Was the Trinity included in Jesus’ gospel?

[Drew]

Interpretation

What I disagreed with you about was that Biblical interpretation is the only valid way to understand the Bible. Interpretation is the way the natural man understands everything. Including the Bible. I contend that the valid way to understand the Bible is a supernatural way, not a natural way.

I have some sympathy for this position, but only a little bit.

While this critique is not levelled at you, my experience has been that people evade the obligation to have a coherent, rationale, consistent, and historically culturally appropriate interpretation by appealing to how they have been given "special revelation". In short, even though a careful exegesis, based on the tried and true principles of proper interpretation (e.g. getting the history, culture, and word meanings right and meeting other standard criteria for "interpretation") suggests "A", they will insist that the proper interpretation is "B", by appealing to "revealed knowledge".

In short, I am suspicious that the "supernatural interpretation trumps interpretation by applying exegetical principles" position is essentially a way to be lazy and not be rigourous and careful in interpretation.

 

[Drew]

My original question (restated in yet a different way)

If Jehovah is an individual person, as the Old Testament clearly says
If Jehovah is the only God, as the Old Testament clearly says
If the Father is God, as the New Testament clearly says
If the Father is an individual person, as the New Testament clearly says
If Jesus is an individual person, as the New Testament clearly says
If the Father and Jesus are not the same person, as the New Testament clearly says

Then how can God and Jesus be the same person?

I would challenge your first statement as follows:

(1) Yes, the OT describes Jehovah using language that suggests "unity". However, if one adopts the view that the Bible is an unfolding narrative - one where we do not get all the information right up front, we can legitimate see the "one God" of the OT as at least "open" to later "clarification". This is not word-trickery on my part (an attempt to evade something fatal to my position). Analogy: If I look down the road in the dark and see a single figure walking toward me, I may describe such a person as a "single" person. But, as time passes and the person gets closer, I realize they are really two people, walking arm in arm.

Was my original conclusion false? Not really - it was the best I could do at the time. I suggest, and can argue the point later, that this is precisely what happens in 1 Cor 8 - Paul "looks" at Jehovah and discerns inner structure - a father and a son.

(2) A case can be made the "God is one" teaching of the OT was never intended to be seen as an "inner analysis" of the nature of God, but was rather a literary way of saying "the God of Israel is the true god, the gods of the pagans are idols". I can defend this later.

 

[Asyncritus]

I would challenge your first statement as follows:

(1) [...]

Was my original conclusion false? Not really - it was the best I could do at the time. I suggest, and can argue the point later, that this is precisely what happens in 1 Cor 8 - Paul "looks" at Jehovah and discerns inner structure - a father and a son.

Your analogy suggests that there are really 2 people, even though they appear to be one!

Hmm. I like it!

(2) A case can be made the "God is one" teaching of the OT was never intended to be seen as an "inner analysis" of the nature of God, but was rather a literary way of saying "the God of Israel is the true god, the gods of the pagans are idols". I can defend this later.

You don't have to defend this - it's so obvious, it screams,

There is but One God, the Father... and one lord, Jesus Christ.

What do you need more than that?

 

[Drew]

Your analogy suggests that there are really 2 people, even though they appear to be one!

Hmm. I like it!

You remain committed to a position where you cannot countenance the possibility that concepts (e.g. the concept of "person") are used in the scriptures in a manner that does not perfectly honour how those concepts are used generally. This is at the heart of what I suggest is your "upside-down" approach to exegesis. Yes, the concepts are necessary, and yes they are used in the scriptures to characterize both Jesus and God.

But, and this absolutely vital although you cannot, or will not see it, the actual narrative content of the Bible forces us to be flexilbe with these concepts - to admit to the possibility that they are being in a manner that does not perfectly reflect how these concepts are generally used. And in shutting the door to this possiblity, you are forced to effectively answer "yes" to the following questions:

Is it a coincidence that Jesus places Himself in the mother bird role, when that role belongs to God?

Is it a coincidence that Jesus chose 12 disciples? Has He accidentally given the reader the impression that, like God alone, He has the right to re-constitute Israel?

Is it a coincidence that in challenging the Law of Moses, Jesus is doing something that only God could legitimately do?

Is it a coincidence that Jesus describes Himself as "coming on the clouds" when that phrase is used in the OT to describe one who gets a seat in Heaven adjacent to that occupied by God alone?

You may believe that it is appropriate for you to demand that concepts like "Father" and "Son" be applied to God and Jesus in a manner that perfectly obeys all the "normal" implications of these concepts.

Well, that is clearly an error. For starter, we have the Bible telling us that Israel is the firstborn of God. Well, that makes God a parent to Israel. And if we insist on demanding that God conform perfectly to this way of talking about Him, we should then demand "well, who is the other parent, since it takes two parents to create an offspring". Using your overly rigid obedience to concepts, we would have to conclude that Israel has a mother as well.

And there are other examples. Those, like you, who are forced to deny what is clear from the narrative content of the Bible - that Jesus is embodiment of God - are forced into this mode of operation. In short, it is the only "out" you have available - insist that the narrative content must be wrong simply because we see God and Jesus described using concepts (e.g. as Father and Son) that cannot, for example, allowing for co-eternality.

You are, of course, right to say that the concepts of 'father' and 'son', as concepts, rule out this possibility (of co-eternality). But, again, you get the cart before the horse, forgetting, or choosing to ignore, the manifest fact that concepts are descriptive tools, and that, at times, the "way the world is" forces us to use them even though are not a 'perfect' fit.

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus


Romans 1:4
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead
(KJV)

Seems this verse has been fodder to the interpreters. There’s a lot of disagreement among them.

The context shows the two natures of Christ, 3 the human nature, 4 the Divine nature. The human nature looks to the past as a descendent of David. The Divine nature looks to the future through the resurrection.

There aren’t any problems relating to compilation. The Byzantine and Alexandrian compilations are identical, so we don’t have to contend with that. But we do have an instance where the KJV is shown to not quite be as perfect as the KJV Only people think. But not quite as imperfect as others might claim.

The Greek word translated into English as “declare†actually means “to mark out†as a boundary. It doesn’t mean “declare†as we understand the word today. Yet these modern translations have chosen to follow the KJV: NKJV (of course), NIV (currently the most popular translation), NASB, ESV, NCV, and the NRSV. A step backward for the NRSV, because the RSV translates the word as “designatedâ€, which is more in keeping with the meaning of the Greek. The HCSB translates the word as “establishedâ€, in agreement with the Catholic NAB, which gets the idea across. The NLT translates it as “shownâ€. For those who like to expose the NWT as not always as accurate in a modern sense as claimed, it translates the word as “declareâ€.

But in the defense of the KJV and those translations that follow it, the etymology of the English word “declare†shows that it is derived from a Latin word that means “to make clearâ€. Which is much more in keeping with the original Greek word than one would think by the current meaning of the English word “declareâ€.

Jesus wasn’t declared the Son of God at the resurrection. Rather he was marked out as the Son with power through the act of the resurrection. Most Christians agree that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was significant. In this verse we see why. Through the act of the resurrection, Jesus was proven to be who he claimed himself to be.

Romans 1:3-4 Concerning his Son, the one who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh, having been marked out as Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness out of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
(Literal)

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew


Interpretation

Everyone receives revelation. The point is, where does the revelation come from? Revelation received through the practice of Biblical interpretation has only one source, the mind, where the practice is taking place.

You have to realize where “exegetical principles†come from. They aren’t explicitly given in the Bible. They are interpretively derived. And not generally from the Bible. They are derived by people who are looking to understand writings other than the Bible. Christians have decided that if these principles are good enough for secular works or other religious writings, they are good enough for the Bible. And if the Bible was just a collection of writings by men, as these other writings are, they would be right. And that’s what Biblical interpreters are telling the world. That Biblical writings are no different from the writings of Aristotle.

I would like to hear what Francis would say about “my experience has been that people evade the obligation to have a coherent, rationale, consistent, and historically culturally appropriate interpretation by appealing to how they have been given "special revelation".†That sounds so much like something he would say. But unfortunately, and I say unfortunately because it tends to nullify the supernatural, this attitude is common in Christianity. And I believe with reason. There are those who get notions from Scripture that aren’t there and claim they got it from God personally. I considered this when I was fighting to retain faith in Christianity. You know what I believe. It looks exactly like what your experience shows. Exactly. That was of great concern to me. Because if what I believe is due to that same thing, then the obvious conclusion is that there isn’t a supernatural element to any of this. And that leads to another obvious conclusion. If interpretation is from the mind, and if what we think is from the supernatural is from the mind, ergo.... The Atheists are right after all. And to replace the Bible with the Church, or vice versa, is just that and more of the same.

We’ve had the same experience, but came to different conclusions. I don’t think you realize that a Biblical interpretation is no different from the "special revelation" you speak of, in practicality. It all comes from the same place. The human mind. And if either is the only way to understand the Bible, then the supernatural influence has been nullified, not only in our experience, but in relation to what the Biblical writers are saying. The Bible relates supernatural experience as if it is “special revelationâ€.

“While this critique is not levelled at you.... In short, I am suspicious that the "supernatural interpretation trumps interpretation by applying exegetical principles" position is essentially a way to be lazy and not be rigourous and careful in interpretation.†Yeah right. Don’t try to fool yourself or me by trying to be nice.

I believe in the supernatural, not as an interpretation, rather as the only way to understand the Bible. Because without it, there is nothing. Your critique is definitely leveled at me. Inadvertently perhaps. But definitely leveled at me.

You’ll have to distinguish between what you think is “special revelation...supernatural interpretation†and what I refer to as the supernatural way of understanding the Bible through the teaching of Jesus Christ through the Spirit.....in order for me to think this critique hasn’t been leveled at me.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew


The Bible as an “unfolding narrativeâ€.

An idea that’s common in Christianity. The Catholics take that idea to it’s logical conclusion. That the understanding of Christian truth through revelatory interpretation is an “unfolding narrative†as well, and still is unfolding. There isn’t really a reason to think their wrong other than an opinion that their wrong. Unless, UNLESS, something supernatural says it’s wrong. I believe that Jesus says it’s wrong.

I don’t believe that the Bible is a progressive revelation. The Torah gives the basis through origins, faith, and the Law. The Prophets apply the Torah. The New Testament reveals a mystery, hidden until that point. “Jesus Christ in you, the hope of gloryâ€; referring to the extension of the promises given throughout the Old Testament to the Gentiles in Christ.


A case

Never mind. “A case†can be made for anything through the practice of Biblical interpretation. The existence of denominational Christianity makes that quite clear. I believe that the case that Jehovah is an individual person and that Jehovah is the only God, as presented in the Old Testament, especially in Psalm 100 and Isaiah 43-46, is clear enough. If you want to present a case, present a case that reconciles God as a person with Trinitarianism. If you can only present such a case by saying that God isn’t a person, then you have no case as far as I’m concerned. And we should leave making the case for reconciliation to someone else.

Unfortunately, I’m beginning to believe that no such case can be made.

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

You remain committed to a position where you cannot countenance the possibility that concepts (e.g. the concept of "person") are used in the scriptures in a manner that does not perfectly honour how those concepts are used generally. This is at the heart of what I suggest is your "upside-down" approach to exegesis. Yes, the concepts are necessary, and yes they are used in the scriptures to characterize both Jesus and God.

It's curious, is it not, that basic, simple concepts of scripture - such as fatherhood and sonship - are being denied their true meanings when it comes to expounding this doctrine.

Certainly, God is a 'father' to Israel - it says so. But that is merely an analogy which is NOT being used of an individual.

He brought them to birth as a nation. He took them out of Egypt. He led them through the wilderness.

But that is a figure of speech, based on the realities of conception and birth.

But to say that in EVERY case, where we meet fathers and sons, we are to assume a spiritual fatherhood or parenthood is to make complete nonsense of common sense and reality.

Adam begat Seth in his image and likeness - and a goodly number of other children, both male and female. Was that spiritual parenthood? Complete nonsense.

We have a zillion genealogies in Genesis, 1 Chronicles and elsewhere. Are these 'spiritual parenthoods'? Complete nonsense.

We have Jesus' genealogy twice repeated: A begat B, B begat C and so on down the line. Spiritual parenthood? Complete nonsense.

The old word 'begat' is also used about God and Jesus' relationship. Jesus is the 'only begotten' Son of God. Spiritual parenthood? Complete nonsense.

With all that evidence before us, the entire context of scripture in fact, as you are so fond of saying, declaring clearly that when speaking of individuals, literal parenthood is being described, why should we say differently in this case?

Especially when we have the very clear, almost anatomical description of Jesus' own birth in Luke 1?

And standing there, with drawn sword, is the word 'conceived'.

In the very context of Luke 1, we have several other illustrations of the meaning of the word:

Lu 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived <4815>, and hid herself five months, saying,
Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive <4815> in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Lu 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath <4815> also conceived <4815> a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Lu 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived <4815> in the womb.

In the names of common sense and consistency, how can we deny that Jesus was literally conceived in Mary's womb, and came to birth in the normal way? How Drew, how?

She travailed in birth, as is normal. 'Travail' is also used figuratively in scripture - but do you think this was a 'spiritual travailing'? Or a literal one? Literal, of course - but if the travail was literal, then what about the conception?

So while I agree with you that literal phenomena are often used as the basis of spiritual ones, we have to accept that the literal comes first and the spiritual second. And where there is a choice between the two, the literal comes first without question.

As Hooker said:

“I hold it for a most infallible rule in the exposition of Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the literal is commonly the worst” (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V. lix. 2).

If he is right, and I grudgingly (because he is a theologian) admit that he is, then your 'furthest from the literal' constructions are the worst you can espouse.

As I am showing, a literal construction can very easily be placed on the God/Jesus relationship as Father and Son. There is no difficulty in doing so, and we are encouraged to do so by the entire context of scripture.

Yes, He could have sinned (another can of worms from your POV) - scripture says so:

2 Sam 7.14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;

and sinning would have destroyed the relationship as it did with Adam - but the parent/child relation had to exist BEFORE it could be broken.

Jesus is God's literal son, and His spiritual son. BOTH - and the two cannot be divorced, as you are trying very hard to do.

But, and this absolutely vital although you cannot, or will not see it, the actual narrative content of the Bible forces us to be flexilbe with these concepts - to admit to the possibility that they are being in a manner that does not perfectly reflect how these concepts are generally used.

I disagree. It is ALWAYS perfectly obvious when a literal construction will stand.

The rule of common sense is the governing one as I have shown, and fanciful flights of 'spiritualisation' are to be eschewed when common sense is being abandoned.

 

[Asyncritus]

And in shutting the door to this possiblity, you are forced to effectively answer "yes" to the following questions:

Now why would I be forced to do that?

Is it a coincidence that Jesus places Himself in the mother bird role, when that role belongs to God?

As I pointed out, God uses the eagle as His figure of choice. Jesus is simply saying that He wished that Jerusalem would come under His protection by believing on Him. Where's the problem?

How can this conceivably be used as proof that Jesus is God? Your enthusiasm is carrying you away here, Drew.

Is it a coincidence that Jesus chose 12 disciples? Has He accidentally given the reader the impression that, like God alone, He has the right to re-constitute Israel?

He chose 12 disciples because He had a role in mind for them at the proper time:

Mt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Now 11 or any other number would have messed that up, wouldn't it?

Is it a coincidence that in challenging the Law of Moses, Jesus is doing something that only God could legitimately do?

Jesus is not challenging the Law of Moses. He said so:

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

It is God who replaces the Old Covenant with the New:

Jer 31.31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Is it a coincidence that Jesus describes Himself as "coming on the clouds" when that phrase is used in the OT to describe one who gets a seat in Heaven adjacent to that occupied by God alone?

No, it is not a coincidence. He will fulfil Daniel's prophecy. He sits at the right hand of God (adjacent to the Father), from whence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

Since you agree that it is 'adjacent to', and not 'identical with', then you have no case for equality or otherwise.

You may believe that it is appropriate for you to demand that concepts like "Father" and "Son" be applied to God and Jesus in a manner that perfectly obeys all the "normal" implications of these concepts.

Don't all these genealogies in scripture tell you the same thing?

Well, that is clearly an error. For starter, we have the Bible telling us that Israel is the firstborn of God. Well, that makes God a parent to Israel.

As I said above, Israel is a collective, NOT an individual. There is plainly a non-literal figure of speech being used.

You also have the quite serious problem that if ISRAEL was God's firstborn at the time Ex 4 was written, then Jesus wasn't firstborn at that point!

Therefore all these weird misinterpretations of Col 1.15 etc are right up the Swanee.

And if we insist on demanding that God conform perfectly to this way of talking about Him, we should then demand "well, who is the other parent, since it takes two parents to create an offspring". Using your overly rigid obedience to concepts, we would have to conclude that Israel has a mother as well.

I think it's right that I call this Asyncritus' Rule. "When dealing with collectives, figures of speech are used."

That says it clearly and unmistakably, does it not?

And there are other examples. Those, like you, who are forced to deny what is clear from the narrative content of the Bible

The narrative content of the Bible is what's killing you.

All those wretched genealogies, you know, saying hundreds of times over and over, that fatherhood and sonship are literal things, when dealing with individuals.

- that Jesus is embodiment of God - are forced into this mode of operation. In short, it is the only "out" you have available - insist that the narrative content must be wrong simply because we see God and Jesus described using concepts (e.g. as Father and Son) that cannot, for example, allowing for co-eternality

I insist that the narrative content is absolutely correct, and should be followed implicitly. You are doing the exact opposite - foisting a non-literal construction on what is plainly intended to be a literal one!

Never forget the old Hooker:

“I hold it for a most infallible rule in the exposition of Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the literal is commonly the worst” (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, V. lix. 2).

You are, of course, right to say that the concepts of 'father' and 'son', as concepts, rule out this possibility (of co-eternality). But, again, you get the cart before the horse, forgetting, or choosing to ignore, the manifest fact that concepts are descriptive tools, and that, at times, the "way the world is" forces us to use them even though are not a 'perfect' fit.

When there is good reason to do so, then of course I accept the non-perfect fit idea.

But a theological pre-conception is never a 'good reason'. The pre-conception must never precede the facts. Only disaster can follow.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

By the way, you didn't tell me whether the new method I'm using is coming through any clearer. From what I can see, it looks like everything is differentiating a little better. And since I put the name of the person being responded to right at the beginning, there's no question about that. What do you think?

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

Drew

By the way, you didn't tell me whether the new method I'm using is coming through any clearer. From what I can see, it looks like everything is differentiating a little better. And since I put the name of the person being responded to right at the beginning, there's no question about that. What do you think?

FC

FC

If a computer illiterate like me can figure this out, I'm sure you can too.

First:

Highlight the bit you want to quote: press the left mouse key and drag it over the bit you want to quote.

Goes black.

Release the mouse key when you've got the bit you want and it should stay black.

Go up to the row of buttons, and it's the fourth one from the right that you want. The icon looks like a cartoon speech balloon.

Click that, and you'll see the words 'quote'...'/quote' in square brackets [...] appear round the text.

That's it.

Beats the heck out of typing the whole lot, I can tell you.

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

I take it you're having trouble following my posts too. But thanks for the info. Like I said to Drew, I don't like the quotation method. It tends to make it hard for me to read posts. How do you like my latest solution? Harder to understand or easier?

FC

 

[Free]

It must be obvious that Jesus' statement implies other things.

Before Abraham was [was what? In existence? the recipient of the Great Promises? faithful enough to offer Isaac? In the land of Canaan? What?]

I am [I am what? An object is demanded by the statement. What do you suggest the object is, or could be? Or is He referring to something they already knew in connection with Abraham?].

Granted, He may be being deliberately obscure to put the wind up His enemies, but you have to produce some kind of sensible idea to explain His meaning. There is such a meaning, and I suggest you read the context of that discussion to grasp it.

Yes, let's look at the context:

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad."
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

Clearly Jesus is claiming to be the I AM, which is a state of being, which is to say, he has always been. The thought here is that of time, seen in verse 57. They are saying Jesus isn't even 50 years old, so there is no way he could have seen Abraham. Jesus replies with a statement that Yahweh made in Exodus 3:14. For this seeming blasphemy, the Jews wanted to stone him.

Sure, as you rightly say, 'beginning' can have another meaning or 2, but each one demands the precedence of God the Father.

Jesus IS the Author of our salvation. It says so.

He IS the first cause of our salvation.

But in both cases, it is God who delivers us from death,(and don't forget, it is God who delivered Him from death), BECAUSE OF what the Author and First Cause has done and is doing even now.

If you want to use the 'start', or the usual meaning of 'beginning', then you're in deep trouble once more.

I really don't know what you are trying to say here. My point stands and you really need to stop referring to Rev 3:14 as though it proves that Jesus can't be God.

You really need to make an attempt at following what is being said. Your question begging about the meaning of "God" is not helping; it is fallacious to equate God with Father.

Do you want to re-phrase that? Paul does it for you in regard to Jesus:

Eph 1.3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

No, my statement is fine.

'Eternally' and 'begotten' are mutually exclusive terms.

No, actually they're not. You are once again sticking with a particular meaning that suits your errant theology. Monogenes, which is translated as "begotten" also means "one and only," or "unique."

If David wrote the Psalm, then he did exist, and was looking into the future, to the coming of the Messiah.

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn. (NKJV)

Glad you quoted that. Your left foot giving you any pain? Now who is God's firstborn, did you say - AT THE TIME OF WRITING of Ex 4.22?

Israel. Not Jesus. So straight up the chute go all the misinterpretations of Col. 1.15 ff.

Therefore 'firstborn of all creation' does not refer to the planet and all that goes with it.

ISRAEL is or was God's Firstborn. Because of their misbehaviour, they were deposed from that position, and were to be replaced by Jesus:

"I WILL MAKE Him my firstborn.." as Ps 89 says. That is the prophecy's intent.

See the above.

Once again, I have no idea what you're getting at. You seem to be agreeing with me yet saying that you are proving me wrong. My meaning of "firstborn" stands and does absolutely nothing to what is being said in Col 1.

Right so far.

Jesus, as God's appointed 'Firstborn', has been given the pre-eminence and sovereignty OVER THE CHURCH, as Col 1 says so clearly.

He is the "head of the church," yes, but to say that Col 1:15-17 are speaking only of the church is clearly error:

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (ESV)

Since you are, for some reason, now agreeing with the meaning of "firstborn," look at why he is the firstborn, that is, in a position of preeminence over creation. Verses 16 and 17 clearly state, in agreement with John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6, that Jesus is before everything that has ever been created. The only logical conclusion is that Jesus is not created, a quality of God alone.

He is the 'heir of all things' - Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who did the appointing? You got it: God did.

Correction: the Father did. You are once again erroneously equating God and Father.

 

[francisdesales]

Drew


The Bible as an “unfolding narrativeâ€.

An idea that’s common in Christianity. The Catholics take that idea to it’s logical conclusion. That the understanding of Christian truth through revelatory interpretation is an “unfolding narrative†as well, and still is unfolding. There isn’t really a reason to think their wrong other than an opinion that their wrong. Unless, UNLESS, something supernatural says it’s wrong. I believe that Jesus says it’s wrong.

I don’t believe that the Bible is a progressive revelation.

It's hard to make such a statement, when the bible itself shows man as gradually coming to know the "narrative"... Case in point - the Apostles recognizing that one didn't have to become Jewish to become Christian.[/quote]

Making such a statement is merely playing lip service to sola scriptura - where 'everything that Christians are to know are recorded in the Scriptures'. The Bible itself makes a strong argument for the opposite mindset... What exactly IS the point of Jesus giving the power to bind and loosen to MEN, servants given to feed the sheep, IF the Bible is the sole source of our faith? I would be interested in hearing the POINT of Jesus stating this, considering the Jewish context of "binding and loosening".

Regards

 

[Former Christian]

francis

Your're so ingrained with Catholic thinking that this post made no sense to me whatsoever. It appears to be something against the Sola Scriptura principle, which I don't believe anyway. But I'm not sure. I'm only sure that it's something against my opinion that the idea of progressive revelation is not true.

Try again.

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus

I take it you're having trouble following my posts too. But thanks for the info. Like I said to Drew, I don't like the quotation method. It tends to make it hard for me to read posts. How do you like my latest solution? Harder to understand or easier?

FC

Easier ...I think!

 

[Drew]

Post 1 in a series of related posts:

Those who deny the divinity of Jesus consistently appeal to conceptual problems associated with the Trinitarian position. More specifically, they argue that the claim that Jesus is divine suffers from the following problems: (1) the scriptures predicate characteristics of Jesus that cannot be properly predicated of any divine being; and (2) the scriptures place Jesus and God in relations to each other that cannot possibly be predicated of one divine entity in relation to another. In short, the critic of Trinitarianism (or, more specifically the divinity of Jesus) is effectively arguing that the assertion that Jesus is divine is conceptually incoherent, at least in terms of the concepts used in the scriptures.

No doubt, some non-Trinitarians will object to this way of characterizing their critique. This is no surprise, precisely because this (correct) distillation of the essence of their critique contains the seed of its ultimate demise. More specifically, once it is understood that the objections to Trinitarianism rise and fall on specifically conceptual grounds, it can then be argued that while such conceptual problems do exist, these really represent limitations associated with our ability to express the divinity of Jesus, but that said divinity can be established on other (narrative) grounds – grounds that do not require the deployment of such concepts. In short, the objector to Trinitarianism is engaged in a “bait-and-switch and divert” program: consciously or otherwise seeking to (1) obscure the relation between our descriptive language, on the one hand, and that which is described, on the other, and then to foist the problems associated with the former onto the latter; (2) divert attention from the corpus of narrative evidence for Jesus’ divinity (i.e. evidence that is grounded in how Jesus the man assumes the role of in the unfolding Biblical story).

This is essentially a strawman argument, although to be fair many Trinitarians are unwittingly duplicitous in this respect, playing right into the strategy of the non-Trinitarian. The standard critique of the Trinity doctrine is indeed a strawman precisely because, as should be obvious, the Trinitarian fully admits, or should fully admit, that concepts like “father” and “son” (and many of the other concepts we are forced to use when we speak of God and Jesus) do indeed introduce contradictions of logic when used to describe Jehovah and Jesus, respectively. However, the Trinitarian is put on the defensive for entirely the wrong reason. More specifically, those of us who believe that Jesus is divine cannot be shown to be mistaken simply by showing that the concepts appealed to in the scriptures are not “up to the task”. If Jesus’ divinity is to be challenged, one needs to do more than simply show that our descriptive language is not adequate. And yet non-Trinitarians routinely misrepresent this admitted inadequacy of our “language of description” as an argument against the truthfulness of the doctrine of the Trinity.

More later.....

 

[Drew]

Interpretation

Everyone receives revelation. The point is, where does the revelation come from? Revelation received through the practice of Biblical interpretation has only one source, the mind, where the practice is taking place.

You appear to beg the question by tacitly assuming that the "mind" cannot be the means through the Spirit works to reveal truth. :Paul appears to be thinking this way when he refers to the "renewing of the mind" as part of the Christian experience.

You have to realize where “exegetical principles†come from. They aren’t explicitly given in the Bible. They are interpretively derived. And not generally from the Bible. They are derived by people who are looking to understand writings other than the Bible. Christians have decided that if these principles are good enough for secular works or other religious writings, they are good enough for the Bible. And if the Bible was just a collection of writings by men, as these other writings are, they would be right. And that’s what Biblical interpreters are telling the world. That Biblical writings are no different from the writings of Aristotle.

There is no argument here - at least not yet. You have yet to make the case that God has not decided that the "tools of human reason", as specifically steered by the Spirit, do not provide the appropriate "machinery of interpretation" for the Scriptures.

Because if what I believe is due to that same thing, then the obvious conclusion is that there isn’t a supernatural element to any of this. And that leads to another obvious conclusion. If interpretation is from the mind, and if what we think is from the supernatural is from the mind, ergo.... The Atheists are right after all. And to replace the Bible with the Church, or vice versa, is just that and more of the same.

I see no substantive argument that the Spirit of God cannot be involved in "steering" the mind through the proper machinations to come to a proper "interpretation" of what is there in the scriptures. You seem to simply presume otherwise - that there is an "either / or" choice between "interpretation arising from mind" and "supernatural interpretation.

I suggest that is to be entirely expected that God works through His creation - in this case the human mind - rather than "side-stepping" it through means that are understood as "supernatural" (at least in terms of how this term is normally used).

 

[Drew]

Post 2 in a series:

In case it is not otherwise clear, let me re-produce some of the arguments (3 for now) that non-Trinitarians routinely provide:

(1) The concept of “God” entails “non-createdness”;
Jesus was conceived (or created);
Therefore Jesus cannot be “God”.

(2) The concept of God entails the notion of ultimate supremacy;
Jesus clearly sets Himself in a position of being “lesser” than YHWH;
Therefore, Jesus cannot be “God”.

(3) Jesus was a man;
The Bible tells us that God is not a man;
Therefore, Jesus cannot be “God”.

Again, does the reader really believe that the Trinitarian does not know all this? Do you really think that Trinitarians through the ages were so slow-witted that they were not aware of these challenges. A little respect please – just a little – if the Trinitarian position is to be undermined, it surely cannot be accomplished in such a facile manner. To be fair, though, the Trinitarian needs to explain precisely why it is legitimate to embrace this doctrine despite these challenges. And, as already hinted at, I propose that the general shape of the Trinitarian response should be twofold: (1) The above arguments against the divinity of Jesus are really arguments about the inadequacy of concepts like “father” and “son” as specifically used to deal with the matter of YHWH and Jesus. As such, these arguments miss the point – they are arguments about the language of description, not the reality that such description is trying to characterize; (2) There is a powerful body of “narrative evidence” that sets Jesus in the role of YHWH. Note: I am fully aware that opponents may think I am trying to have my cake and eat it to – to point out the weakness of linguistic concepts as per item (1), on the one hand, and then to use language concepts, although perhaps different ones, to make the narrative argument as per item (2), on the other.

We shall see.

More to come...

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

“You appear to beg the question by tacitly assuming that the "mind" cannot be the means through the Spirit works to reveal truth. :Paul appears to be thinking this way when he refers to the "renewing of the mind" as part of the Christian experience.... I suggest that is to be entirely expected that God works through His creation - in this case the human mind - rather than "side-stepping" it through means that are understood as "supernatural" (at least in terms of how this term is normally used).â€

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not a philosopher trying to prove a particular secular philosophy. What I say is like common sense to me. In order to believe in a God at all, I have to believe in the supernatural. If it’s all natural, then I’m wasting my time. And that’s all the practice of Biblical interpretation is to me. Just a natural way to understand the Bible. It’s inherent in the definition of interpretation.

If you’re determined to interpret the Bible, I suggest you don’t need the Spirit. Not only that, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on you, as to why you think your private interpretations has anything to do with a Spirit, and why you think your interpretations are any more valid than any of the myriad of interpretations in Christianity. If you enjoy trying to prove that, you’re of a different sort than I. To me, having to prove to Christians the simple matters they should already know gives me a headache and just makes me want to return to Atheism. I keep thinking that if Christians don’t believe their own faith, that which is obvious and simple in their own Bible, why am I believing in it? So I don’t try to prove anything. I just present what I believe and let the chips fall where they may. And what really tests my faith is not anything secular people can come up with. It’s that Christians act like secular people. And the practice of Biblical interpretation is just a secular practice adapted to the Bible.

If you’re determined to believe in the practice of Biblical interpretation, I further suggest that you consider Catholicism. They’ve developed the practice into a science. Personally, I would trust their interpretations over the interpretations of any Protestant. But since I prefer to gain my knowledge of the supernatural through a supernatural source, I have to pass on what is definitively a human practice. I can’t prove to you that what I’m receiving is actually through a supernatural source. Any more than you can prove that your private interpretations include the Spirit or are better than anyone else’s.

Some people think they can prove everything by logic. Including what they believe is a supernatural experience. I don’t. The experience of the supernatural is beyond mere human logic. I don’t even use logic in my natural everyday living. I use common sense as it has been taught to me. That’s why I say Logic is for Logicians. I’m not a practitioner of the Vulcan way. I believe it’s the figment of someone’s imagination. And to all you Trekkers, I’m sorry. May the force be with you. No, that’s Star Wars, a figment of someone else’s imagination. May you live long and prosper.

I can only say that I believe there is a human spirit that is different from the human mind. And I believe that this human spirit is somehow connected to the Spirit of God. That’s why Paul could say he served God in his spirit. Why wasn’t he clearer and just say he serves God in his mind? Maybe he wasn’t much of a logician himself. I believe we can hear what the Spirit is saying to the ekklesia if we’re walking by the Spirit. And I believe that what the Spirit is saying is the same thing that Jesus is saying. As Jesus spoke according to what he received from his Father, so also the Spirit speaks according to what he receives from the Son.

I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. That the Bible is the ultimate authority that replaces the authority of the Pope. I believe that the Bible is like a window through which we are focused on the supernatural. Like the bread and the wine as physical elements is a focal point for our experience of our unity in Christ and our common redemption in Christ. In either case, the intended goal is the experience of the supernatural. All through the Spirit. The practice of interpretation changes that goal into whatever our interpretations can imagine. And humans are very imaginative. Consider how many ways the Lord’s Table is understood. A simple experience of unity and redemption that includes all who are in Christ. But it is subject to the practice of doctrinal closed communion in Christianity.

If I believed that the Bible was only a collection of writings of men, then I’d consider interpreting it. But I probably wouldn’t be interested enough in the writings to do so. They certainly wouldn’t have any real significance to my daily living. A curiosity perhaps if my field of interest was antiquated writings.

I offer you an alternative to interpretation. The Psalms mentions meditation. Learn how to do this. If you think that interpretation and meditation are synonymous, well...

FC