive revelation. An idea not limited to Protestants since it is also used by Catholics, Mormons, and Moslems with respect to their own unique writings. Just happens I don't think New Testament fulfillment suggests the idea of progressive revelation.

Regardless, the OT must be interpreted in light of the NT. Both Jesus and Paul did it, for starters.

Besides the Trinity?

Yes, I believe so.

Only the doctrine of the Trinity takes into account all that is said about God. I would change my mind if I found compelling arguments to the contrary, but I have yet to see one.

Probably never will. The Catholics have a saying: once one has found the truth, one no longer needs to search for the truth. That truth of course being their own truth. Many Protestants follow the same idea without realizing it. Saves a lot of Christians from finding themselves in the situation that I'm in. Which in turn saves them from having any real empathy (due to lack of experience) for the situation I'm in. Which in turn explains why they can't understand why I don't just take their "standard" answers as fact.

That is not at all a fair assessment. I have changed my mind on a few things on these forums or through reading books where I have found good reasons for doing so. So do not think that I am so closed minded or perhaps scared of facing the facts or something of the sort. Your statement presumes that I, and others like me, believe the Trinity simply because that is what we have been taught. But it ignores that I, and others like me, have done fairly significant amounts of personal study.

No one is without bias on the matter, or any matter for that matter.

 

[Free]

But just to say it's no problem is neither helpful nor compelling to me. Yes, it is the one God who is speaking. And he uses language that suggests he is one person, not two or more. And the people referring to God use pronouns that suggest that they also thought he was one person. Either Jehovah is a deceitful God or there has to be a better answer than "no problem since it is the one God who is speaking". An answer that in itself suggests that God is one person.

But is there any really compelling reason for God to reveal that he is somehow three persons in one being, when the very people he has called his own, he is calling out of a polytheistic belief system, surrounded by polytheistic nations? The Israelites, and even Jesus' disciples themselves, often were hard of hearing and understanding. Just look at how many times Jesus plainly told his disciples he was going to die and be raised, and yet they still didn't get it even once he had been raised. Not to mention they had very different ideas, typical Jewish ideas of the time, of just what the Messiah would do. It wasn't until some time after his ascension that they really clued in as to the significance of what he did through his death and resurrection. Incidentally, I personally believe that their slowness of understanding is the reason why it took quite some time for a formulation of the Trinity to come about. It is quite the topic to wrestle with and to try and make sense of.

God has his reasons, just as he has his reasons for not saying specifically when and how he created the earth, or being specific about when Jesus would be born and what his name would be so that all of the Jews would believe that he was the Messiah. He has his reasons for what he reveals and when, and that does not make him deceitful.

I admit there are several New Testament passages that lend themselves easily to a Trinitarian interpretation. There are also several New Testament passages that lend themselves easily to a non-Trinitarian interpretation.

Breaking this down a bit more for clarification, is it better to say that there are several passages which lend themselves easily to an understanding that Jesus is God, and that there are also several NT passages that lend themselves easily to an understanding that Jesus isn't God? The whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to try and make sense of those passages which speak both of the humanity and deity of Jesus, without exalting one over the other, as anti-trinitarians typically do.

But before I can accept that the New Testament reveals a Trinitarian God, I have to have a reasonable answer (reasonable to me, probably the wrong thing to say that could be turned into something it is not) to an Old Testament problem that suggests to me that God is not a Trinitarian God. That you at least made an attempt at an answer speaks well of you, whether I agree with it or not.

How about the updated answer? I do try and answer but whether I am right, I can't say for certain.

According to the modern (maybe not so modern) idea of proper interpretation, I'm running in the wrong direction. To me I'm just running in the direction that revelation has been revealed. Not only historically, but in the order the writings are compiled.

If "The Church" compiled the Bible, as Catholicism claims, then the idea of progressive revelation understood as Old Testament according to New Testament is reasonable. Like the science of men, the latest findings interpret earlier findings. If men compiled the Bible, and understand it like scientists understand the universe, then the Bible has man as its author. No reason to think that a God had anything more to do with writing it than with compiling it. But if God compiled the Bible and men just acknowledged an already universally accepted content, culling out that which was only locally accepted content, which is more reasonable to me if the Bible is to be regarded as the written word of God; then God either compiled the Bible in the wrong direction (the New Testament should be first and thus read first in order to understand the Old Testament) - or - he compiled it in the right direction (Old Testament first so that the New Testament can be understood properly according to prior revelation).

I think the OT is first simply because Christianity grew out Judaism; it is a continuation of the story with Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who is bringing about the redemption of all of creation. Perhaps we can make it analogous to a murder mystery, that although it is only one book, it is a continuing story where things get revealed at the end which, in hindsight, should have been more obvious earlier on. The end summary of the facts often sheds light on prior things, such as motives.

A bit weak of an analogy perhaps but does that make sense?

Thinking the best place to start reading a book is at the beginning, I read the Bible Old Testament first. I understand the Bible Old Testament first. If any interpretation is being done, I am interpreting what comes after according to what has gone before. I understand that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah because the Old Testament prophetically says he is. Jesus of the New Testament account fulfills the Old Testament prophetic account. And not only in those parts of the prophetic account quoted by New Testament writers. I do not interpret the Old Testament prophetic account to conform to the New Testament account. Nor do I interpret the Old Testament to conform to a Trinitarian interpretation of the New Testament. If that's what makes me an "anti" Trinitarian, then it is what it is.

There is nothing wrong with starting with the OT. We certainly cannot discount what the OT has to say simply because it comes before the NT, what I would say is the fuller revelation. Hence why another basic rule of biblical interpretation is Scripture interprets Scripture. It goes both ways. And, as I said above, the NT is simply a continuation of the story of God, so we must understand that it will shed light and give further revelation as to what was stated previously.

 

[Gregg]

Dear non-Trinitarians,

You have a spirit, a soul, and a body - which are distinct (Heb 4:12, 1Thes 5:23), and yet you are one being.

The Father, the Son, and their Spirit are spoken of individually and together, by God Himself and by man; yet God is one Being - Elohim, YHWH. And then God prepared a body for the Son (Heb 10:5, 10, John 1:14, Heb 2:14); whom we know as the LORD Jesus Christ, Immanuel, the Son of God, the Son of Man.

 

[By Grace]

Let's take things point-by-point

As I stated the Spirit Jesus

Please provide a justification from the Bible for calling Jesus Christ, "Spirit Jesus". That term does not exist in the NT.

poured out was received from the Father. Read acts 2. The Fathers promise -Joel: In the last days I will pour out my Spirit....

You entirely miss the point of what was happening here for two reasons:

1) You neglect to discuss the PURPOSE and the NATURE for Sukkoth, or Pentecost, first written about by Moses in Deuteronomy.
2) You conflate thew term "Spirit" to mean only thing whenever it is mentioned in Scripture, and this is an error called "conflation"​

As a result of these very serious errors, you come up with a faulty theology.

REASON 1
The Feasts established by God were all precursors of events in the life of Jesus. Theologically speaking they were the type of things that Jesus would do, and what Jesus did was the fulfillment or antitype of those feasts. Pentecost is the Greek name for the Feast of Sukkoth or Booths, which happened every year fifty days after the Sabbath during Passover (hence the Greek name "pente..")

Because the Sabbath is ALWAYS on a Saturday, the fiftieth day after that day is ALWAYS on a Sunday. So what the Disciples were doing in Acts 2 is acting like observant Jews who kept the days of the feasts, and they met together in a room early in the morning (no, not 11:00 AM!) So that is what is the reason for Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Another reason I believe your explanation misses the point of Pentecost is that you seem to make the prophecy of Joel primary, when in fact it is secondary. Joel's prophecy is an explanation of HOW, or what things will happen when the Feast of Pentecost is fulfilled, when God pours out Holy Spirit, and the church is established. That is why Peter is able to say this at the conclusion of his Pentecost Sermon:

Acts 2: 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.​

You (and the others sharing your theology) cannot "hit the target of Pentecost" is because you are not looking at the reason for Pentecost, but instead are aiming at the HOW things will happen, meaning Joel's prophecy

REASON 2

The Holy Spirit was sent in Jesus's name. In Christians the Spirit conveys the Will and mind of Jesus. But there is only One Holy Spirit. We are not that Spirit the Holy Spirit dwells with us as we have are own spirit.

The Father - I shall place "MY SPIRIT" upon Him (Jesus) and He shall proclaim Justice to the nations....
The Son - The Spirit of the sovereign Lord is upon me....
John the baptizer Then John testified, "I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him

Jesus stated the Father was the one true God. If your premise is Jesus always was and always was God how then do you believe in One God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit"?

This above seems to be the best examples of your conflation of the term "spirit". There is no distinction if the human nature of Jesus, Who being fully human has the same common tripartite nature of being a human, body, soul and spirit.

If Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become the Son?

According to Philippians 2, Jesus did not become human; rather He added to Himself the nature of a human, and remained fully God.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

According to what I read the Father is in the Son and the Son is in us. And in regard to Jesus's being the Fullness was pleased to dwell IN Him.

Ephesians 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all
Ephesians 3: 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ
Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.​

You can see from the above Scriptures that your definition of the term "fullness" is not in agreement from what Paul meant. it is also not in agreement with what Paul mentioned in Ephesians 4:13 where all believers have the "fulness of Jesus Christ" living in them.

1) No God will be formed after the Father.
2) Jesus's spirit cannot be God. He has always been the Son. However Jesus is not alone.
3) The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. All the fullness of God.
4) The Father is in Him. And in that Jesus is all that the Father is and in the framework of the Fathers will Jesus is God.
5) The Holy Spirit carries out the Lords Will because the Father has placed all things in Jesus's hand. All that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. (given) As Jesus testified about his disciples in His prayer to the Father "they were yours and you gave them to me"

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is
No, He has always been the Son.

Randy

From where do you get this stuff? What "guru" do you follow?

What does concern me is that all of your things here seem to be done from the basis of an English translation of Scripture, and that there is no exegesis from the Koine Greek to support the statements. Now I do not expect that posters here will be able to be fluent in the Greek New Testament, but it stands to reason that any "new revelation" such as you and your friends here propose would be substantiated by Greek texts. Not doing that is a strong indication that the things you and your friends post is an exercise from whimsey rather than an act of scholarship. In other words, you guys seem to want to place strange and foreign elements into Scripture that are not there in either the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages.

 

[Asyncritus]

Not doing that is a strong indication that the things you and your friends post is an exercise from whimsey rather than an act of scholarship. In other words, you guys seem to want to place strange and foreign elements into Scripture that are not there in either the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages.

I'm not sure whether to feel offended or flattered by the above.
EDITED



Before I go any further, I'd like to ask you

a. Does scripture interpret scripture?

b. Do you see any scriptural links/connectionsto the Old Testament in the passage?

c. If you do, can you please list them

d. Explain what points Paul was making when and if he made such allusions/connections.

Thank you

 

[Gregg]

REASON 1
The Feasts established by God were all precursors of events in the life of Jesus. Theologically speaking they were the type of things that Jesus would do, and what Jesus did was the fulfillment or antitype of those feasts. Pentecost is the Greek name for the Feast of Sukkoth or Booths, which happened every year fifty days after the Sabbath during Passover (hence the Greek name "pente..")

Grace, I appreciate your posts and enthusiasm for the LORD.

For the record, Pentecost in the Greek means 50th day, and is not directly connected with Sukkoth [Sukkoth is the Feast of Booths, or Tabernacles]. Pentecost relates directly to the birth of the Church, 50 days after Christ's Resurrection on the day of the Waving of the Sheaves.
The Feast of Booths/Tabernaclces occurs 6 months after the Passover, and relates to Christ's Second Coming when He will Tabernacle in Jerusalem openly as King, High Priest, and the Prophet.

 

[reba]

Enough. closed at least for a while

 

[Asyncritus]

Isn't this a little bit over the top?



What authority do you possess to REQUIRE anything form another poster?

As to the rest of the post, it is a stultifying Gordian Knot of non-related things, and to make a question from that, is akin to banal absurdity.

What sort of church do you and your like-minded friends attend?
What is the name of your denomination or fellowship to which you belong?

I have no AUTHORITY to do so. However, I think Free is a fair-minded chap, who can recognise a genuine difficulty when he sees one: which is probably why he hasn't replied to the post.

I also think that you recognise the difficulties, and your conscience is causing you to react so violently to what seems to me to be a very genuine difficulty in supporting your position. It is, in fact one of the biggest reasons why I reject it: but if you can explain tit convincingly

For your information, THERE IS NO GORDIAN KNOT here. It is a perfectly simple, intellectually and spiritually satisfying solution.

edited

 

[reba]

Most often this type of battle is handled in SACs ... When members seem so bent to ignore requests of moderation other methods may be applied.

Deletions will happen here shortly

Stay away form the personal even the slightist in personal ends in arguments here, not debate or discussion

 

[reba]

Let's keep this discussion on topic and civil. Otherwise the alternative is inevitable.

Any more bickering and the thread will stay closed.

 

[By Grace]

I goofed!

The original Jewish name for the feast is Shavuot

 

[reba]

There are tons of 'Christian forums'.. Some allow anything.. some hold to certain theologies. Some only allow their denomination. We work towards being open to discussion while staying close to our SOF..and abiding by the TOS. .
To be closed to thoughts or different opinions is akin to hiding a light under a bushel. Salt in a shaker flavors nothing.

 

[Free]

It is my opinion that the anti-trinitarians posting on this thread may be JWs.

This may help some here.

Nontrinitarianism (or antitrinitarianism) refers to monotheistic belief systems, primarily within Christianity, which reject the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, namely, the teaching that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are co-eternal, co-equal, and indivisibly united in one being or ousia.

According to churches that consider ecumenical council decisions final, trinitarianism was infallibly defined at the First Ecumenical Council (the Council of Nicaea) in A.D. 325.[1][not in citation given] or by the 4th-century ecumenical councils,[2][3][4] that of Nicaea, which declared the full divinity of the Son,[5] and the First Council of Constantinople, which declared the divinity of the Holy Spirit.[6] Nontrinitarians disagree with the findings of the Councils for various reasons, including the belief that their understanding of the Bible takes precedence over creeds, or that there was a Great Apostasy prior to the Council. Church and State in Europe and the Middle East suppressed nontrinitarian belief as heresy from the 4th to 18th century, with regard to Arianism,[7][8] the teaching of Michael Servetus[9] and Catharism.[10] Today nontrinitarians represent a minority of professed Christians.

Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism, and Subordinationism existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in A.D. 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.[11] Nontrinitarianism was later renewed in the Gnosticism of the Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.

Modern nontrinitarian Christian groups or denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God, International and the United Church of God. Also, all branches of Judaism are non-trinitarian, and consider the God of the Hebrew Scriptures to be one singular Person, with no divisions, or multi-persons within.

1. ^ Davis, SJ, Leo Donald (1990). The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Theology and Life Series 21). Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7.
2. Roger E. Olson, Christopher Alan Hall (Eerdmans 2002 ISBN 978-0-80284827-7), p. 15
3. a b c Joseph F. Kelly, An Introduction to the New Testament for Catholics (Liturgical Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-81465216-9), pp. 4-5
4. Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (InterVarsity Press 1999 ISBN 978-0-83081505-0), p. 173
5. Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Fortress Press 1966 ISBN 978-1-45140423-4), p. 55
6. Deno John Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West (University of Wisconsin Press 1989 ISBN 978-0-29911884-6), p. 152
7. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/590747/Theodosius-I
8. http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
9. http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=938690
10. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/12976/Albigensian-Crusade
11. Jvon Harnack, Adolf (1894-03-01). "History of Dogma". Retrieved 2007-06-15. "[In the 2nd century,] Jesus was either regarded as the man whom God hath chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion, (Adoptionist Christology); or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic Christology)"
12. Glassé, Cyril; Smith, Huston (2003). The New Encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman Altamira. pp. 239–241. ISBN 0759101906.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Trinitarian_churches

One is, one isn't, and one is agnostic about it all.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Reba

Jesse

Good answer. But it is my hope that you don't close this thread for all on the basis of a few.

 

[Randy]

Let's take things point-by-point

Please provide a justification from the Bible for calling Jesus Christ, "Spirit Jesus". That term does not exist in the NT.


You entirely miss the point of what was happening here for two reasons:

1) You neglect to discuss the PURPOSE and the NATURE for Sukkoth, or Pentecost, first written about by Moses in Deuteronomy.
2) You conflate thew term "Spirit" to mean only thing whenever it is mentioned in Scripture, and this is an error called "conflation"​

As a result of these very serious errors, you come up with a faulty theology.

REASON 1
The Feasts established by God were all precursors of events in the life of Jesus. Theologically speaking they were the type of things that Jesus would do, and what Jesus did was the fulfillment or antitype of those feasts. Pentecost is the Greek name for the Feast of Sukkoth or Booths, which happened every year fifty days after the Sabbath during Passover (hence the Greek name "pente..")

Because the Sabbath is ALWAYS on a Saturday, the fiftieth day after that day is ALWAYS on a Sunday. So what the Disciples were doing in Acts 2 is acting like observant Jews who kept the days of the feasts, and they met together in a room early in the morning (no, not 11:00 AM!) So that is what is the reason for Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Another reason I believe your explanation misses the point of Pentecost is that you seem to make the prophecy of Joel primary, when in fact it is secondary. Joel's prophecy is an explanation of HOW, or what things will happen when the Feast of Pentecost is fulfilled, when God pours out Holy Spirit, and the church is established. That is why Peter is able to say this at the conclusion of his Pentecost Sermon:

Acts 2: 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.​

You (and the others sharing your theology) cannot "hit the target of Pentecost" is because you are not looking at the reason for Pentecost, but instead are aiming at the HOW things will happen, meaning Joel's prophecy

REASON 2


This above seems to be the best examples of your conflation of the term "spirit". There is no distinction if the human nature of Jesus, Who being fully human has the same common tripartite nature of being a human, body, soul and spirit.



According to Philippians 2, Jesus did not become human; rather He added to Himself the nature of a human, and remained fully God.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

Ephesians 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all
Ephesians 3: 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ
Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.​

You can see from the above Scriptures that your definition of the term "fullness" is not in agreement from what Paul meant. it is also not in agreement with what Paul mentioned in Ephesians 4:13 where all believers have the "fulness of Jesus Christ" living in them.



From where do you get this stuff? What "guru" do you follow?

What does concern me is that all of your things here seem to be done from the basis of an English translation of Scripture, and that there is no exegesis from the Koine Greek to support the statements. Now I do not expect that posters here will be able to be fluent in the Greek New Testament, but it stands to reason that any "new revelation" such as you and your friends here propose would be substantiated by Greek texts. Not doing that is a strong indication that the things you and your friends post is an exercise from whimsey rather than an act of scholarship. In other words, you guys seem to want to place strange and foreign elements into Scripture that are not there in either the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages.

Where do I get that the Spirit Jesus poured out was received from the Father? Acts 2
Where do I get that that was the Fathers promise? From reading the words of Jesus and the promise is also stated in Acts 2
I am not so sure we disagree on fullness. I believe all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge etc..

But what I don't see is that Jesus alone is that fullness. The fullness was pleased to dwell IN HIM. If Jesus always was and always was God wouldn't He already by that fullness? As in His being.

I may allude to below in a context of Jesus's Spirit as opposed to the Holy Spirit. But I don't just call Jesus "Spirit."
Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit"
I believe the Son that was occupied the body that was prepared for Him. I do hold to a bodily resurrection.

But if you have a problem with Jesus as spirit? God is Spirit. John 4:24



Randy

 

[Jesse Stone]

Free #522 & #523

Jesse Stone said: ↑

If I remove "of an extremist mind" would it make a difference?

Yes.

Protect and serve.

Whatever we do, we cannot do what the JW New World Translation does and falsely insert "other" in between "all" and "things," as it completely changes what is being said. And of course "other" does not appear in the Greek.

So you think I'm pulling a Martin Luther? He allegedly added "alone" to a verse in his German translation of Romans that caused a bit of a stir.

As for your reasoning--that since "all things" excludes the Creator that it excludes Jesus whether or not he is created--it just isn't sound.

Actually that wasn't quite my reasoning. But it seems perfectly sound to me to differentiate between the one acting and the action.

And again, without taking this passage in isolation, this is supported explicitly in John 1:1-3 and 1 Cor 8:6. They are all in perfect agreement on the matter

Suppose so to a Trinitarian.

Regardless, the OT must be interpreted in light of the NT. Both Jesus and Paul did it, for starters.

Don't think so and don't think so.

Jesse Stone said: ↑

Besides the Trinity?

Yes, I believe so.

Example? Other than God is love, which is alluded to in the Old Testament, but not explicitly stated as it is in the New Testament. So also the fatherhood of God.

That is not at all a fair assessment. I have changed my mind on a few things on these forums or through reading books where I have found good reasons for doing so.

Were you once a non-Trinitarian?

But is there any really compelling reason for God to reveal that he is somehow three persons in one being, when the very people he has called his own, he is calling out of a polytheistic belief system, surrounded by polytheistic nations?

A God who knows the end from the beginning? Definitely. The Jews understood about God being one God with one particular name in a polytheistic environment. The Jews were stiff-necked, not stupid.

Just look at how many times Jesus plainly told his disciples he was going to die and be raised, and yet they still didn't get it even once he had been raised.

Yes. A rarity when they did understand what he was saying. John 6 is a good example. The Jews misunderstood what Jesus was saying when he said one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Like the Catholics, they took it literally. Which would have contradicted the Law given to them by God. Jesus fulfilled the Law, he didn't break it. When Jesus asked the twelve if thy would also go, Peter said, to whom would we go, you have the words of eternal life. Nothing there that indicated they understood what he was talking about regarding flesh and blood. In spite of an explicit explanation in v. 63. I don't think they were stupid either. Just closed minded. Now that may have purposeful on God's part, so that fulfillment would be accomplished. No one was hurt by that, except maybe Judas (who may have been more akin to Pharoah). The rest came around eventually.

Incidentally, I personally believe that their slowness of understanding is the reason why it took quite some time for a formulation of the Trinity to come about.

Or maybe slowness of getting people to come around to a Trinitarian way of thinking. Even then history shows that a lot of people still didn't get with the political program.

To me that era is the best worst example for an institution of a doctrine. It also instituted the Christian religion, which has been with us since then. Even seculars acknowledge the existence of the religion as all encompassing. I don't think God chose the 4th century to reveal, or define, the Trinity. Men did that. Just as in the process men began to build up a religion, a denominational religion. Just as I don't think men compiled the Bible. God did that and men just acknowledged what God had already done. That probably seems like illogical thinking too. Catholics certainly think so. In the religion one does not, can not, question what the religion has authoritatively promulgated as true. The religion has already promulgated in the 4th century that the Trinity is true. Not being a part of that religion, I am free to question. To the chagrin of many Trinitarians. Some of whom are Protestant. With Catholic leanings. I'm thinking of someone other than you in this case.

God has his reasons, just as he has his reasons for not saying specifically when and how he created the earth, or being specific about when Jesus would be born and what his name would be so that all of the Jews would believe that he was the Messiah. He has his reasons for what he reveals and when, and that does not make him deceitful.

He does. But I doubt he would have reasons that would be detrimental to the people he is trying to save.

I think that the Bible does say when the earth was created, approximately. Young earth, created about fifteen thousand years ago, in six periods each equal to a solar day, from the point of view of one standing on the earth, as recorded in Genesis. And there seems to be some observations that allude to that. But the Bible is silent as to when the universe was created (in spite of the mistranslation of Genesis 1:16). Observation and instrumentation, such as it is, is all we have to go by in that regard. So having no other information I think the universe is immensely old. Another of my in between views. Just a digression.

Breaking this down a bit more for clarification, is it better to say that there are several passages which lend themselves easily to an understanding that Jesus is God, and that there are also several NT passages that lend themselves easily to an understanding that Jesus isn't God? The whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to try and make sense of those passages which speak both of the humanity and deity of Jesus, without exalting one over the other, as anti-trinitarians typically do.

And as Trinitarians typically do. But yes. I agree with your breakdown. I'm not so much bothered by the apparent discrepancy it may cause. The Bible has a lot of discrepancies. A fact I've learned to accept, instead of trying to interpret them away. But I am bothered by the amount of interpretation that is necessary to adhere to one or the other view. Which leads me to think that maybe a view other than either Trinitarianism or the typical non-Trinitarian view may make sense of it all with a lot less effort and interpretation.

Jesse Stone said: ↑

But before I can accept that the New Testament reveals a Trinitarian God, I have to have a reasonable answer (reasonable to me, probably the wrong thing to say that could be turned into something it is not) to an Old Testament problem that suggests to me that God is not a Trinitarian God. That you at least made an attempt at an answer speaks well of you, whether I agree with it or not.

How about the updated answer? I do try and answer but whether I am right, I can't say for certain.

Updated answer? Sorry, I must have missed that.

If all we're doing is interpreting the Bible, No one can say anything for certain. It's all just opinion. Feet planted firmly in mid air. I may just be an Agnostic, but I still hope that isn't the case. Not that we'll know in the end if it is. We'll surely know if it isn't.

I think the OT is first simply because Christianity grew out Judaism; it is a continuation of the story with Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who is bringing about the redemption of all of creation. Perhaps we can make it analogous to a murder mystery, that although it is only one book, it is a continuing story where things get revealed at the end which, in hindsight, should have been more obvious earlier on. The end summary of the facts often sheds light on prior things, such as motives.

A bit weak of an analogy perhaps but does that make sense?

I like the continuous story idea. But I think it's more like a Columbo mystery where the villain is already known to the audience and all that's left is to watch how Columbo unravels the crime.

I prefer the Jesse Stone mysteries where the crime is revealed, but the audience learns what happened and who the perpetrator is along with Stone. Father Dowling Mysteries were usually like that (another media series that had little to do with the books it was based on). I'm a retired Engineer, but also somewhat of an armchair detective. Which may account for my preference. But again I digress.

another basic rule of biblical interpretation is Scripture interprets Scripture.

As it happens I agree with the idea, but less as interpretation and more as continuity. Which may be why I stubbornly keep looking for an answer to my problem with the Trinity.

 

[Asyncritus]

Can I again ask, anybody, anybody at all, to address those important questions I raised in post #518?

 

[Randy]

Can I again ask, anybody, anybody at all, to address those important questions I raised in post #518?

Gods firstborn would be a being not a people. And such a being would state "Before Abraham was born I AM"

Randy

 

[reba]

Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: