The Baptism of Jesus - Trinity or Tritheism?

[NRoof]

double post. Sorry

 

[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.

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.

Please read my first sentence again. I did not say I believed in any one theology. In fact I said I don't understand it.

My example was only to illustrate from a human perspective how 3 in 1 is possible thus answering by example what kwag_myers had said.
On the bright side I also don't believe it is necessary to understand for salvation.
Norm

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Please read my first sentence again. I did not say I believed in any one theology. In fact I said I don't understand it.

Sorry if I assumed you believed it - I was trying to respond to what you PRESENTED. Whether you believe it or not is a personal matter and not really revelant I think we agree?

My example was only to illustrate from a human perspective how 3 in 1 is possible thus answering by example what kwag_myers had said.
On the bright side I also don't believe it is necessary to understand for salvation.

So you seem to be saying that this "3 in 1" is only possible if the 3 are seen as "aspects" or "modes" of ONE person? I agree (not that I personally believe that either, but at least it makes sense) Do you understand though, Norm, that this is NOT Trinitariansm, and thus, does not make sense of what Kwag_Myers presented?

 

[NRoof]

Do you understand though, Norm, that this is NOT Trinitariansm, and thus, does not make sense of what Kwag_Myers presented?

To be completely honest I don't understand any "ism" or denominational differences. I see all of these as ways to divide Gods people. God is not divided and we shouldn't be either. We can agree to disagree on certain issues because we don't and won't fully understand God this side of Heaven.

If you would like to discuss this more I suggest we take it outside of this thread.

Norm

 

[NRoof]

double post. Sorry

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Do you understand though, Norm, that this is NOT Trinitariansm, and thus, does not make sense of what Kwag_Myers presented?

To be completely honest I don't understand any "ism" or denominational differences. I see all of these as ways to divide Gods people. God is not divided and we shouldn't be either. We can agree to disagree on certain issues because we don't and won't fully understand God this side of Heaven.

If you would like to discuss this more I suggest we take it outside of this thread.

I won't argue the point, Norm

...but you will find the majority of Trinitarians will say you cannot "agree to disagree" on the Trinity question. They will not accept you as one of "God's people" if you have a problem with the Athanasian Creed.

 

[45rt]

"

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,

Obvious?!??! Where is God or the Holy Spirit ever called a person

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.

Sorry, you lost me in that last bit.

Jesus was a man born of mary, the Holy spirit descended onto Jesus and the Father who is also Holy says this is my son whom i am well pleased

Am i correct so far?

So, what we have here, if we believe the scriptures, is a man called Jesus having the Spirit sent to him and the Father, God, saying he is pleased with his son, who we know his is son, because he calls him son, and Jesus calls him father.

Mary was with child through the Holy Spirit of God.


Assumptions can be made through that, but to jump wholly into any three in one is probably wrong..

45rt

 

[Diaconeo]

The Trinity Simplified by reason of two parts being equal

You know, I have always been perplexed by the idea of the Triune God. That God somehow has Three Persons and yet is only one God. It is something that I constantly am in awe of, and I must take it by faith, knowing that God's mind is not like mine. I can't begin to even compare it with human words the way God has put it in Scripture.

The arguement seems to revolve around the point that John in his Gospel acount continued to mention the fact the Jesus only did the will of his Father. Since Jesus in this way is subordinate to the Father, then the Father must be superior to the Son and thus a seperate and distinct God. The argument is further held together by the mention of Zues and Apollos being two seperate distinct father and son gods. The flaw in this is that this uses heathen mythical dieties to try and explain the One True God. What seems to be missing in the argument from John's Gospel account is that John wrote his account to prove to the Jews that Jesus is Jehovah God Israel.

It's an easy enough doctrine to figure out, if you keep it simple and just trust God at His word. My son, who was only 13 at the time, argued the fact that Jesus is God, the same God that the Father is, in his youth group. The question was asked, where in the Bible does it tell us that Jesus is God. Of course, the youth replied that the Bible never makes this statement. My son, however, quickly reminded them of John 1:1. The response to that was, "Hello, the Word was with God. Duh!", to which my son quickly pointed out, "And the Word was God, hello." How can something that was with God also be God? This is a good question. How can I be with myself as a seperate being, and yet be myself? I don't know, I can't do it, but then I'm not God.

Now, don't forget that John himself wrote to prove to the Jews that Jesus was Jehovah God of Israel, which I'm sure everyone will agree the same as the Father. If Jesus was not Jehovah God, and he never claimed to be Jehovah God, then there is no blasphemy. But Jesus did claim this, even claimed, "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:30) Jesus goes on to say "...so that you may understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (Jn. 10:38) So not only does Jesus claim that he and the Father are one, but that they are both in each other. Curiouser and Curiouser.

If Jesus made no claim to being Jehovah God of Israel, to be the very God that the Jews worship, the only true God that can be worshiped, then how is it that he blasphemed? The Jews understood all of Jesus' claims to be God, why can't we? The Jews had him killed for the express reason of Jesus' claim to be Jehovah, which we call all agree is the same as God the Father. But we know that Jesus did make claims to being God of Israel, that is God the Father.

When Jesus healed on the Sabbath, it wasn't for healing that he was accused of blaspheming, but for claiming to be Jehovah God. Jesus said to the Jews, in response to healing on the Sabbath, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself and working." (Jn. 5:17) In the next verse is clearly states, "...the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Now I know, it specifically state 'equal with God' not that he made himself to be God. However, in the John 10 account of his blasphemy it states very clearly, "...because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God." Now, if this were any other god besides Jehovah God, what's the hurt? But it is specifically because He made Himself to be Jehovah God that they cosidered it blasphemy.

Now, it was stated in an earlier post, when asked who was God, Jesus or his Father, that it was the the one who is the only true God, the Father. But I must point out 1 Jn. 5:20 and this is no small statement.

"And we are know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

Since Jesus is the true God and Eternal Life, then that would make him not only equal to Jehovah God, but actually Jehovah God.

Now, if the Father and Son are the same God, then we can assume by reason of applied logic that the third Person of the Trinity is also God. The argement from the point of the Holy Spirit can be argued later in a seperate but equal post.

In Christ,
Matthew

 

[cj]

Nroof, thank you for your comment but your perspective is not Trinitarianism but Modalism.

No, not quite. Perhaps you should become more clear about what Modalism is before you declare to people that their thinking is such.

Nroof was actually quite clear about what he thinks, even though he might not have been eloquent in his defining it.

In the sense of the economy/environment in which he lives and has his being, he understands that he must relate to this in three specific ways,.... as a father, as a son, and as a husband. Yet he is still only himself.

And he is absolutely proper in thinking this.

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.

That's funny,..... Christianity echos this. But the problem does not lie with God, it is found in men and their false concepts.

God is triune.... punto finale.

How men manipulate this truth is according to their own fallen being. And the matter of men attempting to manipulate the truth concerning the triune nature of God is not the only evidence we have of this.

The fallen nature of man will take whatever he can and manipulate it to feed his natural preferences.


In love,
cj

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Nroof, thank you for your comment but your perspective is not Trinitarianism but Modalism.

No, not quite. Perhaps you should become more clear about what Modalism is before you declare to people that their thinking is such

Thank you for clearly demonstrating that many of those who classify themselves as Trinitarian are, in fact, NOT. Nroof's analogy, that ONE PERSON can be Father/Husband/Son, is the "flagship" analogy of Oneness Pentecostalism, which is used to illustrate that God is not LITERALLY 3 persons, but one person with 3 roles, or, that the Father/Son/Spirit are 3 "aspects" of the one person.

This modalistic analogy is considered HERESY by mainstream Trinitarian scholarship. Would you like some quotes?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Re: The Trinity Simplified by reason of two parts being equa

Matthew,

You miss the point of the thread, which was not to initiate another "is Jesus God" debate, but, rather, IF Jesus (and the Father and Holy Spirit) are all deity, how MANY deities are illustrated in the baptism of Jesus scenario? What MORE seperation of being is necessary to determine multiple Gods, than that one is the Father of the other?

If the Christian God is His own Father and His own Son, and if one can be "pleased" with the other, then the Christian God differs only from the multiple gods of pagan lore in that He (They) are CALLED "one God" in Christian theology. But it isn't what you "call" someone or something, that makes that someone or something what it truly is - what it truly is, is determined by it's CHARACTERISTICS, and the characteristics if the divine personages in the baptism of Jesus plainly indicates more than one God.

 

[Diaconeo]

BradtheImpaler,

I think you missed the point of my post. It was not to start another 'is Jesus God' debate, but to show that Jesus is the same God that the Father is. I think that you had a preconceived misconception of what I was posting, proving that people can't read objectively. The simple fact that Jesus is God proves that he is the very same exact God that the Father is. How this is possible I can't explain, and I don't think any human attempt at it will ever suffice, and it has been attempted many times.

There is a lot hanging on the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity mimicks that of pagan mythos, but I have to ask, does judeao/christian theology mimick pagan mythos, or do they attempt to mimick God? There is the real question, not if the Trinity is ever mentioned in the Bibile, of course it's not. Any one that says it is mentioned is adding to the Word. But that's not the real question or issue here (and let's forget about names or titles for the doctrine) the real question is can it be supported from Scripture? I believe that not only can it be supported, but that it is expressly implied by the Scriptures. Harmonizing all of the Scriptures is what is important, not if a single concept is specifically mentioned (i.e. the Trinity)

The simply question, are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the same God, or three different Gods can be answered by the simple question, is Jesus the same God as the Father? Are they all Jehovah God?

Even in the Hebrew texts God is plural, and it's not a royal rendering. Elohim by it's definition is gods. It's a term used of pagan gods, angels, men and ever Jehavah Himself. Yet when refering to God (i.e. Jehovah) even though the word is plural, the verb agreement is always singular. That in itself is reasonable grounds for argueing that God is plural. In Genisis, God speaks to at least two other beings. "Let Us make man in Our Image."

I have to ask, to whom is God speaking? To other gods, or to Himself as a Triune God, or Godhead? Perhaps He was speaking to the Son and the Holy Spirit. After all, the Son was in the beginning with God. I'm sure the Father was there in the beginning with God, since the Father is God. And we know that the Word is Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son. We also know that the Word was God who was in the beginning, so the Son must have been with the Father and that the Son was the selfsame God in the begining that the Father is.

Again, my point is not to assert that Jesus is God, but rather that the whole argument of the Trinity based on the question, Are the Father and Son the selfsame God? is mute becase we know that the Son is Jesus and the Jesus is God. So the Son and the Father are the very selfsame God. It can't be that the Jesus is God, but that the Son and the Father aren't the same God. By the very definition of God being the only True God, Jesus must be the one True God if He is God at all. Thus, since He is the One True God, then as the Son, He is the selfsame God that the Father is, who is also the One True God.


In Christ,
Matthew[/i]

 

[BradtheImpaler]

BradtheImpaler,

I think you missed the point of my post. It was not to start another 'is Jesus God' debate, but to show that Jesus is the same God that the Father is. I think that you had a preconceived misconception of what I was posting, proving that people can't read objectively. The simple fact that Jesus is God proves that he is the very same exact God that the Father is. How this is possible I can't explain, and I don't think any human attempt at it will ever suffice, and it has been attempted many times

Whether Jesus is God, as I have pointed out, is another debate. You take the deity of Christ for granted, so I am agreeing with you (for "argument's sake") and pointing out the INEVITABLE CONCLUSION of that understanding, which is that there is no intrinsic difference between "one God" and "more than one God" if your God can indeed be distinct persons who have a RELATIONSHIP with one another.

There is a lot hanging on the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity mimicks that of pagan mythos, but I have to ask, does judeao/christian theology mimick pagan mythos, or do they attempt to mimick God?

Don't call Christian (Trinitarian) theology "Judeo"...it isn't.

There is the real question, not if the Trinity is ever mentioned in the Bibile, of course it's not. Any one that says it is mentioned is adding to the Word. But that's not the real question or issue here (and let's forget about names or titles for the doctrine) the real question is can it be supported from Scripture? I believe that not only can it be supported, but that it is expressly implied by the Scriptures. Harmonizing all of the Scriptures is what is important, not if a single concept is specifically mentioned (i.e. the Trinity)

I think the fact that the Trinity is never expressly mentioned or clearly taught but seen as only somehow "implied" in the scriptures (to those who believe it) is clear indication that the author's of the NT had no such doctrine in mind. It is also certainly a matter of history that the doctrine EVOLVED. In mainstream Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity is as much a "litmus test" of orthodoxy as belief in the doctrine of salvation by "grace through faith" or that Jesus died and rose again. But those two doctrines are thoroughly addressed and expounded in the NT, as ANY fundamental doctrine would have to be. The Trinity, however, is DERIVED, not clearly taught. Wrongfully derived, I believe, but the fact that it is only derived should tell you something.

The simply question, are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the same God, or three different Gods can be answered by the simple question, is Jesus the same God as the Father? Are they all Jehovah God?

Even in the Hebrew texts God is plural, and it's not a royal rendering. Elohim by it's definition is gods. It's a term used of pagan gods, angels, men and ever Jehavah Himself. Yet when refering to God (i.e. Jehovah) even though the word is plural, the verb agreement is always singular. That in itself is reasonable grounds for argueing that God is plural. In Genisis, God speaks to at least two other beings. "Let Us make man in Our Image."

This argument has even been abandoned by many Trinitarian scholars. If you want to understand what the Hebrew indicates, consult HEBREWS (not the book, the people) This is simply a retroactive attempt to supply evidence for the Trinity in the OT when the doctrine is admittedly not even "specifically mentioned" in the NT!

But your comment here is disasterous to your position. Like Nroof's and CJ's ignorance of the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism, you display an ignorance of the difference between Monotheism and Polytheism when you say -

"In Genesis, God speaks to at least two other BEINGS"

God is only ONE "being" according to Trinitarianism, and certainly more than one being is more than one God. You and Nroof are "heretics", according to the officially accepted doctrine of the Trinity, per your terminology. No doubt you may accuse me of "semantics", but all this goes to show is that many Trinitarians use terminology which they each have their own personal definitions for. The doctrine actually is BASED on semantics, and an appeal to "correct" terminology. Behind the terminology, though, there is no possibility of a concept that lies inbetween God as "one person with 3 roles" or "3 distinct beings (Gods)". Only the terminology lies inbetween.

I have to ask, to whom is God speaking? To other gods, or to Himself as a Triune God, or Godhead? Perhaps He was speaking to the Son and the Holy Spirit. After all, the Son was in the beginning with God. I'm sure the Father was there in the beginning with God, since the Father is God. And we know that the Word is Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son. We also know that the Word was God who was in the beginning, so the Son must have been with the Father and that the Son was the selfsame God in the begining that the Father is

Again, my point is not to assert that Jesus is God, but rather that the whole argument of the Trinity based on the question, Are the Father and Son the selfsame God? is mute becase we know that the Son is Jesus and the Jesus is God. So the Son and the Father are the very selfsame God. It can't be that the Jesus is God, but that the Son and the Father aren't the same God. By the very definition of God being the only True God, Jesus must be the one True God if He is God at all. Thus, since He is the One True God, then as the Son, He is the selfsame God that the Father is, who is also the One True God

I disagree with your premise (Jesus is God), but again, you stop short of the ultimate CONCLUSION of your premise...

If your God is more than one person, and if these persons are NOT each other, and, in fact, have a relationship with one another, then there is no difference in CONCEPT between your brand of "monotheism" and polytheism. The only difference is you insist you have only one God. But the term "one God" is MEANINGLESS in light of the fact that the characteristics of this one God are the same as the characteristics of MORE than one God.

For instance, there is nothing wrong with a theology (for theology's sake) which held to a belief in 3 Gods, each of which were eternal, each of which were equal, each of whom loved the other, and each of whom were always in agreement. Now this IS the Trinity, except that Trinitarians insist that it's not "3 Gods". But please try to think this through - what is the DIFFERENCE whether I call these 3, "3 persons of one God" or "3 Gods"? The only difference lies in what we choose to CALL them, not what they ARE.

 

[NRoof]

But your comment here is disasterous to your position. Like Nroof's and CJ's ignorance of the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism, you display an ignorance of the difference between Monotheism and Polytheism when you say -

Thanks for the compliment. I know that is not what you intended which tells volumes about you personally. I will leave you to figure out why I appreciate the comment.

You and Nroof are "heretics", according to the officially accepted doctrine of the Trinity

I can live with that.


There is more I would love to say but it has been placed on my heart to keep the rest to myself as it certainly wouldn't be edifying to you or God.

Peace and Gods blessing to you,
Norm

 

[BradtheImpaler]

But your comment here is disasterous to your position. Like Nroof's and CJ's ignorance of the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism, you display an ignorance of the difference between Monotheism and Polytheism when you say -

Thanks for the compliment. I know that is not what you intended which tells volumes about you personally. I will leave you to figure out why I appreciate the comment.

You and Nroof are "heretics", according to the officially accepted doctrine of the Trinity

I can live with that.


There is more I would love to say but it has been placed on my heart to keep the rest to myself as it certainly wouldn't be edifying to you or God.

Peace and Gods blessing to you,
Norm

Sorry Norm, I apologize for including you in the "ignorance" reference : That should have been directed to CJ alone, who claims I don't know what Modalism is. I had to read back to remember that you were unclear as to your position.

Actually, I believe the analogy you used goes a lot further in maintaining "one God" as opposed to 3, but my point is it's not Trinitarianism, and those who understand the Trinity (not that anyone really understands it but, rather, those who understand what the accepted terminology and analogies are) will definately label your analogy as "heretical".

Once a creed is accepted by a majority, there is no tolerance for reason or original thought.

 

[NRoof]

Sorry Norm, I apologize for including you in the "ignorance" reference

Apology accepted but there was truly no need to apologize. I truly did take it as a compliment as I am ignorant in many (if not most) things of God. Ignorance in my case is a good thing because it gets me to study things I don't understand. I also don't blindly trust what people say which makes thing interesting and difficult for me at times.

The real problem I see is when people get caught up in a particular doctrine to the exclusion of all else. Once this happens they are unable to look objectively at another viewpoint and have a rational discussion. It basically becomes an I'm right and your wrong mentality and that position serves no one. I prefer to present my understanding and listen to another's position and dialog about it. More often than not we come to a new understanding that neither of us had before because of the open dialog.

As far as the God head works.

First I don't think anybody truly understands it (even if they insist they do). Since our first discussion I did a little research to try and understand the different viewpoints. I think I have a decent understanding of each position (although I could be wrong again :D). On some level I can also say I agree with aspects of all of them. The problem is we are trying to use our limited human knowledge to understand an unlimited God. Remember with God all things are possible. Just because we don't understand it and can't imagine how it could be doesn't mean God can't do it.

Second I have found nowhere in the Bible where it says I must understand how the God head works to be saved and admitted to Heaven. So if someone wants to label me a heretic then so be it.
With that in mind I prefer to spend my time on the things I have been told to do to get and stay on the narrow path. It is still good to have these types of conversations but not to the point where you make an enemy of a brother or sister.

I would like to apologize for distracting from the original topic with this post but I felt it necessary to say.

God bless
Norm

 

[cj]

Thank you for clearly demonstrating that many of those who classify themselves as Trinitarian are, in fact, NOT. Nroof's analogy, that ONE PERSON can be Father/Husband/Son, is the "flagship" analogy of Oneness Pentecostalism, which is used to illustrate that God is not LITERALLY 3 persons, but one person with 3 roles, or, that the Father/Son/Spirit are 3 "aspects" of the one person.

Brad,

God is Spirit........ something that men are not familiar with.

Therefore, most will take what they are familiar with and from that foundation, try to understand things.

This is what we have in the matter of the Trinity.

God is most certainly triune...... and in His triune nature there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately for many, they take their understanding of the human as being the reality of personhood, and thus they end up with God being three seperate yet one being, seen in the light of the human environment.

Poor teaching is the cause of this.

But poor teaching is also the cause of the erroneous belief of the Oneness Pentecostals.

The fact is, it is not an easy thing to come into the light of the Spiritual tri-personhood of God that abides within a Godhead of One. But He has revealed His economy towards His creation for us that we might better understand Him.

Hence, to fully know God is triune we must be clear concerning God in His economy.

Contrary to your fallacious claim that my speaking supported your speaking, it did not, as I clearly stated that Nroof was not eloquent in describing what he was getting at. But an honest heart would understand what this person was getting at.

This modalistic analogy is considered HERESY by mainstream Trinitarian scholarship. Would you like some quotes?

Once again, you are in error concerning what Nroof said as being a modalistic annalogy. Therefore, once again I suggest that you find out just what modalism really is.

You can quote from now until the Lord returns, but what of it if you are still in the dark about what Modalism is.


I don't need your quotes Brad, I am clear about what Modalism is.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Like Nroof's and CJ's ignorance of the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism, you display an ignorance of the difference between Monotheism and Polytheism when you say -......

Its really very sad to watch someone dancing around in their ignorance.

Brad...... for your sake, find out what Modalism is.

Seriously.


In love,
cj

 

[Diaconeo]

Whether Jesus is God, as I have pointed out, is another debate. You take the deity of Christ for granted, so I am agreeing with you (for "argument's sake") ...

I disagree with your premise (Jesus is God)....

I'm sorry, I was going on the assumption that all here where Christians and believed in the Deity of Christ. If so, then I don't understand what you disagree with in my premise that Jesus is God. Without that, we have nothing (but that's a different debate). My argument in raising the point in this debate that Jesus is God is to point out that Jesus (the Son) and the Father are the same exact God, not two different gods.

...pointing out the INEVITABLE CONCLUSION of that understanding, which is that there is no intrinsic difference between "one God" and "more than one God" if your God can indeed be distinct persons who have a RELATIONSHIP with one another.

I think you've missed the point of Jesus being God, and the Father being the same exact God. It is not polytheism (I don't believe that there are three beings of deity in one Godhead), nor is it modalism (I don't believe that God operated in different modes through history, nor that He has different personalities according to the work He is doing). If you don't like the term Trinity, because you believe it's a pagan title, then call it something esle, Godhead (it's what Paul used). You can call it multiple personalities if it really helps you, but still it's One God, not polytheism nor modalism. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one in the same God, yet threes distinct person of that one God. I do not claim to be an expert in the understanding of how God can be the Father and The Son and the Holy Spirit, but it is so and supported from the Scriptures. No, there is not one single Scripture that expressly states this, but is it fully supported. The fundamental doctrine that Jesus is God means that He is the very God that the Father is.

But your comment here is disasterous to your position. Like Nroof's and CJ's ignorance of the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism, you display an ignorance of the difference between Monotheism and Polytheism when you say -

"In Genesis, God speaks to at least two other BEINGS"

God is only ONE "being" according to Trinitarianism, and certainly more than one being is more than one God. You and Nroof are "heretics", according to the officially accepted doctrine of the Trinity, per your terminology. No doubt you may accuse me of "semantics", but all this goes to show is that many Trinitarians use terminology which they each have their own personal definitions for. The doctrine actually is BASED on semantics, and an appeal to "correct" terminology. Behind the terminology, though, there is no possibility of a concept that lies inbetween God as "one person with 3 roles" or "3 distinct beings (Gods)". Only the terminology lies inbetween.

In this one thing I agree with you. Indeed I did use an incorrect term. I should have said that God was speaking to two other persons instead of BEINGS. I apologize for throwing a wrench into the works and thus seemingly causing a disaster to my position. The argument still stands, that the Three are in fact the same God, not three separate but equal gods, thus my ignorance, as you so lovingly pointed out, is simply an error in terminology, and while I may not understand perfectly the Trinity, I do know that modalism is one school of thought within the doctrinal debate of the Trinity and that I do not hold to that particular view of the Trinity.

If your God is more than one person, and if these persons are NOT each other, and, in fact, have a relationship with one another, then there is no difference in CONCEPT between your brand of "monotheism" and polytheism. The only difference is you insist you have only one God. But the term "one God" is MEANINGLESS in light of the fact that the characteristics of this one God are the same as the characteristics of MORE than one God.

Okay, my God is one God. There are three distinct Persons in the Godhead of the one God, and they do have a relationship with one another (perhaps solely for mankinds sake, I don't know). Yet there is a fundamental difference in my "brand of 'monotheism' and polytheism. It is not that I insist that I worship one God, the same one God of Israel, but that it is in fact one God that I worship as commanded by God Himself. The difference in not simply in that I say He is one God, but that He truly is one God. Three separate gods with the same exact essence and attributes would serve no purpose as they would be the same god. Three god that are all-everything would make each of them all of each other. What would be the point, there then would be another God other than God. I can only speculate as to why God chose a Trinity to Express Himself to us. I know that I can identify with the Father/Son relationship, and perhaps that is the only reason He does Express Himself, so that we can identify with Him and His love for us better. But appearance of polytheism, that is appears that there are three Gods, is as far at it goes. Appearances or characteristics are not the same as Being. God is still One God, not three.

For instance, there is nothing wrong with a theology (for theology's sake) which held to a belief in 3 Gods, each of which were eternal, each of which were equal, each of whom loved the other, and each of whom were always in agreement. Now this IS the Trinity, except that Trinitarians insist that it's not "3 Gods". But please try to think this through - what is the DIFFERENCE whether I call these 3, "3 persons of one God" or "3 Gods"? The only difference lies in what we choose to CALL them, not what they ARE.

I suppose, for theology's sake, there is nothing wrong with believing in 3 Gods, except as it pertains to Christian theology, in which this would be heresy. It matters not that they are all eternal, love each other and are in agreement with each other. What matters is if they are the same of the essence. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all of the same essence and that is why the are co-equal to each other. Three separate and distinct gods are not of the same essence, and this is the difference between stating one God in Three Persons and Three Gods. Three Gods making up a single Godhead would not be a Trinity but Triumvirate. That is essentially the DIFFERENCE in saying "3 persons of one God or 3 Gods. "

Again I must ask here, are we all Christians, or no? If not, then I can hardly see how we can have a debate that will go anywhere if we don't even have the same basic beliefs. Do we all even believe that Jesus is God, not just a god, but the Jehovah God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel? If not, then the hole debate is futile as we don't even have a common ground.

In Christ,

Matthew

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Once again, you are in error concerning what Nroof said as being a modalistic annalogy. Therefore, once again I suggest that you find out just what modalism really is.

You can quote from now until the Lord returns, but what of it if you are still in the dark about what Modalism is

The Modalistic "Father/Son/Husband" = one person analogy (and variations of)...all from Trinitarian sites...

"The UPC deviates from mainline Christianity in 2 basic ways:

1) It rejects the doctrine of the Trinity...

To help you fully inderstand this heresy, let me offer the following illustration -

My name is Alan Street. There is only one me. But I am known to my children as their FATHER. I am known to my wife as her HUSBAND. I am known to my parents as their SON...

On the surface this sounds good. But it is not biblical. SUCH A VIEW IS KNOWN AS MODALISM. ("An Evangelical Perspective of the UPCI" http://www.caicusa.org/biblebase/upc/upc-evan.ntm)

"The UPCI (founded in 1945) has revived an ancient concept...in early centuries this idea was called MODALISM...Let's say Bill has a father who is still living. He is married and has a 5 year old son. Bill has 3 different roles to play. There is Bill the son, Bill the husband, and Bill the Father" (Gary F. Zeolla, http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/relationship.htm)

"The 3 divine persons he (Sabellius) believed to be 3 different roles acted out by one divine being, much as a human person might be a husband, a father, and a clerk...SABELLIANISM IS ALSO KNOWN AS MODALISM" ("Arius and the Deity of Christ", http://www.tecmalta.org/tft340.htm)

P.S. - Norm, I have never heard a Trinitarian admit they were wrong about anything in forum discussions such as this. Please take note of the fancy footwork that ensues from CJ :bday: