PDA

View Full Version : Are You Looking Over Jesus' Shoulder?


Arimathea
December 19th 2004, 02:52 AM
More than a new thread, I am looking for some courageous (and patient) souls who would read this explanation of the Godhead, before I send it to someone who asked me to explain my position. These things are hard to articulate, so I want to find out how well I'm explaining my point, and how it might be improved. This is about 1/2 of the whole article. Of course, you may argue also, if you wish.

Are You “Looking over Jesus’ Shoulder?”
“We see light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Since the dawn of time, men have pondered the nature of God. This article will make some extremely subtle points concerning this effort, and the author begs your careful attention, and requests you avoid making hasty associations of these ideas with other things you may have heard before. Please understand that it is impossible to qualify every statement against every possible misinterpretation. In the spirit of honest contemplation, we are going to critique some of these theories and point out apparent inconsistencies, and offer an alternative. Our purpose is not opposition to orthodoxy; rather, knowing that the Christian faith has a centuries old tradition of honing and improving its doctrine and practice, we are striving in that spirit to make sure our Christian practice is as Biblical as possible, with respect to developing our “God Concept.” Our critique here centers not so much on the conclusions at which these efforts have arrived, as on the methods used to arrive at them.

In the course of this, examples will be set forth, to illustrate how different methods lead to different results. The danger in this, where the examples are taken from creeds in which any reader may have a vested interest, is we will unintentionally stir up reactions that detract from the larger point. Nonetheless, it seems impossible to communicate our points without using examples. Let it be known at the outset, that we are neither promoting, nor critiquing any creed per se, though we may challenge aspects of them strongly to illustrate the distinction we are exploring.

In the Christian era, enormous effort, and great expense, and the concentration of many minds, have sought to hammer out creeds, which accurately explain God in propositional terms. For example, in one such effort, the final result was the doctrine of the Trinity, which in the end defined the essence of the Creator God as “Three Persons of One Divine Substance.” With this doctrine most of us are familiar.

But let us immediately direct your attention to a fundamental question we believe has been overlooked in this process, and it is this: Has GOD Himself addressed the question? Which question? The question of WHO AND WHAT IS GOD? The question the creeds are aspiring to answer—has God addressed it?

Our answer is yes, He has gone to considerable trouble to address this question, and His answer is: Jesus Christ. As St. John explains: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) A careful exegesis of this verse will show that the last phrase may be most accurately rendered “…He has explained Him.”(NKJV)

EXPLAINED, that is, made plain to us, the nature of the Eternal Invisible one, whom no one “hath seen,” both who He is, what His character is, and what His nature is. The person of Jesus EXPLAINED Him, the very thing the creeds aspire to do. We would like to point out right away that we believe the primary situs of this explanation was not so much the words of Jesus, as it was the person of Jesus, modeling out the answer.

In this, we suggest a truth that is both incredibly simple, and universally overlooked. The very question that the creeds have tried endlessly to answer has already been answered by God, and perhaps, just maybe, we simply need look more deeply upon the answer He has provided. The person of Jesus Christ is God’s answer to: Who and what is God? To look past Jesus, “over His shoulder,” if you will, is to look past what God has provided as the perfect answer, and inevitably arrive at one that is “less” perfect.

So why does the question still loom so strongly, such that we can observe a 2000 year history of creed drafting to explain God? Because, God’s answer comes in God’s terms, and creed writing is man’s attempt to have an answer in a language more palatable to him: propositional statements, the “security blanket” of the Western mind. The reason why the creeds never reach the answers they aspire to, is because the medium chosen is not capable of containing the contents. It is divine truth forced into man’s language. God chose Jesus Christ, a Person, to “model out” an answer to the question wholistically, rather than a series of propositional statements, not only because it is an accurate answer, but also because that is the only WAY the question can be answered. He is a “living epistle” seen and read of all men. That wine put it into another wineskin falls short at best, and becomes hopelessly convoluted at worst. Instead of forcing God into our wineskin, perhaps we should be learning to get into His.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:11)

A foundation is what everything is built on, that includes our understanding. If we build an understanding of God that does not issue out of Jesus Christ, that understanding is without foundation to the degree that it cannot be found “in” Him.

Please permit us to offer a few observations born of this kind of thinking. God’s answer has tremendous implications for doctrines such as the Trinity, and curious disparities can be immediately observed. For example, since Jesus Christ is set forth by God Himself as the exact representation of God, that which we are directed to look upon in full confidence, knowing that we are seeing the Truth, the whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth about what God is, one will notice at the outset that Jesus is NOT a Trinity of Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Jesus is one person, one substance. Is this not curious?

In Jesus we see a reflection of God that is consistent with God’s declaration before: “Hear Oh Israel, the Lord your God is ONE.” If a medium is chosen to represent and reflect the one God of Deut. 6:4, the medium must be one also, or it is a different reflection. Therefore, Jesus is ONE. Of course He is, for He is the fleshly representation of Deut. 6:4 quoted above. He is “reflecting” the one invisible God. So, the logic goes, if Jesus is not a community of “persons” then, God is not a community of “persons” for one is a reflection of the other. This would be comparable to mathematics, where if an equation can be worked from the problem to the answer, the same equation can be worked from the answer back to the problem. “Jesus” is the answer. “What is God?” is the problem. It’s a two-way syllogism. According to the Bible, we can safely project from Jesus back to God, and by that build our understanding of what God is, for that is what He came for. If God is a trinity, and Jesus isn’t, Hebrews 1 is in error:

“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.”

Anyone who has studied this verse, knows that the term “express image” refers to the process of minting, as in coins, where the “image” is pressed into the “medium” be it metal or wax. In other words, the unseeable and unknowable God, the Eternal Spirit, the Creator, which no one has seen, nor can see, has now been “stamped” into human flesh, and the replica is nothing but EXACT. If God were a trinity, when that trinity was “stamped into the wax” so to speak, the wax (Jesus) would be a trinity. But it is not. The image in the wax, is Jesus Christ, one person.

To “look over Jesus” shoulder, and to see something different (or more, or less) than what is revealed in Him, seems to argue with God’s answer, and may in fact be disrespectful (though unintentionally) of what God is telling us. The trinity “looks over Jesus shoulder” and sees two more persons, and, it would appear, misses the point of what the incarnation is for. We are not supposed to be looking past Jesus to understand God, we are supposed to be looking at Jesus!

(we see) “…the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 4:6)

The names of Jesus also bear this out, as in Rev. 3:14 where Jesus is called the “faithful and true witness.”

Faithful and True Witness of what? Of God of course, which is why He could say,

“He who has seen me hath seen the father.” (John 14:9) He is the only one who has seen God, and is presenting to us a “faithful and true witness” of the unseeable.

Just how “Faithful and True” of a witness is He, if God is in fact a Trinity in heaven, and Jesus is a single person on earth? He is, in that case, a false witness.

GOD, as understood from the scriptures, is too big for us to see. How do you see an infinite being? You would have to back up infinitely far to view Him. The scriptures also make it clear that God is a Spirit. Jesus was reflecting that Spirit on earth.

It is ONE SPIRIT throughout the bible. So the three designations share at least one thing in common, and that is a single Spirit. The Spirit who is Holy encompasses all that is in the Godhead. “HOLY” is an adjective used to describe that ONE Spirit. So the whole phrase is…

THE (singular definite article) HOLY (descriptive adjective) SPIRIT (noun)

“By ONE SPIRIT we are all baptized into one body.” 1 Cor. 12:13 (Which “spirit” of the three was it who baptized us into one body? The singular “Holy” one, or one of the others?)

The term “Holy Spirit,” is used interchangeably in the Bible with the term “Spirit of Christ.” (Rom. 8:9) Why? Perhaps it should be obvious. They are one and the same.

Most creeds were drafted with the best of intentions. But what we are suggesting for you to consider is this: God has already given us something better than a creed to understand Him by. The great, eternal, Spirit, carrying a multitude of characteristics to reveal to us, characteristics such as “Fatherhood” and the fact that He is a “Spirit,” and also a “Redeemer,” “Creator,” the list goes on and on, is beyond our ability to see. This Great Spirit stepped into Human flesh, and at the same time was beyond it, but had localized Himself in a place where we could see, handle, and understand Him.

Whom did JESUS come to reveal? That Spirit. The creeds would have it that He came to reveal the “Son.” But His own testimony refutes that. “I came to reveal the FATHER.” (Matt. 11:27, Luke 10:22) HE says so. Dare we believe Him on this point? He did not come to reveal a secondary being; He did not even come to reveal the “son,” though that took place. He came to reveal the FATHER, the Invisible Eternal one. That was the whole point!

If God’s answer is Jesus, this fact creates friction with every creedal attempt, including “Oneness” or “Jesus Only.” At the risk of oversimplification, these doctrines assert that Jesus WAS the Father, i.e. “I am my own Father.” There is a distinction that must be made here, fine, but extremely important. In Jesus, we are seeing an Infinite Eternal Being condescended and localized. If the “Father” is defined as that part of God that is in eternity, filling all space and time, unseeable, Jesus was most certainly NOT that. Quite the opposite. Nor did the Eternal Spirit ever cease to fill all space and time, simply because He had become localized to show Himself to us. Therefore, it is quite inaccurate to say that Jesus WAS the Father, and much more accurate to put it the way He Himself put it, “the Father INDWELLS me.” (John 14:10)

Which “Mystery?”

This, the mystery of the incarnation, is different than the “mystery of the trinity” which simply put, is: how can God be three people and one person? That is indeed a mystery, but it is not the mystery that the Bible talks about. The Bible never declares that to be a mystery. The Bible places its great emphasis not on the mystery of the trinity, but on mystery of the incarnation of God. This we find clearly affirmed in the Bible. God being manifest in the flesh is a great mystery.

The scriptures will be searched in vain to find any communication between the HOLY SPIRIT and the FATHER.1 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftn1) This is because, we suggest, they are the same thing: The infinite God, described with different adjectives, “Holy,” and “Father.” But between the Son and the Father, there is constant dialog. God in Human Flesh, fellowshipping with God in Eternity. This is the channel that Jesus Christ opened up.

...Looking for God in all the wrong places?

It is not so much that the doctrines of Trinity, and Oneness are wrong, though we believe they contain mixed truth and error, but our point is that they are unnecessary. They distract from what God has provided for us. They get us thinking about other things, but perhaps more importantly, they get us thinking in a different way. There is no scripture in the bible that these doctrines are necessary to explain, though they attempt to satisfy the mind by offering explanations to some things that may be puzzling. But the scripture stands well enough without this aid. The explanations are not necessary in light of what God has provided. We all are packing some degree of error. But reducing God to a creed does not solve this; it introduces another error—indeed another kind of error.

The creeds did not keep the church from error, but they added the error of distraction from God’s answer: Jesus Christ. He is unmixed truth. The creeds have gone through many evolutions, which testifies to the fact that they have been a mixture in need of constant refining. Even today no one can agree precisely on the wording. Words themselves evolve in meaning over time, and mean different things to different people. This makes the whole medium a moving canvas. This is an ill-equipped medium to contain the facts about God. How can you paint an immutable God on a moving canvas? Since Jesus Christ remains the same, He is well equipped, if for no other reason. Look at what we learn about God through Him. We know that God is a healer. How do we know it? Because Jesus is a healer. We know that God is a Redeemer. How do we know it? Because Jesus is a Redeemer. He is bringing an accurate report. We know that God is One. How do we know it? Because Jesus is One. He is the “faithful and true witness” of the unseeable God. He is the invisible God stamped into flesh. We know God is not a trinity of persons. How do we know it? Because Jesus is not a trinity of persons. In Him we find all these answers. Look away from Him, and we find other answers.

When we look at Jesus and then immediately try to tack on a creed to explain God, perhaps we have not grasped what we have seen--perhaps we do not, “get it.” Explaining God is what the incarnation was FOR.

…Eat what is set before you…

Can the trinity and other godhead doctrines be damaging? Yes indeed, very much so. Such things are intruders into realms which God reserved for His Son alone: the Declaration of God. He is the only one worthy of doing that work, the only one with first hand information. They boldly charge in where Angels fear to tread, aspiring to do what God has ordained Christ alone to do. To that extent, they are at cross-purposes with God, offering an alternative construct for the mind to think upon, other than what God placed before men.

If one person were to devote all of his energy towards understanding God through Jesus, and another were to devote all of his energy towards understanding God through the doctrine of the trinity-- if these two people were ever to meet and describe their idea of “God” they would tell you completely different things. One would think that they were describing two different Gods. Perhaps they are. What is in their minds is also what they worship. One worships a mental construct in which he sees three beings. Another worships a great eternal God made known in a person.

One of the reasons the trinity doctrine is considered necessary is because it attempts to explain the apparent plurality of God. We believe there is plurality in the story, but it is the plurality of one God in two different dimensions, the Eternal God stepping into time and creation. The Spirit who exists in Eternity, and the Logos who exists in time, who then became Flesh on Earth. God is both at once, and the two dialog, especially the man part of Jesus with the God part in Him and above Him. They are in constant fellowship, a community, foreshadowing of what Jesus is making available to all who will believe: fellowship with God.

Jesus explains this to the worshipper via relationship with Him. In communing with Jesus, one’s understanding of God is forming automatically. One becomes aware that there is a great Being standing behind Him, and in Him. That is the humbling revelation. You become aware that in Jesus this infinite unknowable Being is drawing near. You see them both, yet they are one in nature and purpose. You see the God of infinity coming to you, in a man. Having begun in the Spirit, finish not in the flesh. He has authored our understanding, He can finish it. Having met God in Jesus, we ought not suddenly look outside of Jesus to finish our construct, and translate that Being into clumsy creedal verbiage. We ought to look through Jesus, and see that great person, His character, and nature. In this, we may develop a relationship. You cannot develop a “relationship” with a mental construct. You can promote it, articulate it, argue about it, but you cannot be “friends” with it.

“One Way!”

It may (or perhaps should) go without saying, but God does not want to have a relationship with us outside of Jesus Christ. In fact, He won’t. Jesus is the channel that God has designed for this very purpose, so that we could know Him. Jesus Christ is the “One Way,” but He is more than just the “One Way” for atonement, and forgiveness of sins. He is our model of God, the “One Way” God has given us to form our understanding, and nothing else will do.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true…(1 John 5:20)

Coming to understand God through the divinely provided channel of Jesus Christ is not one option among many that we may freely pick and choose from. It is God’s choice. It is the birthright of every Christian. But this birthright can be sold for a mess of ecclesiastical pottage. The creeds act like Rodeo clowns, competing for our attention. Jesus is what God has set before us to eat. Are we cooperating?

“For in Him dwelleth ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9) Not 1/3 of the Godhead, ALL of it, which guarantees a full understanding of the Godhead is seen via looking at Him. If the Godhead is a triangle of persons, that’s what we would see in Jesus. And notice again “Dwelleth IN,” the same expression that Jesus used to describe it. This language is used consistently to describe it throughout the scripture. The trinity doctrine subtly yet tragically diminishes this, and confuses the issue. Oneness doctrine misses on the other side, by losing track of the distinction between the Father and the Son. Jesus cannot be His own Father; He is begotten of the Father. And all creeds are in competition with Jesus Christ as the “express image” of God revealed.

The incarnation, God in heaven, becoming God on earth is the great story of the Bible. When Jesus refers to His “Father in Heaven,” to whom is He referring? At His conception, the angel says of Mary, “…what is conceived of her is of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. 1:18,20) The Holy Ghost conceived Jesus, therefore the Holy Ghost IS His father in Heaven, for who conceives but a “Father?” Jesus goes on to talk about this Heavenly Father all through His life. Jesus on Earth, and His Spirit/Father in Heaven.

In the unfolding story, God up there, becoming God down here, everything necessary is finished. As the scripture says, “…in the Father and in Christ… are ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col. 2:2-3)This does not leave much for any third party to do. The incarnation, God into flesh, is the whole story. If there is any wisdom and knowledge to be found, it is in the Father and Christ, nowhere else, according to the scripture. The Son and the Father together, in the story of the incarnation, make up the “True God.” (John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20) The Holy Spirit is not left out; He is included in all of this, for He is the Heavenly Father of Jesus.

That is why it says…

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. (1John 2:23) All the knowledge of God, including knowledge of His nature and being, move through this channel. Nothing is left out. While creeds are static, God came into us in this unfolding story. Instead of holding in our minds a “snapshot,” an eternal triangle, we perhaps should be watching the “film reel” God coming down, and learning all along the way.

Ari



1 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14#_ftnref1) Every scripture in the Bible cannot be addressed in a footnote, but John 15-17 is often offered as an refutation of this, in verses such as 16:26 “When the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” NKJV Jesus seems to be giving “personalities” to the designations of Father, and Holy Spirit. What is overlooked, is that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and he says so, when his disciples become confused by these statements. Vs. 25 “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language, but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. Then in verse 29, the disciples confess understanding him now. The whole discussion starts in chapter 14, and concludes after 17, and it is not until Jesus tells them that He is speaking figuratively about how God will come to them in the dispensations of Son and Holy Spirit, that they “get it.” God coming to men through these changing dispensations will have the appearance of different personalities. This is a Biblically endorsed “thought tool” to understand the unfolding actions of God, as long as you understand it is not the eternal “nature” of God. John 16:28 is the “literal” part. The personification language is the figurative part. The trinity doctrine takes the figurative and makes it literal, and takes the literal and makes it figurative. The literal part is clearly verse 28, “I (Jesus) came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father.” It is this, not the figurative speech, upon which we are building our understanding.

lee_merrill
December 20th 2004, 11:19 AM
Hi Ari,

If God is a trinity, and Jesus isn’t, Hebrews 1 is in error:

“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.”

Anyone who has studied this verse, knows that the term “express image” refers to the process of minting, as in coins, where the “image” is pressed into the “medium” be it metal or wax. In other words, the unseeable and unknowable God, the Eternal Spirit, the Creator, which no one has seen, nor can see, has now been “stamped” into human flesh, and the replica is nothing but EXACT. If God were a trinity, when that trinity was “stamped into the wax” so to speak, the wax (Jesus) would be a trinity. But it is not. The image in the wax, is Jesus Christ, one person.

But how can an image be what it is an image of? Doesn't "image" imply not being the object being imaged?

And you would need to address the other verses that give evidence for the Trinity, as well, before making this conclusion, and show how those verses are incorrectly interpreted.

For instance, what is Jesus doing, praying to the Father, and saying "I came from the Father, and entered the world, now I am leaving the world, and going back to the Father," if there is just one person here?

Blessings,
Lee

Arimathea
December 21st 2004, 03:25 AM
e

Hi Lee, thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

But how can an image be what it is an image of? Doesn't "image" imply not being the object being imaged?Correct. Its not the thing itself, it is as you said, an image. Its just that the image cannot be different in profile from the thing it is an image of. That is my point. If your hand has 5 fingers, the shadow of your hand has 5 fingers. But the shadow is not the hand. If the shadow is one, (Jesus) and the hand is three,(God) its not an image.

The image and the thing itself might be described as God in two dimensions-- the unseeable God, outside of space and time, and the condescended incarnation of Him into our world of space and time. The two must be alike, and not just similar, but in replica, as the word picture in Hebrews 1 so beautifully illustrates. This is also shown in the original creation of man, where God created man in His own "image and likeness," and when He was done, what did He have, a trinity? No, He had a man, Adam, one person.

And you would need to address the other verses that give evidence for the Trinity, as well, before making this conclusion, and show how those verses are incorrectly interpreted.

For instance, what is Jesus doing, praying to the Father, and saying "I came from the Father, and entered the world, now I am leaving the world, and going back to the Father," if there is just one person here?

This isn't a trinity verse, its an incarnation verse. I often see the two confused. The mystery of the trinity is: How can God be three persons and one person? The mystery of the incarnation is, How can Jesus be God and man? This verse shows God and man, the two in dialog, and its not a prayer either, its Jesus in John 17 speaking plainly to his disciples, rather than figuratively, as He was earlier. There are two people here, and lots of other places, but two a trinity does not make. I believe that the Bible reveals Jesus as fully God and fully man, not fully man and 1/3 God, as the trinity doctrine ends up. The God part was ALL God, the man part was ALL man, and the two do in fact fellowship with each other.

This might be described as taking a jar full of water from the ocean. The ocean has about 28 elements in it. The jar of water will have the exact same 28 elements, not 1/3 of them. But the jar is not the ocean. Jesus tabernacled ALL of God, not 1/3 of Him. That's why He is called an image, a "stamped replica" of God.

Shalom,

Ari



Blessings,
Lee[/QUOTE]

aries_luv_ppl
December 21st 2004, 03:48 AM
The analogy of a jar of water and ocean doesn't work, since Jesus is not a form nor is it an image. God sent the Son, the Son and then as the Son return to the Father, He sent Holy Spirit. If it is just a form or image, which mean, ice, water, steam, then, what's the point of saying God sent the Son, the Son return to the Father and He sent the Holy Spirit. But that there are there persons but one God. In Genesis, forget which verse, it written they, mean fellowship in Trnity, but in singlar form, cuz they are one, but one in three persons.

It is beyond human scope to fully understand God, because we are His creations. And we ought to believe that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one God, by faith and only faith.

Arimathea
December 21st 2004, 04:17 AM
The analogy of a jar of water and ocean doesn't work, since Jesus is not a form nor is it an image. God sent the Son, the Son and then as the Son return to the Father, He sent Holy Spirit. If it is just a form or image, which mean, ice, water, steam, then, what's the point of saying God sent the Son, the Son return to the Father and He sent the Holy Spirit. But that there are there persons but one God. In Genesis, forget which verse, it written they, mean fellowship in Trnity, but in singlar form, cuz they are one, but one in three persons.

It is beyond human scope to fully understand God, because we are His creations. And we ought to believe that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one God, by faith and only faith.
Hi aries,

I use the "image" terminology because that is Bible terminology. I'm not inventing this. He is the "image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." (Colossions 1:165) Also, look at Hebrews 1 as quoted in the original article. How can you go wrong when you use the Bible's language and thought tools to understand Jesus? Of course He was the Son also--that's also Bible language. He's both, and more. If the two are contradictory--which if I'm reading you right, you say they are, then its the Bible that's contradictory, not me.

Did you read the original article?

I already believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are references to the one God. That's not hard to understand, and doesn't take much faith. That's the part of the trinity doctrine that I agree with. The clearest and most fundamental propositional statements in the Bible on this topic assert the oneness of God, such as Deut. 6:4, which Jesus in the NT re-affirmed as foundational. Other things we might think we see should revolve around those clear statements. Its when we start doing the reverse that we get into all kinds of confusion.

And the plurals in Genesis one--you and I could be called by plural terms, "us" "we" etc. Are we three? No, we are two. Where I come from, a plural does not necessitate three.


Ari

lee_merrill
December 21st 2004, 12:34 PM
Hi everyone,

If your hand has 5 fingers, the shadow of your hand has 5 fingers. But the shadow is not the hand.

Yes, so then Jesus is not the image of the Trinity, but the image of the Father (Jn. 14:9), and as you say, the image is distinct, and thus Jesus is not the same person as the Father.

God created man in His own "image and likeness," and when He was done, what did He have, a trinity? No, He had a man, Adam, one person.

But there were two people! The couple, Adam and Eve, are said to be God's image, not just Adam:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

There are two people here, and lots of other places, but two a trinity does not make.

I agree that there are two persons in the godhead involved when Jesus is praying, and yes, this does not fully explain the godhead, other verses must be taken into account as well.

The God part was ALL God, the man part was ALL man, and the two do in fact fellowship with each other.

Yes, that is what Trinitarians believe, too.

Jesus tabernacled ALL of God, not 1/3 of Him.

I agree! But Jesus said not only "the Father is in me," but "I am in the Father" (Jn. 10:28). So this is more than just simple containment, as Vivian said: "It is beyond human scope to fully understand God, because we are His creations."

And the plurals in Genesis one--you and I could be called by plural terms, "us" "we" etc.

Yes, but not plural nouns, with a singular verb! This indicates more than just a simple total, this indicates a being who is both plural, and singular.

And this concept appears in other aspects in Scripture as well, to paint for us in miniature what the Trinity means in the Godhead:

MT 19:5-6 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." So they are no longer two, but one.

"No longer two"! And here we have "one flesh," but two people:

EPH 5:31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.

And this same concept also applies in our relationship with Christ, the church, all of God's people, are united with him in this way, yet we are still many people, not one person:

1CO 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

The marriage relationship is a picture in miniature of the Trinity, as is the church in Christ: One body of Christ, but more than one person, one flesh, but two people.

Other examples are a woman with child:

The child is inside the woman, they are connected physically, one body, in a sense, and the woman is in a "mother" relationship to the child, yet they are both distinct persons, yet sharing all the potential of a human being, especially all the potential of a human spirit.

And the cherubim of Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 1:5-6 In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces and four wings.

Blessings,
Lee

Arimathea
December 21st 2004, 01:11 PM
The analogy of a jar of water and ocean doesn't work, since Jesus is not a form nor is it an image.
"Image" is bible terminology. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." Colossions 1:15. Also look at Hebrews 1, and the many other scriptures quoted in the article. You can't go wrong by using the Bible's terminology and thought tools.


God sent the Son, the Son and then as the Son return to the Father, He sent Holy Spirit. If it is just a form or image, which mean, ice, water, steam, then, what's the point of saying God sent the Son, the Son return to the Father and He sent the Holy Spirit.
Son, Father, Holy Spirit--these are also Bible terms, and we may freely use them. But we must pay attention to where the Bible is talking literally, when figuratively. The verses you are referring to were very confusing to the strongly monotheistic disciples of Jesus. They took Deut. 6:4 as the hub of their understanding, around which everything must revolve, and rightly so. Jesus re-affirms the foundational nature of this verse. But He talks to them figuratively, using personification language to describe the progressive dispensations of the revealing of God, through Father, Son, Holy Spirit. He says so. (John 16:25--These things I have spoken to you in figurative language...) And then they understand. The literal is one God. (Deut 6:4.) The figurative is how He comes to us appearing as different persons. You can't take the figurative and make it literal, and the literal and make it figurative.

But that there are there persons but one God. In Genesis, forget which verse, it written they, mean fellowship in Trnity, but in singlar form, cuz they are one, but one in three persons.
Genesis uses plural language, but plural does not necessitate three, but two. The Bible says "through Him, all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:3) That's two. Count them...one, two. And that covers ALL THINGS that were made. Doesn't leave much for anyone else to do.


It is beyond human scope to fully understand God, because we are His creations. And we ought to believe that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one God, by faith and only faith.
I have no problem with taking things by faith, there are many things I believe by faith. If taking the Bible word by word, precept upon precept, and emphasis for emphasis leads to three persons, I have no problem accepting that. But if the strongest propositional statements on the subject in the Bible say otherwise, and if from the ground up, line upon line, it leads somewhere else, then that would be faith against the Bible, not faith in harmony with it. It does no good to start with a creedal understanding and work backwards. It makes much more sense to get into the mindstream of monotheistic Israel, and build upon that through the unfolding story... "God, the great eternal Spirit, and His coming Messiah." That was the whole story. In 325 AD, three centuries after the death of the last Apostle, the pagan Emperor Constantine got another idea. I see no sense in starting with his idea and working it back through the Bible.

These ideas might be new to you, but from your post, I get the strong impression that you did not read the article that started this thread. I would recommend reading it.

Shalom,

Ari

aries_luv_ppl
December 21st 2004, 03:26 PM
Hi Arimathea,

I will read the original post, but I want to listen in the thread and keep my mouth shut for now. It is wise to have a few words :)

Arimathea
December 22nd 2004, 12:08 AM
Hi Lee,

Let me compliment you on a fine post. Well thought out, scriptural, basically free of condescension and creedal bludgeoning. It might help to point out, I am a trinitarian, just not a modern one. The trinity doctrine as we have it went through many evolutions, each one anathamatizing the others. Once you realize its not one monolithic thing, it kind of loses its mystique. Its considered an untouchable--like a sacred cow, but yet, it continues to change. I don't find it to be above refinement, and a medieval mindset is revealed when people panic over any questioning of it. You don't seem to have that.




Yes, so then Jesus is not the image of the Trinity, but the image of the Father (Jn. 14:9), and as you say, the image is distinct, and thus Jesus is not the same person as the Father.


Jesus was much more than that. In Him dwelth the FULLNESS of the Godhead bodily. Now, fullness, is fullness. Not 1/3 of the Godhead. Also 1 Timothy 3:16,
"...great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh..."

This is in harmony with the "image" and "stamp" word pictures that we see in Hebrews and Colossions. Of course He manifested the Father, for that is part of what God is, and He manifested all of it--the FULLNESS, you can't whittle that down without severe damage to both the grammar and the word picture.

But, yes again, the image is distinct from the thing itself. Jesus existed in time, reflecting God in eternity. To different dimensions.


But there were two people! The couple, Adam and Eve, are said to be God's image, not just Adam:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

I know. TWO people. How everyone always ends up with three from this is amazing. The woman (not Eve, she wasn't named that yet) was not yet taken out of the man. This is showing something in miniature, but it is not the trinity, as shown below.


I agree that there are two persons in the godhead involved when Jesus is praying, and yes, this does not fully explain the godhead, other verses must be taken into account as well.
Jesus was a dual person. In him was MAN and in Him was GOD. Jesus has a God--he says so...
...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17.

When Jesus prays, there are not necessarily two persons of a godhead, but the man part of Jesus praying to God, who dwells in Him, and also in eternity. God, being "Spirit" is both places at once. The man part really is fully man, and the God part fully God. The trinity doctrine actually diminishes both.



Yes, that is what Trinitarians believe, too.


Some do. It depends what version of the doctrine they are reading.


I agree! But Jesus said not only "the Father is in me," but "I am in the Father" (Jn. 10:28). So this is more than just simple containment, as Vivian said: "It is beyond human scope to fully understand God, because we are His creations."
"Dwelleth in" is a very important phrase to watch for, and it is often overlooked. Many people say "...He was the fullness of the Godhead bodily" That's a misquote. "in Him DWELT the fullness" is how it reads. Jesus consistently uses this terminology also, as the verse above exemplifies. If you miss that nuance, its easy to drift towards polytheism. The whole thing is God "tabernacled" IN human flesh.



Yes, but not plural nouns, with a singular verb! This indicates more than just a simple total, this indicates a being who is both plural, and singular.
Certainly, but two are sufficient for this, not three. There is a plural and a singular, and it all takes place in the incarnation. By the way, could you please post both the plural noun and the singular verb?


And this concept appears in other aspects in Scripture as well, to paint for us in miniature what the Trinity means in the Godhead:

MT 19:5-6 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." So they are no longer two, but one.

"No longer two"! And here we have "one flesh," but two people:
Exactly, TWO.

EPH 5:31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.
Two again.


And this same concept also applies in our relationship with Christ, the church, all of God's people, are united with him in this way, yet we are still many people, not one person:

1CO 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

The marriage relationship is a picture in miniature of the Trinity, as is the church in Christ: One body of Christ, but more than one person, one flesh, but two people.


Two again.


Other examples are a woman with child:

The child is inside the woman, they are connected physically, one body, in a sense, and the woman is in a "mother" relationship to the child, yet they are both distinct persons, yet sharing all the potential of a human being, especially all the potential of a human spirit.


Two again. Are we seeing a pattern here?

The story of God and His coming messiah was the great promise of the Old Testament. Two characters. There are countless scriptures where the two are mentioned, communicating by their sheer number the immense importance of the incarnation. I believe in matching the scripture emphasis for emphasis, not just word for word. You have given some good examples of the duality in type form. Here's some more where the two are shown. With this much testimony, perhaps we should be paying attention that something is being told to us. Two does not a trinity make.

I John 5:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Two.

I Cor 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


Two.


"...the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossions TWO TWO :tongue: )


All these great incarnation scriptures that the trinity doctrine tries to coopt. But two is not three by my math. Also Rev. 5, you see it modeled out. The LAMB stepping out of the throne. Two again. Am I coming through loud and clear yet?

Shalom

Ari



Blessings,
Lee[/QUOTE]

Arimathea
December 22nd 2004, 12:18 AM
Hi Arimathea,

I will read the original post, but I want to listen in the thread and keep my mouth shut for now. It is wise to have a few words :)

Hi Aries,

Welcome to T-Web. Sorry to jump on your case, if I did. I like your handle, by the way.

Shalom,

Ari

lee_merrill
December 22nd 2004, 06:38 PM
Hi Ari,

I know. TWO people. How everyone always ends up with three from this is amazing. The woman (not Eve, she wasn't named that yet) was not yet taken out of the man. This is showing something in miniature, but it is not the trinity, as shown below.

But it is two people, though, not one, and the couple is said to be in God's image, both of them being simultaneously present. Not, for instance, Adam after 20 years being said to be the image of when he was younger, which I think would fit more what you are saying here.

"in Him DWELT the fullness" ... Jesus consistently uses this terminology also, as the verse above exemplifies. ... The whole thing is God "tabernacled" IN human flesh.

And Jesus is in the Father, too, though! So this is not simply God being in Jesus, there is more than simple containment, here.

Certainly, but two are sufficient for this, not three. There is a plural and a singular, and it all takes place in the incarnation. By the way, could you please post both the plural noun and the singular verb?

But this is at creation! It's plural then, so this is not referring to the special time of the Incarnation.

As far as the plural noun, it's "Elohim," and the verb is "barah," which is the singular form, "he created" (English doesn't have similar singular and plural verb forms, though).

Two again. Two again. Are we seeing a pattern here?

But we skipped my "four" pattern! With Ezekiel's cherubim. So it need not only be two...

Two does not a trinity make. Also Rev. 5, you see it modeled out. The LAMB stepping out of the throne. Two again.

And the Spirit is here, too, though:

Revelation 5:6-7 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

And in other places in Revelation, which I think show us what is meant by "the seven spirits":

Revelation 3:22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

And as far as other NT evidence for the Holy Spirit being a distinct person, and a member of the Trinity, here is a quote from Wayne Grudem:

First are the several verses where the Holy Spirit is put in a coordinate relationship with the Father and the Son (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2): since the Father and Son are both persons, the coordinate expressino strongly intimates that the Holy Spirit is a person also. Then there are places where the masculine pronoun he is applied to the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-14), which one would not expect from the rules of Greek grammar. Moreover, the name counselor or comforter is a term commonly used to speak of a person who helps or gives comfort or counsel to another person or persons, but is used of the Holy Spirit in John's gospel (14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7).

Other personal activities are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, such as teaching (John 15:26), bearing witness (John 15:26; Rom. 8:16), interceding or praying on behalf of others (Rom. 8:26-27) ...

Finally, if the Holy Spirit is understood simply to be the power of God, rather than a distinct person, then a number of passages would simply not make sense, because in them the Holy Spirit and his power or the power of God are both mentioned. For example, Luke 4:15, "Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee," would have to mean, "Jesus returned in the power of the power of God into Galilee."

Blessings,
Lee

Arimathea
December 27th 2004, 06:19 AM
i
Hi Ari,




But it is two people, though, not one, and the couple is said to be in God's image, both of them being simultaneously present. Not, for instance, Adam after 20 years being said to be the image of when he was younger, which I think would fit more what you are saying here.
Hi Lee,

A couple of initial observations:
1. I'm getting the impression that you think I'm denying any kind of duality, thus the examples of two in one, as above. Is it clear that I'm not advocating oneness doctrine? I think oneness doctrine misses the point on the other side. Verses that demonstrate the duality of God don't pose any problem to my understanding, they are central to it. Its just that a "divine community" does not add up to three, unless the case is built on a relative few passages interpreted in a particular way, while in dozens of cases, complete with ascessory proofs such as word pictures, they add up to two.

2. The other problem is that I'm not starting at the trinity and working back, only addressing here things that might occur to certain kinds of trinitarians as a courtesy. But to do that assumes trinitarian terms, which leads the discussion farther from the point. Instead, I am in the stream of those prior to the Nicene council who were grappling with these issues from the scripture up, with no creed to set their thinking in a particular direction, only the history of Jewish intepretation, and scripture, to fall back on. Interestingly, in the list of names who attended that council, there is not found one Jew, though there were thriving Jewish/Christian churches who were certainly invited to send a representative. That is one reason why the creed that came out of it is so contrary to Hebrew thought concerning God. The Jewish Christians were in boycott of the whole affair, knowing that you don't "pass a bill" so to speak, to define God, you wait for Him to come and declare Himself. The debate leading up to the Nicene council was riveted on the relationship between the Father and the Son. They went in the room with "two" and they came out with "three." How did that happen? Well, "three persons one substance" was the moderator's (Constantine) own invention to break the deadlock, for as a pagan, he also knew that this concept would register some similarity with the pagan religious devotees that he was trying to unify with Christians in a political base. How could a non-Christian emperor utter the key phrase that solved the debate between Christian parties? That alone justifies re-opening the case. But now that the "bell is rung" it is very difficult to "unring it" and think the way that you would have had to think without a trinity creed to give you initial momentum in a particular direction. That thinking, as history proves, was completely devoted to an understanding of the "two," Father and Son, and how exactly they inter-relate.

So, no, I really don't feel compelled to "refute" the trinitarian proof texts, because, one, I find that they don't pose any difficulty to my position, and two, the focus on them monopolizes the discussion, causing us to overlook the many (and I use the word intentionally) many, scriptures that would bring additional light to the endeavor. I find much less "problem passages" starting that way, than when the subject is approached with an a priori trinitarian assumption.

So I'm going to try and pry away from the tit for tat on trinitarian objections, not meaning to ignore your questions, but just to allow space to give more of my position, and demonstrate how it has less complications overall.

Here's a brief overview: (emphasis on "brief")

The Great Eternal Spirit is God. He is unseeable, and unknowable. (No one has seen God at any time. John 1:18) He remains invisible, even today, except in that which He put forth for us to see and handle and understand Him by, which is, in its broadest form, the LOGOS, which is GOD having stepped into time, while not abandoning His position outside of it. The LOGOS is God in time. The LOGOS includes everything that we see and relate to, including YHWH, the Father, the Son, the Christ, The Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the Written word, the Prophetic word, the Angel of the Lord, and all theophanies, everything that communicates God to us. Since this is God now seen, this is the LOGOS, God in time, expressed to us, in many forms, each communicating some of His many attributes. The LOGOS is finite, unlike that from whom it sprung. The LOGOS "calls back" to God in eternity, and speaks to Him and hears from Him. the LOGOS is the "image of the invisible..." Col. 1:15. Outside of that image, there is no knowing God. Jesus Christ is the crowning and most exact "image" of that invisible Spirit, showing Him in relief and detail as never before. It was through the LOGOS that all things were created, and outside of Him, nothing was made that was made. It is this, the eternal invisible God, and the Logos, who say together, "Let us make man in our own image."



And Jesus is in the Father, too, though! So this is not simply God being in Jesus, there is more than simple containment, here. I don't see how that has any effect on my position. If a reflection goes one way, it certainly goes the other. There is more than simple containment here, it is a divine community. Am I clear on that? Its just that the "indwelling" is the more frequently found language, with much more airplay in scripture--so matching emphasis for emphasis again, I give that more weight.





But this is at creation! It's plural then, so this is not referring to the special time of the Incarnation.
Well, that's if you believe that the incarnation happened only at the physical birth of Jesus, which I don't. (technically it does, for "incarnation" literally means to "take on a body," but that's just a vocabulary problem) But I think the LOGOS came out of God long before the world was made, and the incarnation of Jesus was the fleshly manifestation of a process that goes back to the beginning of time. That's where you find this community of God and the Word, through whom ALL things were made, and they say "let us." (John 1) ALL THINGS--That doesn't leave anything for anyone else to do!

As far as the plural noun, it's "Elohim," and the verb is "barah," which is the singular form, "he created" (English doesn't have similar singular and plural verb forms, though).Yes, we would miss that in English, wouldn't we. Thank you.






But we skipped my "four" pattern! With Ezekiel's cherubim. So it need not only be two...
You must mean that the four made up a reflection of God, in the same way that Adam, and Jesus did? I left them out, because I did not see how they were reflecting His image, but in the vision, were other beings that were carrying the throne. On the throne itself was the "likeness of a man." Ez. 1:26. There's the image. Am I missing something here?



And the Spirit is here, too, though:

Revelation 5:6-7 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

And in other places in Revelation, which I think show us what is meant by "the seven spirits":

Revelation 3:22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
Of course the Spirit is there. Its part of the Lamb, Christ, His seven eyes. Not separate, like the lamb and the one on the throne which are shown in sequence. This is why the term "Holy Spirit" is used interchangeably with "Spirit of Christ." (Rom. 8:9) This passage and the word picture of Rev. 5 are in harmony on this. The "Spirit of Christ" (the lamb) IS the "Holy Spirit."

To be more clear on that, look at how the Spirit is described. Once again, the model of a "man" is used. Are you a different person from your spirit? If no, then, neither is God, for His spirit is in the same relationship to Him as yours is to you. Watch the comparison...

1 Cor. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.




And as far as other NT evidence for the Holy Spirit being a distinct person, and a member of the Trinity, here is a quote from Wayne Grudem:

First are the several verses where the Holy Spirit is put in a coordinate relationship with the Father and the Son (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2): since the Father and Son are both persons, the coordinate expressino strongly intimates that the Holy Spirit is a person also.
He is a person, that much is clear. The point that is hard to prove is that because He is referred to as a person, is He a different person? If this is to be argued from the narrative, we need to notice that Jesus frequently referred to HIMSELF in the the third person, i.e. "...the son of man" as though He was talking about someone else, when He is highlighting a particular role that He plays. If Jesus talks that way, then GOD talks that way, for Jesus is a reflection of God in every detail. Therefore, GOD talks about Himself in the third person, but in reference to Himself, just as Jesus talks about the "son of man" in reference to Himself.

Then there are places where the masculine pronoun he is applied to the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-14), which one would not expect from the rules of Greek grammar. Moreover, the name counselor or comforter is a term commonly used to speak of a person who helps or gives comfort or counsel to another person or persons, but is used of the Holy Spirit in John's gospel (14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7). This, again, is the discourse in John that Jesus tells us is figurative.

Other personal activities are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, such as teaching (John 15:26), bearing witness (John 15:26; Rom. 8:16), interceding or praying on behalf of others (Rom. 8:26-27) ...

None of this necessitates another person. Its just as easily God in another role.


Finally, if the Holy Spirit is understood simply to be the power of God, rather than a distinct person, then a number of passages would simply not make sense, because in them the Holy Spirit and his power or the power of God are both mentioned. For example, Luke 4:15, "Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee," would have to mean, "Jesus returned in the power of the power of God into Galilee."
I think the Jehovah's witnesses describe the Holy Spirit that way--God's "enabling power" which is far too narrow. God's power is seen in Christ, and the Father, and many other things, so it can't be limited that way. I see the Holy Spirit, in scripture, often used to describe God acting outside of a physical agent, such as Jesus, but part of the LOGOS, in that He is acting for God. But there is a higher form of the term--God IS "Spirit," which I think refers to the great eternal Spirit still existing in eternity.

I write these things with reverence and humility, knowing that the subject is far too wonderful for me to pretend to know, and fully aware of my own fallibility as a human mortal to get it wrong on many points. I ask Him to forgive my ignorance, and lead me into all truth.

Shalom,

Ari

Blessings,
Lee

Sheepdog
January 22nd 2005, 12:02 AM
This has been moved to Unorthodox Theology since it doesn't fit in Theology 201.