A
Asyncritus
Guest
I still don't quite get you, Free.
Do you agree that God is the no 1, and Jesus the no 2?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
Wearing the right shoes, and properly clothed spiritually?
Join Elected By Him for a devotional on Ephesians 6:14-15
https://christianforums.net/threads/devotional-selecting-the-proper-shoes.109094/
Was the Trinity included in Jesus’ gospel?
- Thread starter John Zain
- Start date
I still don't quite get you, Free.
Do you agree that God is the no 1, and Jesus the no 2?
It depends on what way you are speaking of them. If you are speaking of their natures as God, then no, I would not agree. If you are speaking of them in relation to creation, especially for the purpose of redemption, then I would at least partly agree. There is a difference in function so we must be careful in what we mean by "no 1" and "no 2".
A
Asyncritus
Guest
No.1
Re 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
No.2
Ps 2.7 ¶ I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.
2 Sam 7.14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son:
Isa.42. 1 ¶ Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles.
Agree with that?
BTW anybody know what's happened to Drew? I miss our jousts. Hope he's OK.
This is really not a good way to approach the subject. Merely posting a verse or two on a given position does not at all give the whole picture.
John Zain
Member
NT verses clearly say that Father God created all things through Jesus Christ.
Your verse says Father God did the creating.
Some verses say Father God did the creating through Jesus.
Other verses say Jesus did the creating (with no mention of the Father).
Conclusion: Jesus did the actual creating.
P.S. This throws a monkey-wrench into my usually good theory:
Father = CEO, Son = Administrator, Holy Spirit = Work-horse
Last edited by a moderator:
Former Christian
Member
Free
“You are erroneously concluding that personal pronouns, when used of God, indicate that there is no plurality (for lack of a better term) within the one being that is God.â€
What I’m concluding is that personal pronouns used in relation to God, if there is a plurality within the one being that is God, is evidence that we’re dealing with an insane God. Or a God fabricated by man.
“Could it not be the case that God is merely speaking as the one true God? Or could it not also be the case that the Father is speaking on behalf of the Godhead? So clearly the use of personal pronouns by God does not at all indicate whether or not he is triune.â€
Anything is possible. But that doesn’t mean that anything is plausible, or Biblical. In the Old Testament, we are looking at a God who refers to himself as a personal being. The same thing is found in the New Testament. Three hundred years later, we find something else altogether. One God with three personal beings within who are the same in essence, but different in person. In humanity, personhood implies individuality. Just like the Father and the Son are individuals. Just like the Holy Spirit is an individual. They are referred to by pronouns and attributes showing this individuality. If God is a person made up of individual persons, the only conclusion that one can make is insanity or human interpretation.
And since it’s the New Testament that primarily points to the possibility of an insane God, that changes how one looks at the Bible. Old Testament Israel never understood God to be anything other than one individual with one personality. Modern Judaism, the religion Islam affected by both Judaism and Christianity in the eighth century, and even Christians such as the Modalists and the non-Trinitarians, agree with Old Testament Israel. Only the Trinitarians think that the mystery proclaimed by Paul includes Trinitarianism.
Though it may have been believed by some prior to the fourth century, it wasn’t a doctrine to be authoritatively believed to be considered one of the Church until 325 AD. In my opinion, it was an extreme position pitted against another extreme position. And if the other side won, I would be questioning Arianism today because all you Trinitarians would be Arians fighting for a different interpretation.
Teddy Trueblood
“The God of the Israelites has always been the Father aloneâ€
Kinda the way I always saw it.
FC
“You are erroneously concluding that personal pronouns, when used of God, indicate that there is no plurality (for lack of a better term) within the one being that is God.â€
What I’m concluding is that personal pronouns used in relation to God, if there is a plurality within the one being that is God, is evidence that we’re dealing with an insane God. Or a God fabricated by man.
“Could it not be the case that God is merely speaking as the one true God? Or could it not also be the case that the Father is speaking on behalf of the Godhead? So clearly the use of personal pronouns by God does not at all indicate whether or not he is triune.â€
Anything is possible. But that doesn’t mean that anything is plausible, or Biblical. In the Old Testament, we are looking at a God who refers to himself as a personal being. The same thing is found in the New Testament. Three hundred years later, we find something else altogether. One God with three personal beings within who are the same in essence, but different in person. In humanity, personhood implies individuality. Just like the Father and the Son are individuals. Just like the Holy Spirit is an individual. They are referred to by pronouns and attributes showing this individuality. If God is a person made up of individual persons, the only conclusion that one can make is insanity or human interpretation.
And since it’s the New Testament that primarily points to the possibility of an insane God, that changes how one looks at the Bible. Old Testament Israel never understood God to be anything other than one individual with one personality. Modern Judaism, the religion Islam affected by both Judaism and Christianity in the eighth century, and even Christians such as the Modalists and the non-Trinitarians, agree with Old Testament Israel. Only the Trinitarians think that the mystery proclaimed by Paul includes Trinitarianism.
Though it may have been believed by some prior to the fourth century, it wasn’t a doctrine to be authoritatively believed to be considered one of the Church until 325 AD. In my opinion, it was an extreme position pitted against another extreme position. And if the other side won, I would be questioning Arianism today because all you Trinitarians would be Arians fighting for a different interpretation.
Teddy Trueblood
“The God of the Israelites has always been the Father aloneâ€
Kinda the way I always saw it.
FC
On what logical basis can you make such a conclusion simply from God's use of personal pronouns? There is only one God, this the Bible affirms, so for God to use anything else would be contradictory. That God speaks as one God is what we would expect regardless of whether or not there is a plurality within that one God.
But the Bible also does affirm that there is a plurality within God. We simply cannot throw out portions of the Bible which we can't make sense of or find disagreeable. If the Bible says there is only one God and also that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God in nature, then we must make sense of all of it. I am not denying the humanity of Christ and you should not deny his deity.
As has been said several times, the use of "person" is somewhat misleading and carries with it a different meaning than what was originally intended regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is perhaps the closest we can come to describing God with the limits of language.FC said:
And, again, you have no logical basis for your conclusion regarding the nature of God. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all individual, and yet they are all God in nature, there is no other conclusion than that given by the doctrine of the Trinity.
This argument does not work. Look at the disciples and the Jewish expectation of the Messiah at the time. They expected, based on the OT, that the Messiah would come and literally wipe out all their enemies and establish his kingdom. But that certainly is not what happened. This is what is referred to as progressive revelation, as you likely know. I do not see why the NT revelation of the Trinity, although that is very much debatable since the OT is centered around Christ, need be any different.FC said:
The deity of Christ, his nature as God yet his not being the Father, can be seen in early second century writings. And I would question your statement that "it may have been believed by some." The Councils met to confirm what was already widely accepted within the Church.FC said:
A
Asyncritus
Guest
This is a most surprising post Free.
If there is one God, and one person/entity (if you like) who is speaking, what pronouns would you expect to find being used?
You are making language into utter nonsense with this line of thought.
'I' doesn't mean 'I'. 'Me' doesn't mean 'me'. 'Myself' doesn't mean 'myself'. 'Mine' doesn't mean mine'.
In fact, we can throw out the whole cartload of personal pronouns and their normal meaning in any language. Nothing means anything any more if what you're saying is right.
Not only that, but you ruin the grammatical structure of the use of verb forms.
So since 'I' really = 'we/ us' then
'I am' becomes 'we am', 'us am', 'us is' or 'I are'.
That is ruinous to grammar as well, as you can see.
I don't suppose that will faze you, but it does bother me.
If the God who uses His words so carefully, as we all know or ought to know at least, can be so careless with His use of pronouns and verbs, then what hope of understanding is there really ?
It's just occurred to me to ask: are the angels also God in nature? Can you give reasons for your answer?
Because if they are, then we really have a problem.
You mean besides Genesis 1 (which I posted in one of these topics and I don't remember getting a reply)? There is only one God and in revealing himself to the Israelites, he uses personal pronouns. So no, it doesn't "faze" me and neither does it do anything to grammar or language.
Why would you even need to ask that question? Of course they aren't. They are creatures and creatures, by definition, cannot be God in nature.Asyncritus said:
Former Christian
Member
Free
“What I’m concluding is that personal pronouns used in relation to God, if there is a plurality within the one being that is God, is evidence that we’re dealing with an insane God. Or a God fabricated by man.
On what logical basis can you make such a conclusion simply from God's use of personal pronouns? There is only one God, this the Bible affirms, so for God to use anything else would be contradictory. That God speaks as one God is what we would expect regardless of whether or not there is a plurality within that one God.â€
Logic is for Logicians. It’s just plain ole common sense to me. If you as a person were composed of three persons, I would think you’re insane. And if your God as a person were compose of three persons, I would think he’s just as insane as you are. Or I would think that your God came from your own tortured mind. But since normal humans don’t have multiple personalities, I wouldn’t expect the God who created humanity in its own image and likeness to have multiple personalities either.
Yet you apparently agree that God, Jehovah God, is a person. And since there is only one Jehovah God who refers to himself, through the use of personal pronouns, as one person, I have to question a doctrine that says or implies otherwise. I have to think that such a doctrine may be from the mind of man, rather than the Bible.
“But the Bible also does affirm that there is a plurality within God. We simply cannot throw out portions of the Bible which we can't make sense of or find disagreeable. If the Bible says there is only one God and also that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God in nature, then we must make sense of all of it. I am not denying the humanity of Christ and you should not deny his deity.â€
If you’re a Trinitarian, the Bible affirms to you that there’s a plurality within the one God. The only reason I believed in Trinitarianism is because it was taught to me as an authoritative and essential doctrine. And, at the time, I agreed with the Biblical interpretations that were presented as evidence for Trinitarianism. All of that is now questionable as far as I’m concerned.
But to say that I’m throwing out portions of the Bible simply because I question whether the Bible actually affirms such a plurality? Or just because I’m not agreeing with you? I would think that’s an extremist position, if I didn’t already realize the human nature of Christianity and that Christians are influenced by denominational thinking.
The Father is definitely God in the New Testament. That seems pretty obvious to just about everyone. The Son and Holy Spirit share in the Divine nature of God. And that seems pretty obvious to me. What I question is whether that means they’re persons of God. The ones who are in Christ and who share in the Divine nature of God, doesn’t mean they’re persons of God to anyone, so far as I know.
Jesus is the Son of God. That I’m sure we can agree on. That’s all Peter said. But we may not agree as to what that means. I’m not sure what the Holy Spirit is. But I figure just what the Bible says, a Spirit that shares the Divine nature of God. And unlike what the JW’s think, I think the Holy Spirit is a person, rather than just a force. There’s seven of them mentioned in Revelation. And if they’re all persons of the one God, that would be ten persons in the “Trinityâ€, not just three.
I’m questioning whether Jesus is one of the persons of a person. I don’t deny that Jesus shares in the Divine nature inherited through his Father. Nor do I deny that Jesus shares in the human nature inherited through his mother. Nor do I deny that those who are in Christ share in the Divine nature of God. Nor do I deny that those who are in Christ are sons of God who will one day be just like Christ for they shall see him as he is.
The question that comes to my mind if God is Trinitarian, are those who believe individual persons of God because they share in the nature of God, or are they with Christ one person of God because they are in Christ?
“As has been said several times, the use of "person" is somewhat misleading and carries with it a different meaning than what was originally intended regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is perhaps the closest we can come to describing God with the limits of language.â€
So then, what is it we’re talking about? And if we don’t know for sure what it is, and if language is so limited that we can’t describe it adequately anyway, then why is it considered an essential doctrine, and the numero uno essential doctrine to boot?
“And, again, you have no logical basis for your conclusion regarding the nature of God. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all individual, and yet they are all God in nature, there is no other conclusion than that given by the doctrine of the Trinity.â€
There is no other conclusion to a Trinitarian than Trinitarianism. I understand that and I question Trinitarianism.
“Though it may have been believed by some prior to the fourth century, it wasn’t a doctrine to be authoritatively believed to be considered one of the Church until 325 AD. In my opinion, it was an extreme position pitted against another extreme position. And if the other side won, I would be questioning Arianism today because all you Trinitarians would be Arians fighting for a different interpretation.
This argument does not work. Look at the disciples and the Jewish expectation of the Messiah at the time. They expected, based on the OT, that the Messiah would come and literally wipe out all their enemies and establish his kingdom. But that certainly is not what happened. This is what is referred to as progressive revelation, as you likely know. I do not see why the NT revelation of the Trinity, although that is very much debatable since the OT is centered around Christ, need be any different.â€
So you’re saying what then? That the idea of the Trinity is a progressive revelation? Progressively revealed, not only in the Bible, but revealed more and more explicitly for over two centuries from the era of the New Testament writers, until it was finally given concrete form and authorized in the fourth century?
“Are you a Catholic?†He asked, moving his head so as to look at him sideways.
“The deity of Christ, his nature as God yet his not being the Father, can be seen in early second century writings. And I would question your statement that "it may have been believed by some." The Councils met to confirm what was already widely accepted within the Church.â€
Widely accepted? If it was, there would have been no need for a Council. The Nicene Council was convened because there was a division that was so substantial that it was affecting the unity of the Roman Empire. The Council was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Not the Patriarchs who should have been the ones to convened it. If the Arians were just a minority idea, as the JW’s are today, they would just have been rejected out of hand. As the JW’s are today.
It’s the Catholics who claim to believe in the authority of the Councils of which you speak. I don’t accept their authority. And I question the doctrines they authorized over two hundred years after the last New Testament book was written. I question the common idea that they authorized the New Testament, that already existed in oral or written form before the end of the first century. Protestants claim to believe in the authority of the Bible alone. As I do. Why would anyone who believes in the authority of the Bible alone care what the second century writings say or the Councils of the era confirm? Unless perhaps the Bible isn’t really as authoritative as they say it is?
FC
“What I’m concluding is that personal pronouns used in relation to God, if there is a plurality within the one being that is God, is evidence that we’re dealing with an insane God. Or a God fabricated by man.
On what logical basis can you make such a conclusion simply from God's use of personal pronouns? There is only one God, this the Bible affirms, so for God to use anything else would be contradictory. That God speaks as one God is what we would expect regardless of whether or not there is a plurality within that one God.â€
Logic is for Logicians. It’s just plain ole common sense to me. If you as a person were composed of three persons, I would think you’re insane. And if your God as a person were compose of three persons, I would think he’s just as insane as you are. Or I would think that your God came from your own tortured mind. But since normal humans don’t have multiple personalities, I wouldn’t expect the God who created humanity in its own image and likeness to have multiple personalities either.
Yet you apparently agree that God, Jehovah God, is a person. And since there is only one Jehovah God who refers to himself, through the use of personal pronouns, as one person, I have to question a doctrine that says or implies otherwise. I have to think that such a doctrine may be from the mind of man, rather than the Bible.
“But the Bible also does affirm that there is a plurality within God. We simply cannot throw out portions of the Bible which we can't make sense of or find disagreeable. If the Bible says there is only one God and also that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God in nature, then we must make sense of all of it. I am not denying the humanity of Christ and you should not deny his deity.â€
If you’re a Trinitarian, the Bible affirms to you that there’s a plurality within the one God. The only reason I believed in Trinitarianism is because it was taught to me as an authoritative and essential doctrine. And, at the time, I agreed with the Biblical interpretations that were presented as evidence for Trinitarianism. All of that is now questionable as far as I’m concerned.
But to say that I’m throwing out portions of the Bible simply because I question whether the Bible actually affirms such a plurality? Or just because I’m not agreeing with you? I would think that’s an extremist position, if I didn’t already realize the human nature of Christianity and that Christians are influenced by denominational thinking.
The Father is definitely God in the New Testament. That seems pretty obvious to just about everyone. The Son and Holy Spirit share in the Divine nature of God. And that seems pretty obvious to me. What I question is whether that means they’re persons of God. The ones who are in Christ and who share in the Divine nature of God, doesn’t mean they’re persons of God to anyone, so far as I know.
Jesus is the Son of God. That I’m sure we can agree on. That’s all Peter said. But we may not agree as to what that means. I’m not sure what the Holy Spirit is. But I figure just what the Bible says, a Spirit that shares the Divine nature of God. And unlike what the JW’s think, I think the Holy Spirit is a person, rather than just a force. There’s seven of them mentioned in Revelation. And if they’re all persons of the one God, that would be ten persons in the “Trinityâ€, not just three.
I’m questioning whether Jesus is one of the persons of a person. I don’t deny that Jesus shares in the Divine nature inherited through his Father. Nor do I deny that Jesus shares in the human nature inherited through his mother. Nor do I deny that those who are in Christ share in the Divine nature of God. Nor do I deny that those who are in Christ are sons of God who will one day be just like Christ for they shall see him as he is.
The question that comes to my mind if God is Trinitarian, are those who believe individual persons of God because they share in the nature of God, or are they with Christ one person of God because they are in Christ?
“As has been said several times, the use of "person" is somewhat misleading and carries with it a different meaning than what was originally intended regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is perhaps the closest we can come to describing God with the limits of language.â€
So then, what is it we’re talking about? And if we don’t know for sure what it is, and if language is so limited that we can’t describe it adequately anyway, then why is it considered an essential doctrine, and the numero uno essential doctrine to boot?
“And, again, you have no logical basis for your conclusion regarding the nature of God. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all individual, and yet they are all God in nature, there is no other conclusion than that given by the doctrine of the Trinity.â€
There is no other conclusion to a Trinitarian than Trinitarianism. I understand that and I question Trinitarianism.
“Though it may have been believed by some prior to the fourth century, it wasn’t a doctrine to be authoritatively believed to be considered one of the Church until 325 AD. In my opinion, it was an extreme position pitted against another extreme position. And if the other side won, I would be questioning Arianism today because all you Trinitarians would be Arians fighting for a different interpretation.
This argument does not work. Look at the disciples and the Jewish expectation of the Messiah at the time. They expected, based on the OT, that the Messiah would come and literally wipe out all their enemies and establish his kingdom. But that certainly is not what happened. This is what is referred to as progressive revelation, as you likely know. I do not see why the NT revelation of the Trinity, although that is very much debatable since the OT is centered around Christ, need be any different.â€
So you’re saying what then? That the idea of the Trinity is a progressive revelation? Progressively revealed, not only in the Bible, but revealed more and more explicitly for over two centuries from the era of the New Testament writers, until it was finally given concrete form and authorized in the fourth century?
“Are you a Catholic?†He asked, moving his head so as to look at him sideways.
“The deity of Christ, his nature as God yet his not being the Father, can be seen in early second century writings. And I would question your statement that "it may have been believed by some." The Councils met to confirm what was already widely accepted within the Church.â€
Widely accepted? If it was, there would have been no need for a Council. The Nicene Council was convened because there was a division that was so substantial that it was affecting the unity of the Roman Empire. The Council was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Not the Patriarchs who should have been the ones to convened it. If the Arians were just a minority idea, as the JW’s are today, they would just have been rejected out of hand. As the JW’s are today.
It’s the Catholics who claim to believe in the authority of the Councils of which you speak. I don’t accept their authority. And I question the doctrines they authorized over two hundred years after the last New Testament book was written. I question the common idea that they authorized the New Testament, that already existed in oral or written form before the end of the first century. Protestants claim to believe in the authority of the Bible alone. As I do. Why would anyone who believes in the authority of the Bible alone care what the second century writings say or the Councils of the era confirm? Unless perhaps the Bible isn’t really as authoritative as they say it is?
FC
Former Christian
Member
Asyncritus
“There is a very simple explanation of that point (John 17:1-5), which I've put up on the Jn 17.3 thread.â€
Which is?
“As I said a while ago, the Apostles Creed (the earlier versions of it) says what I believe to be the truth as clearly as it's humanly possible to be. I see you're in agreement with that.â€
Not entirely.
“From what you've written here, I think the word 'Former' isn't correct at all. 'Non-denominational' is probably nearest the truth as far as you're concerned.â€
I’m sure that anyone who has been reading my posts must find that amusing. Former Christian is entirely correct. It just doesn’t carry the meaning of non-believer. At least not yet! The determination of whether or not to continue to be a believer is being worked out as we speak.
“It does get quite confusing to me, I have to say.â€
The idea of the Trinity is confusing even to most Trinitarians. It apparently takes a lot of education to understand the intricacies of Trinitarian doctrine, whatever version is believed. I understand that more has been written about, for and against, the Trinity than any other doctrine. All that space TheLords used in favor of the Trinity isn’t uncommon.
“I don't know that Greek usage of terms is really relevant in scriptural discussions. Greek philosophy and Hebrew OT philosophy really have nothing in common - just as one would expect.â€
Don’t confuse the Greek language with Greek philosophy. Greek was the common language of the era of the first formulation of the Trinity. As it was for the writers of the New Testament. The New Testament writers used Greek terms in unusual ways also. The term “ekklesia†is an example. And while there are those who claim that the Trinitarian idea is somehow related to Plato’s philosophy, it really isn’t. Any more than the Western version of the Trinity is related to Aristotle’s philosophy. And Augustine was steeped in the language of Greek philosophers having been among them in his formative years. Yet he based his beliefs, rightly interpreted or not, on Scripture. He was definitely Catholic in his thinking. He stated that he wouldn’t have believed if it weren’t for the Church. Not for the Bible, for the Church.
I’m a Relativist. But not in the sense of the philosophy of Relativism that is popular today. I use the terminology and that is all, because it’s the closest thing to what I am. So also the original Trinitarians. To the Trinitarians, the idea is in Scripture. But it isn’t explicitly taught. So they felt the need to find some sort of language that would explain what they believed they saw in Scripture. Greek philosophy had nothing to do with it. But Greek words used by Greek philosophers were used. A lot of pseudo-discussion goes on because each side thinks that the other side has said something that it didn’t. I think it’s called fighting a straw man. They fight what doesn’t even exist.
The fight between the Arians and the Trinitarians was couched in the language of the era. And that still included a lot of terms gleaned from the Greek Philosophers. It behooves us to know the meaning of the terms they originally used, if we’re going to understand, and refute or agree with any aspects of the Trinitarian idea. Latin didn’t become the Biblical translation of choice in the West until after the fifth century. But there is some Latin terminology that is used in Western Trinitarian theology. The Eastern Orthodox still use the Greek today. But the difference between the Eastern and the Western versions of the Trinity are based on an interpretation of Scripture, not Greek or Roman philosophy. The Protestant version of the Trinity is based on an interpretation of Scripture, not Greek or Roman philosophy. Nor on the Humanistic philosophy that was rampant in the Sixteenth century.
“For that reason, I view all these 'mystical and pseudo-mystical' usages of the word logos with the deepest suspicion. The proper procedure is to look at the word usage first in the Hebrew texts and then the LXX: always treating the LXX with some degree of caution too.â€
Christian Mysticism isn’t as bad as you think it is. What the Greek word “logos†means, is unaffected by Christian Mysticism. Affected by interpretation, now that’s a horse of a different color.
The New Testament writers predominantly quoted from the Greek Septuagint. They may have been Jews, but there isn’t any reason to think that they didn’t actually write in Greek, the common language of the day. Matthew is the only Gospel that may have originally been written in Aramaic or Hebrew. And that’s questionable at best. What Jesus spoke in is anyone’s guess. But I find it interesting that, according to the Gospels, he seemed to converse with Jew and Gentile equally well. The Romans, according to what they believed about themselves, wouldn’t all have bothered learning Hebrew.
I have two beliefs, on creation and Justification, that corresponds more closely to the Septuagint than the Hebrew Old Testament. I saw the Justification idea first in the New Testament, and then noted how the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew, is in keeping with the idea. I saw the Creation idea first in the translations based on the Hebrew, and then noted how the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew, is in keeping with the idea. Both ideas are wrong to others. But not to me.
“I wouldn't bother too much about these - I don't quite know what polite term to use here - philosophical gyrations. Hebrew, which is the first language of the Bible, is an exceedingly concrete language.
It does not deal much in abstractions, as the Greeks were so fond of doing. And so, the theologians' attempts to foist Greek wool on Hebrew concrete can hardly come to anything else but confusion and disaster.â€
I know nothing of Hebrew, except what I read in the papers, I mean lexicons. But I do know Greek. And the Greek is, I believe, much more concrete than the English translators give it credit for. The English translation of Greek prepositions as being pretty much interchangeable is a case in point. And I have found that the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is as concrete as the New Testament. And since I know of two places where the Greek Septuagint is more in keeping with the New Testament, in my opinion, than the Hebrew, I have to believe that it isn’t just a unique phenomenon.
“As I keep saying, let them alone, because your own canal is far better to fall into than theirs. And from what you've been saying, the waters in your own seem to run pretty clear to me, and free of theological mud.â€
You really haven’t been reading my posts, have you? It’s true that my boots have less “theological mud†on them than most. But there’s a good reason for that. I’m not in the same canal. I’m very open minded as to what the Bible says, and thus freer to see what it actually says. I’m not hampered by any denominational teaching. Though the denominationalists would say I’m being hampered by my own teaching.
I’m a Relativist in comparison to the Denominationalists. And I’m more tolerant of their doctrines than they are of mine. I’m willing to take communion with Denominationalists. But through their practice of closed communion, they aren’t willing that I take communion with them. And by the practice they’re saying in practicality that I’m not one of them. It took me awhile to see it. But now I agree with them.
For the moment, I still believe that the Biblical writers accurately describe natural and supernatural events pertaining to their individual eras. That may change at any time. One never knows what interpretation of the Bible will be the interpretation that finally breaks a believers back and turns him into a non-believer. Today, I have more non-Christian than Christian friends. And I know more than one who finally agreed with a denominational interpretation and no longer believes in the Bible because of it.
What I definitely don’t believe is that Christianity expresses the same reality that the Bible describes. Any more than does modern Judaism. I don’t believe that Christianity is Divine in nature. I believe that it’s human in nature, shown chiefly by it’s denominationalism. It’s denominational because it’s human. And denominationalism is as natural to human nature as is nationalism. Christianity is also religious in nature and is thus a religion; even though far too many in that religion are more philosophical than religious. Thus I believe that Christianity is a man-made religion, just like Islam and Buddhism. And it is this that you are seeing. Don’t let it fool you. I’m a
Former Christian
“There is a very simple explanation of that point (John 17:1-5), which I've put up on the Jn 17.3 thread.â€
Which is?
“As I said a while ago, the Apostles Creed (the earlier versions of it) says what I believe to be the truth as clearly as it's humanly possible to be. I see you're in agreement with that.â€
Not entirely.
“From what you've written here, I think the word 'Former' isn't correct at all. 'Non-denominational' is probably nearest the truth as far as you're concerned.â€
I’m sure that anyone who has been reading my posts must find that amusing. Former Christian is entirely correct. It just doesn’t carry the meaning of non-believer. At least not yet! The determination of whether or not to continue to be a believer is being worked out as we speak.
“It does get quite confusing to me, I have to say.â€
The idea of the Trinity is confusing even to most Trinitarians. It apparently takes a lot of education to understand the intricacies of Trinitarian doctrine, whatever version is believed. I understand that more has been written about, for and against, the Trinity than any other doctrine. All that space TheLords used in favor of the Trinity isn’t uncommon.
“I don't know that Greek usage of terms is really relevant in scriptural discussions. Greek philosophy and Hebrew OT philosophy really have nothing in common - just as one would expect.â€
Don’t confuse the Greek language with Greek philosophy. Greek was the common language of the era of the first formulation of the Trinity. As it was for the writers of the New Testament. The New Testament writers used Greek terms in unusual ways also. The term “ekklesia†is an example. And while there are those who claim that the Trinitarian idea is somehow related to Plato’s philosophy, it really isn’t. Any more than the Western version of the Trinity is related to Aristotle’s philosophy. And Augustine was steeped in the language of Greek philosophers having been among them in his formative years. Yet he based his beliefs, rightly interpreted or not, on Scripture. He was definitely Catholic in his thinking. He stated that he wouldn’t have believed if it weren’t for the Church. Not for the Bible, for the Church.
I’m a Relativist. But not in the sense of the philosophy of Relativism that is popular today. I use the terminology and that is all, because it’s the closest thing to what I am. So also the original Trinitarians. To the Trinitarians, the idea is in Scripture. But it isn’t explicitly taught. So they felt the need to find some sort of language that would explain what they believed they saw in Scripture. Greek philosophy had nothing to do with it. But Greek words used by Greek philosophers were used. A lot of pseudo-discussion goes on because each side thinks that the other side has said something that it didn’t. I think it’s called fighting a straw man. They fight what doesn’t even exist.
The fight between the Arians and the Trinitarians was couched in the language of the era. And that still included a lot of terms gleaned from the Greek Philosophers. It behooves us to know the meaning of the terms they originally used, if we’re going to understand, and refute or agree with any aspects of the Trinitarian idea. Latin didn’t become the Biblical translation of choice in the West until after the fifth century. But there is some Latin terminology that is used in Western Trinitarian theology. The Eastern Orthodox still use the Greek today. But the difference between the Eastern and the Western versions of the Trinity are based on an interpretation of Scripture, not Greek or Roman philosophy. The Protestant version of the Trinity is based on an interpretation of Scripture, not Greek or Roman philosophy. Nor on the Humanistic philosophy that was rampant in the Sixteenth century.
“For that reason, I view all these 'mystical and pseudo-mystical' usages of the word logos with the deepest suspicion. The proper procedure is to look at the word usage first in the Hebrew texts and then the LXX: always treating the LXX with some degree of caution too.â€
Christian Mysticism isn’t as bad as you think it is. What the Greek word “logos†means, is unaffected by Christian Mysticism. Affected by interpretation, now that’s a horse of a different color.
The New Testament writers predominantly quoted from the Greek Septuagint. They may have been Jews, but there isn’t any reason to think that they didn’t actually write in Greek, the common language of the day. Matthew is the only Gospel that may have originally been written in Aramaic or Hebrew. And that’s questionable at best. What Jesus spoke in is anyone’s guess. But I find it interesting that, according to the Gospels, he seemed to converse with Jew and Gentile equally well. The Romans, according to what they believed about themselves, wouldn’t all have bothered learning Hebrew.
I have two beliefs, on creation and Justification, that corresponds more closely to the Septuagint than the Hebrew Old Testament. I saw the Justification idea first in the New Testament, and then noted how the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew, is in keeping with the idea. I saw the Creation idea first in the translations based on the Hebrew, and then noted how the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew, is in keeping with the idea. Both ideas are wrong to others. But not to me.
“I wouldn't bother too much about these - I don't quite know what polite term to use here - philosophical gyrations. Hebrew, which is the first language of the Bible, is an exceedingly concrete language.
It does not deal much in abstractions, as the Greeks were so fond of doing. And so, the theologians' attempts to foist Greek wool on Hebrew concrete can hardly come to anything else but confusion and disaster.â€
I know nothing of Hebrew, except what I read in the papers, I mean lexicons. But I do know Greek. And the Greek is, I believe, much more concrete than the English translators give it credit for. The English translation of Greek prepositions as being pretty much interchangeable is a case in point. And I have found that the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is as concrete as the New Testament. And since I know of two places where the Greek Septuagint is more in keeping with the New Testament, in my opinion, than the Hebrew, I have to believe that it isn’t just a unique phenomenon.
“As I keep saying, let them alone, because your own canal is far better to fall into than theirs. And from what you've been saying, the waters in your own seem to run pretty clear to me, and free of theological mud.â€
You really haven’t been reading my posts, have you? It’s true that my boots have less “theological mud†on them than most. But there’s a good reason for that. I’m not in the same canal. I’m very open minded as to what the Bible says, and thus freer to see what it actually says. I’m not hampered by any denominational teaching. Though the denominationalists would say I’m being hampered by my own teaching.
I’m a Relativist in comparison to the Denominationalists. And I’m more tolerant of their doctrines than they are of mine. I’m willing to take communion with Denominationalists. But through their practice of closed communion, they aren’t willing that I take communion with them. And by the practice they’re saying in practicality that I’m not one of them. It took me awhile to see it. But now I agree with them.
For the moment, I still believe that the Biblical writers accurately describe natural and supernatural events pertaining to their individual eras. That may change at any time. One never knows what interpretation of the Bible will be the interpretation that finally breaks a believers back and turns him into a non-believer. Today, I have more non-Christian than Christian friends. And I know more than one who finally agreed with a denominational interpretation and no longer believes in the Bible because of it.
What I definitely don’t believe is that Christianity expresses the same reality that the Bible describes. Any more than does modern Judaism. I don’t believe that Christianity is Divine in nature. I believe that it’s human in nature, shown chiefly by it’s denominationalism. It’s denominational because it’s human. And denominationalism is as natural to human nature as is nationalism. Christianity is also religious in nature and is thus a religion; even though far too many in that religion are more philosophical than religious. Thus I believe that Christianity is a man-made religion, just like Islam and Buddhism. And it is this that you are seeing. Don’t let it fool you. I’m a
Former Christian
Logic is for everyone. To ignore logic is to ignore rational thought and make this rational discussion meaningless. There are perhaps better ways of explaining it but I do not see how one can automatically conclude that the Trinity is false based on the analogy of a human with MPD. No one is saying that God, as a person, is three persons; I have intentionally gone out of my way to not make such a statement. Rather, within the one being that is God, there are three persons.
If something as simple as water can exist in all three states at the same time under the right conditions--the Triple Point of Water--then I see no reason as to why the infinite God who created water cannot also be said to have a threeness about his oneness; that even though he is one being, there are three rational centers, or something of the sort.
I don't believe I have said that God is a person. I have continually stated that he is one God, one being. If the Bible clearly states there is one God and clearly states that the Father is God in nature, that the Son is God in nature, and the Holy Spirit is God in nature, then what is one to do? This is about what the Bible states, not what man thinks.FC said:
And if you're not a Trinitarian, the Bible affirms to you that there's no plurality within the one God. I believe in Trinitarianism because I have thoroughly studied the matter.FC said:
I only say it because for many passages, there is only one logical conclusion. Jesus is God in nature, there is no other rational answer. And of course all these parts that we have been discussing must add up to the whole. The whole is one of the overarching themes of the OT, that God himself is the Savior of Israel and the world:FC said:
Isa 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. (ESV)
Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. (ESV)
Hos 13:4 But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. (ESV)
Have you ever referred to Christ as your savior? Christ is the central figure of the entire Bible, from cover to cover. This is a huge argument against your position. Drew is the one who first introduced it here and argues it best, so if he chimes in, he chimes in, although he likely won't since it literally does get ignored, but I won't get much into it.
Suffice it to say that it is entirely consistent with the trinitarian position. Even in the first chapter in the NT we see the following:
Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). (ESV)
We see that he is the savior, "God with us". Very consistent and coherent with the OT idea that Yahweh himself was the only savior. The parts must add up to the whole.
Does the NT state anywhere that the Son and Holy Spirit share in the divine nature? The NT clearly applies attributes to the Son and Holy Spirit which are attributes of God alone, hence why they are God. Humans, although partakers of the divine nature, are mere creatures, and therefore cannot, by definition, be said to be God. We do not have those attributes of God which differentiate the Creator from the creature.FC said:
For example, here is one passage that I have yet to receive a substantial response on, from what I can remember:
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)
The interesting part is that non-trinitarians, more specifically those who deny the deity of Christ, use this verse as though it proves only the Father is God. I have argued that if we use this passage to exclude Christ from being God, then we must necessarily, exclude the Father from being Lord. But there is much more to it than that which also happens to support that argument. If "from whom are all things" indicates the eternal nature of the Father, which is an attribute of God alone, then it logically follows that "through whom all things" indicates the eternal nature of Christ. There is no other rational conclusion.
And this is clearly supported by John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, which both speak of Christ creating, or being involved somehow in creation of, every single thing that has been created. Not to mention there is absolutely no escaping John 1:1 and it's clear statement that the Word, the pre-incarnate Christ, was in existence already at the beginning of creation, without completely and utterly destroying the text.
These things must be taken into consideration. We cannot favor one over the other. One cannot ignore, throw out, or otherwise completely mangle those passages which speak of Christ as God, just as no one can do likewise with those passages which speak of Christ as man. We cannot do either/or, we must take into account all that is said.
Yes, we certainly agree that Jesus is the Son of God. I would have to look at the references in Revelation but the Holy Spirit has many names--including "the Spirit of Christ" and "the Spirit of God" in Rom 8:9, which is very telling in and of itself--but I agree that there most certainly is personhood ascribed to the Holy Spirit.FC said:
Again, I would question the use of "sharing" in regards to Jesus' divine nature. But in terms of what I believe "Son of God" means, you're pretty close with the above.FC said:
I am really not sure what you're asking here.FC said:
As I stated earlier, Jesus is the focus of the entire Bible, so who he is is absolutely central to salvation, to everything. Not being able to comprehend it all does not make it less important.FC said:
Biblically, yes, the idea of God as triune was a progressive revelation, John seeming to understand it best, perhaps having had the most time to contemplate all that had been written, said, and done. As for the time up to the fourth century, I think it was just man's understanding that took time to catch up with what the Bible stated. Here we are 1600+ years later still trying to come to an understanding of it all.FC said:
Are you asking me? No, I am not. There is just too much there that I find disagreeable and unable to be supported by Scripture.FC said:
By the same token, if Arianism was widely accepted there wouldn't have been a need for a Council. Arianism may have been accepted to a degree, certainly enough that a Council was needed to deal with the issue, but that doesn't mean that the Trinity wasn't widely accepted. The fact is, the early Church took claims to truth about Scripture very seriously. For the most part, the same cannot be said today. False teachers and their teachings needed to be, and still need to be, dealt with swiftly lest their false teachings become widely accepted.FC said:
We ought to care because that is our heritage, our lineage, our history. We simply cannot ignore what the Church has taught and stated in the last 2000 years. Certainly I disagree with some of it but having searched the Scriptures on certain matters, I have found points of agreement.FC said:
As for the NT existing prior to it's authorization, or canonization, that isn't entirely true. The books all existed, yes, but their compilation did not. They were compiled and eventually canonized in direct response to the Marconian canon.
Incidentally, the word "canon" means "reed" or "measuring stick." It was meant as that which is be the measure of all else, but not an exhaustive work covering all of the Christian life.
John Zain
Member
The above is copied from Post #1.
I do not believe that an understanding, acceptance, belief, etc. in the Trinity can
come via intellect, education, logic, reasoning, etc. no matter how hard one tries.
And let's make that a Big Ditto for trying to believe in the basic gospel.
I know people who have tried hard, but just can't believe.
This all ties in, boys and girls, with Isaiah's and Paul's incredible (but true)
calvinistic explanations via "the potter and the clay" verses ...
God makes some vessels for honor (vessels of mercy) to display His glory.
God makes other vessels for dishonor (vessels of wrath) prepared for destruction.
This is throwing a huge monkey-wrench (so far) into my
recent glorious marriage of Calvinism and Armenianism.
And this is quite a shame because I love marriages.
I know this has been researched and debated a trillion times,
but I'm quite an expert at re-inventing wheels.
Last edited by a moderator:
Former Christian
Member
Free
Logic is for everyone. To ignore logic is to ignore rational thought and make this rational discussion meaningless.
OK. So we’re having a meaningless discussion. Unless you’re a professional logician, you’re illogical. According to “logical scientistsâ€, The theory of Evolution is the true reality logically arrived at. The theory that God created everything that exists and continues to exist basically as since the beginning is a myth to these “logical†scientists. Why do you think the idea of teaching the idea that God created everything, including man and all life on earth as it basically is today, as a viable alternative to Evolutionism is a no-no to Evolutionists? Doesn’t keep “logical†scientists like Kenneth Miller from believing in the existence of God, however. He’s just against teaching God as creator of everything being taught in science classes. In fact, he gave a very logical presentation, found on YouTube, that almost convinced me that God couldn’t possibly be the Creator of life.
“If something as simple as water can exist in all three states at the same time under the right conditions--the Triple Point of Water--then I see no reason as to why the infinite God who created water cannot also be said to have a threeness about his oneness; that even though he is one being, there are three rational centers, or something of the sort.â€
And some flowers have more than three petals. Irrelevant. As is the behavior of water, an inanimate object.
That sounds more like Modalism, not one of the “orthodox†versions of Trinitarianism. In fact, that sounds even more like Witness Lee’s description of his version of the triune God. He wasn’t a strict Modalist. Nor was he a strict adherent of the Protestant “orthodox†version of Trinitarianism. He even showed how “person†couldn’t possibly adequately describe the nature of the any of the three in the Godhead. It’s an interesting Biblical interpretation you might want to check out sometime. But be aware that his view is considered heretical by adherents of any view that isn’t his.
“I don't believe I have said that God is a person. I have continually stated that he is one God, one being. If the Bible clearly states there is one God and clearly states that the Father is God in nature, that the Son is God in nature, and the Holy Spirit is God in nature, then what is one to do? This is about what the Bible states, not what man thinks.â€
Ah, well, that clears that up. So God isn’t a person to you. Psalm 100 and Isaiah says he is. Rather clearly I might add. Just as clearly as the New Testament presents each of the three considered parts of the Godhead as persons.
“And if you're not a Trinitarian, the Bible affirms to you that there's no plurality within the one God. I believe in Trinitarianism because I have thoroughly studied the matter.â€
Obviously. I’m still stuck in the middle somewhere.
I’m sure you’ve thoroughly studied the Trinity. An expert on the matter I presume. I used to “study†denominational doctrines. Until I found out it only leads to interpretations, and a lot of confusion if one’s honestly seeking what the Scripture actually says. I’ve learned to simply observe what’s in the Bible. It’s been very effective in bringing to light the differences between what the Bible says and denominational interpretive doctrines. The more I observe, the less I believe what the denominations are saying.
Instead of observe, I could say I listen to what Jesus is teaching me through the Bible. But since almost everyone makes that claim, it becomes meaningless as a point of authority except to the individual. In the same way that “the Bible says†has become meaningless as a point of authority because almost everyone says that, including Catholics these days. Meaningless because the claims have resulted in different doctrinal understandings. And I for one don’t think it’s the fault of either Jesus or the devil, or even the flesh. People just don’t understand the Bible alike for a lot of different reasons. I can only hope that my reasons are honest and not due to any outside influences or by the influence of the flesh or the ability of the mental imagination (interpretation) within. Being aware is half the battle in my opinion. Walking by the Spirit is the other half.
“The whole is one of the overarching themes of the OT, that God himself is the Savior of Israel and the worldâ€
Isa 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. (ESV)
Funny you can see an assumed significance for the latter part of that verse, but not for the first part. What of “I am Jehovah� (ASV) Doesn’t that sound like a person to you?
Hos 13:4 But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. (ESV)
Doesn’t “I am Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt; and thou hast known no God but me†(Darby) sound like a person to you?
“Have you ever referred to Christ as your savior? Christ is the central figure of the entire Bible, from cover to cover. This is a huge argument against your position. Drew is the one who first introduced it here and argues it best, so if he chimes in, he chimes in, although he likely won't since it literally does get ignored, but I won't get much into it.
Suffice it to say that it is entirely consistent with the trinitarian position. Even in the first chapter in the NT we see the following:
Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). (ESV)â€
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
(ESV)
“Does the NT state anywhere that the Son and Holy Spirit share in the divine nature? The NT clearly applies attributes to the Son and Holy Spirit which are attributes of God alone, hence why they are God. Humans, although partakers of the divine nature, are mere creatures, and therefore cannot, by definition, be said to be God. We do not have those attributes of God which differentiate the Creator from the creature.â€
So far as I know, the Greek word “sharing†is only used of those who are in Christ. Never in any sense of the three assumed to be God.
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)
Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians read a lot more into that one verse than is really there. It is evidence for neither side except through the practice of interpretation. And through that practice it can mean anything.
“And this is clearly supported by John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, which both speak of Christ creating, or being involved somehow in creation of, every single thing that has been created. Not to mention there is absolutely no escaping John 1:1 and it's clear statement that the Word, the pre-incarnate Christ, was in existence already at the beginning of creation, without completely and utterly destroying the text.â€
For some reason, Trinitarians think that non-Trinitarians deny that Christ was involved in creation, when they clearly don’t. To the JW’s, Jesus is the first created being, and in his creation, was obviously there in the beginning of creation.
I only believe that Jesus had a created part through his mother Mary. So to me he isn’t the first created being in that sense. But he is the first born of all who are in himself (Rom 8:29), the first born from the dead (Col 1:18). What first born of all creation (Col 1:15) means, I haven’t a clue. Non-Trinitarians claim it refers to his creation. Others claim it refers to his creation of creation.
More to follow
FC
Logic is for everyone. To ignore logic is to ignore rational thought and make this rational discussion meaningless.
OK. So we’re having a meaningless discussion. Unless you’re a professional logician, you’re illogical. According to “logical scientistsâ€, The theory of Evolution is the true reality logically arrived at. The theory that God created everything that exists and continues to exist basically as since the beginning is a myth to these “logical†scientists. Why do you think the idea of teaching the idea that God created everything, including man and all life on earth as it basically is today, as a viable alternative to Evolutionism is a no-no to Evolutionists? Doesn’t keep “logical†scientists like Kenneth Miller from believing in the existence of God, however. He’s just against teaching God as creator of everything being taught in science classes. In fact, he gave a very logical presentation, found on YouTube, that almost convinced me that God couldn’t possibly be the Creator of life.
“If something as simple as water can exist in all three states at the same time under the right conditions--the Triple Point of Water--then I see no reason as to why the infinite God who created water cannot also be said to have a threeness about his oneness; that even though he is one being, there are three rational centers, or something of the sort.â€
And some flowers have more than three petals. Irrelevant. As is the behavior of water, an inanimate object.
That sounds more like Modalism, not one of the “orthodox†versions of Trinitarianism. In fact, that sounds even more like Witness Lee’s description of his version of the triune God. He wasn’t a strict Modalist. Nor was he a strict adherent of the Protestant “orthodox†version of Trinitarianism. He even showed how “person†couldn’t possibly adequately describe the nature of the any of the three in the Godhead. It’s an interesting Biblical interpretation you might want to check out sometime. But be aware that his view is considered heretical by adherents of any view that isn’t his.
“I don't believe I have said that God is a person. I have continually stated that he is one God, one being. If the Bible clearly states there is one God and clearly states that the Father is God in nature, that the Son is God in nature, and the Holy Spirit is God in nature, then what is one to do? This is about what the Bible states, not what man thinks.â€
Ah, well, that clears that up. So God isn’t a person to you. Psalm 100 and Isaiah says he is. Rather clearly I might add. Just as clearly as the New Testament presents each of the three considered parts of the Godhead as persons.
“And if you're not a Trinitarian, the Bible affirms to you that there's no plurality within the one God. I believe in Trinitarianism because I have thoroughly studied the matter.â€
Obviously. I’m still stuck in the middle somewhere.
I’m sure you’ve thoroughly studied the Trinity. An expert on the matter I presume. I used to “study†denominational doctrines. Until I found out it only leads to interpretations, and a lot of confusion if one’s honestly seeking what the Scripture actually says. I’ve learned to simply observe what’s in the Bible. It’s been very effective in bringing to light the differences between what the Bible says and denominational interpretive doctrines. The more I observe, the less I believe what the denominations are saying.
Instead of observe, I could say I listen to what Jesus is teaching me through the Bible. But since almost everyone makes that claim, it becomes meaningless as a point of authority except to the individual. In the same way that “the Bible says†has become meaningless as a point of authority because almost everyone says that, including Catholics these days. Meaningless because the claims have resulted in different doctrinal understandings. And I for one don’t think it’s the fault of either Jesus or the devil, or even the flesh. People just don’t understand the Bible alike for a lot of different reasons. I can only hope that my reasons are honest and not due to any outside influences or by the influence of the flesh or the ability of the mental imagination (interpretation) within. Being aware is half the battle in my opinion. Walking by the Spirit is the other half.
“The whole is one of the overarching themes of the OT, that God himself is the Savior of Israel and the worldâ€
Isa 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. (ESV)
Funny you can see an assumed significance for the latter part of that verse, but not for the first part. What of “I am Jehovah� (ASV) Doesn’t that sound like a person to you?
Hos 13:4 But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. (ESV)
Doesn’t “I am Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt; and thou hast known no God but me†(Darby) sound like a person to you?
“Have you ever referred to Christ as your savior? Christ is the central figure of the entire Bible, from cover to cover. This is a huge argument against your position. Drew is the one who first introduced it here and argues it best, so if he chimes in, he chimes in, although he likely won't since it literally does get ignored, but I won't get much into it.
Suffice it to say that it is entirely consistent with the trinitarian position. Even in the first chapter in the NT we see the following:
Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). (ESV)â€
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
(ESV)
“Does the NT state anywhere that the Son and Holy Spirit share in the divine nature? The NT clearly applies attributes to the Son and Holy Spirit which are attributes of God alone, hence why they are God. Humans, although partakers of the divine nature, are mere creatures, and therefore cannot, by definition, be said to be God. We do not have those attributes of God which differentiate the Creator from the creature.â€
So far as I know, the Greek word “sharing†is only used of those who are in Christ. Never in any sense of the three assumed to be God.
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)
Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians read a lot more into that one verse than is really there. It is evidence for neither side except through the practice of interpretation. And through that practice it can mean anything.
“And this is clearly supported by John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, which both speak of Christ creating, or being involved somehow in creation of, every single thing that has been created. Not to mention there is absolutely no escaping John 1:1 and it's clear statement that the Word, the pre-incarnate Christ, was in existence already at the beginning of creation, without completely and utterly destroying the text.â€
For some reason, Trinitarians think that non-Trinitarians deny that Christ was involved in creation, when they clearly don’t. To the JW’s, Jesus is the first created being, and in his creation, was obviously there in the beginning of creation.
I only believe that Jesus had a created part through his mother Mary. So to me he isn’t the first created being in that sense. But he is the first born of all who are in himself (Rom 8:29), the first born from the dead (Col 1:18). What first born of all creation (Col 1:15) means, I haven’t a clue. Non-Trinitarians claim it refers to his creation. Others claim it refers to his creation of creation.
More to follow
FC
Former Christian
Member
Free
“These things must be taken into consideration. We cannot favor one over the other. One cannot ignore, throw out, or otherwise completely mangle those passages which speak of Christ as God, just as no one can do likewise with those passages which speak of Christ as man. We cannotdo either/or, we must take into account all that is said.â€
You deny that Jehovah God is a person and in practicality change the meaning of the Biblical references that says that he is. And through that interpretation you are as guilty as those you accuse. Very rarely have I seen advocates of any doctrine do what you claim. Guilty of the practice of interpretation, yes. But rarely with malicious intent. Come back down from your denominationalism. What you say is more in keeping with common sense when you present it in a non-denominational manner. And your viewpoint more likely to be considered.
“Yes, we certainly agree that Jesus is the Son of God. I would have to look at the references in Revelation but the Holy Spirit has many names--including "the Spirit of Christ" and "the Spirit of God" in Rom 8:9, which is very telling in and of itself--but I agree that there most certainly is personhood ascribed to the Holy Spiritâ€
Rom 8:9 refers to two different things. Christ has a spirit, hence the “spirit of Christâ€.
Mark 2:8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts?
And the “Spirit of God†is referring to walking by the Spirit as per the context.
Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
To hear what Jesus is teaching is the same thing as hearing what the Spirit is saying. Not because they are the same thing, or the same God, but because Jesus teaches through the Spirit.
One of many evidences for Trinitarianism that doesn’t prove Trinitarianism. A couple others commonly used are Isaiah 9:6 and John 10:30, neither of which have anything whatever to do with the nature of the Son. Except through the practice of interpretation. They are both references to function. As John 1:1-3 may well be. And if I’m going to agree with the practice of interpretation, I’ll follow the Catholics. They’ve had way more practice than any Protestant.
Revelation written by John is considered so metaphorical that it’s interpreted in just about every way imaginable. I have yet to see a commentator that interpreted the Seven Spirits of God literally. I believe they are as literal as are the seven ekklesia and the lamb with which they are associated. And I believe that the seven ekklesia were literal ekklesia, and that the Lamb of God, who is Jesus Christ, literally exists (John 1:29, 36).
“essential doctrine
As I stated earlier, Jesus is the focus of the entire Bible, so who he is is absolutely central to salvation, to everything. Not being able to comprehend it all does not make it less important.â€
The emphasis of the Bible isn’t Jesus Christ. The Bible doesn’t emphasize. The portrait of both Father and Son is to be found in the Old Testament and in the New Testament alike. A Son who did as the Old Testament Law said. Obeyed his Father. And loved his Father to the extent that he pointed to him, described him, constantly. Who was so much like his Father that he could say,
John 14:
9 “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
(ESV)
This is used as evidence for the Trinity. It’s more evidence for Modalism if this is referring to the nature of Christ.
To say the Bible emphasizes Christ is not true. The number of times the name Jesus or the word Christ is found in the New Testament is irrelevant. The word God is found more often if that’s the criteria. Emphasis is a tool of denominationalism. And the doctrine of the Trinity has been a part of that tool for over a millennium and a half.
Any doctrine becomes too important when it’s emphatic, when it’s used as an excuse for division. And that’s how the doctrine of the Trinity has been used for centuries, by both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians. And as far as who Jesus is, Jesus was satisfied with Peter’s answer, the Son of the living God. No one denies that, even though additional factors may be understood in different ways. So long as denominational views are presented authoritatively, so long will denominational views be believed.
“By the same token, if Arianism was widely accepted there wouldn't have been a need for a Council.â€
Obviously.
“Arianism may have been accepted to a degree, certainly enough that a Council was needed to deal with the issue, but that doesn't mean that the Trinity wasn't widely accepted.â€
According to the consensus of historians, more than just to a degree. They were about equal in their acceptance. Thus the perceived need for a Council by the Emperor Constantine. And as Emperor, Constantine was being magnanimous. He could just have easily proclaimed in favor of one side or the other, as Emperors did before him. And I understand he agreed more with the Arians. But his magnanimity did have the effect of saving the lives of the losers, since they were only banished rather than killed as in former times.
“The fact is, the early Church took claims to truth about Scripture very seriously. For the most part, the same cannot be said today. False teachers and their teachings needed to be, and still need to be, dealt with swiftly lest their false teachings become widely accepted.â€
You think so? The existence of denominations belies your statement. People think they have the truth and voila, another denomination. False teachers are swiftly dealt with. Now one is left with searching for the right denomination, according to one’s own opinion. An opinion that’s the opinion of a false teacher to everyone except the denomination chosen.
The emphasis on false teaching so called leaves me cold because it has left me out in the cold. The Catholics have been doing it far longer than the Protestants. And Catholics and Protestants both think the other is the false teacher. Indeed, Protestants think that of one another. What you’re seeing in those early days was denominationalism in action. The Emperor Constantine simply brought it out in the open. Christianity was human in nature from its beginning.
Paul spoke against denominationalism when it was only divisions within a single ekklesia. Talk about progressive revelation. That’s what you have in the denominations today. The result of progressive revelation in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and progressively diverse revelation in Protestantism.
The Bible isn’t progressive revelation. Only the matter of salvation to the Gentiles was hidden from the Jews until the coming of the Messiah. The Law/Tabernacle pointed to what would be relating to the Messiah. But it wasn’t a progressive revelation. It only served to keep physical Israel through whom the Messiah was to come until he came. Nothing changed. No one was saved by keeping the Law or by the Tabernacle rituals. And that should be as clear to us today as it was to David (Psalms). Salvation was still by faith in God as it was for Abraham, as it was for Enoch, for Abel, for Adam. As it continues to be for us today. Except today, after the coming of the Messiah, salvation is in Christ through faith in God and baptism into Christ. So that it’s the faith of Christ that Justifies, not our own faith in God.
“We ought to care because that is our heritage, our lineage, our history. We simply cannot ignore what the Church has taught and stated in the last 2000 years.â€
Certainly the Catholic argument.
“Certainly I disagree with some of it but having searched the Scriptures on certain matters, I have found points of agreement.â€
Certainly the Protestant argument.
“As for the NT existing prior to it's authorization, or canonization, that isn't entirely true. The books all existed, yes, but their compilation did not. They were compiled and eventually canonized in direct response to the Marconian canon.
Incidentally, the word "canon" means "reed" or "measuring stick." It was meant as that which is be the measure of all else, but not an exhaustive work covering all of the Christian life.â€
So the Catholics keep telling us. And Catholics can truthfully claim that history backs them more than the Protestants. And they can claim that they canonized the Bible because history is basically Catholic history up until the split between the Catholics and the Protestants. But I disagree because I don’t think history has any thing to do with it. For those who believe in the ultimate authority of the Bible, what’s contained in the Bible is their historical heritage.
And it stands to reason that the Trinity would automatically be the true teaching if one believes in the authority of a denomination that teaches it. One wouldn’t have to “study†anything, unless one is chosen or chooses to be one of the educated class. Just take the word of those educated in the true doctrines of the Church.
I really think that if you can’t see what’s so obvious, that Jehovah God is referred to as a single person in the Old Testament, then your study of the Trinity has been for naught. You’ve neglected to factor in an essential fact. So much for logic.
FC
“These things must be taken into consideration. We cannot favor one over the other. One cannot ignore, throw out, or otherwise completely mangle those passages which speak of Christ as God, just as no one can do likewise with those passages which speak of Christ as man. We cannotdo either/or, we must take into account all that is said.â€
You deny that Jehovah God is a person and in practicality change the meaning of the Biblical references that says that he is. And through that interpretation you are as guilty as those you accuse. Very rarely have I seen advocates of any doctrine do what you claim. Guilty of the practice of interpretation, yes. But rarely with malicious intent. Come back down from your denominationalism. What you say is more in keeping with common sense when you present it in a non-denominational manner. And your viewpoint more likely to be considered.
“Yes, we certainly agree that Jesus is the Son of God. I would have to look at the references in Revelation but the Holy Spirit has many names--including "the Spirit of Christ" and "the Spirit of God" in Rom 8:9, which is very telling in and of itself--but I agree that there most certainly is personhood ascribed to the Holy Spiritâ€
Rom 8:9 refers to two different things. Christ has a spirit, hence the “spirit of Christâ€.
Mark 2:8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts?
And the “Spirit of God†is referring to walking by the Spirit as per the context.
Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
To hear what Jesus is teaching is the same thing as hearing what the Spirit is saying. Not because they are the same thing, or the same God, but because Jesus teaches through the Spirit.
One of many evidences for Trinitarianism that doesn’t prove Trinitarianism. A couple others commonly used are Isaiah 9:6 and John 10:30, neither of which have anything whatever to do with the nature of the Son. Except through the practice of interpretation. They are both references to function. As John 1:1-3 may well be. And if I’m going to agree with the practice of interpretation, I’ll follow the Catholics. They’ve had way more practice than any Protestant.
Revelation written by John is considered so metaphorical that it’s interpreted in just about every way imaginable. I have yet to see a commentator that interpreted the Seven Spirits of God literally. I believe they are as literal as are the seven ekklesia and the lamb with which they are associated. And I believe that the seven ekklesia were literal ekklesia, and that the Lamb of God, who is Jesus Christ, literally exists (John 1:29, 36).
“essential doctrine
As I stated earlier, Jesus is the focus of the entire Bible, so who he is is absolutely central to salvation, to everything. Not being able to comprehend it all does not make it less important.â€
The emphasis of the Bible isn’t Jesus Christ. The Bible doesn’t emphasize. The portrait of both Father and Son is to be found in the Old Testament and in the New Testament alike. A Son who did as the Old Testament Law said. Obeyed his Father. And loved his Father to the extent that he pointed to him, described him, constantly. Who was so much like his Father that he could say,
John 14:
9 “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
(ESV)
This is used as evidence for the Trinity. It’s more evidence for Modalism if this is referring to the nature of Christ.
To say the Bible emphasizes Christ is not true. The number of times the name Jesus or the word Christ is found in the New Testament is irrelevant. The word God is found more often if that’s the criteria. Emphasis is a tool of denominationalism. And the doctrine of the Trinity has been a part of that tool for over a millennium and a half.
Any doctrine becomes too important when it’s emphatic, when it’s used as an excuse for division. And that’s how the doctrine of the Trinity has been used for centuries, by both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians. And as far as who Jesus is, Jesus was satisfied with Peter’s answer, the Son of the living God. No one denies that, even though additional factors may be understood in different ways. So long as denominational views are presented authoritatively, so long will denominational views be believed.
“By the same token, if Arianism was widely accepted there wouldn't have been a need for a Council.â€
Obviously.
“Arianism may have been accepted to a degree, certainly enough that a Council was needed to deal with the issue, but that doesn't mean that the Trinity wasn't widely accepted.â€
According to the consensus of historians, more than just to a degree. They were about equal in their acceptance. Thus the perceived need for a Council by the Emperor Constantine. And as Emperor, Constantine was being magnanimous. He could just have easily proclaimed in favor of one side or the other, as Emperors did before him. And I understand he agreed more with the Arians. But his magnanimity did have the effect of saving the lives of the losers, since they were only banished rather than killed as in former times.
“The fact is, the early Church took claims to truth about Scripture very seriously. For the most part, the same cannot be said today. False teachers and their teachings needed to be, and still need to be, dealt with swiftly lest their false teachings become widely accepted.â€
You think so? The existence of denominations belies your statement. People think they have the truth and voila, another denomination. False teachers are swiftly dealt with. Now one is left with searching for the right denomination, according to one’s own opinion. An opinion that’s the opinion of a false teacher to everyone except the denomination chosen.
The emphasis on false teaching so called leaves me cold because it has left me out in the cold. The Catholics have been doing it far longer than the Protestants. And Catholics and Protestants both think the other is the false teacher. Indeed, Protestants think that of one another. What you’re seeing in those early days was denominationalism in action. The Emperor Constantine simply brought it out in the open. Christianity was human in nature from its beginning.
Paul spoke against denominationalism when it was only divisions within a single ekklesia. Talk about progressive revelation. That’s what you have in the denominations today. The result of progressive revelation in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and progressively diverse revelation in Protestantism.
The Bible isn’t progressive revelation. Only the matter of salvation to the Gentiles was hidden from the Jews until the coming of the Messiah. The Law/Tabernacle pointed to what would be relating to the Messiah. But it wasn’t a progressive revelation. It only served to keep physical Israel through whom the Messiah was to come until he came. Nothing changed. No one was saved by keeping the Law or by the Tabernacle rituals. And that should be as clear to us today as it was to David (Psalms). Salvation was still by faith in God as it was for Abraham, as it was for Enoch, for Abel, for Adam. As it continues to be for us today. Except today, after the coming of the Messiah, salvation is in Christ through faith in God and baptism into Christ. So that it’s the faith of Christ that Justifies, not our own faith in God.
“We ought to care because that is our heritage, our lineage, our history. We simply cannot ignore what the Church has taught and stated in the last 2000 years.â€
Certainly the Catholic argument.
“Certainly I disagree with some of it but having searched the Scriptures on certain matters, I have found points of agreement.â€
Certainly the Protestant argument.
“As for the NT existing prior to it's authorization, or canonization, that isn't entirely true. The books all existed, yes, but their compilation did not. They were compiled and eventually canonized in direct response to the Marconian canon.
Incidentally, the word "canon" means "reed" or "measuring stick." It was meant as that which is be the measure of all else, but not an exhaustive work covering all of the Christian life.â€
So the Catholics keep telling us. And Catholics can truthfully claim that history backs them more than the Protestants. And they can claim that they canonized the Bible because history is basically Catholic history up until the split between the Catholics and the Protestants. But I disagree because I don’t think history has any thing to do with it. For those who believe in the ultimate authority of the Bible, what’s contained in the Bible is their historical heritage.
And it stands to reason that the Trinity would automatically be the true teaching if one believes in the authority of a denomination that teaches it. One wouldn’t have to “study†anything, unless one is chosen or chooses to be one of the educated class. Just take the word of those educated in the true doctrines of the Church.
I really think that if you can’t see what’s so obvious, that Jehovah God is referred to as a single person in the Old Testament, then your study of the Trinity has been for naught. You’ve neglected to factor in an essential fact. So much for logic.
FC
Former Christian
Member
John Zain
Never argue with a Calvinist
(FC’s Law)
FC
Never argue with a Calvinist
(FC’s Law)
FC
francisdesales
Member
I think a factor that you are not considering, something that is seen even in Sacred Scriptures, is the concept of a development of understanding of revelation - what Catholics would call "Sacred Tradition". Interpreting those Sacred Scriptures. Apparently, there was/is a correct way of reading those Scriptures. And if we presume that the Bible is a book of the Church and for the Church, it stands to reason that the Church as an entity is the authoritative interpreter of theology that develops when one reflects on Scriptures.
Noting that the Bible is not a systematic theology treatise, it would seem that there is a necessity for an authoritative interpreter, especially when theology pulls in several directions on theological themes. No doubt, the Church interpreted the "power to bind and loosen" as part of that pedigree given by the Christ.
Regards
:biglol
Former Christian
Member
Francisdesales
“I think a factor that you are not considering, something that is seen even in Sacred Scriptures, is the concept of a development of understanding of revelation - what Catholics would call "Sacred Tradition". Interpreting those Sacred Scriptures.â€
I’ve considered it. Just don’t believe in it. In the Bible or as a valid means of understanding the Bible. It’s an idea by interpreters for those who believe in the practice of interpretation.
“Apparently, there was/is a correct way of reading those Scriptures.â€
I believe there’s a correct way of reading the Scriptures. It’s just not the same as your correct way as a Catholic. Nor the same as the correct way to any Protestant. You need to take my moniker more seriously.
The correct way to read the Scriptures has always been the same. Listen to God. For the Old Testament believer, through the prophets. For the New Testament believer, through his Son.
“if we presume that the Bible is a book of the Church and for the Church, it stands to reason that the Church as an entity is the authoritative interpreter of theology that develops when one reflects on Scriptures.â€
If we presume that the Bible is a book of God to be used by Jesus Christ through the Spirit, it stands to reason that Jesus Christ is the authoritative interpreter of theology to those who are growing in grace and in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ.
Interpretation has always been the incorrect way to read the Scriptures. Interpretation is a practice for writings of the dead. So long as God lives, so long as Jesus lives, interpretation will not be the way to understand the Scriptures.
“Noting that the Bible is not a systematic theology treatise, it would seem that there is a necessity for an authoritative interpreter,â€
Noting that the Bible is not a systematic theology treatise, it would be best to not try and fix it. If God wanted us to have a systematic theology treatise, God would have given us one to begin with.
“especially when theology pulls in several directions on theological themes.â€
Interpreters do seem to imagine all kinds of themes in the Bible. Writers of fiction are even better at imagining things than interpreters. In either case it’s a highly developed art.
“No doubt, the Church interpreted the "power to bind and loosen" as part of that pedigree given by the Christ.â€
If you’re saying what Catholics usually say about the so called "power to bind and loosen", the verses interpreted by the Catholic to refer to their own power to interpret have a different meaning to me. But surely you already knew that.
Your use of pedigree is quite amusing, by the way. I haven’t seen that word used in quite that way before.
FC
“I think a factor that you are not considering, something that is seen even in Sacred Scriptures, is the concept of a development of understanding of revelation - what Catholics would call "Sacred Tradition". Interpreting those Sacred Scriptures.â€
I’ve considered it. Just don’t believe in it. In the Bible or as a valid means of understanding the Bible. It’s an idea by interpreters for those who believe in the practice of interpretation.
“Apparently, there was/is a correct way of reading those Scriptures.â€
I believe there’s a correct way of reading the Scriptures. It’s just not the same as your correct way as a Catholic. Nor the same as the correct way to any Protestant. You need to take my moniker more seriously.
The correct way to read the Scriptures has always been the same. Listen to God. For the Old Testament believer, through the prophets. For the New Testament believer, through his Son.
“if we presume that the Bible is a book of the Church and for the Church, it stands to reason that the Church as an entity is the authoritative interpreter of theology that develops when one reflects on Scriptures.â€
If we presume that the Bible is a book of God to be used by Jesus Christ through the Spirit, it stands to reason that Jesus Christ is the authoritative interpreter of theology to those who are growing in grace and in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ.
Interpretation has always been the incorrect way to read the Scriptures. Interpretation is a practice for writings of the dead. So long as God lives, so long as Jesus lives, interpretation will not be the way to understand the Scriptures.
“Noting that the Bible is not a systematic theology treatise, it would seem that there is a necessity for an authoritative interpreter,â€
Noting that the Bible is not a systematic theology treatise, it would be best to not try and fix it. If God wanted us to have a systematic theology treatise, God would have given us one to begin with.
“especially when theology pulls in several directions on theological themes.â€
Interpreters do seem to imagine all kinds of themes in the Bible. Writers of fiction are even better at imagining things than interpreters. In either case it’s a highly developed art.
“No doubt, the Church interpreted the "power to bind and loosen" as part of that pedigree given by the Christ.â€
If you’re saying what Catholics usually say about the so called "power to bind and loosen", the verses interpreted by the Catholic to refer to their own power to interpret have a different meaning to me. But surely you already knew that.
Your use of pedigree is quite amusing, by the way. I haven’t seen that word used in quite that way before.
FC