More Trinity Musings

[Littlejoe9763]

I have always been a trinitarian. It wasn't until recently that I started challenging what I believed in light of Scripture to see if it stood up. Because I realized that I believed a lot of things that I was taught, but I had never verified. This issue has been a real struggle for me. I am not convinced either way yet, but I have to admit I am starting to lean toward Biblical Unitarianism on this. What do you think of this statement?

"1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus.” Jesus said that no one could truly know the Father except by coming through him. Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life.” He is the way (the Greek word means “the road”) to God. He is the truth that marks that road, and he is the life found by those who choose to follow the road. Thus, if we are to know, love, honor and obey the Creator of the heavens and the earth, it is imperative that we know the one He sent to reveal Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, it is a matter of life and death, for he is the only way to the one true God. "

[Shadow Phoenix]

I have always been a trinitarian. It wasn't until recently that I started challenging what I believed in light of Scripture to see if it stood up. Because I realized that I believed a lot of things that I was taught, but I had never verified. This issue has been a real struggle for me. I am not convinced either way yet, but I have to admit I am starting to lean toward Biblical Unitarianism on this. What do you think of this statement?

"1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus.” Jesus said that no one could truly know the Father except by coming through him. Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life.” He is the way (the Greek word means “the road”) to God. He is the truth that marks that road, and he is the life found by those who choose to follow the road. Thus, if we are to know, love, honor and obey the Creator of the heavens and the earth, it is imperative that we know the one He sent to reveal Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, it is a matter of life and death, for he is the only way to the one true God. "

I'd like to know what about this leads one to Unitarianism? (Of course, I won't say biblical unitarianism. I see it as anything but.)

[Littlejoe9763]

Biblical Unitarinism (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalist), as I understand it, is the belief in the Bible as the authoritative word of God, and that Jesus IS the Messiah and he IS Lord, He IS the Son of God, But he is NOT God. Their "motto" I guess would be "One God and One Lord, two seperate beings. They use the above as one of their points. Again, I am right now, firmly on the fence, and yes it is painful...:smile:

[Shadow Phoenix]

Biblical Unitarinism (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalist), as I understand it, is the belief in the Bible as the authoritative word of God, and that Jesus IS the Messiah and he IS Lord, He IS the Son of God, But he is NOT God. Their "motto" I guess would be "One God and One Lord, two seperate beings. They use the above as one of their points. Again, I am right now, firmly on the fence, and yes it is painful...:smile:

Then let us keep examining the passage. I would like to know how this verse is an argument for Unitarianism. I just don't see it.

If you could give me your understanding of Trinitarianism, that'd be good also.

[Littlejoe9763]

Then let us keep examining the passage. I would like to know how this verse is an argument for Unitarianism. I just don't see it.

If you could give me your understanding of Trinitarianism, that'd be good also.
1. This passage is one of many bricks laid in the foundation. The word mediator means to me a one who intervenes between two parties at odds. It infers that a third party, not one of the two parties mediates. The verse says there is One God and one mediator between God and man. If Christ is God why doesn't the verse say that?


My definition of Trinitarianism would be One God (or Godhead) who exists eternally as three distinct persons, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. I envision the analogy of St. Patrick's: the Shamrock.

Could you please give me your understanding of Unitarianism also.

[Shadow Phoenix]

1. This passage is one of many bricks laid in the foundation. The word mediator means to me a one who intervenes between two parties at odds. It infers that a third party, not one of the two parties mediates. The verse says there is One God and one mediator between God and man. If Christ is God why doesn't the verse say that?

Why should it? I see nothing in that passage that goes against Christ being God.




Could you please give me your understanding of Unitarianism also.

Certainly. There is only one person who fully possesses the nature of God. In Unitarianism, this would be the Father.

[Littlejoe9763]

Why should it? I see nothing in that passage that goes against Christ being God.






Certainly. There is only one person who fully possesses the nature of God. In Unitarianism, this would be the Father.
So if you and I have a disagreement, it is perfectly acceptable for me to mediate the disagreement?

In your understanding of the Trinity is the Son coequal to The Father or Subordinate?

[Shadow Phoenix]

So if you and I have a disagreement, it is perfectly acceptable for me to mediate the disagreement?

In your understanding of the Trinity is the Son coequal to The Father or Subordinate?

Equal in nature but not in function. You're confusing function and essence.

Also, here is why Christ is the perfect mediator between God and man.

First off, the mediator was the high priest and the high priest had to be a man. That's why that is emphasized. Secondly though, Christ can mediate because he IS both God and man.

[Littlejoe9763]

Equal in nature but not in function. You're confusing function and essence.

Also, here is why Christ is the perfect mediator between God and man.

First off, the mediator was the high priest and the high priest had to be a man. That's why that is emphasized. Secondly though, Christ can mediate because he IS both God and man.
Please explain the difference. One has one job and the other has another?

Even Jesus did not equate Himself on equal footing as the Father. That would make Him not equal in essence would it not?

"My Father is greater than I,” John 14:28

“Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Please explain the difference. One has one job and the other has another?

Each in the Godhead performs different functions. It says nothing about their ontological essence.

Even Jesus did not equate Himself on equal footing as the Father. That would make Him not equal in essence would it not?

Let's look.

"My Father is greater than I,” John 14:28

First off, for this statement to even be uttered, there has to be some kind of interaction going on that puts Jesus on this high level. However, is this really speaking about ontology? 1 Cor. tells us that man is the head of woman. However, Genesis 1 tells us that both men and women bear the image of God. What is the difference? Functionality. This verse is not speaking about ontology.

“Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17.

So is Jesus good? Yes or no?

[Littlejoe9763]

Originally posted by Apologia

Each in the Godhead performs different functions. It says nothing about their ontological essence

By this you are saying that even though they are equal at the core of their being, but not equal in their function? In function, Christ is subordinate to the Father?

Originally posted by Apologia

So is Jesus good? Yes or no?

As a Christian I would have to say yes. So your explanation of this verse is what? He was asking a rhetorical question? Or maybe facetious?

Speaking to ontology, Can the Father be God to Jesus and still be the same essence?

….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Originally posted by Apologia

Each in the Godhead performs different functions. It says nothing about their ontological essence

By this you are saying that even though they are equal at the core of their being, but not equal in their function? In function, Christ is subordinate to the Father?

Originally posted by Apologia

I would have no problem with that. It says nothing about their nature to say that one submits to the other. In fact, for an event like the incarnation in the Trinity, one would have to submit. Would Jesus be fully God to come down and say "The Father? I can do just as well on my own!"

So is Jesus good? Yes or no?

As a Christian I would have to say yes. So your explanation of this verse is what? He was asking a rhetorical question? Or maybe facetious?

He was testing the depths of the commitment of the rich man. Notice he never denied being good. He was seeing how far the man was willing to go. "You call me good? Only God is good. Are you willing to see me in that light? Are you willing to make me Lord that much?"

Speaking to ontology, Can the Father be God to Jesus and still be the same essence?

….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17.

Yes! Notice something. Jesus never says "Our Father" and "Our God." Why not? The relationship is not the same. The Father is his Father by nature. He is ours by adoption. The same goes for deity. How does it go against the deity of the Son for him to recognize the Father as God when the Father does the same to the Son in Hebrews 1:8?

[Littlejoe9763]

Originally posted by Apologia
First off, for this statement to even be uttered, there has to be some kind of interaction going on that puts Jesus on this high level. However, is this really speaking about ontology? 1 Cor. tells us that man is the head of woman. However, Genesis 1 tells us that both men and women bear the image of God. What is the difference? Functionality. This verse is not speaking about ontology

Since you think this verse doesn't speak to ontology, could you please give me a verse that IYO does. In other words, you keep refering to the Trinity as being the same in essence or nature but not function. What verse(s) tie(s) the nature of God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit equal in essence? IMO you have started with this concept but have not prove it.

Originally posted by Apologia

Yes! Notice something. Jesus never says "Our Father" and "Our God." Why not? The relationship is not the same. The Father is his Father by nature. He is ours by adoption. The same goes for deity.

Never??? He doesn't say "Our Father" here but he certainly does with the start of the Lords Prayer..."Our Father who art in Heaven..." Surely he is not "Our Father" there but "My Father" only here.

Originally posted by Apologia

How does it go against the deity of the Son for him to recognize the Father as God when the Father does the same to the Son in Hebrews 1:8?

Hebrews 1:8 is like other verses in that just because the word “theos” (“GOD”) is used does not mean that it refers to the Father. It could easily be referring to “god” in the biblical sense that great men are called “god.” The Septuagint uses the word theos for God, but also for men (where men represent God) in places like Psalm 82:1 (KJV) "God (theos) standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods(theos)." The context must be the determining factor in deciding what “GOD” refers to. In this case, in the verse in Hebrews that you are refering, the context is clear. Throughout the entire context from Hebrews 1:1, Christ is seen to be lesser than God the Father. Therefore, the use of “theos” here should be translated “god.” Another example would be in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the word “theos” in this verse is referring to the Devil. Context is always the final judge of whether theos should be translated “God” or “god.”

[Littlejoe9763]

I want to take a post to say thank you to Apologia for his continued, reasonable, intelligent defenses of the Trinity. I do not have a single person among all my friends and aquaintances who will even discuss this with me. All of them without an exception believe the Trinity but cannot really defend it because they do not understand it or even know why they believe it. That is why I am here. I am hoping to resolve this in my own mind and to move on. I am mounting such a vigorous defense because I need to be sure in my own mind and heart which way the truth lies. I am praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this and am not truly convinced of the Unitarian position...(or the Trinitarian position either). My hope is this discussion will lead me to the Truth.

Thanks Again Apologia for taking the time to discuss this with me!
Littlejoe

[shunyadragon]

I have always been a trinitarian. It wasn't until recently that I started challenging what I believed in light of Scripture to see if it stood up. Because I realized that I believed a lot of things that I was taught, but I had never verified. This issue has been a real struggle for me. I am not convinced either way yet, but I have to admit I am starting to lean toward Biblical Unitarianism on this. What do you think of this statement?

"1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus.” Jesus said that no one could truly know the Father except by coming through him. Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life.” He is the way (the Greek word means “the road”) to God. He is the truth that marks that road, and he is the life found by those who choose to follow the road. Thus, if we are to know, love, honor and obey the Creator of the heavens and the earth, it is imperative that we know the one He sent to reveal Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, it is a matter of life and death, for he is the only way to the one true God. "

The quote is a good one, but because the whole NT is scripture the trinitarian view became the doctrine in early Christian Rome. Paul's letters is probably the only place where something that became Christian Doctrine is clearly stated, thus I beleve Pauline theology becomes the basis of interpreting the nature of God in the rest of the NT and OT as trinitarian. This becomes part of the basis for considering Jesus Christ as the literal incarnate God, and the necessity of the Doctrine of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. As long as Paul is considered the authority and interpreted literally, the Trinitarian doctrine will remain the defining of traditional Christianity.

I have no problem with the interpretation of the trinity being symbolic of the relationship between God and creation including humanity, and the concept that God is One and inseperably One in Judaism, Islam and Baha'i as the reality of the nature of God. Unfortunately the traditionaly doctrine of Christianity that seperates it from the other Abrahamic religions is fixed in stone by 2000 years of Christian tradition. Though there are a some Christian churches have embrassed the Unitarian view, as you called it. Not to be confused with the humanist church that uses that name.

[Littlejoe9763]

Originally posted by Shunyadragon

The quote is a good one, but because the whole NT is scripture the trinitarian view became the doctrine in early Christian Rome. Paul's letters is probably the only place where something that became Christian Doctrine is clearly stated, thus I beleve Pauline theology becomes the basis of interpreting the nature of God in the rest of the NT and OT as trinitarian.

Thanks for your reply. Where is it clearly stated? That is the whole issue. I would not be struggling with it if it was.

Originally posted by Shunyadragon

This becomes part of the basis for considering Jesus Christ as the literal incarnate God, and the necessity of the Doctrine of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. As long as Paul is considered the authority and interpreted literally, the Trinitarian doctrine will remain the defining of traditional Christianity.

IMHO, I think The Apostle John makes more of a case for the Trinity than Paul.

Originally posted by Shunyadragon

I have no problem with the interpretation of the trinity being symbolic of the relationship between God and creation including humanity, and the concept that God is One and inseperably One in Judaism, Islam and Baha'i as the reality of the nature of God. Unfortunately the traditionaly doctrine of Christianity that seperates it from the other Abrahamic religions is fixed in stone by 2000 years of Christian tradition.

Actually, there was a fight that seesawed back and forth in the fourth century between Arianism (non trinitarians) and proponents of the Trinity led by Athanasius. This was I believe the first council of Nicea in 325 AD. Althanasius won the day and the Trinity became official Church Doctrine.

Originally posted by Shunyadragon

Though there are a some Christian churches have embrassed the Unitarian view, as you called it. Not to be confused with the humanist church that uses that name.

Do you mean embarassed or embraced?

[Shadow Phoenix]

Originally posted by Apologia
First off, for this statement to even be uttered, there has to be some kind of interaction going on that puts Jesus on this high level. However, is this really speaking about ontology? 1 Cor. tells us that man is the head of woman. However, Genesis 1 tells us that both men and women bear the image of God. What is the difference? Functionality. This verse is not speaking about ontology



Since you think this verse doesn't speak to ontology, could you please give me a verse that IYO does. In other words, you keep refering to the Trinity as being the same in essence or nature but not function. What verse(s) tie(s) the nature of God the Father, Son & Holy Spirit equal in essence? IMO you have started with this concept but have not prove it.

Originally posted by Apologia

Alright. We'll focus on the Son first and once we get the Son, the Spirit will follow.

John 1:1 is a good one on the ontology of the Son. Other passages would be Hebrews 1, especially 10-12 and verse 3.



Never??? He doesn't say "Our Father" here but he certainly does with the start of the Lords Prayer..."Our Father who art in Heaven..." Surely he is not "Our Father" there but "My Father" only here.

And what is he doing? He's telling the disciples how THEY should pray. He's not including himself in that.





Hebrews 1:8 is like other verses in that just because the word “theos” (“GOD”) is used does not mean that it refers to the Father. It could easily be referring to “god” in the biblical sense that great men are called “god.” The Septuagint uses the word theos for God, but also for men (where men represent God) in places like Psalm 82:1 (KJV) "God (theos) standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods(theos)." The context must be the determining factor in deciding what “GOD” refers to. In this case, in the verse in Hebrews that you are refering, the context is clear. Throughout the entire context from Hebrews 1:1, Christ is seen to be lesser than God the Father. Therefore, the use of “theos” here should be translated “god.” Another example would be in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the word “theos” in this verse is referring to the Devil. Context is always the final judge of whether theos should be translated “God” or “god.”

Who said this was based on Theos? It's based on the passage being one used in the Psalms to refer to God. The Messiah is seen as God in that verse.

Also, the functionality concept of theos is interesting when we go to John 10:35-36. (John 10:30 also shows the same nature of the Father and the Son.)

[barnasha]

IMHO, I think The Apostle John makes more of a case for the Trinity than Paul.


Of course. The Johannine gospels are the main basis for any trinity doctrine, since Paul was a Jew who like Jesus worshiped the god of Abraham - and not a trinity ... Usually Paul distinguishes himself between God and Jesus fairly clearly.

Also, while they may be attributed to him, you can't really say that John wrote those gospels, for sure....


Actually, there was a fight that seesawed back and forth in the fourth century between Arianism (non trinitarians) and proponents of the Trinity led by Athanasius. This was I believe the first council of Nicea in 325 AD. Althanasius won the day and the Trinity became official Church Doctrine.


Its interesting how people come to worship in the way of Jesus by the Roman church officials' views, and not Jesus himself or even Paul. Or even go against the teachings of Jesus by worshiping him instead of his lord....

[Littlejoe9763]

Originally posted by Apologia

Who said this was based on Theos? It's based on the passage being one used in the Psalms to refer to God. The Messiah is seen as God in that verse.

O.k. read my answer above and let's subtitute the Hebrew word Elohim for Theos. It is used in Scripture to mean judge and/or men of authority also. I will break it down if you want but this is going to get lengthy without that.

I have a hard time seeing from these verses in Hebrew and Psalms, how God the Father, has a God who is the Son, but who is God also, and how God the Son has a God who is God the Father, who is God also. If God has a God then He is not the Supreme God is He?
I think my point is that the reference is to a Godly appointed man of great authority makes more sense.


Originally posted by Apologia

Also, the functionality concept of theos is interesting when we go to John 10:35-36. (John 10:30 also shows the same nature of the Father and the Son.)
LOL. Are you sure this is where you want to go? Because it look to me like you are starting to make my POV. John 10:35-36 are quoting from the same passage of Scripture that I cited earlier,
Psalms 82. Jesus seems to be telling the Jews here that THEY are gods (Men of authority because God has given them the word) just as He is.

In John 10:30 "...I and the Father are one", This phrase was commonly used then and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what He meant—He and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, “he who plants and he who waters are one” (1 Cor. 3:8 - KJV, NASB and others). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the exact same as that in John 10:30, yet you do not claim that Paul and Apollos make up “one being.” And besides that, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “he who plants and he who waters have one purpose.” Why translate the phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways really just obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have “one purpose.”

Originally posted by Apologia

And what is he doing? He's telling the disciples how THEY should pray. He's not including himself in that.

O.K. but I still think you are splitting hairs here. But I think that is a thin line to infer the Trinity from. I contend that if you did not have the Trinitarian POV, you would not read it that way.

Originally posted by Apologia

Alright. We'll focus on the Son first and once we get the Son, the Spirit will follow.

John 1:1 is a good one on the ontology of the Son. Other passages would be Hebrews 1, especially 10-12 and verse 3.

Alright, now we get to what I believe, IMHO, it the strongest case for Deity in the Bible. John 1:1 and the subsequent passage in John 1:14. Also Hebrews 1 is good also.
John 1:1 "In the beginning..." the beginning of what? the world? does this imply that the word had a beginning? The scriptures tell us in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus had a beginning, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
So the Word had a beginning. God is infinite and has no beginning.

"...was the Word/word..." Could this word logos refer to God's plan from the beginning of sending His Son to redeem us? And not directly to Jesus himself? Why didn't he just say in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God? (Would have solved all my problems with this concept.)

Look at what The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:

The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos. -J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1993), pp. 143 and 144. Bold emphasis mine.

As you can see, this phrase, the word (logos) had a definite, and different, connotation than that which we have come to believe.
I have to go so I will leave it here for now, as I have given you alot to comment on.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I shall answer this evening or tomorrow morning when I get home. I'm on a tight deadline today.

[Littlejoe9763]

I shall answer this evening or tomorrow morning when I get home. I'm on a tight deadline today.
O.K....BTW, I will not be able to post for a while after today. (maybe tomorrow morn.) As I mentioned in my PM to you. I am a volunteer in a Prison Ministry called KAIROS. It is similar to the Walk to Emmaus, Cursillo, Tres Dias, type three/fourth day walks. However, it is tailored to the prison setting. I will inside a maximum security prison for most of four days. Wed will be a travel day to the unit and getting everything ready at the host church. We go into the unit on Thurs. to set up and do an introduction. Please, anyone reading this post, pray that the Love of our Lord will penetrate the walls around the hearts and minds of the men (inmates) on this walk.

Thank You in advance,

L. Joe

[Littlejoe9763]

Of course. The Johannine gospels are the main basis for any trinity doctrine, since Paul was a Jew who like Jesus worshiped the god of Abraham - and not a trinity ... Usually Paul distinguishes himself between God and Jesus fairly clearly.

Also, while they may be attributed to him, you can't really say that John wrote those gospels, for sure....



Its interesting how people come to worship in the way of Jesus by the Roman church officials' views, and not Jesus himself or even Paul. Or even go against the teachings of Jesus by worshiping him instead of his lord....

1. I agree and that fact may turn the tide back to trinitarianism for me.

2. How can we be sure of the authorship of many ancient writings, both Christian and secular? I think it is the writings of Homer (?) that do not have any manuscript evidence any closer than 1200 years after his writing. ( I didn't have time to check this and I may be misstating it). At least, where the Gospels are concerned, we have manuscripts that are as close to the original writing date.


3. I agree to a point. That was the whole point of the reformation. The reformers believed that the faith and Gospel of Jesus had been stolen from the people and were being controlled by an aristocracy called the Papacy.

[barnasha]

1. I agree and that fact may turn the tide back to trinitarianism for me.


It is best to not have any -ism to hamper your realization of the truth, but to know the facts and the facts alone, not being swayed by common opinion or political doctrines.

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed him, “If you continue in my word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?”
Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. “The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. “So if the son makes you free, you will be free indeed. “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants; yet you seek to kill me, because my word has no place in you. “I speak the things which I have seen with my father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”



2. How can we be sure of the authorship of many ancient writings, both Christian and secular? I think it is the writings of Homer (?) that do not have any manuscript evidence any closer than 1200 years after his writing. ( I didn't have time to check this and I may be misstating it). At least, where the Gospels are concerned, we have manuscripts that are as close to the original writing date.


We can't, and this is a very good point to make.

The fact that the authorship of the gospels is unknown or questionable does not make them lose any worth.

It is best to keep the following in mind:

1. The doctrine of the Roman Church is not necessarily that of the authors of the canonical gospels
2. The Roman-canonical gospels were likely NOT written by disciples of Jesus
3. The Roman-canonical gospels (or the non-Roman-canonical) can still reflect the teachings of Jesus accurately, even if they were not written by the people to whom they are attributed, or they were not written by direct students of Jesus or people who witness the events they described.

It would be most interesting to know for any New Testament or Christian history scholar, what exactly is the source of the so called "Q Gospel"?


3. I agree to a point. That was the whole point of the reformation. The reformers believed that the faith and Gospel of Jesus had been stolen from the people and were being controlled by an aristocracy called the Papacy.

Which is definitely true to some extent - at least on a historical or political level.

What Jesus never intended to be was God's viceroy on Earth, but that is perhaps what "the Church" acts as

[Shadow Phoenix]

Of course. The Johannine gospels are the main basis for any trinity doctrine, since Paul was a Jew who like Jesus worshiped the god of Abraham - and not a trinity ... Usually Paul distinguishes himself between God and Jesus fairly clearly.

Actually, a strong case for the deity of Christ is in many Pauline passages. 1 Cor. 8:4-6. Romans 9:5. Titus 2:13. Etc.

Also, while they may be attributed to him, you can't really say that John wrote those gospels, for sure....

Check the ANF. They say John wrote it. I see no reason to doubt them. Do you?



Its interesting how people come to worship in the way of Jesus by the Roman church officials' views, and not Jesus himself or even Paul. Or even go against the teachings of Jesus by worshiping him instead of his lord....

You do know Jesus accepted worship in the gospels. Right?

And actually, read the ANF. Jesus was seen as God long before Constantine.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Originally posted by Apologia

Who said this was based on Theos? It's based on the passage being one used in the Psalms to refer to God. The Messiah is seen as God in that verse.

[QUOTE=Littlejoe] O.k. read my answer above and let's subtitute the Hebrew word Elohim for Theos. It is used in Scripture to mean judge and/or men of authority also. I will break it down if you want but this is going to get lengthy without that.

So the context determines the meaning. This is already known.

I have a hard time seeing from these verses in Hebrew and Psalms, how God the Father, has a God who is the Son, but who is God also, and how God the Son has a God who is God the Father, who is God also. If God has a God then He is not the Supreme God is He?

Only if you assume unipersonalism. God was more of a title than a name.

I think my point is that the reference is to a Godly appointed man of great authority makes more sense.

So you're an adoptionist?


LOL. Are you sure this is where you want to go? Because it look to me like you are starting to make my POV. John 10:35-36 are quoting from the same passage of Scripture that I cited earlier,
Psalms 82. Jesus seems to be telling the Jews here that THEY are gods (Men of authority because God has given them the word) just as He is.

Why yes it is. Let's look at some things.

First off, the Jews understand Jesus to be saying that he is claiming to be God. He never corrects them. Instead, he gives his passage. Let's look at his points.

The Scriptures cannot be broken.
The Scriptures call wicked and evil men (As in Psalm 82) gods.
If wicked and evil men can be called god, how much more do I, the righteous one, have the right to claim the title of God for myself?

This was the Jewish argument of Qal Wahomer. Jesus was not pointing to a unity of function. How do we know? The Jews would not have condemned him for wanting to be one in purpose with God. Who would? The condemnation was for the charge of blasphemy and he made the point straight from the Scriptures with the "How much more" argument.

In John 10:30 "...I and the Father are one", This phrase was commonly used then and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what He meant—He and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, “he who plants and he who waters are one” (1 Cor. 3:8 - KJV, NASB and others). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the exact same as that in John 10:30, yet you do not claim that Paul and Apollos make up “one being.” And besides that, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “he who plants and he who waters have one purpose.” Why translate the phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways really just obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have “one purpose.”

Why? Quite simple. The context. Jesus claimed to do something no man can do in John 10 earlier. He claimed to give eternal life. You cannot give what you do not have. He then claimed to do that which his Father could do. Why? Because they have the same nature. That would imply the same purpose of course, but who would condemn someone for having the same purpose as God?

btw, have you read the 27th Chapter of Novation's "On the Trinity?" He deals with this against the modalists.


O.K. but I still think you are splitting hairs here. But I think that is a thin line to infer the Trinity from. I contend that if you did not have the Trinitarian POV, you would not read it that way.

If the only way you can get to the Trinity is to read it into the Bible, then where did it come from? Actually, that's not spltting hairs. Jesus always prayed "Abba" (Which is revealing enough) and you tell me why Jesus didn't say "Our Father" in John 20:17.



Alright, now we get to what I believe, IMHO, it the strongest case for Deity in the Bible. John 1:1 and the subsequent passage in John 1:14. Also Hebrews 1 is good also.
John 1:1 "In the beginning..." the beginning of what? the world? does this imply that the word had a beginning? The scriptures tell us in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus had a beginning, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
So the Word had a beginning. God is infinite and has no beginning.

Begging the question! Why does it say in the beginning? It's quite simple. The Greek reading is en arche. Look at the LXX translation of Genesis. How does it begin?

En Arche....

John is giving a creation narrative in light of Christ and what does he say? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Meaning that at that point, there were two persons.

John 1:3 says that without him, was not anything made that has been made. Now which category do you put Jesus in? Things made or things unmade? If things made, then Jesus made himself. If things unmade, then Jesus is God.

And as for Col. 1:15, you do realize firstborn there refers to superiority don't you? Jesus is described as the firstborn from the dead when several came back from the dead before him. Who all have you read on the Greek of Col. 1:15?

Oh. One more question. Did Jesus create time?

"...was the Word/word..." Could this word logos refer to God's plan from the beginning of sending His Son to redeem us? And not directly to Jesus himself? Why didn't he just say in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God? (Would have solved all my problems with this concept.)

Simple. Did a plan become flesh or did a person become flesh. Also, what about the predicate nominative in the passage?

Look at what The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:

The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos. -J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1993), pp. 143 and 144. Bold emphasis mine.

As you can see, this phrase, the word (logos) had a definite, and different, connotation than that which we have come to believe.
I have to go so I will leave it here for now, as I have given you alot to comment on.

I read philosophers. I know very well the idea of the logos and how the doctrine is assumed to be understood when you read Hebrews. You do know we've learned much since Lightfoot though. Right? Can you tell me what Memra is?

[timspong]

The most convincing argument for me is the fact that for Jesus to be worshiped; He must be God.

Rev 19:10
10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Rev 22:9
9 But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

However, although the Trinity is a pretty solid Christian dogma, I personally don’t think we need to necessarily think at that level at all times. It is obvious from scripture that we should look on Jesus as the son of God who took the form of man and became a servant in human likeness and is now seated at the right hand of the father as the mediator of the new covenant. That is how He was revealed to us and that should be sufficient given our very limited capacity for fully understanding the ways of God (this side of eternity).

Phil 2:6-7
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped ,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

Heb 9:15
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance-now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Rom 11:33
33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!

[timspong]

PS for a pretty in depth look at the case against the trinity, the Jehovahs Witnesses do a pretty good job.

Go to http://www.watchtower.org and do a search for Trinity.

BTW I am by no means a Jehovahs witness, however, I do agree with them on some issues that have become dogmatized errors in mainstream denominations IMO.

eg, tithing, celebration of the lords supper etc.

Please use the edit button if you wish to add to a previous post (you have 45 min from the time of the first post to do so] Back to back posting is frowned upon (as is argument by weblink)

[Rayado]

What are your thoughts on Titus 2:13, Mr. timspong?

[timspong]

What are your thoughts on Titus 2:13, Mr. timspong?

I think his second coming will reveal to us the true nature of his deity. Also, by then, hopefully, we will have attained the capacity to understand it.

[Shadow Phoenix]

When did the JWs make a good case against the Trinity?

[Rayado]

I think his second coming will reveal to us the true nature of his deity. Also, by then, hopefully, we will have attained the capacity to understand it.

When you say "his" deity, who are you referring to? (Sorry, grammar nazi)

[Littlejoe9763]

apologia/Jack you have given me more to deal with than I have time for at this moment. You make some interesting points. The memra issue I have not heard of before. I will study it further next week and get back to you then. Please keep us in your prayers for this weekend.

What about what the point timsong brought up about refusing worship?

And lastly, do you think a Unitarian, one who believes that Jesus is their saviour, is the lamb of God, born of a virgin and died on a cross for our sins, was raised again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of the Father, but doesn't believe he is God...is he still saved?

[Shadow Phoenix]

apologia/Jack you have given me more to deal with than I have time for at this moment. You make some interesting points. The memra issue I have not heard of before. I will study it further next week and get back to you then. Please keep us in your prayers for this weekend.

What about what the point timsong brought up about refusing worship?

And lastly, do you think a Unitarian, one who believes that Jesus is their saviour, is the lamb of God, born of a virgin and died on a cross for our sins, was raised again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of the Father, but doesn't believe he is God...is he still saved?

Jesus never refused worship.

Peter did though. So did Paul and Barnabas. So did the angels.

As for salvation, I honestly do not see that. I do believe that you can be ignorant that Jesus is God and be saved, but can you deny who he is and still be his? There is a world of difference between seeing Jesus as God and seeing him as just a creation. If Jesus is not God, then everything changes. I see no way there can be Christianity without Jesus being God.

[timspong]

When did the JWs make a good case against the Trinity?

follow the link I gave and see for yourself. I think it is pretty convincing to those that don't know any better.

[timspong]

When you say "his" deity, who are you referring to? (Sorry, grammar nazi)

Jesus Christ

[Shadow Phoenix]

follow the link I gave and see for yourself. I think it is pretty convincing to those that don't know any better.

To the ignorant, yes. But does that make it a good argument. Rest assured, the JWs don't like to talk to people who know what they're talking about.

[timspong]

apologia/Jack you have given me more to deal with than I have time for at this moment. You make some interesting points. The memra issue I have not heard of before. I will study it further next week and get back to you then. Please keep us in your prayers for this weekend.

What about what the point timsong brought up about refusing worship?

And lastly, do you think a Unitarian, one who believes that Jesus is their saviour, is the lamb of God, born of a virgin and died on a cross for our sins, was raised again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of the Father, but doesn't believe he is God...is he still saved?

BTW I think you misunderstood me.

Actually after re-reading my post, I didn’t make it clear that I DO believe in the Trinity, but on a deep level of understanding that man is not fully able to comprehend. I do not think it is necessary to grasp the notion of Christ’s deity to its fullest extent and feel that thinking in terms of Son or Lord is perfectly acceptable (as per the bible).

Phil 2:6
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

Anyhow; the angel in revelation implied that only God should be worshiped. Therefore as the bible commands us to worship Christ, then Christ must be God.

Matt 4:10
10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: `Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Phil 2:10-11
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[timspong]

Dear moderator,

Sorry about back to back posts, however, the link was for information purposes only and I certainly don't hold to that veiw and therefore would not argue for it.

For a brief summary of the JW veiw:

God is the father
Jesus is his begotten son - but not God.
The Holy Spirit is Gods instrument to do his will and purpose on the earth, but has no intrinsic personality other then as an extension of God. (ie like a paintbrush or a pen)

[barnasha]

Actually, a strong case for the deity of Christ is in many Pauline passages. 1 Cor. 8:4-6. Romans 9:5. Titus 2:13. Etc.


I agree that the case is there. But it is also cast in doubt, since Jesus is also referred to, (rightly so), as a man, a jew, the son of God, etc.

Thus you need some extrabiblical doctrines to help explain that inconsistency of the text with your theory.

While you may be able to form a theory which works within the framework of your reading of the New Testament works, it would still be historically questionable (at the least), and violate the doctrine of the earlier prophets (i.e. the other parts of the Bible)

You would be right to bring up the question that Paul seems to refer to Christ as a god in some senses. But the only way to reconcile the fact that Paul is a Jew who worships the god of Abraham and the idea that Jesus has some sort of divinity (in the sense of actually BEING omnipotent himself), is to start to form some questionable theories...


Check the ANF. They say John wrote it. I see no reason to doubt them. Do you?


Yes. I use critical thinking and analysis of something instead of blindly relying on someone else. Why would I want to make someone else's mistake?

Besides, the sources of the writings in the "Ante Nicene Fathers" are the original proponents of the view you are espousing... what about all the contrary views? Or should they be 'silenced'?

You do know Jesus accepted worship in the gospels. Right?


Sure. But so did other people. You should check the Strong's concordance for the meaning of the word 'worship', (or even an English dictionary)

Worship does not necessarily mean 'take as your god', although we usually use it in that sense, theologically.

It could be argued that no Jew at the time of Jesus would have worshiped a man, as it would be clear blasphemy in their society.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)



And actually, read the ANF. Jesus was seen as God long before Constantine.

One would not have to consult that to know Christianity and Judaism were around in the Roman empire well before his time

[Shadow Phoenix]

I agree that the case is there. But it is also cast in doubt, since Jesus is also referred to, (rightly so), as a man, a jew, the son of God, etc.

Guess what? All Trinitarians agree with those as well! By the way, can you tell me what an ibn is?

Thus you need some extrabiblical doctrines to help explain that inconsistency of the text with your theory.

Only if the ideas are contradictory. They're not. All Trinitarians agree that Jesus is a man, lived as a Jew, and is the Son of God. For his humanity, don't you know about the Council of Constantinople?

While you may be able to form a theory which works within the framework of your reading of the New Testament works, it would still be historically questionable (at the least), and violate the doctrine of the earlier prophets (i.e. the other parts of the Bible)

Nope. My theory works with both testaments. (Actually, it's the theory of the church.) If you want to show that it violates the earlier prophets, it's up to you to show it.

You would be right to bring up the question that Paul seems to refer to Christ as a god in some senses. But the only way to reconcile the fact that Paul is a Jew who worships the god of Abraham and the idea that Jesus has some sort of divinity (in the sense of actually BEING omnipotent himself), is to start to form some questionable theories...

Questionable theories = theories you don't think are true and is a subtle way of poisoning the well. Are you aware that the Jews were not strictly monadic monotheists? Have you never read a work like Richard Bauckham's "God Crucified" to actually see how the Jews viewed deity in second temple Judaism?



Yes. I use critical thinking and analysis of something instead of blindly relying on someone else. Why would I want to make someone else's mistake?

Implying that I do. Here's the simple reason. In history, ancient documents are to be given the benefit of the doubt. If the ECF say that John wrote John, I give them the benefit of the doubt and I haven't seen a strong enough counter-case to deny it.

Besides, the sources of the writings in the "Ante Nicene Fathers" are the original proponents of the view you are espousing... what about all the contrary views? Or should they be 'silenced'? [/QUOTE}

All of them? Then wouldn't that indicate that this was the view long before Constantine? Also, you're committing the genetic fallacy. Also, suppose that they all disagree with you on historical grounds. Does that mean that they're wrong on history? Does the gospel suddenly become less Trinitarian if it's written by Bartholomew instead of Matthew?


[QUOTE=Barnasha] Sure. But so did other people. You should check the Strong's concordance for the meaning of the word 'worship', (or even an English dictionary)

Been there. Done that. It all depends on the context. Are you going to tell me that the writer of Matthew was an idiot when he has the Deuteronomic phrase that you should worship the Lord your God and serve him only, yet there are several other people worshipping other people? Don't think so. There's this little thing called context that determines meaning.

Worship does not necessarily mean 'take as your god', although we usually use it in that sense, theologically.

As anyone who knows the word knows, but you also admit that it CAN mean that. Notice they worship him in Matthew 14:33 after a miracle and call him the Son of God. That's a strong action going on there.

It could be argued that no Jew at the time of Jesus would have worshiped a man, as it would be clear blasphemy in their society.

And it is argued that God never took on flesh before then so to worship a man would be blasphemy. Worshipping this man is not though, for this man is the Word became flesh.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)

Don't you love begging the question? I know I do.




One would not have to consult that to know Christianity and Judaism were around in the Roman empire well before his time

Wow! Christianity was around before Constantine and so was Judaism! Stop the presses everyone!

Of course they were, and the early view of Jesus was that he was God. Even the early heresies admitted this. That's why they tried to deny his humanity.

[barnasha]

Guess what? All Trinitarians agree with those as well! By the way, can you tell me what an ibn is?


In the context of what we were discussing, I'm not sure what the point of this statement is, nor do I understand the pertinence of this question


Only if the ideas are contradictory. They're not. All Trinitarians agree that Jesus is a man, lived as a Jew, and is the Son of God. For his humanity, don't you know about the Council of Constantinople?


is this the argument of "All people that agree with me agree, therefore I am right" ?


Nope. My theory works with both testaments. (Actually, it's the theory of the church.) If you want to show that it violates the earlier prophets, it's up to you to show it.


To state that your theory works is easy. To make a good case is a different matter



Questionable theories = theories you don't think are true and is a subtle way of poisoning the well. Are you aware that the Jews were not strictly monadic monotheists? Have you never read a work like Richard Bauckham's "God Crucified" to actually see how the Jews viewed deity in second temple Judaism?


because I don't blindly believe whatever nonsense someone comes up with, I'm "poisoning the well"? sounds like you're poisoning the well of critical thought


Implying that I do. Here's the simple reason. In history, ancient documents are to be given the benefit of the doubt. If the ECF say that John wrote John, I give them the benefit of the doubt and I haven't seen a strong enough counter-case to deny it.


Why is the case that a certain John wrote the text any stronger that he didn't?

Your personal beliefs are not really a valid justification for considering one possibility over another! If I wanted to argue with whomever the ECF is, I could talk to them directly.


[QUOTE=Barnasha] Besides, the sources of the writings in the "Ante Nicene Fathers" are the original proponents of the view you are espousing... what about all the contrary views? Or should they be 'silenced'? [/QUOTE}

All of them? Then wouldn't that indicate that this was the view long before Constantine? Also, you're committing the genetic fallacy. Also, suppose that they all disagree with you on historical grounds. Does that mean that they're wrong on history? Does the gospel suddenly become less Trinitarian if it's written by Bartholomew instead of Matthew?


There were varying views about trinities before 325.

"Trinitarian" is not a clearly defined doctrine, unless of course you are referring to the one that became official in 325, so you shouldn't talk in such vagueries, considering you are focusing on history which actually post-dates the material in question!

This is a good question because it brings us back on topic. You are asserting that these texts are "trinitarian". What does "trinitarian" mean, specifically, and how does the Gospel of Matthew appear "trinitarian" to you, no matter whom it's author is?



Been there. Done that. It all depends on the context. Are you going to tell me that the writer of Matthew was an idiot when he has the Deuteronomic phrase that you should worship the Lord your God and serve him only, yet there are several other people worshipping other people? Don't think so. There's this little thing called context that determines meaning.


your patronizing attitude is not really conducive to a good argument, though I can't really see what point you're trying to make here


As anyone who knows the word knows, but you also admit that it CAN mean that. Notice they worship him in Matthew 14:33 after a miracle and call him the Son of God. That's a strong action going on there.


sure... but other people are worshiped and are the sons of God, according to the bible. so what point, precisely, are you trying to argue?


And it is argued that God never took on flesh before then so to worship a man would be blasphemy. Worshipping this man is not though, for this man is the Word became flesh.


God is not a being, but something worshiped. For something 'to be', to come into existence, it would have to be a creation of the Creator. Otherwise, who created it?

You can worship the manifestation of God, or the Messiah, but this is not the tradition of the Jewish people (of whom the purported Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was a member)


Don't you love begging the question? I know I do.


why?



Wow! Christianity was around before Constantine and so was Judaism! Stop the presses everyone!


Its true origin would have to depends on how you define 'chrsitianity' - which is quite an amorphous thing to tack down - as any serious scholar of Early Christianity would admit.

I unlike you do not find this surprising, as it is ancient history.

Of course they were, and the early view of Jesus was that he was God. Even the early heresies admitted this. That's why they tried to deny his humanity.

What do you mean by the phrase, " to deny a man's humanity"?

[Shadow Phoenix]

In the context of what we were discussing, I'm not sure what the point of this statement is, nor do I understand the pertinence of this question

The point is simple. You listed a lot of ideas about who Jesus was to contradict Trintarianism when Trinitarianism AGREES with all of them. Again, do you know what an ibn is?



is this the argument of "All people that agree with me agree, therefore I am right" ?

No. This is simply stating what Trinitarianism is. How could it be Trinitarianism if all Trinitarians did not believe it? Just as you must believe certain things to be a Muslim. If you said "All Muslims believe that there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet" to explain Islam, that would not be an argument for Islam. It would merely be stating what Muslims believe.



To state that your theory works is easy. To make a good case is a different matter

You took the claim of it violating the earlier prophets. You show it.




because I don't blindly believe whatever nonsense someone comes up with, I'm "poisoning the well"? sounds like you're poisoning the well of critical thought

No. Because you automatically refer to it as nonsense without understanding it.



Why is the case that a certain John wrote the text any stronger that he didn't?

Your personal beliefs are not really a valid justification for considering one possibility over another! If I wanted to argue with whomever the ECF is, I could talk to them directly.

No you couldn't because they've been dead for about 1,500 years+. These were the leaders of the church after the apostles died. Really, if you're going to make a historical case about early Christianity, you need to know at least about the Early Church Fathers. That you don't shows that you don't have any valid grounds for making your case.




There were varying views about trinities before 325.

"Trinitarian" is not a clearly defined doctrine, unless of course you are referring to the one that became official in 325, so you shouldn't talk in such vagueries, considering you are focusing on history which actually post-dates the material in question!

Various views about the Trinity? Sure. As soon as you demonstrate that. Considering you don't know who the Early Church Fathers are, I don't think you have much grounds for doing so.

This is a good question because it brings us back on topic. You are asserting that these texts are "trinitarian". What does "trinitarian" mean, specifically, and how does the Gospel of Matthew appear "trinitarian" to you, no matter whom it's author is?

It means they fit in with the view of Jesus as the Trinitarians have.

Jesus is called "God with us."
Jesus has the authority to perfectly explain the Law of Moses and uses divine authority to do so.
Jesus is worshipped.
Jesus at the end has his name included with that of the Father and the Holy Spirit. (An excellent Trinitarian text)




your patronizing attitude is not really conducive to a good argument, though I can't really see what point you're trying to make here

I only respond with a reductio ad absurdum to your point about Matthew. Matthew would not have a Jesus as deity who said "The Lord your God is one" if he saw the two as contradictory. He didn't. It fitted in perfectly with the Jewish mindset. Again, read "God Crucified" by Richard Bauckham.



sure... but other people are worshiped and are the sons of God, according to the bible. so what point, precisely, are you trying to argue?

Give the verses and we'll see how well they hold up.



God is not a being, but something worshiped. For something 'to be', to come into existence, it would have to be a creation of the Creator. Otherwise, who created it?

Really, your understanding of Trinitarianism is quite fallacious. God is not a being but something worshipped? How are the two contradictory? Considering his name is a form of "to be" I think being would apply to him. By your argument, you might as well be an atheist since God would not be in that worldview.

You can worship the manifestation of God, or the Messiah, but this is not the tradition of the Jewish people (of whom the purported Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was a member)

Um. Yeah. I already affirmed earlier that Trinitarians believe Jesus was a Jew. Furthermore, it means nothing to me that the Jews do not agree today by and large. (You do know that in Acts, the first converts are Jews. Right? You don't see a Gentile convert until Cornelius) What matters is what is true.



why?

Sarcasm. Your goal is to show that worshipping Christ is done in vain as it's the doctrine of men. It cannot be used as an argument to make your point.




Its true origin would have to depends on how you define 'chrsitianity' - which is quite an amorphous thing to tack down - as any serious scholar of Early Christianity would admit.

I unlike you do not find this surprising, as it is ancient history.

The difference is that I have read ancient history and I do see how Christian doctrine was shaped over the years. Any evidence you have that you have read history of that sort, or have you just read what someone said about it?



What do you mean by the phrase, " to deny a man's humanity"?

Really, you need to understand early Christianity some before you enter that arena of what early Christians believed.

Two major heresies early in the church. Gnosticism and Docetism. Both agreed that Jesus was God.

Gnosticism said that all matter was evil, therefore, Jesus could not have been a material being.
Docetisim said that Jesus merely appeared human but wasn't fully. One such belief included the idea that Jesus was not crucified, but that through some trick, he had someone take his place who was made to look like him. Makes me wonder if anyone else used that idea....

[spitndirt]

I have always been a trinitarian. It wasn't until recently that I started challenging what I believed in light of Scripture to see if it stood up. Because I realized that I believed a lot of things that I was taught, but I had never verified. This issue has been a real struggle for me. I am not convinced either way yet, but I have to admit I am starting to lean toward Biblical Unitarianism on this. What do you think of this statement?

"1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus.” Jesus said that no one could truly know the Father except by coming through him. Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life.” He is the way (the Greek word means “the road”) to God. He is the truth that marks that road, and he is the life found by those who choose to follow the road. Thus, if we are to know, love, honor and obey the Creator of the heavens and the earth, it is imperative that we know the one He sent to reveal Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, it is a matter of life and death, for he is the only way to the one true God. "

First, as a recovering trinitarian I applaud your courage to not put your trust in men. As you know '...cursed are those who trust in men...'. If you have not received the teaching from God it cannot be of God and is certainly not essential knowledge. God has not left us as orphans but has provided us with everything we need for life and Godliness. And this is life and Godliness: That we love our brothers. One who loves his brother knows God (1John). This is why Paul makes this conclusive statement: '...all that counts (is reckoned as righteousness) is faith expressing itself in love...' - that's it! Why? Because God is love. When we know love, we do love....and then we are doing what we see our Father doing, just as our Lord also did.

Question: By whose Spirit are you moved to question the teachings of men???
Question: By what spirit do men oppose you in this?

Jesus said '...as I am in you (Father, true God) and you are in Me (Jesus the Christ, Son of the living God)...may they (believers) be made perfect in one - I in them and they in Me...'.

Question: Are 'we' added to the Godhead in such a way that we are also distinct persons existing in eternity past???

Jesus was a man in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily. The man Jesus did not pre-exist the fullness of time....only 'the Word'. God is not a man....and so a man cannot be God. Jesus was a man and so He was not God (in the way being taught)......God was God in Him as He was in God. It is 'oneness' - not distinctness that has been written about in scripture. Distinctness signifies division, not unity. There is another that thinks in those terms.

Keep seeking God my friend and see if my testimony here isn't faithful and true. Don't just take my word for it.

peace

[Shadow Phoenix]

First, as a recovering trinitarian I applaud your courage to not put your trust in men. As you know '...cursed are those who trust in men...'. If you have not received the teaching from God it cannot be of God and is certainly not essential knowledge. God has not left us as orphans but has provided us with everything we need for life and Godliness. And this is life and Godliness: That we love our brothers. One who loves his brother knows God (1John). This is why Paul makes this conclusive statement: '...all that counts (is reckoned as righteousness) is faith expressing itself in love...' - that's it! Why? Because God is love. When we know love, we do love....and then we are doing what we see our Father doing, just as our Lord also did.

And what is love and how is God love? Also, do you reverse that to say love is God?

Question: By whose Spirit are you moved to question the teachings of men???
Question: By what spirit do men oppose you in this? [/QUOTE}

This is really an appeal to pity and begging the question. Who says a spirit is leading this? Can't it just be the mind?

[QUOTE=Spitndirt] Jesus said '...as I am in you (Father, true God) and you are in Me (Jesus the Christ, Son of the living God)...may they (believers) be made perfect in one - I in them and they in Me...'.

Question: Are 'we' added to the Godhead in such a way that we are also distinct persons existing in eternity past???

Nope. Next question please?

Jesus was a man in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily.

At this I'd say, case closed.

The man Jesus did not pre-exist the fullness of time....only 'the Word'.

In John, Jesus is the Word. The humanity of Jesus is not eternal, but the person of Jesus is.

God is not a man....and so a man cannot be God. Jesus was a man and so He was not God (in the way being taught)......God was God in Him as He was in God.

Exodus 15:3. The Lord is a man of war. Look at those passages where it says God is not a man and find out what it's really talking about.

It is 'oneness' - not distinctness that has been written about in scripture. Distinctness signifies division, not unity. There is another that thinks in those terms.

Trinitarians believe in a triune God without division of substance. Try again.

Keep seeking God my friend and see if my testimony here isn't faithful and true. Don't just take my word for it.

peace

With this, I can agree.

[spitndirt]

And what is love and how is God love? Also, do you reverse that to say love is God?

God is God in the first place....he becomes these things in relation to creation: Love, light , wisdom, knowledge, power, presense, Word......! Take away these things and God remains God. God is not dependent upon anything apart from a creation context.



This is really an appeal to pity and begging the question. Who says a spirit is leading this? Can't it just be the mind?

No...not really. If we know 'truth and righteousness' it is taught us by God via His Spirit. It is clearly written.

At this I'd say, case closed.

Yep...me too. Jesus the man is not God...God is God in the man Jesus.

In John, Jesus is the Word. The humanity of Jesus is not eternal, but the person of Jesus is.

No...it doesn't. It says the Word was made flesh. The Word is God and is with God in the beginning. The identity of Jesus' humanity is seated in flesh.....the identity of the Father is seated in the Word and is the fullness of God that dwelt in the man Jesus. The man Jesus was hidden in God so that God was 'the One' being revealed.

Exodus 15:3. The Lord is a man of war. Look at those passages where it says God is not a man and find out what it's really talking about.

'...God is not a man that He should lie...'. How does this verse imply that God is a man???

Trinitarians believe in a triune God without division of substance. Try again.

Some trinitarians....by no means all trinitarians. Truth is, God is not divided - trinitarians are. Try again.

With this, I can agree.

There's hope after all :smile:

Peace....thanks for your reply

[Shadow Phoenix]

God is God in the first place....he becomes these things in relation to creation: Love, light , wisdom, knowledge, power, presense, Word......! Take away these things and God remains God. God is not dependent upon anything apart from a creation context.

If your God is changing his nature, then he is not God. God is the greatest being that can exist. How does he gain attributes anyway? Did he create wisdom and knowledge and was he stupid before those were created?



No...not really. If we know 'truth and righteousness' it is taught us by God via His Spirit. It is clearly written.

Yes, but this doesn't mean we are spirit-controlled drones. My decision to go to the grocery store for instance is hardly likely to be the so-called "Leading of the spirit."



Yep...me too. Jesus the man is not God...God is God in the man Jesus.

2 Peter 1:1. Our God and savior Jesus Christ. Ever read "Jesus as God?"



No...it doesn't. It says the Word was made flesh. The Word is God and is with God in the beginning. The identity of Jesus' humanity is seated in flesh.....the identity of the Father is seated in the Word and is the fullness of God that dwelt in the man Jesus. The man Jesus was hidden in God so that God was 'the One' being revealed.

God is the Father in John 1:1. The Word is with God meaning the Word is separate from the person he is with but the predicate nominative of "The Word was God" (More accurately, God was the Word), indicates that the Word has the nature of the one he is with.



'...God is not a man that He should lie...'. How does this verse imply that God is a man???

The Lord is a man of war....



Some trinitarians....by no means all trinitarians. Truth is, God is not divided - trinitarians are. Try again.

All Trinitarians who have a clue. If you want to learn the Trinity, don't ask the laymen at the church. Most of them don't know the doctrine sadly. Look at the Trinitarian creeds and see what we believe.



There's hope after all :smile:

Peace....thanks for your reply

Yes. There's hope you will see Jesus as fully possessing the nature of God.

[spitndirt]

If your God is changing his nature, then he is not God. God is the greatest being that can exist. How does he gain attributes anyway? Did he create wisdom and knowledge and was he stupid before those were created?

Haha...now that's pretty funny. Seriously, what need has God for these things where only God is? Take 'love' for instance. Love requires the presence of another. Take away the other and love loses it's meaning and purpose. So too is it for the other attributes that God has made manifest. Prior to the beginning God is perpetually God - and still is apart from a creation context. The attributes of God are manifested so that 'we' might come to know Him. We are the ones in need of God - not God of Himself. Ever read proverbs ch. 8 starting around vs. 22 or so. Looks to me like wisdom was indeed brought forth.....and for the benefit of man no less. Take away man and this form of wisdom need not exist. God is wisdom....He need not bring any forth as if to benifit Himself. And consider 'the Word' for a moment. Do you suppose God has a need to communicate to Himself where only He is? What for? To tell Himself things He already knows? To send Himself to where He already is? Or to command Himself to do what is perpetually done? Of course not. Therefore, all that God is must necessarily be translated into a form that 'we' can comprehend. All of God's stated attributes were made manifest for our benifit so that He might be revealed to us. He needs no revelation of Himself - He is who He is.

Yes, but this doesn't mean we are spirit-controlled drones. My decision to go to the grocery store for instance is hardly likely to be the so-called "Leading of the spirit."

Never said that we were drones. God reveals truth and righteousness.....we willingly walk accordingly - or willfully walk away. And what does a trip to the grocery store have to do with truth and righteousness???

2 Peter 1:1. Our God and savior Jesus Christ. Ever read "Jesus as God?"

These two are one...I agree. The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father. The thing is, all authority in heaven and earth has been GIVEN to Jesus. Further, Jesus the mortal man died and was raised immortal and is seated in the heavenlies on God's right hand. The risen Christ is for all intents and purposes our God and saviour until such a time that all things are fulfilled. What Jesus has now He has obtained by faith as an inheritence. Though all this be true God is still God in His Christ...as His Christ is abiding in Him.

God is the Father in John 1:1. The Word is with God meaning the Word is separate from the person he is with but the predicate nominative of "The Word was God" (More accurately, God was the Word), indicates that the Word has the nature of the one he is with..

Of course, but you are still thinking of this arrangment in a wrong way. God is perpetually God prior to the beginning. In the beginning He translated Himself into 'Word' form and this form is the full expression of who God is. Hence, the Word is God. Now, because this form was not brought forth in order to add to the fulness of perpetual God, but rather to occupy 'flesh' so that a man can be called a son (Jesus primarily), the Word is also said to be 'with God'. This only stands to reason since if the Word is taken away God still remains perpetually God.

The Lord is a man of war....

God is not a man....haha. I can play tennis :smile:

All Trinitarians who have a clue. If you want to learn the Trinity, don't ask the laymen at the church. Most of them don't know the doctrine sadly. Look at the Trinitarian creeds and see what we believe.

I have seen the creeds...they are nonsense not to mention meaningless. An understanding of trinitarian thought is not necessary and accomplishes nothing - except maybe to inflate the egos of those who assert it. Add to this the implied threat of Divine recompense for dissent and there is established quite a power structure based pretty much upon the fear of overbearing theologians who say '...God will get you if you don't accept what we say...'. Sorry... call me an obstinate bastard but.....dis homey don't play dat.

[QOUTE}Yes. There's hope you will see Jesus as fully possessing the nature of God.[/QUOTE]

Na....not in the way trinitarians claim. That would be a false hope. Peace.....

[Shadow Phoenix]

Haha...now that's pretty funny. Seriously, what need has God for these things where only God is? Take 'love' for instance. Love requires the presence of another. Take away the other and love loses it's meaning and purpose. So too is it for the other attributes that God has made manifest. Prior to the beginning God is perpetually God - and still is apart from a creation context. The attributes of God are manifested so that 'we' might come to know Him. We are the ones in need of God - not God of Himself. Ever read proverbs ch. 8 starting around vs. 22 or so. Looks to me like wisdom was indeed brought forth.....and for the benefit of man no less. Take away man and this form of wisdom need not exist. God is wisdom....He need not bring any forth as if to benifit Himself. And consider 'the Word' for a moment. Do you suppose God has a need to communicate to Himself where only He is? What for? To tell Himself things He already knows? To send Himself to where He already is? Or to command Himself to do what is perpetually done? Of course not. Therefore, all that God is must necessarily be translated into a form that 'we' can comprehend. All of God's stated attributes were made manifest for our benifit so that He might be revealed to us. He needs no revelation of Himself - He is who He is.

Then God is a changing being. God is not love. God became loving at the moment of creation. The creation then changed the nature of God putting the creation in a more powerful position than God.

Also, if God eternally has wisdom, then wisdom is not created. Wisdom is indeed brought forth. The problem is that we think of this in temporal terms. The ancients didn't. Go read some Plato and Plutarch and see that in there.



Never said that we were drones. God reveals truth and righteousness.....we willingly walk accordingly - or willfully walk away. And what does a trip to the grocery store have to do with truth and righteousness???

Your original point was taking an assumption that the questioning was from God. I take no such assumption.



These two are one...I agree. The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father. The thing is, all authority in heaven and earth has been GIVEN to Jesus. Further, Jesus the mortal man died and was raised immortal and is seated in the heavenlies on God's right hand. The risen Christ is for all intents and purposes our God and saviour until such a time that all things are fulfilled. What Jesus has now He has obtained by faith as an inheritence. Though all this be true God is still God in His Christ...as His Christ is abiding in Him.

These two are one. One what?

.

Of course, but you are still thinking of this arrangment in a wrong way. God is perpetually God prior to the beginning. In the beginning He translated Himself into 'Word' form and this form is the full expression of who God is. Hence, the Word is God. Now, because this form was not brought forth in order to add to the fulness of perpetual God, but rather to occupy 'flesh' so that a man can be called a son (Jesus primarily), the Word is also said to be 'with God'. This only stands to reason since if the Word is taken away God still remains perpetually God.

The Greek of John 1:1 disagrees with you.



God is not a man....haha. I can play tennis :smile:

Then either there is a contradiction or the passages are being read wrong. Bring me the "God is not a man" passages and let's see what's going on in them.



I have seen the creeds...they are nonsense not to mention meaningless. An understanding of trinitarian thought is not necessary and accomplishes nothing - except maybe to inflate the egos of those who assert it. Add to this the implied threat of Divine recompense for dissent and there is established quite a power structure based pretty much upon the fear of overbearing theologians who say '...God will get you if you don't accept what we say...'. Sorry... call me an obstinate bastard but.....dis homey don't play dat.

You don't need to understand Trinitarian thought to argue Trinitarian thought?

Okay. I'm going to argue against your position. I won't bother understanding it. I'll just say it's wrong and all of it is meaningless.

[QOUTE=spitndirt]

Na....not in the way trinitarians claim. That would be a false hope. Peace.....[/QUOTE]

Prove it.

[spitndirt]

Then God is a changing being. God is not love. God became loving at the moment of creation. The creation then changed the nature of God putting the creation in a more powerful position than God.

Also, if God eternally has wisdom, then wisdom is not created. Wisdom is indeed brought forth. The problem is that we think of this in temporal terms. The ancients didn't. Go read some Plato and Plutarch and see that in there.





Your original point was taking an assumption that the questioning was from God. I take no such assumption.





These two are one. One what?

.



The Greek of John 1:1 disagrees with you.





Then either there is a contradiction or the passages are being read wrong. Bring me the "God is not a man" passages and let's see what's going on in them.





You don't need to understand Trinitarian thought to argue Trinitarian thought?

Okay. I'm going to argue against your position. I won't bother understanding it. I'll just say it's wrong and all of it is meaningless.

[QOUTE=spitndirt]

Na....not in the way trinitarians claim. That would be a false hope. Peace.....

Prove it.[/QUOTE]

No...you don't need to understand trinitarian thought for life and Godliness. All that counts is faith expressing itself in love (hearing the Word and obeying it).

It's sleepy time...will answer you in full tomorrow. Peace.....

[Shadow Phoenix]

Prove it.

No...you don't need to understand trinitarian thought for life and Godliness. All that counts is faith expressing itself in love (hearing the Word and obeying it).

It's sleepy time...will answer you in full tomorrow. Peace.....[/QUOTE]

I can't even understand love without the Trinity. If you have no Trinity, God is not love. God becomes loving.