At http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&threadid=5893 I have illustrated the truism that "No bible writer teaches the Trinity as Doctrine, in context."

Is there any reason not to classify the Trinity doctrine as a "precept of men" in the same manner that Jesus condemned the Pharasees and scribes?

ASV Mark 7:7 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching
as their doctrines the precepts of men.

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

Yes.

Any other pointless questions?

Today @ 04:17 PM post located here
jpholding:

Yes.

Any other pointless questions?

Dear jp,
Why is the Trinity the only doctrine considered essential by some Christians which no bible writer teaches in context?

The Trinity stands alone. All other essential doctrines are taught at least in a basic form which is THEN expanded.

The Trinity doctrine considers God to be a triune being, correct?

But when one looks at every instance of QEOS in the NT the word never refers to all three persons at one time.

Therefore, not only is the Trinity not taught in context by any bible writer, but there is no example where this triune God is unequivocally represented as QEOS!

That makes it a precept of men.

If you look in the dictionary for the meaning of a word, they give the definition and then an example.

Where is the EXAMPLE of QEOS which can only be interpreted as three persons?

Kind Regards,
Cal

If the Trinity is a precept of man then why did Jesus talk about the Father and the Spirit?

Karl Barth's Trinitarian theology sees the Trinity as three modes of the one person of God....(a little Sabellian)

Karl Rahner see God as the Holy Mystery and explains the Trinity in a fashion that we do not understand the idea of "Person" in the Trinity as the early Christians understood it. The closeness of the persons in the Trinity is closer than our bodies and souls united.

Balthasar and von Speyer see the Trinity as: and this is where the word kenosis takes on a whole new meaning...not as an emptying, but as an total outpouring of love (infinite being can't be empty but totally outpours and is still totally full) from the Father to the Son. (There cannot be a Father without a Son) This total outpouring is received in a totality (kenosis) of reception of the Father's love and returned totally to the Father...That unfathomable and incomprehensible love between the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit.

Therefore it is possible that all three persons are God, infinite, and eternal.....one in being with the Father because they are of the same essence as the Father. According to Balthasar the persons of the Trinity act in "circumincession", in a closeness that created being, Humans and angels, will never be able to achieve or understand...only God can understand God.....only God can have full knowledge of God.

If there is no Trinity, the Word Incarnate (the Son) would not have been able to be born into time...He would not have been able to transcend time. Heaven (for want of a better word) would have been empty if a non Trinitarian God came to earth. Additionally, we would not exist now. When Christ died on the Cross (If there is no Trinity) then God would have died and all creation would have ceased to exist.

The Trinity is a matter of faith, but it is also a matter of faith worked out by reason (theology). Once the idea of the Trinity is worked out its easy to see that the Economy of Salvation does not work without a Trinitarian theology.

Today @ 07:10 PM post located here
Billl Hogue:

Bill:
If the Trinity is a precept of man then why did Jesus talk about the Father and the Spirit?

Cal:
Jesus talks about his Father because his Father sent him. He calls his Father the only true God (Jn 17:3) and says in an unqualified statement that his Father is greater than he is. (Jn 14:28) He quotes the Shema of Dt 6:4 at Mark 12:29, thus making this creed the true Christian expression of the monotheism of God, but he does not include himself as a person of this one God, he says that it is his God as well.

Bill:
Karl Barth's ...
Karl Rahner ...
Balthasar and von Speyer ...

Cal:
The opinions of these men cannot overturn the fact that no bible writer ever teaches the doctrine of the Trinity in context, unlike all the true essential Christian doctrines. (See my post on this subjectg in this forum for details)

Bill:
Therefore it is possible that all three persons are God...


Cal:
I do not reject the doctrine because it is impossible, but because it is not taught by any bible writer in context.

Bill:
If there is no Trinity, the Word Incarnate (the Son) would not have been able to be born into time...He would not have been able to transcend time. Heaven (for want of a better word) would have been empty if a non Trinitarian God came to earth. Additionally, we would not exist now. When Christ died on the Cross (If there is no Trinity) then God would have died and all creation would have ceased to exist.

Cal:
These statements betray your presuppostion that Jesus is the one true God of Jewish/Christian Monotheism. However the bible writers teach that he is the Son of God. Therefore after God sent his Son to earth as a man, God remained in Heaven. Heaven was not empty.


Bill:
The Trinity is a matter of faith, but it is also a matter of faith worked out by reason (theology). Once the idea of the Trinity is worked out its easy to see that the Economy of Salvation does not work without a Trinitarian theology.

Cal:
The Trinity is a matter of faith, but not in the doctrine that is taught to us by bible writers in context.

Salvation works just fine if Christ is not God. Christ became the last Adam and our eternal Father by the sacrifice of his human blood. God is spirit and does not have blood.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Jesus claimed to be God. There is only one God. We see evidence in the NT that the Father and the Holy Ghost were both present at the same time Jesus was. Three persons with claim to being God, and only one God. The resolution is the Trinity, with the substance of God being one in three distinct persons. I've debated this quite a bit with John Powell, feel free to check out the debate in the wrestling ring if you like.

~Grey

Today @ 12:37 AM post located here
greyphilosophy:

Grey:
Jesus claimed to be God.

Cal:
Dear grey, the word for God in Greek is QEOS. Jesus never said EGW EIMI hO QEOS (I am God). Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. (John 10:36)

Grey:
There is only one God.

Cal:
Yes, there is only one God. Jesus said that this God, the God of the Jews, was his Father. (Jon 8:54)

Grey:
We see evidence in the NT that the Father and the Holy Ghost were both present at the same time Jesus was.

Cal:
Peter, James and John were together many times but they were not the same being.

Grey:
Three persons with claim to being God, and only one God.


Cal:
The word QEOS (God) is never used as an attributive to the holy spirit in all of Scripture.

Grey:
The resolution is the Trinity, with the substance of God being one in three distinct persons. I've debated this quite a bit with John Powell, feel free to check out the debate in the wrestling ring if you like.

~Grey


Cal:
I have debated it as well. My challenge to Trinitarians on this forum is found at the link
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...691#post124691

The topic is the fact that no bible writer teaches the doctrine of the Trinity in context which sets the Trinity apart from all true real essential Christian doctrine.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Yo CM,

Why is the Trinity the only doctrine considered essential by some Christians which no bible writer teaches in context?

They do teach it in context:

- The context of Jewish Wisdom theology
- The context of ancient hypostatic entities of a deity, ranging from Egypt's Maat to Plato's logos

...but not in any context a modern would know.

All other essential doctrines are taught at least in a basic form which is THEN expanded.

That's because the Trinity's background was already present in Judaism and the ancient world before anyone laid a NT word to paper. No expansion was necessary.

But when one looks at every instance of QEOS in the NT the word never refers to all three persons at one time.

Your point being, what? Your definition of the Trinity was rather vague and inadeqaute. The use of theos is not really a deciding factor. The identification of Christ (and the Spirit) with pre-NT hypostatic entities is.

Today @ 10:19 AM post located here
jpholding:

Yo CM,

Why is the Trinity the only doctrine considered essential by some Christians which no bible writer teaches in context?

They do teach it in context:

- The context of Jewish Wisdom theology
- The context of ancient hypostatic entities of a deity, ranging from Egypt's Maat to Plato's logos

...but not in any context a modern would know.

All other essential doctrines are taught at least in a basic form which is THEN expanded.

That's because the Trinity's background was already present in Judaism and the ancient world before anyone laid a NT word to paper. No expansion was necessary.

But when one looks at every instance of QEOS in the NT the word never refers to all three persons at one time.

Your point being, what? Your definition of the Trinity was rather vague and inadeqaute. The use of theos is not really a deciding factor. The identification of Christ (and the Spirit) with pre-NT hypostatic entities is.

Dear jp,
I cannot consider what you offer responsive until you provide the precise passage where an inspired bible writer teaches the Trinity in context. If you do not like my definition of the Trinity then please point me to an online definition from the main web site of a main stream evangelical denomination which defines the Trinity. I ask this to prevent a definition from being presented that is too vague.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Okay, Cal...now you have me confused....If jesus talks about the Father....and the Father is God...then Jesus is not God? If Jesus is not God what is he? This is a rehash of Arianism.

Additionally, Jesus told the Apostles he would send his Spirit...so who came at Pentecost? And by whom did Mary conceive (Luke Ch. 1).

The only way your theology works is by an extreme form of Sabellianism...or Adoption...but you still haven't given a good case for the Holy Spirit. Greek Orthodox believe the Spirit comes from the Father only...Catholic and Protestant Trinitarians believe the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. What's your take?

In Christ,

Bill

Today @ 07:07 PM post located here
Billl Hogue:

Okay, Cal...now you have me confused....If jesus talks about the Father....and the Father is God...then Jesus is not God? If Jesus is not God what is he? This is a rehash of Arianism.

Additionally, Jesus told the Apostles he would send his Spirit...so who came at Pentecost? And by whom did Mary conceive (Luke Ch. 1).

The only way your theology works is by an extreme form of Sabellianism...or Adoption...but you still haven't given a good case for the Holy Spirit. Greek Orthodox believe the Spirit comes from the Father only...Catholic and Protestant Trinitarians believe the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. What's your take?

In Christ,

Bill

Dear Bill,
My "take" is that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said when he said he was the Son of God (Jn 10:36), not "God the Son." a phrase that occurs in the creeds but not in the teachings of the inspired bible writers.

I do not deny the existence of the Father, Son and holy spirit. The Fathers does everything through the Son and by means of the holy spirit. But no bible writer teaches that the Father, Son and holy spirit are the same being.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Then why did Jesus say, "I and the Father are one", and "He who sees me sees the Father"? Doctrine in Scripture can be implied and we unpack it by doing theology.

Additionally, there is NO PLACE in Sacred Scripture that states explicitly "Scripture only"...so does that mean we can't believe in Scripture just because there is no explicit place that says "Sola Scriptura (an idea that began with Luther).

The big argument is Paul's when he says All Scripture", but he was referring to the Septuagint Bible..and he said "all" and not "only".

Also, if Jesus was not God, how could he atone for the sins of mankind from the Cross? Anyone else could have done that according to your argument.

We have to remember that we cannot get to God. Created BEing only reaches uncreated being in an asymptomatic way. It was necessary for God to come to us in t he Incarnation. and Suspended between heaven and eart, only a God-Man (Jesus Christ) could reconcile man to God, heaven to earth. He had to be both God and Man.....Logically it doesn't work any other way.

In Christ,

Bill

Today @ 12:18 PM post located here
Billl Hogue:

Additionally, there is NO PLACE in Sacred Scripture that states explicitly "Scripture only"...so does that mean we can't believe in Scripture just because there is no explicit place that says "Sola Scriptura (an idea that began with Luther).

The big argument is Paul's when he says "All Scripture", but he was referring to the Septuagint Bible..and he said "all" and not "only".

In Christ,

Bill

Not only that but Paul himself quoted nonBiblical writers. Note, the second one is a conundrum, A Cretian wrote, "All Cretians are liars."

• Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
  
  Tts 1:12 One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

I think what our JW friend is trying to establish, which can be seen by his own posts elsewhere, extra-Biblical sources are only valid IF they support WBTS teaching. Any extra-Biblical source which refutes or contradicts JW teachings is "not worthy of consideration."

Colossians 2:9

For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Any further debate about Christ being God according to the bible?

07-07-2003 @ 06:46 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:



Dear jp,
I cannot consider what you offer responsive until you provide the precise passage where an inspired bible writer teaches the Trinity in context. If you do not like my definition of the Trinity then please point me to an online definition from the main web site of a main stream evangelical denomination which defines the Trinity. I ask this to prevent a definition from being presented that is too vague.

Kind Regards,
Cal

I will point you rather to my material, since you asked:

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html

This shows several passages where the inspired writers of Scripture clearly drew on previous concepts about hypostatic Wisdom.

Hi greyphilosophy,

I'll phrase your logic and please let me know if I err in expressing it.

If one is filled with all the fullness of God, one must be God.

Jesus was filled with all the fullness of God.

Therefore, Jesus is God.


Ephesians 3:14-19
14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height-- 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.


If I require your reasoning to be correct, Ephesians states a possibility. The CHRISTIAN may be filled with all the fullness of God. Thus, the Christian, when that condition is reached, IS AS FULLY GOD AS IS JESUS CHRIST.


greyphilosophy, consider the following. This support you chose was your preferred "Numero Uno" PROOF of the Trinity. And it was 100% erroneous.

Now, what are you going to do? Are you going to remain absolutely 100% convinced the Trinity must be true even though your #1 preferred support was no support whatsoever? Are you going to be so certain that your present understanding of scripture is such that you KNOW the Trinity to be true?

If so, why?


And to all Trinitarians who read greyphilosophy's post. It is one thing to believe a thing, it is another to know that a means of support really is not.

WHY DIDN'T ANY OF YOU CORRECT THIS? ISN'T RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH THE IMPORTANT THING?


God Bless,

Tony (o2)