The Baptism of Jesus - Trinity or Tritheism?

[BradtheImpaler]

A scenario which Trinitarians constantly refer to in offering evidence of the Trinity is the baptism of Jesus (Mt.3:13-17) where the Father spoke from heaven, the Son stood in the water, and the Holy Spirit descended. Now the distinction between these persons is obvious, which is the point Trinitarians make, but there is something equally obvious here which Trinitarians stop short of in their evaluation, and that is that these 3 persons are not only distinct, but absolutely SEPERATE in this picture. A necessary Trinitarian mantra has always been that the persons are distinct but NOT "seperate", because "seperateness" would logically cross into Tritheistic territory. I believe that the difference between "distinct" and "seperate" in the Trinitarian vocabulary is only semantic, and it is proven by this scenario.

Simply stated - how much MORE "seperate" do 3 entities have to be to be 3 GODS, than that one speak from heaven ABOUT another, and the 3rd descending upon the 2nd, apparently SENT by the first? The seperation among persons here, each of which the Trinitarian believes to be deity, is just as great as the seperation between John the Baptist and the other persons which were witnesses to this event.

The same logic which the Trinitarian (rightfully) employs to point out that the F/S/Sp. are not the same "person", would tell us, if we are honest and consistent in our evaluation, that they are also NOT THE SAME ENTITY OR BEING. If we are to believe that these 3 are the same one God, then the concept of "one God" is MEANINGLESS in distinction to the concept of "MORE than one God", because there is no difference in the seperation between the "persons" depicted at the baptism of Jesus, and the seperation between 3 GODS which happen to have a relationship and a unity of purpose.

 

[Free]

Now the distinction between these persons is obvious, which is the point Trinitarians make, but there is something equally obvious here which Trinitarians stop short of in their evaluation, and that is that these 3 persons are not only distinct, but absolutely SEPERATE in this picture.

So it is you who believes in three Gods.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Now the distinction between these persons is obvious, which is the point Trinitarians make, but there is something equally obvious here which Trinitarians stop short of in their evaluation, and that is that these 3 persons are not only distinct, but absolutely SEPERATE in this picture.

So it is you who believes in three Gods.

No - I only believe one of them is. If I were to believe all 3 were (deity) I would have to believe there were 3 Gods, because they're NOT "each other".

 

[Free]

No - I only believe one of them is.

And who is it?

You should also be careful with statements like: "but absolutely SEPERATE in this picture." That is you reading a meaning into the text that isn't there. So what we are left with at the baptism of Jesus is simply the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all obviously distinct from one another. Not to mention the Father calls Jesus "His son."

 

[BradtheImpaler]

No - I only believe one of them is.

And who is it?

The one Jesus called "the only true God"

[quote:8ea5d]You should also be careful with statements like: "but absolutely SEPERATE in this picture."That is you reading a meaning into the text that isn't there. So what we are left with at the baptism of Jesus is simply the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all obviously distinct from one another

I'm reading in "seperate" but you're NOT reading in "distinct"? What you're doing is imagining a distinction between "distinct" and "seperate" which doesn't apply to the point at hand. But since you insist on "distinct" - how much MORE distinct would the persons of the Trinity need to be in this picture to qualify as "3 Gods"?

Not to mention the Father calls Jesus "His son."

[/quote:8ea5d]

The Trinitarian mentality is thoroughly bewieldering - why would you mention that they are father and son as evidence that they are somehow ONE God? That is, if anything, evidence that they are 2 Gods (if both are deity) Zeus and Apollos were depicted as father and son - what if I brought that up to try and convince someone they were one God and not 2? A divine father and an equally divine son makes 2 GODS. In order to be one God, the Father would have to be the Son, and the Son the Father, which Trinitarianism also denies.

 

[Free]

The one Jesus called "the only true God"

You don't believe that the Father is God? How can the Son be God but not the Father???

I'm reading in "seperate" but you're NOT reading in "distinct"? What you're doing is imagining a distinction between "distinct" and "seperate" which doesn't apply to the point at hand. But since you insist on "distinct" - how much MORE distinct would the persons of the Trinity need to be in this picture to qualify as "3 Gods"?

Now you're misquoting yourself to make your point. I clearly quoted your statement that they are "absolutely separate," which is not given in the text.

Actually, before I go too far, what do you mean by "absolutely separate"? Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "absolutely separate"?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The one Jesus called "the only true God"

You don't believe that the Father is God? How can the Son be God but not the Father???

What are you talking about? Read John.17

I'm reading in "seperate" but you're NOT reading in "distinct"? What you're doing is imagining a distinction between "distinct" and "seperate" which doesn't apply to the point at hand. But since you insist on "distinct" - how much MORE distinct would the persons of the Trinity need to be in this picture to qualify as "3 Gods"?

[quote:f0140]Now you're misquoting yourself to make your point. I clearly quoted your statement that they are "absolutely separate," which is not given in the text.

Neither is "distinct" in the text, neither is "Trinity" for that matter. Why would the statement that they are "absolutely seperate" NEED to be in the text? Do we need to be told the persons observing the event were "absolutely seperate" also?

[/quote:f0140]Actually, before I go too far, what do you mean by "absolutely separate"? Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "absolutely separate"?[/quote]

As "absolutely seperate" as 3 gods would be as demonstrated in this scenario. You didn't answer the question - how much MORE seperate would they need to be to be thought of as 3 Gods?

 

[Free]

What are you talking about? Read John.17

Well, you have stated that the Father, Son, and HS are separate and that only Jesus is God. Therefore, according to your arguments, the Father isn't God.

Neither is "distinct" in the text, neither is "Trinity" for that matter. Why would the statement that they are "absolutely seperate" NEED to be in the text? Do we need to be told the persons observing the event were "absolutely seperate" also?

First, I wasn't making the claim that "Trinity" is in the text. Second, the distinction is self-evident from the text.

But to say that the Father, Son, and HS are "absolutely separate" (by which I will assume you mean "completely separate individuals," based on your above answer since you don't answer my question), is to read into the text something that isn't there. It is to ignore all that the Bible reveals to us about God's nature.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

What are you talking about? Read John.17

Well, you have stated that the Father, Son, and HS are separate and that only Jesus is God. Therefore, according to your arguments, the Father isn't God

You asked me which one I thought was God and I said "the ONE that Jesus called the only true God" (which is John.17:3)

Did you have too much wine at communion today? :-?

Neither is "distinct" in the text, neither is "Trinity" for that matter. Why would the statement that they are "absolutely seperate" NEED to be in the text? Do we need to be told the persons observing the event were "absolutely seperate" also?

[quote:dbf34]First, I wasn't making the claim that "Trinity" is in the text. Second, the distinction is self-evident from the text.

But to say that the Father, Son, and HS are "absolutely separate" (by which I will assume you mean "completely separate individuals," based on your above answer since you don't answer my question), is to read into the text something that isn't there. It is to ignore all that the Bible reveals to us about God's nature.

[/quote:dbf34]

It's not a question of "reading something into" it - it's OBVIOUS they are completely seperate individuals. If your son were being baptized, and you spoke the words over him - "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased", and at the same time a dove flew down upon him, would anyone have to read something INTO that account to understand that you, your son, and the dove were COMPLETELY SEPERATE INDIVIDUALS?

Or rather, would you have to read something into the text there to somehow believe they were NOT completely seperate individuals?

 

[Free]

Did you have too much wine at communion today?

lol! I must have. Okay, so who is Jesus then? Who was he before the creation of the world?

You asked me which one I thought was God and I said "the ONE that Jesus called the only true God" (which is John.17:3)

Don't you find it odd that in that very verse Jesus says that eternal life is to know both the Father and himself?

And why stop at verse 3? Why not include verses 11, 16, and 21? You are taking all of your verses out of context; out of the context of the chapters where they are found and the NT as a whole.

It's not a question of "reading something into" it - it's OBVIOUS they are completely seperate individuals.

They are distinct, yes, but to say that they are "completely separate" is to go beyond what the verse shows.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Did you have too much wine at communion today?

lol! I must have

This is why Baptists switched to grape juice :wink:

[quote:a0b9a]Okay, so who is Jesus then? Who was he before the creation of the world?

Well, that's a Trinitarian problem isn't it? How Jesus could be around before the creation of the world and be God yet be someone OTHER than the "ONLY true God" he addresses the FATHER as? Maybe he was only around before creation in a metaphorical sense or maybe he was around as an angel like Arian's believe? The trick is to choose the solution that causes the least problems - not the one that causes the most.

You asked me which one I thought was God and I said "the ONE that Jesus called the only true God" (which is John.17:3)

Don't you find it odd that in that very verse Jesus says that eternal life is to know both the Father and himself?

Not at all - what I find odd is that you believe that the one who addressed the Father as the "only true God" is also HIMSELF the "only true God" and yet there is only ONE true God and Jesus and the Father are NOT "each other". That's not only odd - it's a study in contradiction.

And why stop at verse 3? Why not include verses 11, 16, and 21? You are taking all of your verses out of context; out of the context of the chapters where they are found and the NT as a whole.

You mean where Jesus said believers can be "one" even as he and the Father are "one"? OOPS - believers are only one in "purpose" - they remain seperate beings. According to Jesus' own analogy, Jesus and the Father are seperate beings.

It's not a question of "reading something into" it - it's OBVIOUS they are completely seperate individuals.

They are distinct, yes, but to say that they are "completely separate" is to go beyond what the verse shows.

[/quote:a0b9a]

They are not the same ENTITY - let's put it that way.

Multiple Gods could communicate with each other...

Multiple Gods could have a relationship with each other...

Multiple Gods might love one another...

Multiple Gods would be distinct from one another...

Multiple Gods would not be the same person...

Multiple Gods would be referred to as "They"...

All these claims are made of the Trinity, and yet they fit naturally and perfectly with a polytheistic theology.

"If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a DUCK" - you've heard the saying. You (by analogy) invite me over your home to see your new "dog" and it's got feathers, a bill, and "quacks". Am I supposed to believe it is a DOG just because you insist that it is? What difference does it make what you CALL it, if I can plainly see it's a DUCK?

 

[kwag_myers]

I'm curious as to how your logic applies to Genesis 2:24 where a husband and wife become one flesh? Or 1 Thessalonians 5:23 where Paul makes the distinction between our body, soul and spirit, thus making us humans triune beings?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I'm curious as to how your logic applies to Genesis 2:24 where a husband and wife become one flesh?

It is a "metaphorical" oneness - they do not actually become the same being. That should be understood. IOW, they are "as" one.

Are you saying you believe God is only "one" in the same manner a man and wife are "one"? If so, you are CERTAINLY a polytheist, because, again, the "oneness" of a man and wife is only a oneness shared by SEPERATE BEINGS.

Or 1 Thessalonians 5:23 where Paul makes the distinction between our body, soul and spirit, thus making us humans triune beings?

You believe that each of us qualify as "triune beings"? Good - because each "triune being" here is still only ONE PERSON. The body/soul/spirit can be seen as components OF a person, but if you have 3 PERSONS, the only thing that can add up to is a GROUP, and a "group" of divine persons are GODS (plural) not one God.

Your first appeal would indicate (by analogy) that God is more than one being. Your 2nd analogous appeal would indicate that God is only one being, specifically, one PERSON, therefore, BOTH your examples refute the possibility of multiple persons being one God, and neither supports Trinitarianism.

 

[DivineNames]

You mean where Jesus said believers can be "one" even as he and the Father are "one"? OOPS - believers are only one in "purpose" - they remain seperate beings. According to Jesus' own analogy, Jesus and the Father are seperate beings.

In what sense believers are "one" according to the Bible I have never looked into, and so I can't comment on.

however-


"We become Christ's limbs or members, and Christ becomes our members... Unworthy though I be, my hand and foot are Christ. I move my hand, and my hand is wholly Christ, for God's divinity is united inseparably to me. I move my foot, and lo! it glows like God himself."

St. Simeon Neotheologos



"But we hold that to the whole of human nature the whole essence of the Godhead was united... He in his fulness took upon himself me in my fulness, and was united whole to whole that he might in his grace bestow salvation on the whole man... the mind has become the seat of the divinity united with it in subsistence, just as is evidently the case with the body too."

St. John of Damascus


I am guessing, that these guys are talking about being "one" in a greater sense than merely "purpose".

 

[Free]

Well, that's a Trinitarian problem isn't it? How Jesus could be around before the creation of the world and be God yet be someone OTHER than the "ONLY true God" he addresses the FATHER as?

No, it's everyone's problem, regardless of doctrinal stance. Since it was a question I was asking you, for which I again didn't get a response. If that has come out somewhere in the past, I've missed it.

Who do you say that Jesus is and was?

Not at all - what I find odd is that you believe that the one who addressed the Father as the "only true God" is also HIMSELF the "only true God" and yet there is only ONE true God and Jesus and the Father are NOT "each other". That's not only odd - it's a study in contradiction.

There is no contradiction, that is why the doctrine of the Trinity makes the most sense.

You mean where Jesus said believers can be "one" even as he and the Father are "one"? OOPS - believers are only one in "purpose" - they remain seperate beings. According to Jesus' own analogy, Jesus and the Father are seperate beings.

DivineNames has addressed half of this statement so I'll address the other half. Regardless of what is meant in terms of believers being one as Jesus and the Father are one, see what happens in John when Jesus states that he "and the Father are one":

Joh 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

Certainly the Jews wouldn't have stoned Jesus for claiming to be one in purpose with God. Regardless, their answer makes it clear that Jesus was making himself equal to God, the Father.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Well, that's a Trinitarian problem isn't it? How Jesus could be around before the creation of the world and be God yet be someone OTHER than the "ONLY true God" he addresses the FATHER as?

No, it's everyone's problem, regardless of doctrinal stance. Since it was a question I was asking you, for which I again didn't get a response. If that has come out somewhere in the past, I've missed it.

Who do you say that Jesus is and was?

Not at all - what I find odd is that you believe that the one who addressed the Father as the "only true God" is also HIMSELF the "only true God" and yet there is only ONE true God and Jesus and the Father are NOT "each other". That's not only odd - it's a study in contradiction.

There is no contradiction, that is why the doctrine of the Trinity makes the most sense.

You mean where Jesus said believers can be "one" even as he and the Father are "one"? OOPS - believers are only one in "purpose" - they remain seperate beings. According to Jesus' own analogy, Jesus and the Father are seperate beings.

DivineNames has addressed half of this statement so I'll address the other half. Regardless of what is meant in terms of believers being one as Jesus and the Father are one, see what happens in John when Jesus states that he "and the Father are one":

Joh 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

Certainly the Jews wouldn't have stoned Jesus for claiming to be one in purpose with God. Regardless, their answer makes it clear that Jesus was making himself equal to God, the Father.

Predictably, you have missed the point of my post altogether. It is difficult to believe Trinitarians have not been literally "programmed" to respond to ALL questions in the same manner, because it certainly seems that way :roll:

I ask what is the PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE between what anyone would normally interpret as 3 GODS acting in unison and the picture which we are presented with at the baptism of Jesus, and you immediately start trying to prove that Jesus is God. The point escapes you. The only way to begin to AVOID a polytheistic scenario here is to demonstrate that Jesus is NOT God.

 

[kwag_myers]

Are you saying you believe God is only "one" in the same manner a man and wife are "one"?

I'm not "saying" anything. I'm simply asking a question. However, I think that DivineNames makes a valid point. Let's take a corporation for example. It is governed by a board of directors but also has a CEO. The CEO is one person but is also a member of the board and must work in unity with the board. Likewise, God is our Heavenly Father who works in union with the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

A husband and wife live in unity (hopefully), working in union to accomplish the work that God has for them.

I think that most humans cannot understand three-in-one because they have never seen it work as God has planned it. There is always someone trying to put themselves over the other instead of mutual submission. Once you have seen submission work, it's very clear how the Godhead works.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Are you saying you believe God is only "one" in the same manner a man and wife are "one"?

I'm not "saying" anything. I'm simply asking a question. However, I think that DivineNames makes a valid point. Let's take a corporation for example. It is governed by a board of directors but also has a CEO. The CEO is one person but is also a member of the board and must work in unity with the board. Likewise, God is our Heavenly Father who works in union with the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

A husband and wife live in unity (hopefully), working in union to accomplish the work that God has for them.

I think that most humans cannot understand three-in-one because they have never seen it work as God has planned it. There is always someone trying to put themselves over the other instead of mutual submission. Once you have seen submission work, it's very clear how the Godhead works.

I wish I had a more up to date expression but -

"You can't see the forest for the trees"

I'm BEGGING you to open your eyes and realize the obvious -

How can a "corporation" of divine persons possibly be construed as a monotheistic scenario? It is obviously a "group". If one God can be a group of persons, then a group of persons can be one God.

What if I told you I believed in a religion which held there were 3 Gods and that these 3 Gods were ONE PERSON? Would that make sense? How can 3 Gods be one person?

If that proposition is irrational to you, then do you not see that one God who is 3 persons is EQUALLY IRRATIONAL?

 

[NRoof]

I personally don't know exactly how the Godhead works. Gods ways are much different than ours and his capabilities are much greater than our own.

I think that most humans cannot understand three-in-one ...

This I think I can understand.

I am a father.
I am a son.
I am a husband.

Each aspect has its own roles and responsibilities but I am still one person.
I don't treat my wife as I would my children and I don't treat my children as I would my parents.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I personally don't know exactly how the Godhead works. Gods ways are much different than ours and his capabilities are much greater than our own.

I think that most humans cannot understand three-in-one ...

This I think I can understand.

I am a father.
I am a son.
I am a husband.

Each aspect has its own roles and responsibilities but I am still one person.
I don't treat my wife as I would my children and I don't treat my children as I would my parents.

Nroof, thank you for your comment but your perspective is not Trinitarianism but Modalism. The analogy you used is the one oft-used by "Oneness Pentecostals". Trinitarianism does not believe the persons are "roles" of one person but that the persons are actually PLURAL PERSONS who relate to one another as distinct entities.

Ironically, I have heard quite a few people who classified themselves as Trinitarians use this same analogy. It only goes to show that many Trinitarians are actually NOT Trinitarians according to their true concept.