The Baptism of Jesus - Trinity or Tritheism?

[Ormly]

Irrational thinking being presented as rational reasoning again. You still don't get it. Your foundation is no foundation for discussing this. I'm going back to my sand table.

You're right in a way, I "still don't get it" - I still don't get it because YOU HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING. All you do is presume I wouldn't receive an answer IF I were given one, accuse me of being cultic, and "tire" of dealing with me in the course of 2 or 3 posts.

Now you may as well limp off to your sandbox and continue building your castles made of sand, because you have shot yourself in the foot by appealing to rationality, divesting yourself of the only eventual recourse you may have had in this discussion, namely, that the Trinity doesn't HAVE to be logical or rational. My question was very simple, straightforward, logical, and rational.

In your mind this is so. But you see, that is where the problem lies; in your mind. I can't go there. Only God can. Revelational truth needs be the solution to the problem even for the sincere. Revelational truth says: "Thou art the Christ, Son of the Living God", and the individual knows it. But for the perverse and insincere even that truth won't alter their mental condition. Pounding sand is really all one can do when trying to persuade to righteousness.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

In your mind this is so. But you see, that is where the problem lies; in your mind. I can't go there. Only God can. Revelational truth needs be the solution to the problem even for the sincere. Revelational truth says: "Thou art the Christ, Son of the Living God", and the individual knows it. But for the perverse and insincere even that truth won't alter their mental condition. Pounding sand is really all one can do when trying to persuade to righteousness

More inane and accusatory ramblings. Are you even capable of following a train of thought? What does MY "mental condition" have to do with the fact that YOU can't answer (or maybe can't even understand) the question I posed?

 

[DivineNames]

I think Ormly had a legitimate point.

You didn't give any consideration in what you were saying to the distinction made between the immanent and economic Trinity.

Are you saying there is not as much distinction (seperateness?) between the members of the Trinity in God Himself (immanent Trinity), as there APPEARS to be (economic Trinity) in the scene of the Baptism of Jesus? Why then is this example used as a prooftext by mainstream Trinitarians to illustrate that God is 3 LITERAL persons?

I am saying that you didn't consider the issue in what you wrote, and so therefore it seems that Ormly had a legitimate point to make.

 

[DivineNames]

No, you'd rather feign "righteous indignation" to conceal the fact that you don't have an answer :wink:

Naah! The answer is easy except for a fool; irrational thinking is his way of life. Now I feel sure you don't want to be looked upon as being irrational, correct? So why not start trying to be rational?

So you are saying that the "answer" as to how the Trinity makes sense is "easy"?

Could you explain it then?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I think Ormly had a legitimate point.

You didn't give any consideration in what you were saying to the distinction made between the immanent and economic Trinity.

Are you saying there is not as much distinction (seperateness?) between the members of the Trinity in God Himself (immanent Trinity), as there APPEARS to be (economic Trinity) in the scene of the Baptism of Jesus? Why then is this example used as a prooftext by mainstream Trinitarians to illustrate that God is 3 LITERAL persons?

I am saying that you didn't consider the issue in what you wrote, and so therefore it seems that Ormly had a legitimate point to make.

Perhaps you can explain the legitimate point he was making, because he hasn't. All I can get out of him is a preconception that I cannot or will not "receive an answer" (along with various insults regarding my mental and moral state) :-?

 

[DivineNames]

Perhaps you can explain the legitimate point he was making, because he hasn't.

You explained it yourself.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Perhaps you can explain the legitimate point he was making, because he hasn't.

You explained it yourself.

Now I am beggining to understand how Lou Costello felt in the "Who's On First" skit :-?

 

[DivineNames]

Are you saying there is not as much distinction (seperateness?) between the members of the Trinity in God Himself (immanent Trinity), as there APPEARS to be (economic Trinity) in the scene of the Baptism of Jesus?

Its a possibilty.

 

[DivineNames]

Why then is this example used as a prooftext by mainstream Trinitarians to illustrate that God is 3 LITERAL persons?

The distinction can be read back into the immanent Trinity? But you have to take account of the Incarnation? That is my guess.

I have previously seen your definition of "person", it would be accepted by some Trinitarians. In general, what exactly a "person" is in the context of the Trinity is all a bit mysterious.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Why then is this example used as a prooftext by mainstream Trinitarians to illustrate that God is 3 LITERAL persons?

The distinction can be read back into the immanent Trinity? But you have to take account of the Incarnation? That is my guess

The Incarnation is of no consequence in this regard. Mainstream Trinitarianism teaches that the degree of distinction seen between the persons in, for example, the baptism of Jesus scenario, accurately reflects the degree of distinction between these persons IN THE GODHEAD, from all eternity.

[quote:0e1a5]I have previously seen your defintition of "person", it would be accepted by some Trinitarians. In general, what exactly a "person" is in the context of the Trinity is all a bit mysterious.

[/quote:0e1a5]

It's more than "mysterious", it actually has NO MEANING. For example, Trinitarians readily admit that the word "person(s)" is NOT the correct term for what the F/S/HS are, but that it's the "best available term". Yet unless (according to orthodoxy) a Christian confess that there is "one God who exists in 3 persons", that Christian is no Christian at all.

Catch that? The image the term "person" brings to our minds is an admittedly inaccurate portrayl of what the F/S/HS actually are, yet unless we subscribe to THAT TERM, we are heretical.

 

[DivineNames]

The Incarnation is of no consequence in this regard. Mainstream Trinitarianism teaches that the degree of distinction seen between the persons in, for example, the baptism of Jesus scenario, accurately reflects the degree of distinction between these persons IN THE GODHEAD, from all eternity.

I will take your word for it.

In all honesty, the subject of the Trinity is only of interest to me in connection with the writings of the mystics. What the Bible says... what does it matter?

 

[MPaul]

In considering the Trinity, first it must be noted that God follows a supernatural logic, not an natural, earthly logic. For example, he is eternal, present everywhere in the universe. However, in regard to the persons of the Trinity being distinct, not separate, that is in regard only to function. Let me quote an outline I wrote--although it's special formating for reading comprehension and retention will not carry over to forum software. The entire article is at

http://www.loveofchrist.info/theology/trinity.html

from II. C.
"3. The distinction to be observed in the persons of the deity is in their function.
1. In regard to salvation, God, the Father, is the planner, and the Holy Spirit brings to completion the work that Christ, the uniquely related Son, initiates.
2. I Peter 1:2: Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ…  cf. God, the Father, as planner, Matthew 11:26; John 3:16; Romans 8:2; Ephesians 1:9: Christ as redeemer, Matthew 1:21; Romans 3:24,25; Galatians 4:4,5; I Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 1:7; I Timothy 2:5: Holy Spirit as regenerator, John 3:5; 14:16,26; 16:7–11; Acts 1:8; Romans 5:5; 8:14,15; 14:17; I Corinthians 2:12,13; Galatians 5:22,23; Ephesians 1:13; Titus 3:5; I John 5:6.
3. In regard to creation, the first verses of Genesis again indicate that God, the Father, is the planner; Christ, as his word, initiates; and the Holy Spirit, hovering over an earth without form, brings the work to completion.
4. Scripture always represents the threefold division of God as persons, never as a force.
1. God as creator is Father. I Corinthians 8:6: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things…, cf. Luke 3:38; Hebrews 12:9.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son, as heir of all things. Hebrews 1:2:…whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, cf. Ephesians 1:9–12; Colossians 1:13–18. As the son of man, Mark 6:3, and the Son of God, Matthew 17:5, Christ’s work on earth initiated a new humanity, Romans 5:18,19, who will be the citizens of his coming kingdom, Revelation chp.21.
3. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as life giver. John 3:5,6:…Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Romans 8:15–17:…ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ…, cf. John 16:8–13; Romans 8:11; II Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:25; Ephesians 1:13,14; I Thessalonians 1:5.


"III. Scripture does not fully explain the complex existence of God, but it reveals his diversity to the extent that the Christian doctrine of his tri-unity may be defined formally. (Note item one of the Bibliography to reference the below cited page numbers)
1. The persons of God are distinct, not separate.
1. They do not exist alongside each other, “but in, through, and unto each other,†(p.296). “Neither space nor time nor anything else separates them,†(p.298).
2. The essence of deity is fully possessed by each person and by the tri-fold unity. Each person “is identical with the entire being, and equal to the other two persons taken together, or to all the three,†(p.302).
3. However, the persons of God “are not the three parts of one whole nor three names for one and the same object. The Father alone is Father, the Son alone is Son, the Spirit alone is Spirit,†(p.282).
4. We do not worship the Son and the Holy Spirit besides the Father, but in God we worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
5. The Holy Spirit is the name of the third person of the Trinity, although he is also the personal Spirit of the Father and the Son, Romans 8:9,27; just as all three persons have the same mind, will, energy, nature, and essence. The Word of God does not manifest the exact manner that three persons can have the same spirit.
6. However, Scripture never contradicts itself, stating in one passage that there is one God, and in other verses that there are three gods, but it consistently represents God as three in one."

In the above quote, in regard to the issue of this thread it is interesting that the three persons of God are represented as having one spirit. However, if the Trinity is rejected, then the concept of Christ changes, and the Christian religion is no longer valid. That's why opponents of Christianity so often begin their attack of the religion with the Trinity, because it depends on a supernatural logic from a supernatural existence, which people in a natural world can find difficult to comprehend. However, without the doctrine of the Trinity, the overall references to God in the Bible cannot be understood consistently--example, Zechariah 12:10: And I will pour upon the House of David…the Spirit of grace and supplications: And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him….

Regards,

Paul

 

[DivineNames]

all three persons have the same mind, will, energy, nature, and essence.

There is supposed to be mutual love between the persons of the Trinity I think.

If they have the same mind and will, does it make sense that there is mutual love between the persons?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

MPaul,

What greater seperation of being would be necessary to constitute 3 GODS, than that illustrated at the baptism of Jesus where -

one is the father OF another
one speaks OF another
one descends UPON another

...and all 3 are obviously not one another but are functioning as a group?

Do you understand the question? How many MORE characteristics of a polytheistic theology would this picture require to establish that this whole scenario is, in ESSENCE, polytheistic in nature?

 

[Ormly]

MPaul,

What greater seperation of being would be necessary to constitute 3 GODS, than that illustrated at the baptism of Jesus where -

one is the father OF another
one speaks OF another
one descends UPON another

...and all 3 are obviously not one another but are functioning as a group?

Do you understand the question? How many MORE characteristics of a polytheistic theology would this picture require to establish that this whole scenario is, in ESSENCE, polytheistic in nature?

Are the lips on your face the same as the heart in your chest? A yes or no will suffice for an answer.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Are the lips on your face the same as the heart in your chest? A yes or no will suffice for an answer.

They are 2 parts of the same person.

Now your turn to answer mine.

 

[Ormly]

Are the lips on your face the same as the heart in your chest? A yes or no will suffice for an answer.

They are 2 parts of the same person.

Now your turn to answer mine.

So it can be rightly said they are both you, correct?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Are the lips on your face the same as the heart in your chest? A yes or no will suffice for an answer.

They are 2 parts of the same person.

Now your turn to answer mine.

So it can be rightly said they are both you, correct?

No, not "rightly" said - the right perspective is that these are PARTS of me. Me, the whole one person. Only I am fully "me". If I were more than one person, the other person or persons wouldn't be me, and if you're talking about parts of a person, these parts are not persons themselves, because a person is a self-conscious, autonomous entity and not a part of a self-conscious, autonomous entity.

Besides, where you're going with this analogy is not in keeping with Trinitarian definitions anyway, which deny that the Father/Son/Spirit are "parts" of God.

 

[MPaul]

MPaul,
What greater seperation of being would be necessary to constitute 3 GODS, than that illustrated at the baptism of Jesus where -
one is the father OF another
one speaks OF another
one descends UPON another
...and all 3 are obviously not one another but are functioning as a group?
Do you understand the question? How many MORE characteristics of a polytheistic theology would this picture require to establish that this whole scenario is, in ESSENCE, polytheistic in nature?

And, a question regarding your question is -- how can the representations in Scripture be interpreted consistently regarding the nature of God?? Without the Trinity, they cannot. At Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is called "the everlasting Father." Jesus is both the Son and the Father. Thus, Zecahriah 12:10 says, they shall look on me whom they pierced and mourn for him.

Can you quote something from pagan mythology, where a pagan god is both father and son, both me and him.

True, if you just take one passage of scripture, and apply a preferred meaning to it, theologically you can prove just about anything you want. However, if all of Scriptue is given to us by God, the interpretation of one passage must have a meaning that fits in with the rest of it.

The concept of the Trinity is necessary to the salvation of mankind. Let me quote further from my outline.

"IV. B. However, to distort the concept of the Trinity changes the truth of who is Jesus Christ and of how a person finds salvation through God.
1. If God exists as three modes, then by our own efforts we come to truly know him by passing through three stages of spirituality. Salvation becomes an entirely subjective, mystical experience.
2. If Christ is a lesser deity, having existed as a human being with an inner divine spark brought to maturity through obedience, then he became the Son of God by his own actions. And then, our salvation is accomplished by imitating him in our efforts to be God-like.
3. If Christ is a lesser deity, an intermediary path to God, but not fully human, he is not a true sacrifice for human sin.

"C. Salvation occurs only by accepting the blood of Christ as a sacrificial substitute for our own sin.
4. However, the only means of salvation is the blood of Christ, that of both a sinless man and God. We do not know exactly how Christ was completely human and fully God in one person, but only the sacrifice of his blood overcomes the evil of humankind. (See 'Who Is Jesus Christ?')."

Pagan gods can at times be listed in groups of three, but never does this grouping form an essential theology for the redemption of humankind. Never are the gods represented as being three in one.

The three persons of God may function as a group, but they still have one Spirit, one personal essence, and according to their scriptural representation and a supernatural logic, the three are one.

What you are doing is inventing your own test for determining if the Trinity is true. However, that test is no different than saying because it's three, it can't be one. True, in the natural world three cannot be both three and one. But, the supernatural world does not have to be governed by the laws of the natural world. Thus, God can be both separate and united.

Regards,

Paul

 

[MPaul]

all three persons have the same mind, will, energy, nature, and essence.

There is supposed to be mutual love between the persons of the Trinity I think.

If they have the same mind and will, does it make sense that there is mutual love between the persons?

I don't know what verse you are using to establish a concept of mutual love, which restricts responding to what you may be getting at. However, just as human beings have self-love (love you neighbor as yourself), I think we can assume that God has self-love.

Regards,

Paul