JCA's thoughts on the Trinity, Part II

Sorry for those who posted in the old thread who where welcome to post, and now will not be answered..

I do hope you post here you response instead, as I still wish to discover what it is I have wrong.

I also wanted to put this out because some bitter, grumpy old guy (IMHO) had pointed out that I hadn't put down a proper explanation of what I meant when talking about the Trinity.

I also want to put it down so that some of the more involved scholars can look at it and discuss it with me.. HOWEVER, although I am open to debate and discussion about it, I am as snesitive about this kind of thing as anyone else.. accusations, name calling, debasing, craning, and various other things need not appear in this thread.. and I ask that if that is what you intend to do, you do indeed not bother to post a reply. I also extend this request to NOT post to Old Shepherd.

Those who feel they can express Fruits of the Spirit, and are willing to sit down with another Christian and go over doctrine, in the spirit of Christ, and allow me to make my own choices without condemnation, please feel free to respond.. in fact, I welcome it.

If I set to high a standard, please let me know..



The Trinity as revealed to me

I would like to try and put down my total core belief of the "Trinity" as I see it. When I say "As I see it", that means what I have studied of the Bible and the verses therein..

This, according to scripture, is a good thing, something to be encouraged:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

We are also to do this when listening to others Doctrines, and test them against the Fruits of the Spirit..

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

I also believe that people should be ready to give reasoning for their beliefs, when asked, and then do so with some respect etc:

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Also.. what books/scriptures are to be held as 'inspirational'? Which things fall into this category:

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God_breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

If it is not in the Bible, how is one to know it is 'inspirational', and therefore God-breathed? If one wants to use documents outside of the Bible to make their doctrine, who says they are reliable? Man? Or are their places in the Bible that say they are reliable? Does this also include the writings of St. Thomas the Heretic? After all, only man says he is a heretic, I can find no mention of him directly in the Bible..

And so, taking into fact that the Bible is the only documents I should be searching and seeking through, that is what I do. his does not mean that I do not try to find the right contexts either..


What the Bible says to me on the Trinity subject:

In the beginning there was God, the Word, and the Spirit.. God is the creator.. His commands (Word) are brought through Gods Morality or conscience (The Holy Spirit). And so, as it describes in Genesis, God created all with his Word, and instilled it with His Spirit. There is no Christ at this point.

People have tried to use this verse to qualify that CHRIST, God, and the Holy Spirit are one, but the text doesn't quite line up with that thinking when I read it:

1 John 5
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Here you are told that Christ did NOT come as divinity (the water) alone, but also as blood (man) - so far no problem.. it is the Spirit that will be shown through Him.

Yes, there are three things that bear record in heaven, and these three are indeed one... God, His morality (Holy Spirit), and His expression of it (Word).. The Word is NOT seperate from God, nor can it be seperated from God, unless God is not as unchanging as we are told. And so when Christ and the Word are formed as one, it doesn't mean (IMHO) that Christ is God, but rather that Christ and Gods Will and expressions are in perfect sync.. Add the Holy Spirit, and not only is Christs will in sync with God, but His morality as well.. as befitting the Son of the Creator.

And so, you get Christ on Earth, bearing witness of the Creator, with whom His Spirit/Will and Morality, do indeed agree as one.

But Christ is also of Blood (man), and FULLY man at that.. and to be FULLY man, one must have a free will. To have free will means that you have the ability to go against your own morality.. to make contrary judgments.. if you cannot do this, you have no free will, and are NOT fully human.. Christ DID have free will, and was still able to overcome sin!! Praise the Lord!

And yet, if Christ did have free will, and so WAS living by example to us and not just using Divinity to overcome temptation etc., then He also had the ability to create evil. The fact that He never did - becaue of His observence of His Fathers Will and Morality - doesn't mean He couldn't.. But here's the difference.. GOD cannot commit sin.. God cannot go against His divine nature of being ALL good.. and so Christ HAD to be a seperate entity.. and that is why He is called the SON.

We are made in Gods image, so to a degree I would assume that our family relations also mirror this 'image' to some degree.. My children are an extension of me.. while they are young, they are taught my morality (be it right or wrong), and the rules of my house pertaining to my will.. imagine how much more symbiotic the relationship between God and HIS son would be.. also, things are hereditary amoungst Man.. is this also a part of Gods image? If so, how is it that people cannot understand that Christ can be divine just by being Gods Son? Why is it that if Christ is NOT God, then Salvation is broken? Where does it teach this in the Bible? It doesn't.. Man does though.

Moving on..

John 1
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Not only has no one seen God, but Christ - who they have seen - is going about declaring Him. Are people seeing Christ? Also, this passage also states that God is within God (if Christ is indeed God).. why does John not just say "No man hath seen God at any time, except now, where He comes as the Son to declare Himself"? Why? because that isn't what was happening, is why.

The word used in the passage 1 John 5:7 for "Word" is:

G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

This points to The Word as being the "Divine Expression".. and this is exactly what Christ was begotten for.. so that He could Declare God.. express Gods Will and Morality to us..

SO in this sense, yes Christ has indeed been with God since the beginning.. He is the Son of God, begotten of the father, made of the 'stuff of God'. He has become what has always been.. or rather became..

People try and say this Word is special.. and yet the appearance of this word happens in different places, and depicts a few different things..

Matthew 5
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause ( λόγος, logos ) of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 5
37 But let your communication ( λόγος, logos ) be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Matthew 7
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings ( λόγος, logos ) of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

All the same word, all meaning the divine 'talk' and 'expression'.. an interesting use of it comes in this verse:

Matthew 8
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word ( λόγος, logos ) only, and my servant shall be healed.

This is an interesting choice of words.. as the Centurion is is asking Christ to speak the word.. the Divine Expression, the Will of God.. ONLY.. and yet this would mean that there was the belief or at least something alluding to the possibility that Christ could speak something else! If Christ where indeed God, would this not them be corrected? Would not Christ try to convonce the man more of the Trinitarian stance by telling the man something like "I am the word, and all I speak IS the word" or something similar?

Why are these things overlooked? People will argue for context at this point, and discussions and disagreements etc. arise.. it comes down to examining and micro-analyzing everything.. and most of the time it has been my experience that the big picture becomes forgotten.

Someone once noted:



This is supposition! Salvation works fine without recognising that Christ IS God..

It says if there was no Trinity, then God would have died on the cross etc.. I have no idea how this logic works.. This is not a doctrine of Christ..

It is also possible that all three are infinite and Eternal, and the only essence shared between them is the Holy Spirit, while all three are indeed divine.. God as the Divine Creator, The Holy (divine) Spirit, and the Begetton Son - who's divinity is given by His Father, just as I pass on some of my genes to my children.

Still.. even this is only *MY* understanding.. we each have our own, which only goes to show that the Doctrine of the Trinity itself is not defined in the Bible.

What is given in the Bible though, IS the Word.. the Divine Expression, through Christ our Lord.. it is His Doctrine.. Given and begotten from, and so the same as His fathers, and breathed of the Holy Spirit.. Given to us while teaching us the lessons of Free Will and consequences of our choices, with His righteousness.

Ephesians 1
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

How does God have a God? Why did this not say "The the Father of our Lord.." if the distinction between them was only that of 'aspects of the same person' as the Orthodox Trinity says?

Christ's Doctrine ~ It is the ONLY Doctrine we should be following:

Romans 16
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

1 Timothy 4
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But the warning comes here:

2 Timothy 4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And this is why such a warning:

2 John 1
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

What is also interesting about this, is that this also distinguishes Christ from God the Father, BUT if Christ where the Word as GOD, He would not say this:

1 John 7
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Why would God deny that His Doctrine (Word) was not His own? He wouldn't.. Christ was quite content telling them the truth, that His Doctrine was given to Him by His Father, God.

Matthew 5
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

From here, what about the OT Commands and Doctrinal positions? Well, there is no Law left in the OT for Christians.. Love and Christ have fullfilled the Law, and anyone who follows Christ and His doctrine, also fullfill the OT Laws..

Romans 13:8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Romans 13
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

This does not discount them as proof for correction, or profitable for Doctrine etc..

Rom 15:4
4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

But only where they line up with Christs Doctrine, as given to Him by God.. because if you don't have that, you will not have salvation through Christ.

However, there is no explicit Doctrine of the Trinity in the NT and Christs Doctrine.. at least none that I have found, or had revealed to me. But then, I am not perfect, nor a teacher, or apostle etc.. I'm just a man, trying to make the narrow gate like everyone else.. I can only have Faith and Hope that I stay on the narrow path (if I'm not already far off it).

Also, this post does not address all the verses the Trinity uses for it's own enforcement.. I do know what they are, but I find them to not bear up against the passages and things I have mentioned, and most other peoples interpretations have not led me to believe any different than I do now. (Does not mean I am not open to correction) ..Such things as when people say to me that if Christ is not God, then how can He give salvation? Well..

Revelation 7:10
And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

And who is the Lamb?

John 1
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Note: This does not say "behold the Lamb God", but "Behold the Lamb of God".

But I am not perfect, as I say, but I am telling you what has been revealed to me.. I am not an Arian, I stil believe that there are indeed 3 parts to the Divine Morality or Universal Truth, and that there is a family, to which the Church will be the Bride of the Son.. but I do not see the need, or indeed the proof, of a God who IS Christ..

2 Corinthians 11
30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.


Thank you for your consideration..

In Love and Peace


JCA ~ Tony

Some References Examined:

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. - Trinity, doctrine in Christianity
"..fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God is considered as existing in three persons. While the doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament, early Christian communities testified to a perception that Jesus was God in the flesh; the idea of the Trinity has been inferred from the Gospel of St. John. The developed doctrine of the Trinity purports that God exists in three coequal and coeternal elements—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (see creed 1). It sees these “persons” as constituted by their mutual relations, yet does not mean that God in his essence is Father, or a male deity. Jesus spoke of a relation of mutual giving and love with the Father, which believers could also enjoy through the Spirit. The Trinity is commemorated liturgically in the Western Church on Trinity Sunday. For systems denying the Trinity, see Unitarianism.

See studies by L. Hodgson (1960) and A. W. Wainwright (1962); G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (repr. 1964); J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (1977); E. Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World (1983). FROM http://www.bartleby.com

Development of Trinity Doctrine from the Old to the New Testament. ~ The Trinity (Gen 1:26 = Jn 1:1; 20:28; Mt 28:19)

Is the Trinity Doctrine taught in the Bible? ~ Revelation 7:10 (English-NIV) And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."

More upon request..

I replied before reading of your move. I recommended a read of:

Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

And answered your question about them being outside the Bible.

A brief comment or two on this part...see if you agree or not (if you are using different words to say the same thing).

What the Bible says to me on the Trinity subject:

In the beginning there was God, the Word, and the Spirit.. God is the creator.. His commands (Word) are brought through Gods Morality or conscience (The Holy Spirit). And so, as it describes in Genesis, God created all with his Word, and instilled it with His Spirit. There is no Christ at this point.

The technical term for what the Word and Spirit are to the Father is hypostases, which are personifications of the attributes of God. The Word became incarnate as Christ and Jesus is identified with the hypostatic Wisdom of Judaism in the NT. Use of the words "morality" or "conscience" does not make sense to me here. The Jews regard the spirit of God as His creative action principle.

1 John 5[i]

The inclusion of this passage in our Bibles is highly questionable from the standpoint of textual criticism. I skip most of your commentary here except:

The Word is NOT seperate from God, nor can it be seperated from God, unless God is not as unchanging as we are told. And so when Christ and the Word are formed as one, it doesn't mean (IMHO) that Christ is God, but rather that Christ and Gods Will and expressions are in perfect sync..

The first sentence is in agreement with the hypostatic concept. The second seems vague to me.

But Christ is also of Blood (man), and FULLY man at that.. and

This is a separate issue from the nature of the Trinity so I will skip it for now.

Greetings JCA:

But Christ is also of Blood (man), and FULLY man at that.. and to be FULLY man, one must have a free will. To have free will means that you have the ability to go against your own morality.. to make contrary judgments.. if you cannot do this, you have no free will, and are NOT fully human.. Christ DID have free will, and was still able to overcome sin!! Praise the Lord!

And yet, if Christ did have free will, and so WAS living by example to us and not just using Divinity to overcome temptation etc., then He also had the ability to create evil. The fact that He never did - becaue of His observence of His Fathers Will and Morality - doesn't mean He couldn't.. But here's the difference.. GOD cannot commit sin.. God cannot go against His divine nature of being ALL good.. and so Christ HAD to be a seperate entity.. and that is why He is called the SON.

I must disagree with this section. I believe that God IS all good because He CHOOSES not to sin. It isnt that He CAN NOT sin, but that He chooses not to.

God COULD have failed during the incarnation of Christ (I believe Christ was God so I am speaking of Christ also), but He choose not to sin. Thus, God is "all good" not because He CAN NOT sin, but because He DOES NOT sin.


Russ

Today @ 03:32 PM post located here
warcraft3:

Greetings JCA:

I must disagree with this section. I believe that God IS all good because He CHOOSES not to sin. It isnt that He CAN NOT sin, but that He chooses not to.

God COULD have failed during the incarnation of Christ (I believe Christ was God so I am speaking of Christ also), but He choose not to sin. Thus, God is "all good" not because He CAN NOT sin, but because He DOES NOT sin.


Russ

Hmm.. I see what you mean..

I'm probably not explaining it the best way either though..

I agree with you, is what I conclude.. and think that maybe this would be a better way, what I am thinking now.. take a look..

Okay, so God too has free will, and I too think that God too chooses not to sin.. However, as this is God, is it possible then that He put HIS knowledge of Evil in a place where He knew it was.. like the Fruit?

In other words, at some point God decided NOT to sin.. ever, and put/locked the knowledge of how to create sin away somewhere within Himself.. cutting of access to it, ridding it from His nature..

I'm only taking this stance because so many believe that Gods nature is unchanging, and so, if He does not sin now, He never did, and never will.. meaning that one normally cannot deviate from such a rule structure.. Of course, this IS God.. and so I will think on that bit more..

Thank you for your thoughts..

In Love and Peace

JCA

Today @ 03:01 PM post located here
jpholding:

I replied before reading of your move. I recommended a read of:

Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

And answered your question about them being outside the Bible.

Yes, sorry about the move.. and I will go and read what you posted.

Also, thank you for the reading reference, I will take a look, and let you know when I feel comfortable enough to make a comment, and let you know what I discover myself so we can examine it.. if you are willing.

A brief comment or two on this part...see if you agree or not (if you are using different words to say the same thing).

What the Bible says to me on the Trinity subject:

In the beginning there was God, the Word, and the Spirit.. God is the creator.. His commands (Word) are brought through Gods Morality or conscience (The Holy Spirit). And so, as it describes in Genesis, God created all with his Word, and instilled it with His Spirit. There is no Christ at this point.

The technical term for what the Word and Spirit are to the Father is hypostases, which are personifications of the attributes of God. The Word became incarnate as Christ and Jesus is identified with the hypostatic Wisdom of Judaism in the NT. Use of the words "morality" or "conscience" does not make sense to me here. The Jews regard the spirit of God as His creative action principle.

Okay.. I see what you are saying.. I got the 'morality & conscience' part from here:

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

WORD
G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os

From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

The things I have underlined can be said to coincide with the terms "morality and conscience" we use today.. I agree they didn't have these concepts as defined as we do, back then.. but I don't think it is too far off the mark to consider the Word to carry the morality and conscience of God..

Rather than post it all here, you can see by current word definitions how they would apply, IMHO.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conscience

These other verses use the same word (according to the Bible reference I use), and I think that these to can be used as examples as to where the word helps to define morality or conscience

Mark 7
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Doctrine, or Conscience and Morality by todays words)

Mark 4
14 The sower soweth the word. (Shares the morality and conscience of God)

Matthew 13
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; (Intent and morality of God)

And there are others.. Or maybe there is something I'm missing in the overall context.

Please understand that I have said that all I have done is pick up one of the most popular Bibles, some common Bible study tools, and researched what was revealed to me.. What is obviously will be difficult, is finding out that so much of the KJV is incorrect in context, that all my studying will be for naught, as although I have the requirements that Christ lays down for Salvation, I fail to meet the belief of the Full Trinity as the Orthodox Church beilieves it, and so and damned anyway - as has been pointed out to me... apparently discovering the Orthodox Trinity IS required to be a Chirsitan, and so gain salvation..

And yet, I feel I will not be alone in this damnation.. as I know many, many people who rely on the KJV, and other apparently out of context Bibles, that hardly anyone is going to get it right..

But this is probably premature of me.. I'm only basing that upon what I have seen posted lately, and how so many people apparently have the wrong context on so much, that without the original work in front of them, and without understading the three Biblical languages, will fail to fully understand and gain salvation.

Those that are not really reading the scripture, and just following the crowd, can they ay they really believe in the first place? If you see what I mean..

But I get ahead of myself, as I say..

I skip most of your commentary here except:

The Word is NOT seperate from God, nor can it be seperated from God, unless God is not as unchanging as we are told. And so when Christ and the Word are formed as one, it doesn't mean (IMHO) that Christ is God, but rather that Christ and Gods Will and expressions are in perfect sync..

The first sentence is in agreement with the hypostatic concept. The second seems vague to me.

The second is also a hard concept to write down

I'm not sure if this will work.. it's off the cuff..

When we have our own children, the first few years we are 'teaching' them our versions of right and wrong.. our 'morals' etc.. We don't lose them ourselves when we do this.. we extend them to our children until they start to make 'moral' (intentional - thoughts with intent - see the definition I post of the Word for a tie in) actions based upon their building conscience.

In this essence, Christ is like that, except this is Divinity we are speaking of, Father and Son, both filled with the Holy Spirit, in ways our 'mortal' realtionships are but a reflection of.. and Christ, not only being filled of the Holy Spirit, is also carrying the 'teachings', ethics, Doctrine etc.. of the Father.. He indeed becomes the Divine Expression.. but God does not lose this either..

If that makes any sense to you.. As I say, at least that is what I get when I look at everything overall, and not just by the context of each single word..

But Christ is also of Blood (man), and FULLY man at that.. and

This is a separate issue from the nature of the Trinity so I will skip it for now.

Hmmm.. I will accept your feeling on that (like I have a choice ), but do feel that it is also something to understand about Christ and His part in the Trinity Doctrine.. maybe we can have a seperate discussion about that.

Thank you for your reply.. I will do some reading, but in the meantime, if there is something in this post that hou would like to discuss more, please feel free.

In Love and Peace

JCA

Huzzah,

From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

Well, there's some issue of defining that as "conscience" -- put briefly, the internal conscience Western peoples take for granted was unknown to the ancients and is still unknown in honor-shame societies (China for example) where conscience is external. "Morality" may fit in terms of a moral communication. But the Jews saw God's Word as his constructing principle; he spoke and it came into being (with His Spirit as the tool, so to speak).

but I don't think it is too far off the mark to consider the Word to carry the morality and conscience of God..

If you mean that when God speaks, what He says contains His morality and conscience, that is in line with an orthodox view, if oddly worded.

Please understand that I have said that all I have done is pick up one of the most popular Bibles, some common Bible study tools, and researched what was revealed to me..

Your only error then would be if you refused to go further, which is apparently not the case.

Those that are not really reading the scripture, and just following the crowd, can they ay they really believe in the first place? If you see what I mean..

I can only say, "Beats me." I suspect people who ignorantly hold false doctrines of the Trinity will be in better shape than those who hold it defiantly and against the evidence...and I have no idea how much tolerance wil be given to milder forms of what can only be called idolatry.


If that makes any sense to you.. As I say, at least that is what I get when I look at everything overall, and not just by the context of each single word..

It makes better sense, but seems mostly tangential to the issue of the ontological relationships between the Trinity, while still not contrary to it and on what is clear to me, in agreement with it.

I'll post more Monday...busy day today.

JP

Hey there JCA, some of your posts make my brain hurt (in a good way though)

Hmm.. I see what you mean..

I'm probably not explaining it the best way either though..

I agree with you, is what I conclude.. and think that maybe this would be a better way, what I am thinking now.. take a look..

Brain not hurting yet............

Okay, so God too has free will, and I too think that God too chooses not to sin.. However, as this is God, is it possible then that He put HIS knowledge of Evil in a place where He knew it was.. like the Fruit?

In other words, at some point God decided NOT to sin.. ever, and put/locked the knowledge of how to create sin away somewhere within Himself.. cutting of access to it, ridding it from His nature..

Brain hurting. Hmmm......now THAT is an interesting idea and I must admit I have never heard or thought of it before. Let me see if I am getting the point here.........

1. Did God decide not to sin EVER at some point in His existance and so will never sin?
Or
2. Does God decide not to sin on a continual basis and so never sins?
Are you making a distinction between 1 and 2 (picking 1)? If you are that is interesting and I need to think about it a lot more before I comment on it further. If I misunderstand then please explain it again.

I'm only taking this stance because so many believe that Gods nature is unchanging, and so, if He does not sin now, He never did, and never will.. meaning that one normally cannot deviate from such a rule structure.. Of course, this IS God.. and so I will think on that bit more..

Hmmm another interesting comment. I will need to think about this one a bit.



Russ

I suppose I have a line ahead of me, so I'll take a number :cwink:. Being that you view Christ to have not preexisted what is your postion on passages such as Col1:15-16, 1Cor8:6 and others?

Thanks -- IM

Yesterday @ 10:24 PM post located here
IronMetro:

I suppose I have a line ahead of me, so I'll take a number :cwink:. Being that you view Christ to have not preexisted what is your postion on passages such as Col1:15-16, 1Cor8:6 and others?

Thanks -- IM

Hi IronMetro

Actually, although I say Christ didn't pre-exist, in the normal sense, I do agree that what made Christ what He is/was did.. such as the Word - which I view as being the Will and divine expression of God, which was then 'used' to begat Christ.. and that Christs morality existed before it was infused with His human body.. this would be the Holy Spirit, the Morality of God..

I consider the Holy Spirit to be moralistic because of what the fruits suggest:

Gal 5:22-23
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

All these are virues of a 'good' morality..

If that makes it any clearer

But let me address the scripture you give..

Col 1:15-16
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

IMAGE
G1504
εἰκών
eikōn
i-kone'

From G1503; a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: - image.

This word, image, does not mean a "part of" of "is".. this is a likeness, a resemblence.. but one more complete than just a 'mere' image..

And this is what I talk about when I say that God didn't exactly part with the Word - which I see to be His Will and Doctrine (which would be His morality given 'form') and such - but indeed made Christ an image of it.. instilled Christ with His will and morality..as would be befitting of His Son.

The next verse, to me, is us being told just how much this image reflects the Fathers Word.. it is such an image, that it is indeed the very same Word that was used to create all in the beginning! The For Him part represents the idea that God had already in mind to Create Christ.. to begat Him..

The Word was the creator, in Gods hands, the Word in/as Christ was who it was created for..

JMHO..

The second passage:

1Co 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him

I used to ponder this passage a lot actually.. one of my thoughts was that this backed up that God is indeed everything, and we are indeed part of that.. the "of whom are all things, and we in Him" seems to denote that..

What is interesting is the "by whom" about Christ.. this means through, basically, I believe.. this, depending on how you look at it, backs up what I say, this way.. (also note that the "by" in the first scripture passage is not the same "by" as the second passage.. which may be signifigant)

This verse ponts out the importance of understanding Christs role NOW, as the Word embodied.

God was the original creator with the Word.. all things where made by Him using it, with Christ in mind.. When God begat the Word as Christ, and Christ came to us, things changed.. the OT was replaced by the NT, and now, the way to God is only through Christ.. And Christ is the Word embodied, whom God has given everything to, and we are IN God (in the sense that he is everything), and only through the current Word (Christ) can we get to BE with God. Meaning this isn't 'just' Christ the Savior - this is Gods Word! (I don't know how to emphasize it enough). That is why it was important to stress it in such a way, I believe.

I am reading some things right now that tie into this though, so I wouldn't say it is complete in my explanation, as this new stuff has led me to review this passage again.. but I digress.

It's like God has taken a back seat and is making sure the rules are followed.. the Universe runs the way it should etc.. and is allowing Christ to 'take over'.. His Son is here to lead the way by example, and God is happy to let Him do so, knowing that His Son carries with Him the same morals and conscience as the Father, and is filled with the Holy Spirit, and is in fact Divine. I find it strange when people ask well then how can Christ save anyone.. aren't certain things reserved for Gods judgment only etc..

Well, yes.. and no.. God has given sovreignty to Chirst.. Christ shares all I have said He does, with God.. How would God not trust implicity His Son with whom He shares the Bond of the Holy Spirit with, who's decisions are indeed just as His own would be? If Christ says "you are saved", He doesn't do so just on His own authority like He's bypassing God, He already knows God will agree, and so does God! Same morals, same judgment, same ethics and conscience.. the only difference being that Christ was also fully man, and had to contend with the temptations of the flesh, and the failings that can befall one with a free will who decides to go against God.. of course, being Christ, He was able to overcome His human weaknesses with His strength of purpose and desire to carry out His Fathers plan.. showing us that we too, as humans, can follow in His foot steps..

I'm sorry if that doesn't help clarify.. it's not that it's difficult to grasp, it's just difficult to put into an easly explainable context..

Other passages that are similar I will address if you post them, but basically, I see tham as being close to this type of thing. Just as the passage about "The father and I are One" or "I and the Father are one", and me seeing that as saying "You need to understand that God and I share the same ethics, code of honor, morality, and indeed, spirit.. in this we are one.. what I say, He would say.." etc.

Please do go ahead and feel free to respond.. JP has given me something to research, and it might take a little while to get that done before I can review how it effects what I have already laid down, or will lay down while researching. Just look at this as all being under review, and feel free to go ahead and go with what I have right now.

And sorry for the long reply.. I may be longwinded, but it is only in the effort to give as much as I can..


In Love and Peace

JCA

Yesterday @ 03:38 PM post located here
warcraft3:

Brain hurting. Hmmm......now THAT is an interesting idea and I must admit I have never heard or thought of it before. Let me see if I am getting the point here.........

1. Did God decide not to sin EVER at some point in His existance and so will never sin?
Or
2. Does God decide not to sin on a continual basis and so never sins?
Are you making a distinction between 1 and 2 (picking 1)? If you are that is interesting and I need to think about it a lot more before I comment on it further. If I misunderstand then please explain it again.

HI warcraft3

Sorry if I give you a headache.. funny enough, my wife says I do the same to her too sometimes..

It is interesting that you would put them as 1 & 2, as I see them as being and doing the same thing in effect. To never do something, and to not do something on a continual basis, sort of add up to the same thing, dont they? I do see a distinction in method though, yes.

If at some point God decided that sin was indeed a dangerous thing to even have the chance of being committed, I can see Hiim doing one of two things.. either putting it away somewhere so that it wouldn't have to be 'worried' about, if you see what I mean.. OR, making a command to Himself that He would never do such a thing.. either way, God has decided not to sin, and is described as having an unchangable nature.. this being so, I would say that God cannot sin..

I would think that to have it any other way, leaves out the important part about Christ and His humaness, and part of the lesson He was an example of.. two sides.. one side by it's very morality unable to Sin, and another side, by it's very humaness, able to overcome that with Free Will.. Keeping with his conscience and base morality (The Holy Spirit), Christ was able to show us how to overcome the human weakness of free will that produces sin.. if it had been that Christ was as the Father, and completely unable to Sin, no matter what, free will or not, then what lesson did we get about overcoming sin? After all, it's easy for someone who cannot do something to stand there and tell us not to do it too, when it's in OUR nature to do such stupid things! SHOW us that it can be done, and then we have no choice but to except that if WE don't do it, it is a failing of OURS..

The fact that Christ was able to keep with His Fathers Will and Doctrine, is what allowed Christ to do the amazing things He did. His divinity was able to work, even through His human body and weaknesses, because He was still so inline with God, His father.


Okay.. I'm getting repetative now

But I think I have put my understanding across.. let me know if I have only muddied the waters


In Love and Peace

JCA - Tony

Pardon my elbow --

Actually, although I say Christ didn't pre-exist, in the normal sense, I do agree that what made Christ what He is/was did.. such as the Word - which I view as being the Will and divine expression of God, which was then 'used' to begat Christ..

OK, let's be clear here. It is within the pale of orthodxy to say that Christ did not possess certain titles (Son, Christ) in his pre-existent state. I myself am careful to note that Christ's pre-existent state was as the Word/Wisdom of God. Where you would step out of orthodoxy is if you say that the Word/Wisdom was not a conscious person in this pre-ex state. Then you run the risk of being an Arian (like a JW).

I consider the Holy Spirit to be moralistic because of what the fruits suggest:

The source of morals? And this is not the Spirit's exclusive and sole function?

This word, image, does not mean a "part of" of "is".. this is a likeness, a resemblence.. but one more complete than just a 'mere' image..

Having looked into how Mormons use this word, I'll have to tell you that "image and likeness" means that the thing "imaged" (here, Christ) is given the AUTHORITY of the "imagee"...you might say your representative in Congress is your "image" as you have vested him with your power and to act in your stead. Which does:

but indeed made Christ an image of it.. instilled Christ with His will and morality..as would be befitting of His Son.

...fit in with this on the surface.

The Word was the creator, in Gods hands, the Word in/as Christ was who it was created for..

A tool in God's hands as it were?

1Co 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him

I used to ponder this passage a lot actually.. one of my thoughts was that this backed up that God is indeed everything, and we are indeed part of that.. the "of whom are all things, and we in Him" seems to denote that..

Are you aware that this is regarded as a rewrite of the Shema that includes Christ in the identity of God?

07-21-2003 @ 02:36 PM post located here
jpholding:

Pardon my elbow --

Actually, although I say Christ didn't pre-exist, in the normal sense, I do agree that what made Christ what He is/was did.. such as the Word - which I view as being the Will and divine expression of God, which was then 'used' to begat Christ..

OK, let's be clear here. It is within the pale of orthodxy to say that Christ did not possess certain titles (Son, Christ) in his pre-existent state. I myself am careful to note that Christ's pre-existent state was as the Word/Wisdom of God. Where you would step out of orthodoxy is if you say that the Word/Wisdom was not a conscious person in this pre-ex state. Then you run the risk of being an Arian (like a JW).

Well, this is where I would have to say, "You tell me!" I'll try and clarify it, and then you tell me where you believe it fails..

I don't say the Word/Wisdom was not a conscious person, or at least part of a consious 'person'.. that person being God. There actually isn't very much at all in the Scriptures in the Bible itself to say exactly what the Word is in and of itself.. and even as part of God I woud not say it didn't have it's own "expression".. just as we talk to ourselves in our own heads, sometimes seemingly two different people, but not really.

How can I put it.. when I impart one of my sperm with my own coding, I don't lose my own coding, it is replicated.. and then passed on to become part of my child (very loosely put, I know, but I think you know what I'm getting at). The Wisdom and Word of God can be shared by God in this manner, I believe, and this is what was put into the 'mix' to create the being that then became Christ. God didn't lose the Word, it is also still pert and parcel of what God IS, but now it is ALSO part of the Son.

And JP, yes, this is part of what I am doing this for.. to discover where my leanings are when it comes to the Trinity; if they can be defined at all by anyone elses terms. If all that I study reveals to me an Arian point of view, then that is what I will believe.. and that is what I would stand before God and say "This is what I discovered.". If, after all this, I can see how the full orthodox Trinitarian view of Christ being God Himself, then I will defend that view as adamantly as I would any other that I believed true..

Of course, I'm still looking, and my beliefs aren't carved in stone.. they just aren't easily changed on the strength of other peoples beliefs.

I just don't believe I have all the evidence yet, and what I do have points to what I have already put down.

I consider the Holy Spirit to be moralistic because of what the fruits suggest:

The source of morals? And this is not the Spirit's exclusive and sole function?

To be honest, for me to say it is the Spirits exclusive and sole function, would be me telling an absolute truth about the mind of God. I don't know anything for sure when it comes to God.. I have faith in what I believe..

But yes, essentially, I believe the Holy Spirit to be the source of Moral Objectivity, and one that is shared by God and His Son, Christ. (and in fact, many others at various times throughout the Bible).

This word, image, does not mean a "part of" of "is".. this is a likeness, a resemblence.. but one more complete than just a 'mere' image..

Having looked into how Mormons use this word, I'll have to tell you that "image and likeness" means that the thing "imaged" (here, Christ) is given the AUTHORITY of the "imagee"...you might say your representative in Congress is your "image" as you have vested him with your power and to act in your stead. Which does:

but indeed made Christ an image of it.. instilled Christ with His will and morality..as would be befitting of His Son.

...fit in with this on the surface.

The Word was the creator, in Gods hands, the Word in/as Christ was who it was created for..

A tool in God's hands as it were?

Yes, I see The Word as being the creative inspiration, and even the 'process' by which all was created.

For instance.. A doctrine isn't just a collection of moral 'sayings', it is also the way those things are laid out, the 'grammar' and the 'context', as we know, are important. In this sense, one could say that the Word is the Holy Spirit given 'expression'.. the Word is the builder, the Spirit is in the Bricks..

God built a house for His Son, and at some point let the Son take over.. Being the Son, and being made from the same stuff as the original builder, the design of what is being built has not changed, just the hands that are doing the 'work'. The Spirit is still in the 'bricks', and the intent and meaning of the structure doesn't change with 'builders' in this case.

Is Christ the "tool" of God? I would say so, but not in the sense that this would be ALL Christ is.. IMHO.

1Co 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him

I used to ponder this passage a lot actually.. one of my thoughts was that this backed up that God is indeed everything, and we are indeed part of that.. the "of whom are all things, and we in Him" seems to denote that..

Are you aware that this is regarded as a rewrite of the Shema that includes Christ in the identity of God?

I am now

However, what would that change for me? Maybe I'm missing the importance of what you are saying here.. please elaborate for me.


In Love and Peace

JCA

Hiya ho,

I don't say the Word/Wisdom was not a conscious person, or at least part of a consious 'person'.. that person being God. There actually isn't very much at all in the Scriptures in the Bible itself to say exactly what the Word is in and of itself..

Well then, here's the honest truth: Such a belief brings you very close to the Arian camp...and you know me, I will try to shake you on this.

John 1:14 says that the Word "became flesh". Note that it does not say "gained a heart" but "became flesh" only. This is a clear indicator that the Word was possessed of that which enlivened flesh even in its pre-existent state: consciousness....

The Wisdom and Word of God can be shared by God in this manner, I believe, and this is what was put into the 'mix' to create the being that then became Christ. God didn't lose the Word, it is also still pert and parcel of what God IS, but now it is ALSO part of the Son.

Actually the Nicean view would almost entirely agree, other than the part about creating Christ.

To be honest, for me to say it is the Spirits exclusive and sole function, would be me telling an absolute truth about the mind of God. I don't know anything for sure when it comes to God.. I have faith in what I believe..

OK, no problem.

Yes, I see The Word as being the creative inspiration, and even the 'process' by which all was created.

No problem here either! That in fact agree with "by him all things were made...."

.. the Word is the builder, the Spirit is in the Bricks..

This is also a very good analogy.

However, what would that change for me? Maybe I'm missing the importance of what you are saying here.. please elaborate for me.

Well -- if Christ is included in the Shema, then he becomes part of the nature of God, and God does not change in His nature...which points further to Christ as the Word always having conscious existence, even in eternity before time.

So in close, we have 95% agreement but that 5% left is a honking big one. If you are interested I will build a further case for the Word's conscious existence in prior eternity.

Thanks for the response, JP.

Actually, you don't need to convince me of the Words existance, or of the nature of the Word before Christ Himself.. I sort of get that part.

As I have stated, it always comes down to the Dual nature of Christ as to where I run into complications with the Orthodox Trinity.

I suppose it would be clearer if I stated that I think there is a fundemental difference in HOW the Word is applied in the two entities of God and Christ. In the beginning, the Word was used to 'create'.. Now, in Christ, I see it as being used to 'sustain' what has already been created, and AFTER Christ returns will in fact be applied in yet another way to 'eternity'. This doesn't imply that the meaning of the Word changes, or it's nature, just the way in which it is used..

Much like a blacksmith who can use the hammer not only to pound in nails for a horeshoe, but can also use it to delicately make a bowl out of a flat sheet of metal. The same tool has many applications..

As I say though, one of my hang ups, and one that comes up when you clarified what you where talking about with the Shema, is that I have a belief that being fully man indeed had an impact on How God had to do things where Christ and we where concerned. I truly believe that Christ had the ability to commit sin if He wanted to.. could create evil. However, I believe that He showed us that it is possible to overcome that.. From what I have been led to believe about God, God cannot sin, or has chosen eternally not to.. and to BE Christ and have that capacity, would indeed change His nature. Of course, it could be that God can sin after all, and chooses not to.. in which case, we are made more in His image than I suspected, if you see what I mean.

Maybe helping me to clarify that part would solve the other 5% where I apparently fall short of full understanding. Do you think that having Human nature as a part of God was irrelevent? And what does being "Fully Human" actually mean to Christians when it applies to Christ/God?

And by the way, I appreciate your taking the time, and have no problem with you wanting and trying to correct me.. I hope that some people see that I am indeed open to re-evaluation of myself, and my beliefs, it just takes the right atmosphere.. thank you for supplying it.


Love and Peace

TonyB

As I have stated, it always comes down to the Dual nature of Christ as to where I run into complications with the Orthodox Trinity.

Hmm, don't know if I'm understanding you correctly here, but if its the fully God and fully man thing, then I don't see this as a dual nature, but rather, Christ in the incarnation being the person who is the word, and thus being God, but having a human nature, and thus being human, it really doesn't seem that complicated...but perhaps you're getting at something else.

Hia ho,

As I have stated, it always comes down to the Dual nature of Christ as to where I run into complications with the Orthodox Trinity.

Well, if it amuses you there is another thread here in Chr101 where we are discussing that and I have been accused of heresy.

I suppose it would be clearer if I stated that I think there is a fundemental difference in HOW the Word is applied in the two entities of God and Christ. In the beginning, the Word was used to 'create'.. Now, in Christ, I see it as being used to 'sustain' what has already been created, and AFTER Christ returns will in fact be applied in yet another way to 'eternity'. This doesn't imply that the meaning of the Word changes, or it's nature, just the way in which it is used..

Yes. That is an excellent if poetic summary of the way the Word was/is used over the course of history. Of course, as the Word (and Spirit) are extensions into the temporal realm, their use and duties change from a historical perspective.

I truly believe that Christ had the ability to commit sin if He wanted to.. could create evil.

By "ability" do you mean, in practical terms? For obviously it was theroetically possible for Jesus to perform any given action; but if he was "without sin" as Hebrews tells us then "ability" could not possibly include any actualization of the theoretical. On the side there are some who have theorized that Christ did not KNOW he could not sin, which I find interesting.

Do you think that having Human nature as a part of God was irrelevent? And what does being "Fully Human" actually mean to Christians when it applies to Christ/God?

I look at this in terms of functional identity. Certain charactreristics define what it is to be "human". Is being able to sin one of them? No, because it is not unique to us; angels can do it. What it does mean is open to discussion -- offhand I can only think that it means possessed of the specific creative code (for us, genetics) that defines humanity.

And by the way, I appreciate your taking the time, and have no problem with you wanting and trying to correct me..


My pleasure.