Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Tassman]

It took hundreds of years, upon a sequence of heresies, to identify the best wording to represent the understanding of the Godhead revealed in scriptures.

It’s an understandable problem when you want to make Jesus God, whilst you belong to an ancient tradition of monotheism.

Without precise confessions, heretics could say the same words as orthodox people while having an improper view of the Godhead.

“None of the disciples become engaged in disputations about whether Jesus is fully God or fully human. It took almost 300 years for these questions to be raised in such a serious way that Christianity was changed forever”.

‘When Jesus Became God’ https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-15-100368-6

Excellent book – just finished it.

There already were aspects of the multiple persons of the Godhead revealed in the Old Testament. This continued into the New Testament. The scriptures' testimony of this never changed. Only the precision of our description of this required improving.

Not really. Only for those attempting to argue that the god of the Hebrew bible consisted of three persons. Such an argument would have come as a surprise to multiple generations of Jews.

[mikewhitney]

It’s an understandable problem when you want to make Jesus God, whilst you belong to an ancient tradition of monotheism.

“None of the disciples become engaged in disputations about whether Jesus is fully God or fully human. It took almost 300 years for these questions to be raised in such a serious way that Christianity was changed forever”.

‘When Jesus Became God’ https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-15-100368-6

Excellent book – just finished it.


Not really. Only for those attempting to argue that the god of the Hebrew bible consisted of three persons. Such an argument would have come as a surprise to multiple generations of Jews.

I just explained the essence of the development of the Trinitarian confessions (in this thread or Apologia Phoenix's thread). I'm not sure what part of the development you are disputing. Are you saying there was a conspiracy to rewrite all of scripture so as to show that God incarnate came as late edits? The Trinitarian concepts merely explain what already was known from the beginning, to understand what scriptures said about God, Christ, and the Spirit. What parts of Christ's Deity were not known in the first century, in your estimation?

The nature of Christ does not have to be disputed in the first century. How is that an argument for anything? People at different times will have different questions about anything and everything. The clarifications within the confessions, like I pointed out elsewhere, were not to create new concepts but were to be more precise about what was already recognized.

I would have hoped for a better response than this. If you check out Alan Segal's book "Two Powers in Heaven" you will see where Jewish writings discussed the multiple persons of the Godhead. It was with Christ that we see the fuller revelation of this.

P.S. You can check some of the Amazon 2 star reviews to see some of the weaknesses of Rubenstein's book. It sounds like a captivating book but has a weakness is early Christian history.

[37818]

So, they are distinct persons in the sense that they are not 3 persons in one god? They are separate bodies, separate spirits?

No. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the three distinct persons. And so are three Spirits who are the one Spirit. See John 4:24, Romans 8:9, Romans 8:16. Three Persons the same God. Now the Son who was both always with YHWH and was YHWH, John 1:1-2. In the incarnation John 1:14 the Son only changed how He was with God not that He was always God. See also 1 Timothy 2:5.

[JimL]

No. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the three distinct persons. And so are three Spirits who are the one Spirit. See John 4:24, Romans 8:9, Romans 8:16. Three Persons the same God. Now the Son who was both always with YHWH and was YHWH, John 1:1-2. In the incarnation John 1:14 the Son only changed how He was with God not that He was always God. See also 1 Timothy 2:5.

What John says is that the one person, the son, separated from the triunified god and became flesh. My question was if it is truly one indivisable god how do they separate in that 1 of the triune is here on earth embodied in flesh while the other 2 are elsewhere?

[mikewhitney]

What John says is that the one person, the son, separated from the triunified god and became flesh. My question was if it is truly one indivisable god how do they separate in that 1 of the triune is here on earth embodied in flesh while the other 2 are elsewhere?

What type of separation are you trying to describe here?

[siam]

Christians re-imagine the OT as validating/hinting Trinitarinaism---can the NT be re-imagined also?---as Non-Trinitarian?
for example---
The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

1-5---if we understand the "he/him" to refer to "word" then we could interpret that all creation---including the earth, sea, animals etc were created with this "word" which is "God" (or God's word/s).
One could say that God "creates" by the process of "word" which is also "Light". Light is often used as a metaphor for knowledge. Thus "word" here can have the quality of knowledge.
6-13---A person named John is sent to inform of this light (knowledge) and all who "receive" the light/knowledge have the right to become "children of God"
One could say that all males who receive knowledge become "son of God" and women who receive knowledge become "daughters of God". Therefore this John person is "son of God".
14-18---Since "word" is the process of creation---the earth and the sea and all creation is the "word"---therefore the word becomes flesh means a flesh/bodily creation was created. This creation was so knowledgeable (light) that is surpassed the "son of God"/John and was given the title of "God" because of his close relationship with God.
One could say (in verse 18) that Jesus Christ, who is given the title of "God" has never seen God but speaks about (gives knowledge about) God to others.

In this re-interpretation---The titles are symbolic rather than literal. Thus creating a more monotheistic flavor.
One could re-interpret these NT passages to give a more polytheistic flavor by making the titles of son of God, daughter of God, "God" as literal and thus making Gods (plural) and demi-Gods. So, those who have "light"/knowledge become demi-gods.(children of God)

[Tassman]

I just explained the essence of the development of the Trinitarian confessions (in this thread or Apologia Phoenix's thread). I'm not sure what part of the development you are disputing. Are you saying there was a conspiracy to rewrite all of scripture so as to show that God incarnate came as late edits? The Trinitarian concepts merely explain what already was known from the beginning, to understand what scriptures said about God, Christ, and the Spirit. What parts of Christ's Deity were not known in the first century, in your estimation?

The Trinitarian concepts were not known from the beginning. They evolved as Jesus’ followers tried to rationalize their monotheism, while at the same time designating Jesus as God. Not an easy task as history proved.

The nature of Christ does not have to be disputed in the first century. How is that an argument for anything?

In the first century Jesus was believed to be God; the inherent contradiction of such a concept was not initially recognized nor addressed.

People at different times will have different questions about anything and everything. The clarifications within the confessions, like I pointed out elsewhere, were not to create new concepts but were to be more precise about what was already recognized.

“What was already recognized” was that people believed Jesus was God. The “different questions” that arose were a direct consequence of differing views as to HOW Jesus could be God in a monotheistic religion that already had ‘one god’. It took 300 years of Church Councils and many belligerent debates to sort it all out. Arianism and Nicene theology both dominated depending upon who had the ear of the emperor at the time .

If you check out Alan Segal's book "Two Powers in Heaven" you will see where Jewish writings discussed the multiple persons of the Godhead.

You mean Segal sees “where Jewish writings discussed the multiple persons of the Godhead”. But the indisputable fact remains that Judaism to this day does not have a view of multiple persons of the Godhead in any way remotely like the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

P.S. You can check some of the Amazon 2 star reviews to see some of the weaknesses of Rubenstein's book.

Perhaps you would do better to check out the 5 Star reviews of Rubenstein’s ‘When Jesus Became God’. They comprise 73% of the customer reviews out of 241 customer ratings in Amazon (compared to the 2 Star reviews which comprise 2%).

[mikewhitney]

Modern Judaism would not like to address the multiple persons of the Deity since this was highlighted within the Messianic movement due to Christ's message.

We are not dealing with an ultimate contradiction. There is no mechanism to understand the Deity of Christ except that it was understood in the first century. We already addressed that point without any rebuttal from you (but was that on the other thread?) There is no reason that God cannot exist in the Trinitarian identity. Maybe you don't care for that, but you don't determine the nature of God. It is quite presumptuous for you (or any of us) to presume the nature of God apart from what God has revealed to us. As Christians, we are working with the information revealed through scriptures. This Trinitarian form is the way that God has revealed himself. There is no superceding revelation.

It certainly would not be a contrivance of men to say Jesus is Deity and the Holy Spirit is Deity. Like mentioned before, if people had sought to claim Jesus as God, they would not confuse the issue by showing the Spirit as God too. I'm sorry this is so hard for you to comprehend. Your like of comprehension of the doctrine does not nullify its validity. Your misconceptions of the concept does not invalidate the doctrine either.

The debates happened when conflicts arose. I already talked about this. You failed to recognize or remember this discussion. I certainly cannot convince you of anything. I can only share the details of the Trinitarian understanding of our Creator.

I don't even see why you discuss this topic since you are not a Christian. You need the basic gospel first.

[37818]

What John says is that the one person, the son, separated from the triunified god and became flesh. My question was if it is truly one indivisable god how do they separate in that 1 of the triune is here on earth embodied in flesh while the other 2 are elsewhere?

You seem to forget. The Word was both with the God and was God. How the Word was with the God is what changes. That the Word was God never changed. John 1:1-2.

[JimL]

You seem to forget. The Word was both with the God and was God. How the Word was with the God is what changes. That the Word was God never changed. John 1:1-2.

Well which is it, was Jesus god, or was he just with god? Could he go off on his own to inhabit a human body while the Father is elsewhere?

[mikewhitney]

Well which is it, was Jesus god, or was he just with god? Could he go off on his own to inhabit a human body while the Father is elsewhere?

Do you really think that John put these two concepts (Jesus is with God and Jesus is God) while missing a contradiction that Jim found 2000 years later?

What you you even mean by this second question? Where is elsewhere?

[JimL]

Do you really think that John put these two concepts (Jesus is with God and Jesus is God) while missing a contradiction that Jim found 2000 years later?

What you you even mean by this second question? Where is elsewhere?

Is the father and the holy spirit embodied with the son as Jesus, or as jesus said, is the father in heaven while he, the son, is embodied in the flesh here on earth?

[mikewhitney]

Is the father and the holy spirit embodied with the son as Jesus, or as jesus said, is the father in heaven while he, the son, is embodied in the flesh here on earth?

I don't follow the metaphysical sense that you are asking this question. Can you clarify what you mean?

[JimL]

I don't follow the metaphysical sense that you are asking this question. Can you clarify what you mean?

I don't think I can make the question any clearer than that, mike.

[mikewhitney]

I don't think I can make the question any clearer than that, mike.

You cannot ask that question unless you are assuming certain metaphysics of God and the universe.

You rely on an implied premise that at the time of Christ that there is something suddenly contradictory about being God and coming in the flesh. What is the contradictory element that you see in this?