Your thoughts on the Trinity?

[Drew]

Post 2 of 2 arguing for the divinity of Jesus:

Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.

This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.

I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.

Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble†will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.

Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:

"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'

Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitationâ€. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries†between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.

 

[Free]

On one point I agree. The Father is God. The Son is God. But how was Christ God and with God if they are not the same?

Let's look at the scriptures you quoted:

John 1
1 In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.

There are 2 major points to tackle in this verse. First is the concept of 'with God' and 'was God.' I know for many this supports the idea of trinity. Some say this proves Father and Son are the same person. Others say they are separte people but equally God. The Son confirms many times that he is not co-equal to His Father and refers to His Father as 'His God." So, to say they are co-equal would be in error. I also think that a misreading of God in some pasages is confusing for some.

For example, when the OT is referring to the Father, God is often translated YHWH. However, in the NT when God is used the Greek does not translate this to YHWH. Unless the use of God is looked at in context, many will assume that God means Christ when it it really pointing to the Father. I will also suggest that God is a nature, just like human is our nature. Therefore, God is what Christ is but the Son is who He is.
....
Christ was with God (Father) and He was God. Christ, being fully God, at no time claims to be co-equal to His Father which is a basis for the trinity. Instead He makes sure the opposite is known. He states; my Father is greater than me, I do only what he tells me, Father you've given me these people, you've given me my authority, I could be high priest if I wanted to but I'm waiting for you to assign me that honor (paraphrased), etc. The Father's relationship with His Son in prinicple is not differnt than a human relationship. I am human, my son is human...I give authority to my son to do different tasks and he obeys and respects me to bring me honor. This is the relationship described between Christ and His Father in scriptures.

A couple of things. As I stated before, Scripture is very clear that there is only one God. Judaism is monotheistic and so is Christianity. So Jesus cannot be God and be a separate God from the Father. One must also consider the strong philosophical arguments against even the possibility of two necessary beings co-existing at the same time.

Also, you keep bringing up the statements that Jesus makes regarding the Father being greater then he. I have already addressed this briefly but I'll try and make it clearer. There are two sub-definitions of the Trinity--the ontological Trinity, the way in which the Father relates to the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the economic Trinity, the way in which all three relate to creation.

This is exactly what John 1:1-3,14 and Phil 2:5-8 are about. Phil 2:7-8 state that Jesus had "made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." These verses speak to the roles that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit took in the redemption of Creation.

As God, Jesus is equal to the Father (John 1:1; Phil 2:6). As the God-man, he submitted himself to the Father (Phil 2:8).

This brings us to the 2nd major point in the above scripture.

John 1

If they both existed from eternity past, at the same time, how did one begot the other? Begot means to give birth to or bring into existence. So how could the Father bring the Son into exisitence if they have always existed together? Or did they?

This is one of those enigmas that is not satisified by trinity concepts. Trinity states that Father and Son have always existed together, yet scriptures plainly state that the Father birthed a Son, which means prior to being birthed Christ was not. Huh?

This is where the Greek comes in. Firstly, "begotten" is the Greek monogenes, which also has a meaning of "unique" or "one and only." So it does not have to mean a physical act of begetting. Also, you now have the problem of Jesus being in nature God but not having existed for eternity past. Yet, this is an essential attribute of God. In other words, either Jesus has always existed as God or he is not God at all.

Secondly, there is a small key word, en, which is translated as "was." This little word carries the understanding of "continuous action in the past." In John 1:1 then, we have "In the beginning was the Word," denoting that the Word has existed for eternity past and was already in existence at "the beginning."

This is supported by verse 3: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." This verse cannot be true if Jesus was at some point created.

Then we move down to John 1:14 where "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (ESV). The Greek word for "became" is egeneto and means "an action at a point in time." This means that there was a specific point in time when the Word, which has existed for eternity past, "became flesh."

There really is no way around the Greek and what John is saying here.

Col 1
15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created* and is supreme over all creation,
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church,
which is his body.
He is the beginning,
supreme over all who rise from the dead.
So he is first in everything.

*Other translations, such as KJV state "firstborn of every creature" (others say firstborn of all creation.)

This inevitably pops up in these discussions. It is very important to note that there is more than one meaning for it. One of these meanings is in reference to the status that a firstborn has. This is speaking of Jesus's preeminence over all of Creation and not saying that he was created.

Indeed, how could "all things" be created "by Him"--including things "visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers"--and "through Him," and how could he be "before all things" and have "all things consist" in him, if he was a mere creature? This is language used only of God, is it not?

Again, the immediate context does not allow for Jesus to have been created.

Psalms 8


We know that Christ is the firstborn of creation. He was formed in the beginning before anything else was made. He was with God (Father) in the begining. He first in everthing. So what happened in the beginng?


The above scriptues tell us that "in the beginning" Christ was born first and was the first of all creation and was present when everything else was made.

Therefore, we can conclude that Christ did not exist prior to the beginning and although he existed in the beginnig with the Father and was the first of creation, the Father has always existed. Before creation God was, what He did during that period we don't know. All we know is what happened in the beginning and when God (Father) began creation he started with His Son.



This message was sent by an angel, who recieved it from Christ, who recieved it from His Father. The Father always was, He birthed Christ as the first of creation in the beginning. They have not always existed together.

I believe I have adequately shown this to not be the case and that the only reading possible is that Jesus has existed for eternity past but is not the Father.

 

[Scotth1960]

My original statement said the trinity "may be considered a heresy by some or even pagan." At least that is the sentiment that I am finding from those who are challenging the trinity, whether they be christian or not. However, I'm not really trying to label people who believe in the trinity one way or the other, for I used to believe in the trinity. My goals are to:
1) share what inspired me to change and
2) deomonstrate that despite the differences (some) non trinitarians are no less chrisitian than those who support the trinity.



On one point I agree. The Father is God. The Son is God. But how was Christ God and with God if they are not the same?

Let's look at the scriptures you quoted:

John 1


There are 2 major points to tackle in this verse. First is the concept of 'with God' and 'was God.' I know for many this supports the idea of trinity. Some say this proves Father and Son are the same person. Others say they are separte people but equally God. The Son confirms many times that he is not co-equal to His Father and refers to His Father as 'His God." So, to say they are co-equal would be in error. I also think that a misreading of God in some pasages is confusing for some.

For example, when the OT is referring to the Father, God is often translated YHWH. However, in the NT when God is used the Greek does not translate this to YHWH. Unless the use of God is looked at in context, many will assume that God means Christ when it it really pointing to the Father. I will also suggest that God is a nature, just like human is our nature. Therefore, God is what Christ is but the Son is who He is.

Bear with me. The Father is God the way I am human. As a human I cannot begot or birh anything non human. Humans begot only other humans. The Father begot or birthed His Son who has to be God, the way my children have to be human. That's why in Hebrews 1 God (Father) said to His Son, "you are God." He couldn't call him human, nor an angel for humans birth only humans and God birthed only God. For this reason, Christ is the only one God (Father) could give all of his authority to. Humans do the same thing. We only give authority to other humans. No matter how intellegent some think apes are, they will never run our goverments, or teach our children because they are not capable of all that it means to be human. No human could accept all the authority of God unless they were God, which is why we had to wait for Christ to come as Messiah. As God, He could handle the authority from His Father.

Christ was with God (Father) and He was God. Christ, being fully God, at no time claims to be co-equal to His Father which is a basis for the trinity. Instead He makes sure the opposite is known. He states; my Father is greater than me, I do only what he tells me, Father you've given me these people, you've given me my authority, I could be high priest if I wanted to but I'm waiting for you to assign me that honor (paraphrased), etc. The Father's relationship with His Son in prinicple is not differnt than a human relationship. I am human, my son is human...I give authority to my son to do different tasks and he obeys and respects me to bring me honor. This is the relationship described between Christ and His Father in scriptures. This brings us to the 2nd major point in the above scripture.

John 1

If they both existed from eternity past, at the same time, how did one begot the other? Begot means to give birth to or bring into existence. So how could the Father bring the Son into exisitence if they have always existed together? Or did they?

This is one of those enigmas that is not satisified by trinity concepts. Trinity states that Father and Son have always existed together, yet scriptures plainly state that the Father birthed a Son, which means prior to being birthed Christ was not. Huh?

Col 1


*Other translations, such as KJV state "firstborn of every creature" (others say firstborn of all creation.)

Psalms 8


We know that Christ is the firstborn of creation. He was formed in the beginning before anything else was made. He was with God (Father) in the begining. He first in everthing. So what happened in the beginng?


The above scriptues tell us that "in the beginning" Christ was born first and was the first of all creation and was present when everything else was made.

Therefore, we can conclude that Christ did not exist prior to the beginning and although he existed in the beginnig with the Father and was the first of creation, the Father has always existed. Before creation God was, what He did during that period we don't know. All we know is what happened in the beginning and when God (Father) began creation he started with His Son.



This message was sent by an angel, who recieved it from Christ, who recieved it from His Father. The Father always was, He birthed Christ as the first of creation in the beginning. They have not always existed together.

Blessings,
Dee

Dear Dee, Jesus Christ Our LORD GOD and Saviour is not a mere man, though is fully a true man. He is not a creature, a creation of God. He is the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with God the Father Almighty, through Whom all things were made. This is the Creed of the Church, to believe such things, though this is not the whole story, or everything that is said in the Creed. The Creed is based on the NT, and the NT, along with the OT, is the eternal Word of God in written form. Christ is the eternal Word of God in human form. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

[

Dear D4Christ, Since Christ said "I and the Father are One", it stands to reason that Christ's throne and the Father's throne are the same throne. God is one, not 2 separate gods. Father Son and Spirit would rule from Christ's throne, since Christ is the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Anyway, this is a minor point; just that God is on the throne (however many thrones in God there are). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[D4Christ]

As God, Jesus is equal to the Father (John 1:1; Phil 2:6). As the God-man, he submitted himself to the Father (Phil 2:8).

All John 1:1 says is that Christ was with God and was God. The Father called Christ God also in Heb 1 and said Oh God (the Son), Your God has annointed you (demonstrating a hierarchy). Phil 2:8 not only shows he humbled himself to the Father when he became a man, but that he humbled himself before he became a man.

Phil 2: 6 Though he was God,
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form,
8 he humbled himself in obedience to God
and died a criminal’s death on a cross.

Christ wasn't trying to be God's equal and this scripture proves He gave deference to God (Father) before He became a man. Christ does not take on the role of God although he's made up of the same stuff as God. He is a mediator, a Prince, a High Priest and has never asserted that he was any more than that and neither has his Father. I don't usually use the AMP version but I like the way it reads for this verse:

6Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,

When do they become equal....when Christ returned to His Father? When does Father or Son ever say one is equal to the other? We know while on earth Christ shows complete deference to the Father. I would like to see a verse that shows they are equal in the heavenly realms. Saying they existed together doesn't cut it. We exist together...doesn't have anything to do with equality or authority.

This is where the Greek comes in. Firstly, "begotten" is the Greek monogenes, which also has a meaning of "unique" or "one and only." So it does not have to mean a physical act of begetting. Also, you now have the problem of Jesus being in nature God but not having existed for eternity past. Yet, this is an essential attribute of God. In other words, either Jesus has always existed as God or he is not God at all.

The Strong's definition you give is for the phrase "only begotten." Begotten on its own means "to bear" or "bring forth." If begotten doesnt mean to sire or give birth to, then why do scriptures say the Son was born in the OT?

Prov 8:22 The Lord formed me from the beginning,
before he created anything else.
24 ...I was born before the oceans were created,
before the springs bubbled forth their waters.

The Hebrew in this case translated LORD into YHWH. So the passage states YHWH formed "me." Me is the object and on the receiving end of formed, which is used as a verb. A read of the entire passage should show that YHWH wasn't forming himself but was referring to the Son, called Wisdom in this passage.

In this instance "formed" doesn't translate "unique" or "only one." Formed translates to travailed: to suffer the pangs of childbirth; be in labor; to toil or exert oneself.

If the OT says YHWH formed, birthed, created, etc the Son before he created anything else (in the beginning) how can we say this is false?

"In the beginning was the Word," denoting that the Word has existed for eternity past and was already in existence at "the beginning."

The Son did exist in the beginning....of creation. The only beginning we know about is in Gen 1:1...The heavens and earth were created. I've shown scriptures that demonstrate before the heavens, earth, sky, stars, mountains, etc were created the Son was created first. The Son witnessed the creation. In the begininng when creation started, the Son was the 'firstborn of all creation.' What happend before creation? Did YHWH not exist before deciding to start creation? I believe YHWH has always been in existence before He began creating and when He decided to begin He started with His Son.

This is supported by verse 3: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." This verse cannot be true if Jesus was at some point created.

Yes it can be true, especially if the Son states he was created first, before anything else was made.

Prov 8

22 “The Lord formed me from the beginning,
before he created anything else.
23 I was appointed in ages past,
at the very first, before the earth began.
24 I was born before the oceans were created,
before the springs bubbled forth their waters.
25 Before the mountains were formed,
before the hills, I was born—
26 before he had made the earth and fields
and the first handfuls of soil.
27 I was there when he established the heavens,
when he drew the horizon on the oceans.
28 I was there when he set the clouds above,
when he established springs deep in the earth.
29 I was there when he set the limits of the seas,
so they would not spread beyond their boundaries.
And when he marked off the earth’s foundations,
30 I was the architect at his side.
I was his constant delight,
rejoicing always in his presence.
31 And how happy I was with the world he created;
how I rejoiced with the human family!

Then we move down to John 1:14 where "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (ESV). The Greek word for "became" is egeneto and means "an action at a point in time." This means that there was a specific point in time when the Word, which has existed for eternity past, "became flesh."

There really is no way around the Greek and what John is saying here.

Some version say "was made". It means what you stated...minus the eternity past part which you added.

Strong's G1096:to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
a) of men appearing in public

 

[Free]

All John 1:1 says is that Christ was with God and was God.

In English, yes, and that is sufficient since there is only one God. There are not two, that is polytheism which is error. They cannot be separate Gods.

Christ wasn't trying to be God's equal and this scripture proves He gave deference to God (Father) before He became a man. Christ does not take on the role of God although he's made up of the same stuff as God. He is a mediator, a Prince, a High Priest and has never asserted that he was any more than that and neither has his Father. I don't usually use the AMP version but I like the way it reads for this verse:

6Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,

As I have stated, this passage shows that Christ was God in nature, which we agree on, but this makes him co-equal with the Father. This is supported by by the statement: "did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained." You even italicized the critical meaning, "retained." The idea is that of being forcibly retained or held on to. In other words, he was co-equal with God but for the salvation of man he did not think this equality was something to be held on to.

The portion you put in red is also informative and gives your position problems. If Jesus possessed "the fullness of the attributes which make God God," as I have eluded to previously, then he must have existed for eternity past as that is an attribute that makes God God. In other words, one cannot be God in nature and not have existed for eternity past.

When do they become equal....when Christ returned to His Father? When does Father or Son ever say one is equal to the other? We know while on earth Christ shows complete deference to the Father. I would like to see a verse that shows they are equal in the heavenly realms. Saying they existed together doesn't cut it. We exist together...doesn't have anything to do with equality or authority.

The whole point of this discussion is that there are many passages in the NT which show that Jesus has always existed and is co-equal to the Father. Regardless of whether or not there is an explicit statement, it is most definitely implied by all three passages I have given.

The Strong's definition you give is for the phrase "only begotten." Begotten on its own means "to bear" or "bring forth." If begotten doesnt mean to sire or give birth to, then why do scriptures say the Son was born in the OT?

Prov 8:22 The Lord formed me from the beginning,
before he created anything else.
24 ...I was born before the oceans were created,
before the springs bubbled forth their waters.

The Hebrew in this case translated LORD into YHWH. So the passage states YHWH formed "me." Me is the object and on the receiving end of formed, which is used as a verb. A read of the entire passage should show that YHWH wasn't forming himself but was referring to the Son, called Wisdom in this passage.

In this instance "formed" doesn't translate "unique" or "only one." Formed translates to travailed: to suffer the pangs of childbirth; be in labor; to toil or exert oneself.

If the OT says YHWH formed, birthed, created, etc the Son before he created anything else (in the beginning) how can we say this is false?

Monogenes - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version

You will see that monogenes also means "only," and "single of its kind." It is used as "only" in more than one verse. As such, it fits very well with Jesus not being created but rather being unique or one of a kind.

I suspect that Prov 8 will require much more study to get the full understanding. Suffice to say we cannot just pull verses out of the context of the entirety of Scripture. If we say that Prov 8 is referring to the Son and that it means he was created, that would be a direct contradiction with John 1:1-3, Col 1:15-17 and Phil 2:5-8, among others.

Everything must be taken into consideration.

The Son did exist in the beginning....of creation. The only beginning we know about is in Gen 1:1...The heavens and earth were created. I've shown scriptures that demonstrate before the heavens, earth, sky, stars, mountains, etc were created the Son was created first. The Son witnessed the creation. In the begininng when creation started, the Son was the 'firstborn of all creation.' What happend before creation? Did YHWH not exist before deciding to start creation? I believe YHWH has always been in existence before He began creating and when He decided to begin He started with His Son.

You really are not following what I am saying. No one is denying that God has always existed, however, through the passages I have provided the only logical conclusion is that Jesus has also always existed.

Again, the Greek in John 1:1 states that in the beginning, being the beginning of creation, the Word was already in existence. And this is supported by verse 3 and the other passages I have provided.

This is supported by verse 3: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." This verse cannot be true if Jesus was at some point created.

Yes it can be true, especially if the Son states he was created first, before anything else was made.

No, it cannot be true. Look at what John wrote: "without him was not any thing made that was made." If absolutely everything that God has created was created with and through Christ, then the only logical conclusion is that he was not created.

This supports what John just finished saying in verse 1, that the Word both was (from eternity) God and was God. The Word is co-equal with the Father but is not the Father. That is what John is saying.

Then we move down to John 1:14 where "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (ESV). The Greek word for "became" is egeneto and means "an action at a point in time." This means that there was a specific point in time when the Word, which has existed for eternity past, "became flesh."

There really is no way around the Greek and what John is saying here.
Some version say "was made".

It means what you stated...minus the eternity past part which you added.

Again, you did not follow what I was saying. I never added anything. The word egeneto means what I said it means. My reference to "eternity past" was to contrast this "point in time" with verse 1 where "was" means the Word existed for eternity past.

There is a definite comparison that John is making between the Word's eternal preexistence and his Incarnation at a point in time and space.

 

[Drew]

Christ does not take on the role of God although he's made up of the same stuff as God.

I have provided a detailed two post argument that Jesus sees Himself as embodying and enacting the promised return of YHWH to Zion. I politely suggest that you should engage the content of my argument if you want your "Christ does not take on the role of God" assertion to be properly defended.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Dear Truth over Tradition, False! How do you KNOW that? Does your personal bias against the Trinity distort your view of Textual Criticism. This is not a debate on textual criticism. It was the Greek Orthodox Church that determined what is in the NT. The Byzantine text type was found in Constantinople, and Christians in the West (the KJV Protestants) all have INHERITED THIS TEXT, MATTHEW 28:19) from THE GREEK-SPEAKING ORTHODOX CHURCH. And YES, MATTHEW 28:19 IS HOLY SCRIPTURE. Your bias against THE TRINITY IS SHOWING HERE IN YOUR ILLOGICAL REASONING. The Holy Spirit, in the Church, determines what is in the NT, not you or I as individuals. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

I don't know what happen with my post and why my links were missing, but anyhow, let's get to my lack of logic. I said that the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have the wording of Matt 28:19. That is NOT a matter of logic, it is a matter of F-A-C-T. (Sometimes it's advisible to let FACTS get in the way of our opinions BTW).


The following are quotes by the translators of the 2001 translation of the Bible.

At present, we don’t have any complete Greek manuscripts of Matthew prior to the 4th Century, and all existing Greek and Latin manuscripts written thereafter contain this phrase. However, there is evidence that this reading is a later corruption of the original text.
For example: The early Church historian Eusebius appears to quote from a different manuscript than any we presently have; for, eighteen times (between the years 300 and 336-C.E.) he cited Matthew 28:19, 20 as saying: ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’

The words found at Matthew 28:19, ‘in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,’ are not found in the ancient Shem Tob Hebrew manuscript of Matthew, so they are likely spurious (words that were added to the Bible).

Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew Gospel
Matthew 28:9-20

 

[Free]

Post 1 of 2 in defence of the divinity of Jesus

One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:
Ezekiel 43:1-7:

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east[ And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…

Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “humanâ€. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:

And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.

I want to be clear: this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.

This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son†of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.

As I argue in the following post, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divineâ€, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.

I disagree slightly about the importance of what the NT states about the deity of Christ in terms of categories, in case you hadn't noticed, but I agree that any concept of Jesus we get from the NT must also find its roots in, and cohere with, the OT as part of the overarching story of the redemption of creation.

Of course, we again see this connection in Isaiah and Matthew:

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (ESV)

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)

I noticed that you highlighted "was coming from the way from the east," so I looked on a map and the Mt. of Olives, from where he departed for Jerusalem, and sure enough, it's to the east. It appears that the Temple was on the east side of Jerusalem and hence where the east gate was.

 

[Free]

Post 2 of 2 arguing for the divinity of Jesus:

Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.

This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.

I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.

Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble†will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.

Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:

"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'

Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitationâ€. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries†between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.

Very interesting. I was having trouble with with verse 14 and 15a. It wasn't until I read the NIV and HCSB that it made more sense. With the NKJV and ESV it sounds like he went to another country to get a kingdom there, whereas the NIV and HCSB state: "A nobleman traveled to a far country to receive for himself authority to be king and then return."

Anyway, I think the verse to explain here is 12--what does Jesus mean by "went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom"? It still seems to me that this is Jesus speaking about the 2nd coming, having died, rose again, received the kingdom, and then returns. The citizens of that nobleman who don't want him to be king fits well with Jesus having been mocked at his death with the "King of the Jews" sign placed over his head. The servants with the minas are what Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 3:12-15. It is notable that the servant with the 1 mina refers to the new king as "severe" or "austere," which is a complete misjudging of the character of Jesus. Also, it is his enemies who are slain, not the servant with the 1 mina.

I do agree that it is significant that immediately after telling this parable he gets up and heads towards Jerusalem.

 

[Drew]

would like to see a verse that shows they are equal in the heavenly realms.

This notion of "finding a verse" is, if I may suggest, a little simplistic. Please do not take offence - in our Christian culture, it is easy to fall into the trap of "atomistic" exegesis where one tries to find small chunks of text to make an argument.

This is not true to the grand sweeping narrative we get in the Scriptures - there is a single, complex story that needs to be honoured. And, as I hope my argument shows, Jesus sets himself in the key narrative role of YHWH returning to Zion.

You cannot really find that in a single "verse" - it is a theme woven throughout the Old Testament. I suggest that, as per the argument, Jesus acted and spoke in such a manner as to make it clear that He saw Himself as the very embodiment of the promised return of YHWH to Israel.

 

[D4Christ]

This notion of "finding a verse" is, if I may suggest, a little simplistic. Please do not take offence - in our Christian culture, it is easy to fall into the trap of "atomistic" exegesis where one tries to find small chunks of text to make an argument.

This is not true to the grand sweeping narrative we get in the Scriptures - there is a single, complex story that needs to be honoured. And, as I hope my argument shows, Jesus sets himself in the key narrative role of YHWH returning to Zion.

You cannot really find that in a single "verse" - it is a theme woven throughout the Old Testament. I suggest that, as per the argument, Jesus acted and spoke in such a manner as to make it clear that He saw Himself as the very embodiment of the promised return of YHWH to Israel.

I am not offended, but you don't know anything about how I study. If you did, you would understand that I completely understand that scriptures need to be taken in context with regard to the historical atmoshphere of the time and to whom the message is being spoken.

However, I have realized thru many years of study that sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one. Some scholars get so deep and intellectual that their resulting explanations are deemed as a mystery of our faith. There is only one mystery mentioned in scriptures and the trinty isn't it. But this is just my opinion and I respect your right to voice and defend yours....no hard feelings.

I understand your arguement, I just don't agree with it. My intention was to present another pov to show that nontrinitarians do not have to be considered heretical or fake chrisitans. I believe what scriptures state and I think there is enuf common ground between the two pov's to allow room for disagreements.

Scriptures State:

There is one God and one Mediator. Christ is our Mediator and High Priest standing before His Father on our behalf.

Christ has been given all the authority from His Father and is in complete control for a time. Christ states that he is not greater than the One who gave him his authority. When He completes His mission he will hand this control back over to His Father.

Christ operates in the power of His Father's name and the HS operates in the power of Christ's name.

Christ's name will be called; Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Christ states he is one with his Father, like He is one with us and like we should be one with one another.

The HS testifies for the Father and only says what he hears from Christ.

Christ only does what His Father tells him to do.

Chirst tells us that when New Jerusalem comes down from heaven, He will write on us the name of His God and we will be citizens of His God. He will also write His new name on us.

According to scriptures, Christ is the first of all creation. He was formed in the beginning before anything else was created. Scriptures state He was born.

Prov 30:4 asks what is God's name and what is his son's name?

There is no way to the Father except by belief in His Son.

Christ radiates God's glory and expressess the very character of God.

YHWH referred to His Son as God.

The son refers to YHWH as His God.

Christ is heir to David's throne and will rule the world again from Jerusalem as promised in the OT.

Christ made us a Kingdom of Priests for God, His Father.

My point...just because I do not believe that God is made of three persons, does not take away from the fact that I believe in the Father, His Son and His Holy Spirit. Therefore, imho, belief in the trinity should not be the litmas test for whether I am a real bible-believing Christian.

Just my 2 cents,
Deirdre

 

[D4Christ]

As I have stated, this passage shows that Christ was God in nature, which we agree on, but this makes him co-equal with the Father. This is supported by by the statement: "did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained." You even italicized the critical meaning, "retained." The idea is that of being forcibly retained or held on to. In other words, he was co-equal with God but for the salvation of man he did not think this equality was something to be held on to.

Let me ask this question. We are both human, therefore on a basic level we are equal in terms of what it means to be human. Now...let's say you are the President and I am a teacher. Are we still considered as equals or peers? I think most people would say no. Likewise, the Father and the Son are made of the same stuff that makes God, God. In this sense they are equal. However, Christ makes it clear that he is not assuming equality with His Father. And He never states he is co-equal: equal with another or each other in rank, ability, extent, etc. Christ boldy declares that He is in a position that is subordinate to the Creator. He never states that his rank is the same as his Father. To use the word co-equal denies what Christ said about His own relationhsip to His God. Heb 4 states he enters heaven as our High Priest. From heaven Christ calls the Father "My God." How can someone your refer to as 'your God' be equal to you? To me its the same convoluted logic that makes Catholics believe that because Mary gave birth to Christ, as his mother she became co-equal to Christ in our redemption. If you have authority over someone then you cannot be equals in my opinion.

The portion you put in red is also informative and gives your position problems. If Jesus possessed "the fullness of the attributes which make God God," as I have eluded to previously, then he must have existed for eternity past as that is an attribute that makes God God. In other words, one cannot be God in nature and not have existed for eternity past.

Both the Father and Son have existed for a long time. The question is have they always existed together or did Christ come into existence after His Fahter. The Father begot the son and OT states that YHWH formed His Son and created Him first. Scriptures state he was born. It's not taken out of contex...it is what it is.

Now, God could have used any imagery He wanted. He chose to use a Father, Son relationship and specifically the word begot which as humans we would understand. I don't intend to argue the point again. But I will state that verses some believe support that the Father and Son are the same age, so to speak, always having been together, will have to be reconciled with OT scriptures that state the Son was born and formed.

You will see that monogenes also means "only," and "single of its kind." It is used as "only" in more than one verse. As such, it fits very well with Jesus not being created but rather being unique or one of a kind.

I agree with the definition of only because Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father. He is unique in that way, as scriptures don't state that the Father begot anyone else. Unique means one of a kind....how does that then mean something wasn't created. Unique things exist even on this earth....it doesn't mean they wern't formed or created. To say Christ could not have been formed by His Father or born into existence because He is unique does not translate.

I suspect that Prov 8 will require much more study to get the full understanding. Suffice to say we cannot just pull verses out of the context of the entirety of Scripture. If we say that Prov 8 is referring to the Son and that it means he was created, that would be a direct contradiction with John 1:1-3, Col 1:15-17 and Phil 2:5-8, among others.

I agree...you will have to figure out Prov 8 for yourself. But I didn't pull one verse out of context. In fact, I quoted half the chapter for clarity, assuming interested persons could look up the rest for themselves. For some it may contradict previously held beliefs...for others it just verifies the Father Son relationship I recognize in the NT. It would be easier if this verse did not exist...but it does...so what to do about it?

No, it cannot be true. Look at what John wrote: "without him was not any thing made that was made." If absolutely everything that God has created was created with and through Christ, then the only logical conclusion is that he was not created.

Again I disagree but that's ok. All I can state is what scriptures state. From Genesis we know that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. From John we know that in the beginning the Word was present. From Prov we know that in the beginning before heaven and earth were created the Son was formed and states He was present to witness creation. This verifies what John said. From Colossians we know that the Son is the first born of all creation...verifying what Proverbs said.

Go figure.

Blessings,
Dee