To Trinitarian Apologists: An Open Letter & Personal Request

[apostoli]

Romans 1:23 is another truth you might want to consider.

So, is it your proposal that Triniarian Christians describe the Son as "an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" ? Doesn't NT scripture tell us (prove) the Son was incorruptible? That He was the exact replication of his Father? (cp Jn 14:45, 14:9; Heb 1:3; Col 2:9)

[Bill the Cat]

Well, if you wish to continue to ignore scripture, that is your choice.

Rose, you're so stupid...glub glub

Romans 1:23 is another truth you might want to consider.

barley

And how, pray tell, does Romans 1:23 refute anything I have said?

[apostoli]

Romans 1:23 is another truth you might want to consider.

So, is it your proposal that Triniarian Christians describe the Son as "an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" ? Doesn't NT scripture tell us (prove) the Son was incorruptible? That He was the exact replication of his Father? (cp Jn 14:45, 14:9; Heb 1:3; Col 2:9)

Oops! Make that John 12:45 = "And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me."

[apostoli]

Haven't heard from barley for a lot a days, so i guess he hasn't got an answer to the obvious!

Pity he neglects scripture...

[barley]

So, is it your proposal that Triniarian Christians describe the Son as "an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" ? Doesn't NT scripture tell us (prove) the Son was incorruptible? That He was the exact replication of his Father? (cp Jn 14:45, 14:9; Heb 1:3; Col 2:9)

It is not my proposal that calling the man Christ Jesus "the God" (or one third of God or however it is you define the trinity) is making a corruptible man into God, It is God's "proposal"

You have taken God, who is spirit, John 4:24 and reduced him to the image of corruptible man. You did it.

Replication is a copy. Jesus Christ is not God, He is indeed a copy, not the original. The original is first, the copy comes second.

You are correct to call Jesus Christ a replication. Not only was that God's design, but Jesus Christ, by doing the will of his Father, not his own will, took what was given him and humbled himself to serve.

You got that right. Jesus Christ is a replication, not the original.

I knew you could think.

barley

[barley]

Time for you to wake up!

[apostoli]

It is not my proposal that calling the man Christ Jesus "the God" (or one third of God or however it is you define the trinity) is making a corruptible man into God, It is God's "proposal"

You have taken God, who is spirit, John 4:24 and reduced him to the image of corruptible man. You did it.

Replication is a copy. Jesus Christ is not God, He is indeed a copy, not the original. The original is first, the copy comes second.

You are correct to call Jesus Christ a replication. Not only was that God's design, but Jesus Christ, by doing the will of his Father, not his own will, took what was given him and humbled himself to serve.

You got that right. Jesus Christ is a replication, not the original.

I knew you could think.

barley

I'm told that as I've become older that I am an exact replica of my biological father. Of course I am not my father, but when those familiar with my father encounter me, they recognise my father in me - after all I am what my father is/was...

Colossian 2:9 has it that Jesus is theotēs = state of being God. John 12:45 tells us that those who encountered Jesus, encountered the one who sent him, et in John 14 we learn that the disciples did not initially have this perception, though Jesus set them straight...

Seems you need to argue from the pagan philosophical idea of the "primal entity" from which things spring. According to the scriptures (& the RCC, EOC, ROC, OOC), the Father is the source and cause of all things, including the Son and the Spirit, but all things made were made and are upheld by the Son (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:1-3). By the NT witness the Son was Israel's God, and is our God - which is reinforced by Phil 2:6-10. As Jesus puts it, if you refuse to honour the Son as the Father, then you will be rejected by both...your choice...

[RBerman]

It is not my proposal that calling the man Christ Jesus "the God" (or one third of God or however it is you define the trinity) is making a corruptible man into God, It is God's "proposal"

You have taken God, who is spirit, John 4:24 and reduced him to the image of corruptible man. You did it.

Replication is a copy. Jesus Christ is not God, He is indeed a copy, not the original. The original is first, the copy comes second. You are correct to call Jesus Christ a replication. Not only was that God's design, but Jesus Christ, by doing the will of his Father, not his own will, took what was given him and humbled himself to serve. You got that right. Jesus Christ is a replication, not the original.

You're on to something true here, but you're running farther with it than Scripture does. Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father. Hebrews 1:3 decribes Jesus as being an "imprint" (Greek charakter) of God's hypostasis. Charakter occurs nowhere else in the Bible, but it means an engraving, such as might result from a metal stamping process. One might take that to mean that Jesus' nature is a copy of the Father's nature, which is true in the sense that they have the same nature but not in the sense that Jesus is a creation of God. That same verse says that Jesus' is "the radiance of [God's] glory", a reference to the dwelling or shekinah presence of God with Israel in the temple and the tabernacle. By the time the first three verses of Hebrews are done, Jesus has been described thus:

He is God's definitive message.
He is God's Son.
He made all things.
He upholds all things simply by speaking.
He is the visible manifestation of the Father's.
His nature is exactly like the Father's nature.
He sits at the Father's right hand.

Greek philosophers might have had ways to read this sort of language and apply it to a man. But to the books' Hebrew audience, with their strong monotheism, the statements above add up to one thing: Jesus is God essentially, and yet is a distinct person who can simultaneously be beside God.

[barley]

You're on to something true here, but you're running farther with it than Scripture does. Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father. Hebrews 1:3 decribes Jesus as being an "imprint" (Greek charakter) of God's hypostasis. Charakter occurs nowhere else in the Bible, but it means an engraving, such as might result from a metal stamping process. One might take that to mean that Jesus' nature is a copy of the Father's nature, which is true in the sense that they have the same nature but not in the sense that Jesus is a creation of God. That same verse says that Jesus' is "the radiance of [God's] glory", a reference to the dwelling or shekinah presence of God with Israel in the temple and the tabernacle. By the time the first three verses of Hebrews are done, Jesus has been described thus:

He is God's definitive message.
He is God's Son.
He made all things.
He upholds all things simply by speaking.
He is the visible manifestation of the Father's.
His nature is exactly like the Father's nature.
He sits at the Father's right hand.

Greek philosophers might have had ways to read this sort of language and apply it to a man. But to the books' Hebrew audience, with their strong monotheism, the statements above add up to one thing: Jesus is God essentially, and yet is a distinct person who can simultaneously be beside God.

You assume many things that are not substantiated by scripture.

Much to God's dismay.

Only the Father is God,

Jesus Christ as the son of God is human only.

God is spirit. John 4:24

Jesus Christ is not. He is flesh and bones. Luke 24:39

Concepts too difficult for a trinitarian to comprehend?

barley

[RBerman]

Only the Father is God,
Jesus Christ as the son of God is human only.
God is spirit. John 4:24
Jesus Christ is not. He is flesh and bones. Luke 24:39
Concepts too difficult for a trinitarian to comprehend?

Well, I'll give you full points for asking the right sorts of questions. These are the same issues raised during the great ecumenical councils of the first few centuries of church history. Your problem lies in your "onlys." For instance, when we say "God is spirit" we mean that the divine nature is spiritual and noncorporeal. So when we see that Jesus is divine and yet corporeal, we conclude that Jesus has not only a noncorporeal divine nature, but also a corporeal human nature. The early church called this the "hypostatic union" of two natures in one person. As to your idea that "Only the Father is God," that is not the testimony of Scripture; quite the opposite.

[barley]

Well, I'll give you full points for asking the right sorts of questions. These are the same issues raised during the great ecumenical councils of the first few centuries of church history. Your problem lies in your "onlys." For instance, when we say "God is spirit" we mean that the divine nature is spiritual and noncorporeal. So when we see that Jesus is divine and yet corporeal, we conclude that Jesus has not only a noncorporeal divine nature, but also a corporeal human nature. The early church called this the "hypostatic union" of two natures in one person. As to your idea that "Only the Father is God," that is not the testimony of Scripture; quite the opposite.

Evidently, those simple truths are too difficult for a trinitarian to comprehend.

How to break it down more simply so that even a trinitarian can understand?

Well, if you wish to complicate simple truths with your intellectual vocabulary, well, that is your problem.

Truth is quite simple.

barley

[RBerman]

Since you're not engaging with my posts, I have nothing to say in response.

[Bill the Cat]

Evidently, those simple truths are too difficult for a trinitarian to comprehend.

Berman dismantled your feeble attempt. And you've yet to address my last post, Mr. Dawson.

How to break it down more simply so that even a trinitarian can understand?

How about actually using an argument that hasn't been refuted for almost 2000 years?

Well, if you wish to complicate simple truths with your intellectual vocabulary, well, that is your problem.

Translation: I don't speak "intelligent", so I'll just handwave it because I'm too lazy to read anything.

Truth is quite simple.

And the truth is that you are simply wrong.

[barley]

You're on to something true here, but you're running farther with it than Scripture does. Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father. Hebrews 1:3 decribes Jesus as being an "imprint" (Greek charakter) of God's hypostasis. Charakter occurs nowhere else in the Bible, but it means an engraving, such as might result from a metal stamping process. One might take that to mean that Jesus' nature is a copy of the Father's nature, which is true in the sense that they have the same nature but not in the sense that Jesus is a creation of God. That same verse says that Jesus' is "the radiance of [God's] glory", a reference to the dwelling or shekinah presence of God with Israel in the temple and the tabernacle. By the time the first three verses of Hebrews are done, Jesus has been described thus:

He is God's definitive message.
He is God's Son.
He made all things.
He upholds all things simply by speaking.
He is the visible manifestation of the Father's.
His nature is exactly like the Father's nature.
He sits at the Father's right hand.

Greek philosophers might have had ways to read this sort of language and apply it to a man. But to the books' Hebrew audience, with their strong monotheism, the statements above add up to one thing: Jesus is God essentially, and yet is a distinct person who can simultaneously be beside God.

so you have listed all the reasons that Jesus
Christ is not God.

He did not however make all things, it was for/by Jesus Christ, that God prepared the ages.

God's plan for man's redemption hinged on one man doing it right to repair what another man had done wrong.

God did all He could to help Jesus Christ do this, short of inequity,and overstepping man's free will.

You should reread what you wrote, it is the very reasons that Jesus Christ is the son of God, not "God the son"

barley

[barley]

And how, pray tell, does Romans 1:23 refute anything I have said?

those that adhere to the trinity/Jesus is God doctrine have taken the man Christ Jesus and idolized him to God status. A status that is not supported by scripture.