Trinity?

[Bowman]

Like playing with words?

Words are where its at...

 

[apostolic862004]

So now you're simply begging the question. The language of exact image does not require me to say Jesus is the Father, and the passage is not obscure if I don't presuppose that. It is actually much plainer if you don't assume the Son and Father are the same. For instance, how do you read "When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of theMajesty on high?"

I assume you are interpreting that scripture in the literal sense. So if we stay consistently with that, then we have a problem with these other scriptures:

Mark 16:19 - So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Colossians 3:1 - If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Acts 7:55 - But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God
Acts 7:56 - And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

So if we translate these passages literally, Jesus is both SITTING and STANDING literally ON the Father's right hand. Now I am going to ASSUME (correct me if I am wrong) that you don't believe Jesus is doing either of those. And he obviously wouldn't be doing BOTH at the same time. So we understand that we can't translate this literally. However, if we let scripture interpret scripture, we find out exactly what is going on here:

Acts 2:33 - Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Matthew 26:64 - Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mark 14:62 - And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


So when the bible mention Jesus being at the right hand of God, it is simply describing his position of power or authority. In the latter scriptures I posted, Jesus was making reference to the day that he would speak Matthew 28:18 when he said ALL POWER is given unto me in heaven and in earth. The right hand of God simply represents his power. We see this with kings. The man that would sit at a kings right hand was the man with the kings power and authority to help govern his kingdom. So it simply described Jesus' power, not that he was literally sitting or standing on or at the Father's right hand.

The problem here is that in places like Galatians 4, John 3, and 1 John 4, it talks about the Father sending forth his Son, who was then born. First of all, this language is more than a little misleading if the Father is the Son. The second is that it also strongly implies that the Son existed before the incarnation, was the Son before the incarnation, otherwise the significance of the Son being sent becomes nonsense, because noone was actually sent, God simply came.

No, it only becomes nonsense when you believe that the Father who created us sent someone else to die for us. That takes away from the beauty of what he did. The very same one that created us, came down and died for us. He became a man because as a spirit he could not shed blood. So he indwelled the body of a man, that was Jesus Christ. The language in the bible is DESIGNED to be misleading so that only those who are wholeheartedly seeking God will be able to see truth. Jesus said this in Matthew 13:13. The son did not physically exist before the day of his birth. He only existed as the "logos" or the "plan" of God according to John 1:1. The Father had the son in his mind before the world began. He already had the plan of redemption lined out and the plan was that he(the Father) would become the sacrifice for our sins. And the only way to do that was to shed blood. And the only way for him to shed blood was to live inside of a man. That man was the son, Jesus Christ.

This is a reading of the text, but I don't see how it's a proof. It doesn't make any of the passages where Jesus prays to, refers to, or teaches about himself and the Father any easier to read. Do you think, then, that sometimes it's the flesh talking, and sometimes the spirit? Is Jesus actually speaking self referentially almost all the time?

When you read the scriptures, are you reading to see what makes sense to you, or are you reading to see what the truth is? It isn't about what is easy to read, it's about what it actually says and means. I do not believe that sometimes the flesh was talking and sometimes the spirit was talking. The bible never gives any indication of that. I do not claim to understand what was going on in the mind of Jesus Christ. As I stated before, I don't know all the intricate details of how the division of the flesh and spirit worked and why at sometimes he spoke as a man, yet at other times he spoke with the authority of God. I wish I could explain that all to you but I can't because the bible does not explain that. I could give you my theory on it but it would be nothing more than just that, a theory. What the bible does tell us is that they were one and the same.

I simply didn't say that. What I SAID is that the word God has to be interpreted in context, like most other words. So it can mean God is being referred to absolutely, it can be referring to something more specific or representative. Even you concede that God wasn't limited to the body of Jesus, so clearly not all of God was made manifest in the flesh, because he continued to exist outside of Jesus. If I press the word to that ludicrous extreme, how is my argument any less rational than yours at this point?

I believe that everytime the bible says "God," that is just exactly what it means. It is "God." There are no seperate parts to God. God is God. It just that simple. When the bible wants to distinguish between the Father and Son or the the Father and the Holy Ghost, or the Son and the Holy Ghost, it does. But from what you are saying, everywhere you see the word God, you have to try to figure out if it is talking about the Father, Son, or the Holy Ghost based on the context. That simply isn't true. Again, if we let scripture define scripture, the Father is God according to 1 Cor. 8:6. So then everywhere in the bible that you see the word God, you can substitute the word Father and still be within scriptural bounds. Do you agree?

It is only problematic if you expect Isaiah to be using Father in a trinitarian sense, and in a very specific way. There is only one God, who is everlasting, correct. In any case, the whole point of the passage is that it is making a startling claim, that a child will be called Everlasting God, and that the Lord will accomplish this.

I'm sorry Nick, but again you changed the wording. It does not say the child will be called "Everlasting God." It says he will be called the "Everlasting FATHER." Now you have to agree that there is only one "Everlasting Father." If Isaiah had said his name shall be called "Father," then there would be no discussion here. But it specifically called the son, the "Everlasting Father." Now during our conversation, you have been emphasizing the language of Father and son. So according to you, because of the term Father and Son, they are not the same being. Yet in this passage is SPECIFICALLY calls the son the FATHER. If you deny this, you are again disagreeing with the scripture and not me because I didn't write that.

It's not relevant whether they had the internet then. You argued something in principle, so I refuted in principle. I happen to think Jesus is a much better communication line to the Father than the internet, anyway. My point still stands.

Well you specifically said "today" and that is why I responded that way. But if we are just arguing principle, you are most definitely wrong. In principle you absolutely cannot "know" and individual without spending time with them. You can know a whole lot "ABOUT" them but you simply cannot "know" and individual without being with them.

Let's take the analogy further, to fully explore what is happening, and bring it closer to the passage. The mechanic asks to see the owner, and you reply "Have you been talking to me all this time, and not know me? If you've seen me, you've seen the owner - how can you see you want to see the owner? Do you not believe that I am in the owner, and the owner is in me? I'm not speaking to you on my own initiative, but the owner who lives in me does my work on the car. Believe me when I say that if you believe in me, and the work that I have done on this car, you will also do work - and even greater work, because I'm going back to the owner."

Do you see why your analogy only helps clarify if you leave out large portions of the relevant data in that passage? A person who genuinely spoke like Jesus did to a mechanic would be carted of. What he is saying cannot possibly be construed as a clear cut proof for your position

Well I hope you agree that every analog breaks down at some point. So saying that "if the whole analogy doesnt work, then it doesn't prove the point," is not fair nor is it true. You use analogies to prove points as well but the whole thing doesn't fit because we are using human terms and physical limitations to describe a spiritual principle that does not have the same limitations. The first part of the analogy DOES in fact prove my point. The owner and mechanic can be the same person and not have to be two separate beings. It is the same with God. He is the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Creator, Redeemer, Savior, Truth, Life, Love, etc, yet he is only one being.

Then I cannot convince you because you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with God's word. I am not the one who said "Fulness." God said that. So if you disagree on what "fulness" means, your argument is not with me. Fulness means complete, entire, whole. That scripture is saying that "EVERYTHING" that makes up the Godhead is in Jesus Christ.Or for the sake of understanding, we could say everything you need to know about the Godhead is in Jesus Christ. The very next verse tells us that. It says "And ye are COMPLETE IN HIM." That means its ALL IN HIM.


I actually agree with this. I just don't agree it means that, if I adopt a Trinitarian position, that all the Godhead in terms of person must be a part of what makes up the person of Jesus.

Then you don't believe that its all in Jesus. What I am saying is, everything you need or want to know about God you could know if you only had heard and learned about the son and not the Father and the Holy Ghost. If you believe in the trinity, then that would not be true because if you leave out the Father and the Holy Ghost, you have left out part of God.

I agree with this. This is pretty standard fare for most trinitarians as well. The difference between our positions is that you are saying all the persons in the triune godhead (if I adopt a trinitarian position) must have have been inside Jesus (and not just in the way the Spirit indwells everyone). But I don't see how you can make that point when you also state that God in his entirety is not in Jesus. So what you mean by fullness and entirety are two different things.

Ok. I think I see what you are saying about the difference between entirety and fullness. So then let me ask you, do you believe the person of the SON was in the flesh in his entirety?

You still haven't said why he uses the specific phrase "going to the Father". What does that mean, and why does he use that phrase? That is the guts of the question.

Again, I wish I could answer that question for you but I can't. I am not ashamed to admit that I don't have all the answers. I will give you MY THEORY but please remember, I have no solid scriptural evidence for this. I believe that alot of statement that Jesus made and the way he made them were so that we could identify with him because he was setting an example for us. So he would say or do things just to set an example for us. For instance, Jesus did not need to be baptized to wash away he sins because he had no sins. Yet he told John to baptize him so that he could "fulfill all righteousness." I believe he was baptized so that when we want to know the RIGHT thing to do, we could look at his example. So when he would say things like, "I will pray to my father" or "I am going to the Father" he was setting an example of how we ought to think and speak. We need to realize that when we die, we are "going to the Father." People who are athiest don't believe the Father exists, but if they want to know the truth, they can look to Jesus Christ's example and realize that one day, they will "go to the Father" as well. Again, this is my theory, no scriptural proof that this is the "reason" why he spoke in that manner.

First second and third nomenclature is mostly irrelevant - I think it's there mostly because that's how God is ordered in the baptismal formula given at the Great Commission. If you want to swapsies the order around, go ahead. But you can also argue it comes from the Son and the Spirit giving honour the the Father, the Father glorifying the Spirit and Son, the Spirit glorifying the Son, the Son sending the Spirit and the Father sending the Son, etc etc.

I'm not sure I understand how you could argue that. Could you give further detail?

 

[Nick01]

I assume you are interpreting that scripture in the literal sense. So if we stay consistently with that, then we have a problem with these other scriptures:

...

So if we translate these passages literally, Jesus is both SITTING and STANDING literally ON the Father's right hand. Now I am going to ASSUME (correct me if I am wrong) that you don't believe Jesus is doing either of those. And he obviously wouldn't be doing BOTH at the same time. So we understand that we can't translate this literally. However, if we let scripture interpret scripture, we find out exactly what is going on here...

I don't see how any of what you posted is relevant. First, you're using English examples from what I assume is the KJV that uses 'on' in a different sense to how we use on today, and it never meant or intended Jesus to literally be on the right hand of God. That's plain from the Greek, and from every other English translation. So your analogy is flawed. Even if I accepted it, you can't reason by analogy from a specific use of language, and apply that uniformly to every other different but equally specific use of language. It needs to be done case by case, with other use of language perhaps suggestive, but not indicative. So we come around again to the text - your argument that exact image must mean the Son is the Father doesn't come forth from the text itself, as you seem to agree by you labelling my position the 'literal' sense, but only from other arguments from other texts. This is why you are begging the question - Hebrews 1 isn't a proof, it can only be suggestive of your theology after the fact.

No, it only becomes nonsense when you believe that the Father who created us sent someone else to die for us. That takes away from the beauty of what he did. The very same one that created us, came down and died for us. He became a man because as a spirit he could not shed blood.

This is in perfect agreement with Trintarian teaching. God did become man. The difference is that it was not the Father that did so, but the Son. This is no less wonderous, because he is in very nature God.

The son did not physically exist before the day of his birth. He only existed as the "logos" or the "plan" of God according to John 1:1. The Father had the son in his mind before the world began. He already had the plan of redemption lined out and the plan was that he(the Father) would become the sacrifice for our sins. And the only way to do that was to shed blood. And the only way for him to shed blood was to live inside of a man. That man was the son, Jesus Christ.

He did not exist physically, in the sense of having a human body, yes. But he did exist, and was personal. He was not simply an idea, or a thing, in the mind of the Father as a future event. This is born out by the text of John 1 itself, but also other texts such as Philipians 2. So again, my argument still stands - to argue your point from those texts has to make such texts not just obscure, but actually disingenous - when Christ, before the incarnation, is spoken about as being a person, this is not at all an accurate depiction of the state of things.

When you read the scriptures, are you reading to see what makes sense to you, or are you reading to see what the truth is? It isn't about what is easy to read, it's about what it actually says and means. I do not believe that sometimes the flesh was talking and sometimes the spirit was talking. The bible never gives any indication of that. I do not claim to understand what was going on in the mind of Jesus Christ. As I stated before, I don't know all the intricate details of how the division of the flesh and spirit worked and why at sometimes he spoke as a man, yet at other times he spoke with the authority of God. I wish I could explain that all to you but I can't because the bible does not explain that. I could give you my theory on it but it would be nothing more than just that, a theory. What the bible does tell us is that they were one and the same.

No, I don't expect everything to make sense. I don't expect the Trinity to nicely resolve every little issue, and indeed it doesn't. My point is simply that you can't use these texts as 'proofs', when you essentially have to assume your position to get the reading you arrive at. When Jesus talks to the Father, the text suggests that is a real relationship, and indeed it takes its significance from that relationship. To overturn that reading, you need a pretty compelling argument from within the text itself, not as a presupposition. I hope you can appreciate this.

I believe that everytime the bible says "God," that is just exactly what it means. It is "God." There are no seperate parts to God. God is God. It just that simple.

Well, this is the point at discussion. I agree that when God talks about God, it is talking about God, but that doesn't preclude personhood within the divine.

When the bible wants to distinguish between the Father and Son or the the Father and the Holy Ghost, or the Son and the Holy Ghost, it does. But from what you are saying, everywhere you see the word God, you have to try to figure out if it is talking about the Father, Son, or the Holy Ghost based on the context. That simply isn't true. Again, if we let scripture define scripture, the Father is God according to 1 Cor. 8:6. So then everywhere in the bible that you see the word God, you can substitute the word Father and still be within scriptural bounds. Do you agree?

No, I don't. And this kind of ambiguity is present within the text as well. For instance, Psalm 68 is quite explicit about it being 'God' that is being spoken of throughout. When Paul refers to the text in Ephesians 4, however, it is ascribed specifically to Jesus Christ. Now, why does he do this? Why does he not just say God, and just use Psalm 68 in its original sense? This chapter is incredibly christological, going to great lengths to ascribe things to Christ, and also making separate points about specifically the Father, Son and Spirit. What purpose does this serve, if it is is both simpler and more accurate to simply use the prophets as originally given, and just say 'God'?

I'm sorry Nick, but again you changed the wording. It does not say the child will be called "Everlasting God." It says he will be called the "Everlasting FATHER." Now you have to agree that there is only one "Everlasting Father." If Isaiah had said his name shall be called "Father," then there would be no discussion here. But it specifically called the son, the "Everlasting Father." Now during our conversation, you have been emphasizing the language of Father and son. So according to you, because of the term Father and Son, they are not the same being. Yet in this passage is SPECIFICALLY calls the son the FATHER. If you deny this, you are again disagreeing with the scripture and not me because I didn't write that.

Sorry, I put the wrong word in. But I still don't see why we should expect Isaiah to be use Trinitarian terms in the exact same manner as the apostles thousands of years later (this was the thrust of my original post on this matter)? It seems like an incredibly flimsy premise to be building an entire argument on - in which sense does Isaiah mean father? In which sense might God be considered a father in a manner that is different to the specific qualities of the Father? Is that what Isaiah means? How do we know?


[quuote]Well you specifically said "today" and that is why I responded that way. But if we are just arguing principle, you are most definitely wrong. In principle you absolutely cannot "know" and individual without spending time with them. You can know a whole lot "ABOUT" them but you simply cannot "know" and individual without being with them[/quote].

I think we can both appreciate that even by human analogy, in principle, you can know someone by spending time with them in ways that do not require you to be physically present constantly, or even primarily. Even more so when we talk about the premise of the Trinity. You haven't really demonstrated why you think the Trinitarian understanding of God is incompatible with knowing God in this way in Christ.

Well I hope you agree that every analog breaks down at some point. So saying that "if the whole analogy doesnt work, then it doesn't prove the point," is not fair nor is it true. You use analogies to prove points as well but the whole thing doesn't fit because we are using human terms and physical limitations to describe a spiritual principle that does not have the same limitations.

Agreed. So the question is at what point the analogy breaks down. I just happen to think your analogy breaks down at a very fundamental point, and best case scenario it doesn't demonstrate how the words of Jesus necessitate reasoning the Father and he are one and the same.

The first part of the analogy DOES in fact prove my point. The owner and mechanic can be the same person and not have to be two separate beings.

Can be, yes. But does that mean necessarily? The point is is that Jesus does not unequivocally say he is the Father - it is a possible reading, but it is not the only reading. In human terms, the person might have to think the person is saying they are the owner (in an incredibly round about and strikingly not certain way), but as you correctly pointed out, we're trying to illustrate the divine by way of human analogy, so what might be probable (not certain) in human terms is much less clear in divine terms.

Then you don't believe that its all in Jesus.
What I am saying is, everything you need or want to know about God you could know if you only had heard and learned about the son and not the Father and the Holy Ghost. If you believe in the trinity, then that would not be true because if you leave out the Father and the Holy Ghost, you have left out part of God.

But neither do you. You have already argued that your position does not mean all of God was in Jesus. In other words, if you believe there is only on person within God, Jesus must have been disingenuous about knowing all about God in him, because there are bits of God that aren't in him (cf. baptism, transfiguration, etc). I don't see how you think the positions are any different at this particular point.

Ok. I think I see what you are saying about the difference between entirety and fullness. So then let me ask you, do you believe the person of the SON was in the flesh in his entirety?

Essentially, yes.

Again, I wish I could answer that question for you but I can't. I am not ashamed to admit that I don't have all the answers. I will give you MY THEORY but please remember, I have no solid scriptural evidence for this.

Thank you for the genuine candour. It's actually genuinely refreshing in these sorts of discussions Also, I like theories.

I believe that alot of statement that Jesus made and the way he made them were so that we could identify with him because he was setting an example for us. So he would say or do things just to set an example for us. For instance, Jesus did not need to be baptized to wash away he sins because he had no sins. Yet he told John to baptize him so that he could "fulfill all righteousness." I believe he was baptized so that when we want to know the RIGHT thing to do, we could look at his example. So when he would say things like, "I will pray to my father" or "I am going to the Father" he was setting an example of how we ought to think and speak. We need to realize that when we die, we are "going to the Father." People who are athiest don't believe the Father exists, but if they want to know the truth, they can look to Jesus Christ's example and realize that one day, they will "go to the Father" as well. Again, this is my theory, no scriptural proof that this is the "reason" why he spoke in that manner.

It's not a bad theory, and I think it finds analogy in things like, as you say baptism (John actually points this out in, I believe, Matthew's account). But the problem is if he says he does things that have no basis in real relationships or significance for him, even if they might for other people, does that make those things meaningless as a model?

For instance, in the case of baptism (which from my reading, like circumcision, always functioned as a sign of covenant already established rather than an actual creating of righteousness), Jesus being baptised is still in keeping with usual practice of baptism - it is signifying his acceptance by the Father, not making him acceptable, and his special level of acceptance is attested by the descent and anointing by the Spirit and the audible voice of the Father. He is not simply going through the motions - these actions attest and witness his role as Son and Messiah.

When we come to 'going to the Father', this model doesn't quite fit. The practice of praying to the Father by Jesus (as opposed to other people doing so) is not the same as Jesus getting baptised (as opposed to other people doing so). Jesus' baptism is a reflection of a reality - his righteousness and acceptability before God. His praying to the Father is NOT a reflection of reality - because by your argument Jesus is the Father. It might be a model (and indeed I think Jesus prays in public to his Father for precisely that reason), but I'm not sure it counts as a model if it doesn't reflect a reality about Jesus himself, not just about how it might apply to regular people. Again, it just makes Jesus seem to be misleading about the whole thing. Jesus could still have said "You will go to the Father", and not have said that he himself would do so. Does that make sense?

I'm not sure I understand how you could argue that. Could you give further detail?

Argue what? The order comes from the method of practice on how the persons interact - the Father honours the Son a the Son glorifies the Father. But it's not an order that is really taught explicitly in that sense inside the Scripture or outside as a matter of doctrine (in the sense of the Father being 'The First Person of the Trinity'). I think this might be a side point, anyway.

 

[apostolic862004]

I don't see how any of what you posted is relevant. First, you're using English examples from what I assume is the KJV that uses 'on' in a different sense to how we use on today, and it never meant or intended Jesus to literally be on the right hand of God. That's plain from the Greek, and from every other English translation. So your analogy is flawed. Even if I accepted it, you can't reason by analogy from a specific use of language, and apply that uniformly to every other different but equally specific use of language. It needs to be done case by case, with other use of language perhaps suggestive, but not indicative. So we come around again to the text - your argument that exact image must mean the Son is the Father doesn't come forth from the text itself, as you seem to agree by you labelling my position the 'literal' sense, but only from other arguments from other texts. This is why you are begging the question - Hebrews 1 isn't a proof, it can only be suggestive of your theology after the fact.

Well i am not using an analogy here, i am simply quoting the text. My post was in response to you asking me this question:

For instance, how do you read "When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high?"

Correct me if I am wrong, but you were suggesting here that the language in this passage implies that there are two separate beings because one is sitting at the right hand of the other. My response was proving that Jesus did not literally "sit" at his "right hand." I proved the first part by showing another verse that says he is "standing" not "sitting." We know he would not do both at the same time and we know the scripture doesn't lie. So that was just to prove that he is neither physically sitting or standing on or at God's right hand. Then I used scripture to prove that God is a Spirit and that he does not have a literally right hand at all. Finally, I gave you the scripture that interprets what these scriptures about God's right hand actually mean. They are referring to Jesus Christ being given authority. So my analogy is not flawed because I didn't use an analogy, I used scripture.

This is in perfect agreement with Trintarian teaching. God did become man. The difference is that it was not the Father that did so, but the Son. This is no less wonderous, because he is in very nature God.

The scripture does not teach that. And this point is the basis for the entire discussion. It was the Father that was manifest in the Flesh, not the son. 1 TIm 3:16, Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 35:4

He did not exist physically, in the sense of having a human body, yes. But he did exist, and was personal. He was not simply an idea, or a thing, in the mind of the Father as a future event. This is born out by the text of John 1 itself, but also other texts such as Philipians 2. So again, my argument still stands - to argue your point from those texts has to make such texts not just obscure, but actually disingenous - when Christ, before the incarnation, is spoken about as being a person, this is not at all an accurate depiction of the state of things.

According to John 1, he was the Word. In the greek, that is "logos" which means plan or idea. Phillipians 2 gives no indication at all that the son existed as anything other than a plan before creation. Would you do me a favor? Please site me an example in the scriptures where the son actually spoke BEFORE he was born. God spoke often in the old testament to his people. Can you site examples of God speaking that it was not the Father that was speaking but the Son or the Holy Ghost?

No, I don't expect everything to make sense. I don't expect the Trinity to nicely resolve every little issue, and indeed it doesn't. My point is simply that you can't use these texts as 'proofs', when you essentially have to assume your position to get the reading you arrive at. When Jesus talks to the Father, the text suggests that is a real relationship, and indeed it takes its significance from that relationship. To overturn that reading, you need a pretty compelling argument from within the text itself, not as a presupposition. I hope you can appreciate this.

It indeed was a real realtionship between Father and Son. But it was not a real relationship between two eternal spirits. It was a relationship between Spirit and flesh. Just as we are flesh and have a relationship with the Spirit who is our Father.

Well, this is the point at discussion. I agree that when God talks about God, it is talking about God, but that doesn't preclude personhood within the divine.

Sorry, I am not as educated as you are. Could you put this in laymen's terms for me cause I have no clue what you mean by that last statement.

No, I don't. And this kind of ambiguity is present within the text as well. For instance, Psalm 68 is quite explicit about it being 'God' that is being spoken of throughout. When Paul refers to the text in Ephesians 4, however, it is ascribed specifically to Jesus Christ. Now, why does he do this? Why does he not just say God, and just use Psalm 68 in its original sense? This chapter is incredibly christological, going to great lengths to ascribe things to Christ, and also making separate points about specifically the Father, Son and Spirit. What purpose does this serve, if it is is both simpler and more accurate to simply use the prophets as originally given, and just say 'God'?

Because he was making the picture clear that Jesus Christ was the same God of the old testament! That is exactly the point! The Jews knew that there is only one God. They did not and still do not believe in a trinity. So when Jesus claimed to be God, they tried to kill him for blasphemy. Because they knew there is only one being that is God and he is not a man. In John 5:39 Jesus said that the scriptures testified of him. The only scriptures they had were the old testament. He was trying to get them to make the connection that he was the one God that they believed in. That is what Paul did in Ephesians 4. He made it plain who the scriptures was talking about.

Sorry, I put the wrong word in. But I still don't see why we should expect Isaiah to be use Trinitarian terms in the exact same manner as the apostles thousands of years later (this was the thrust of my original post on this matter)? It seems like an incredibly flimsy premise to be building an entire argument on - in which sense does Isaiah mean father? In which sense might God be considered a father in a manner that is different to the specific qualities of the Father? Is that what Isaiah means? How do we know?

We would not expect Isaiah to use trinitarian terms because Isaiah did not believe in a trinity. All through the book of Isaiah he is prophesying to the people and telling them that there is only one God. It's funny how you question what Isaiah means by "father" here, but you have no trouble defining what a "father" is anywhere else. Why would the meaning change here? Because if the meaning doesn't change, it doesn't fit trinitarian doctrine. And it doesn't fit because it's not true doctrine. Jesus Christ is the Everlasting Father. Once you understand that, all of the other scriptures we have talked about make perfect sense. And you don't have to assume anything because the scripture plainly tells you that the Son is the Father.

I think we can both appreciate that even by human analogy, in principle, you can know someone by spending time with them in ways that do not require you to be physically present constantly, or even primarily. Even more so when we talk about the premise of the Trinity. You haven't really demonstrated why you think the Trinitarian understanding of God is incompatible with knowing God in this way in Christ.

Sorry, but I disagree. The only way to know someone is to spend time with them. Any other knowledge you have of them is simply that: knowledge OF them. That doesn't mean you know them. The point I was making with this was not about the trinitarian understanding of God. It was about Jesus telling Phillip that from that point forward, Phillip knew the father. Phillip could not have known the Father unless he had been spending time with the Father. And that is was Jesus' point was. Phillip had BEEN with the Father but did not even realize it. That is why Jesus said to him "Why are you asking me to show you the Father? Have I been with you this long and you still don't know me?"

Agreed. So the question is at what point the analogy breaks down. I just happen to think your analogy breaks down at a very fundamental point, and best case scenario it doesn't demonstrate how the words of Jesus necessitate reasoning the Father and he are one and the same.

It doesn't break down at the fundamental point that i am making. Let me go through it again. Jesus is the Father. Phillip doesn't recognize that. Phillip asks to see the Father. Jesus says (paraphrasing) Phillip, Have i been with you this long and you still don't know me? If you have seen me, you have seen the Father and from now on you have both seen the Father and known the Father. Now let me use an analogy. You are the shop owner and the mechanic. A customer knows you are the mechanic. They are complaining to you about their car. You are conversing with them and saying things like, "My business is professional' and "I want my customers to come back to MY business." Finally the customer says they want to speak to the owner. You say, "Have I been talking to you this long and you still don't recognize who I am? He who has talked to me has talked to the owner and from this point on you have both seen the owner and talked with him."

Now what is so hard to understand about that? The owner and the mechanic are the same person. Two different titles, two different job descriptions, two different sets of responsibilities, ONE MAN DOES THEM BOTH. This isn't rocket science. Its right there in the bible.

Can be, yes. But does that mean necessarily? The point is is that Jesus does not unequivocally say he is the Father - it is a possible reading, but it is not the only reading. In human terms, the person might have to think the person is saying they are the owner (in an incredibly round about and strikingly not certain way), but as you correctly pointed out, we're trying to illustrate the divine by way of human analogy, so what might be probable (not certain) in human terms is much less clear in divine terms.

In my analogy, I said the Owner and the mechanic ARE the same. So yes that means they are necessarily the same because that is what the analogy stated. And its the same in John 14. Jesus and the Father are the same because that is what Jesus stated. You are dancing around the point here. The statement Jesus made and the context of everything before and after he made the statement all agree that Jesus was telling Philip that he is the Father.

But neither do you. You have already argued that your position does not mean all of God was in Jesus. In other words, if you believe there is only on person within God, Jesus must have been disingenuous about knowing all about God in him, because there are bits of God that aren't in him (cf. baptism, transfiguration, etc). I don't see how you think the positions are any different at this particular point.

This is not true. When I said that "all of God was not in Jesus" I am saying that because God is omnipresent, and because of how you define God's entirety, then no, you cannot contain God in anything. The physical presence of God (whatever that is made up of) cannot be contained even in the universe, let alone a body. However everything that there is to KNOW about God can be AND WAS embodied in the man Jesus Christ. But trinitarians cannot believe that because in order to know everything that can be known about God, you would need to know also the Father and the Holy Ghost. And if they were not IN Jesus Christ, then you would not know everything that can be known about God.

Ok. I think I see what you are saying about the difference between entirety and fullness. So then let me ask you, do you believe the person of the SON was in the flesh in his entirety?
Essentially, yes.

Then you do not believe that the person of the Son is an omnipresent Spirit right? Because if he was, you could not have him in the flesh in his entirety. So the same argument you are presenting to me, you must also deal with.

It's not a bad theory, and I think it finds analogy in things like, as you say baptism (John actually points this out in, I believe, Matthew's account). But the problem is if he says he does things that have no basis in real relationships or significance for him, even if they might for other people, does that make those things meaningless as a model?

For instance, in the case of baptism (which from my reading, like circumcision, always functioned as a sign of covenant already established rather than an actual creating of righteousness), Jesus being baptised is still in keeping with usual practice of baptism - it is signifying his acceptance by the Father, not making him acceptable, and his special level of acceptance is attested by the descent and anointing by the Spirit and the audible voice of the Father. He is not simply going through the motions - these actions attest and witness his role as Son and Messiah.

When we come to 'going to the Father', this model doesn't quite fit. The practice of praying to the Father by Jesus (as opposed to other people doing so) is not the same as Jesus getting baptised (as opposed to other people doing so). Jesus' baptism is a reflection of a reality - his righteousness and acceptability before God. His praying to the Father is NOT a reflection of reality - because by your argument Jesus is the Father. It might be a model (and indeed I think Jesus prays in public to his Father for precisely that reason), but I'm not sure it counts as a model if it doesn't reflect a reality about Jesus himself, not just about how it might apply to regular people. Again, it just makes Jesus seem to be misleading about the whole thing. Jesus could still have said "You will go to the Father", and not have said that he himself would do so. Does that make sense?

I do not contest your position because I have no scriptural evidence to stand on. That's why its just a theory and possibly a flawed one.

Argue what? The order comes from the method of practice on how the persons interact - the Father honours the Son a the Son glorifies the Father. But it's not an order that is really taught explicitly in that sense inside the Scripture or outside as a matter of doctrine (in the sense of the Father being 'The First Person of the Trinity'). I think this might be a side point, anyway.

I see. So the order does not matter to you. So you would be perfectly fine with me saying that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Ghost is the second person, and the Father is the third person?

 

[TruthFromFrank]

Matthew 2:11
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.



Jesus is the Word of God...the Word was with God ,the Word was God The Word was made flesh.[SUP]
19 [/SUP]To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Why did he accept worship, do we worship man?
[SUP]33 [/SUP]Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Can a man forgive sins?
And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

When Jesus Christ was on this earth, He was totally MAN but there was one huge difference. God, the Holy Spirit, was working THROUGH Jesus Christ and HE (God) did all the miracles/healings/forgivings. So, when He(Jesus) forgave man's sins, it was actually God working through Him. In this case, Jesus was Man and He could forgive sins, obviously now, God did this all. Jesus was the instrument on earth to do this, to demonstrate to man, God's power, to prove to man that God exists.

 

[TruthFromFrank]

Most definitely!


Before I go further responding to your posts, let me explain what I believe. That way when I respond, you will know where I am coming from:

Jesus Christ is God the Father, manifest in the flesh. God the Father and the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit are the same Spirit. There is only one Holy Spirit. (Mark 10:18) God is a Spirit. (John 4:24) God is Holy. (Leviticus 19:2) So God is the Holy Spirit. I can prove this in a different manner as well, but for the sake of this post, those scriptures will do for now.

Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man. The son is ONLY the son because he was BEGOTTEN of the Father. (Psalm 2:7) The son did not exist AS THE SON in eternity. He existed in eternity AS THE FATHER. Whenever you see the word Father, think Spirit. Whenever you see the word son, think flesh. Jesus was both humanity and diety. So all the statements he makes about him and the Father that seem to distinguish them, it only distinguishes the humanity of Christ(son) from the diety of Christ(Father). Now please don't misunderstand. I am not a modalist. I do NOT believe that God "morphs" into three different beings as he fulfills the different roles. The Father created man and created the earth and everything else. When it was time to redeem lost humanity, he created a man by overshadowing mary. But he put himself in that man. So the Father, who was is also the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit, was inside of the son. That is how these three are one. So guess what happens when you receive the spirit of Christ? Guess what spirit it is? The Holy Spirit and the Father! But they are not three seperate spirits. Its all the same spirit. Let me give an analogy:

I am a Father, I am a son, and I am husband. When you talk about my daughter's father, my wife's husband, or my mother's son, you are talking about the same guy! Its me! So when you are talking to me you could tell someone that you talked to all three of these people today but you actually only talked to one person because I am all three of them.

That is what I believe. Now I will respond to your posts in another post.

And words like "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" and "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" plus many more that I can quote to indicate two different entities, are politely and conveniently being forgotten?

 

[newbirth]

When Jesus Christ was on this earth, He was totally MAN but there was one huge difference. God, the Holy Spirit, was working THROUGH Jesus Christ and HE (God) did all the miracles/healings/forgivings. So, when He(Jesus) forgave man's sins, it was actually God working through Him. In this case, Jesus was Man and He could forgive sins, obviously now, God did this all. Jesus was the instrument on earth to do this, to demonstrate to man, God's power, to prove to man that God exists.

Colossians 2:8-10
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:



John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

 

[Scuba]

Well hello!
All you Christians out there I want YOUR opinion!

I have studied this doctrine defined as the Trinity, and I tend to see a lot of issues with it. So I am just curious is someone that actually knows anything about it. (Not what you have always been taught, But what you have Studied) Would give me a brief but intellectual standpoint on it, in hopes of a discussion. What is the Trinity in your own words? And from a biblical point of view Why do you believe it?

The nature of God, as it is defined in mainline church today, as its root in Babylon. Just like everything else in mainline church today. Anytime a doctrine is forced and backed by persecution, torture and death I have to question it.

 

[Eva1218]

The word Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. What you will find is the word GODHEAD. The GODHEAD is the FATHER, SON and HOLY GHOST. Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9.

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Pray this helps.
Blessings!!!!!!!

 

[newbirth]

The word Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. What you will find is the word GODHEAD. The GODHEAD is the FATHER, SON and HOLY GHOST. Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9.

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Pray this helps.
Blessings!!!!!!!

trinity is your opinion...those verses do not prove a trinity...but you will believe it does,because of pre loaded scriptures crafted together to create the illusion of a trinity.So you hold fast to doctrine of man with itching ears.
The scripture says there is one God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

[Nick01]

Whoops, I see the discussion has moved on quite a bit. I'll still try and deal with this post.

Well i am not using an analogy here, i am simply quoting the text. My post was in response to you asking me this question:

Correct me if I am wrong, but you were suggesting here that the language in this passage implies that there are two separate beings because one is sitting at the right hand of the other.

Ah. correct. Yes, I did ask you that question, but your discussion seemed to focus on a literalistic reading of the text, and you seemed to use it analogously (because Jesus is not literally sitting on God's hand, therefore Jesus is not literally talking to the Father). That is why I said your analogy was flawed - the two things are not comparable, even purely in terms of what the actual text of the language is. Even then, the fact that sitting at the right hand of God connotes a position of authority does not mean the relationship itself is metaphorical. In fact, the whole idea and imageof sitting at the right hand of someone loses all sense if there is not actually another person to sit at the right hand of. The whole sense of that particular image of power is that one acts on behalf of another and is the force of their action, hence the "right hand man expresison". Again, I think you try to push the text further than is reasonable without essentially overriding the text itself

The scripture does not teach that. And this point is the basis for the entire discussion. It was the Father that was manifest in the Flesh, not the son. 1 TIm 3:16, Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 35:4

Agreed. But none of the verses prove the Father was manifest in the flesh. All of them operate on the presupposition that a trinitarian understanding of God is prima facie false, and two of the three do not even reference the Father specifically, with the third (Isaiah 9), being particularly ambiguous in its use and its place in the Old Testament.

According to John 1, he was the Word. In the greek, that is "logos" which means plan or idea. Phillipians 2 gives no indication at all that the son existed as anything other than a plan before creation. Would you do me a favor? Please site me an example in the scriptures where the son actually spoke BEFORE he was born. God spoke often in the old testament to his people. Can you site examples of God speaking that it was not the Father that was speaking but the Son or the Holy Ghost?

I'm assuming by the way you are using Logos that you acknowledge the simple fact that John, while equating the Logos and God, still sees fit to distinguish between the two concepts at other levels. Let's start with something simple, so we don't get bogged down any more than we are. Do you believe the Son existed before Abraham?

It indeed was a real realtionship between Father and Son. But it was not a real relationship between two eternal spirits. It was a relationship between Spirit and flesh. Just as we are flesh and have a relationship with the Spirit who is our Father.

So, again, you are arguing that sometimes Jesus speaks as the flesh, not as God, yes? Because yhou seem to be arguing that when Jesus talks to the Father, it is a REAL RELATIONSHIP on display, just between his human and divine components, instead of between Father and Son as distinguishable persons. So, therefore, you must conclude that when Jesus speaks to or of the Father in this way, it is the flesh speaking obliquely to his own divine nature. Are there times when the divine nature speaks itself, and how do you tell the difference by the text?

Sorry, I am not as educated as you are. Could you put this in laymen's terms for me cause I have no clue what you mean by that last statement.

Nothing to do with education, just bad typing I meant that when the Bible has God say something, it is meaningfully GOD that is speaking, but that doesn't mean personhood within the Godhead isn't true, only that it isn't relevant which person. A trinitarian understanding is quite at home with the idea of God speaking as one, because God is one.

Because he was making the picture clear that Jesus Christ was the same God of the old testament! [Ephesians 4 discussion]

But why do it so obliquely? Why muddy the waters with Sonship language? Why not just say God, and let everyone else connect the dots? I agree with the fact that Christ is God, but I just disagree that the use of the OT in places like Ephesians 4 necessitates a non-Trinitarian interpretation. Why is Paul so incessant on distinguishing between Father, Son, and Spirit when he could just have used the language of the Psalms, given centuries earlier?

We would not expect Isaiah to use trinitarian terms because Isaiah did not believe in a trinity. All through the book of Isaiah he is prophesying to the people and telling them that there is only one God. It's funny how you question what Isaiah means by "father" here, but you have no trouble defining what a "father" is anywhere else. Why would the meaning change here?

Several hundred years of history, a different language, and the actual incarnation would probably do it.

Sorry, but I disagree. The only way to know someone is to spend time with them. Any other knowledge you have of them is simply that: knowledge OF them.

Well, I simply reject that. You can know someone without spending all your time face to face.

It doesn't break down at the fundamental point that i am making. Let me go through it again. Jesus is the Father. Phillip doesn't recognize that. Phillip asks to see the Father. Jesus says (paraphrasing) Phillip, Have i been with you this long and you still don't know me? If you have seen me, you have seen the Father and from now on you have both seen the Father and known the Father. Now let me use an analogy. You are the shop owner and the mechanic. A customer knows you are the mechanic. They are complaining to you about their car. You are conversing with them and saying things like, "My business is professional' and "I want my customers to come back to MY business." Finally the customer says they want to speak to the owner. You say, "Have I been talking to you this long and you still don't recognize who I am? He who has talked to me has talked to the owner and from this point on you have both seen the owner and talked with him."

Now what is so hard to understand about that? The owner and the mechanic are the same person. Two different titles, two different job descriptions, two different sets of responsibilities, ONE MAN DOES THEM BOTH. This isn't rocket science. Its right there in the bible.

Do you notice how you're subtly adjusting the text to fit your analogy? For instance, Jesus says nothing close to saying "My business is professional" or "I want customers to come back to MY business". His language is striking:

"Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas *said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

Even now, at least recognise that Jesus is much more oblique than your analogy seeks to make him.

In my analogy, I said the Owner and the mechanic ARE the same. So yes that means they are necessarily the same because that is what the analogy stated. And its the same in John 14.

As above.

This is not true. When I said that "all of God was not in Jesus" I am saying that because God is omnipresent, and because of how you define God's entirety, then no, you cannot contain God in anything. The physical presence of God (whatever that is made up of) cannot be contained even in the universe, let alone a body. However everything that there is to KNOW about God can be AND WAS embodied in the man Jesus Christ. But trinitarians cannot believe that because in order to know everything that can be known about God, you would need to know also the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Ah, here's the crux of it. So tell me, why do you think that is so? And finally, do you think it is possible to know the omnipresent God through the finite incarnate Jesus in the way you describe?

Then you do not believe that the person of the Son is an omnipresent Spirit right? Because if he was, you could not have him in the flesh in his entirety.

Why not?

I do not contest your position because I have no scriptural evidence to stand on. That's why its just a theory and possibly a flawed one.

Food for thought, then.

I see. So the order does not matter to you. So you would be perfectly fine with me saying that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Ghost is the second person, and the Father is the third person?

I don't know why you'd want to do that. What would you mean by saying Jesus is the first person?

 

[apostolic862004]

Ah. correct. Yes, I did ask you that question, but your discussion seemed to focus on a literalistic reading of the text, and you seemed to use it analogously (because Jesus is not literally sitting on God's hand, therefore Jesus is not literally talking to the Father). That is why I said your analogy was flawed - the two things are not comparable, even purely in terms of what the actual text of the language is. Even then, the fact that sitting at the right hand of God connotes a position of authority does not mean the relationship itself is metaphorical. In fact, the whole idea and imageof sitting at the right hand of someone loses all sense if there is not actually another person to sit at the right hand of. The whole sense of that particular image of power is that one acts on behalf of another and is the force of their action, hence the "right hand man expresison". Again, I think you try to push the text further than is reasonable without essentially overriding the text itself

The reason this type of language is used is so that we could understand the spiritual authority that Jesus Christ had. It was the text was referencing an earthly type of authority to describe a heavenly one. But that does not mean that it was suggesting that there are two separate beings.

Agreed. But none of the verses prove the Father was manifest in the flesh. All of them operate on the presupposition that a trinitarian understanding of God is prima facie false, and two of the three do not even reference the Father specifically, with the third (Isaiah 9), being particularly ambiguous in its use and its place in the Old Testament.

Actually they do, when you understand that when bible says God, it is talking about the Father.

I'm assuming by the way you are using Logos that you acknowledge the simple fact that John, while equating the Logos and God, still sees fit to distinguish between the two concepts at other levels. Let's start with something simple, so we don't get bogged down any more than we are. Do you believe the Son existed before Abraham?

No. The Spirit that was in the son existed before Abraham. That is the Father. That is why he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." He was revealing that he is the same God that spoke to Abraham and told him "I AM that I AM."

So, again, you are arguing that sometimes Jesus speaks as the flesh, not as God, yes? Because yhou seem to be arguing that when Jesus talks to the Father, it is a REAL RELATIONSHIP on display, just between his human and divine components, instead of between Father and Son as distinguishable persons. So, therefore, you must conclude that when Jesus speaks to or of the Father in this way, it is the flesh speaking obliquely to his own divine nature. Are there times when the divine nature speaks itself, and how do you tell the difference by the text?

Again, I honestly wish I could explain how those intricate details worked, but alas, I cannot. I can only tell you that when Jesus got hungry or thirsty or sleepy, it was not the spirit inside of him because God never hungers, thirsts, or sleeps. Yet there is no "man" that can multiply two fish and fives loaves, tell the wind to be still and it obeys him, walk on water, or do any of the other miracles that Jesus did. He was both God and man. How all the intricate details worked, I simply do not know.

Nothing to do with education, just bad typing I meant that when the Bible has God say something, it is meaningfully GOD that is speaking, but that doesn't mean personhood within the Godhead isn't true, only that it isn't relevant which person. A trinitarian understanding is quite at home with the idea of God speaking as one, because God is one.

I disagree that it isn't relevant which person is talking if you believe they are separate. Because if you believe they are separate persons, then the Father and Holy Spirit cannot say that they died for your sins because they would be liars. Let me ask that in the form of a question: Do you believe that the Father and/or the Holy Spirit died for your sins?

But why do it so obliquely? Why muddy the waters with Sonship language? Why not just say God, and let everyone else connect the dots? I agree with the fact that Christ is God, but I just disagree that the use of the OT in places like Ephesians 4 necessitates a non-Trinitarian interpretation. Why is Paul so incessant on distinguishing between Father, Son, and Spirit when he could just have used the language of the Psalms, given centuries earlier?

The waters are not "muddied" by using sonship language. When you put all of the scripture together, it is very clear. It isn't confusing or ambiguous. But you are reading it with the presupposition that there is a trinity and not reading it based on what the text SAYS. Paul distinguishes between Father, Son, and Spirit because there IS a distinction in the three. But there is no DIVISION of the three. They are the same being.

Several hundred years of history, a different language, and the actual incarnation would probably do it.

Then how is the definition of "Father" different today than it was back then?

Well, I simply reject that. You can know someone without spending all your time face to face.

You have the freedom to reject it. But it doesn't change the truth.

Do you notice how you're subtly adjusting the text to fit your analogy? For instance, Jesus says nothing close to saying "My business is professional" or "I want customers to come back to MY business". His language is striking:

"Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas *said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

Really, then why did you so subtly not bold him saying " I will come again and receive you to MYSELF?"

Ah, here's the crux of it. So tell me, why do you think that is so? And finally, do you think it is possible to know the omnipresent God through the finite incarnate Jesus in the way you describe?

Yes because we do not know him after the flesh but after the Spirit.

Then you do not believe that the person of the Son is an omnipresent Spirit right? Because if he was, you could not have him in the flesh in his entirety.
Why not?

The burden is upon you to answer that question because that is exactly what you have been asking me. You say that the "entirety" of the Godhead cannot be in Jesus Christ because to say so would be to say that every "ounce" of God must be in there and that obviously cannot be because God is omnipresent and the universe cannot even contain him. Yet you have to answer the same question if you believe that the Son is a separate Spirit from the Father, and is omnipresent. Even if you believe that the Spirit of the son was in the flesh of the son, then you also do not believe that the Spirit of the son was in Jesus Christ in his entirety. Or, you have to believe that the Spirit of the son is NOT omnipresent. So which is it?

I see. So the order does not matter to you. So you would be perfectly fine with me saying that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Ghost is the second person, and the Father is the third person?




I don't know why you'd want to do that. What would you mean by saying Jesus is the first person?

Again, that is what I am asking you. I don't believe in "persons" in the Godhead, you do. So I am asking you what is the significance of saying "First, Second, or Third person" in the Godhead? If there is no significance, where did that terminology come from, and why is it used so consistently among trinitarians?

 

[Nick01]

The reason this type of language is used is so that we could understand the spiritual authority that Jesus Christ had. It was the text was referencing an earthly type of authority to describe a heavenly one. But that does not mean that it was suggesting that there are two separate beings.

The OT constantly uses authority language about God that doesn't not suggest derived authority. The NT could just have said Jesus had an iron rod, etc, and used that kind of language to connote authority. Instead, it uses language that becomes incoherent if there is no real relationship, and is entirely misleading. For all your talk of dealing with what the text says, you seem to be very insistent on ignoring what the text actually says, and waving away why very specific language was used in preference to other language that would otherwise make the same point but without the added connotations

Actually they do, when you understand that when bible says God, it is talking about the Father.

Which is fine, as long as you acknowledge they aren't proofs, because you are having to assume your position in order to read them that way. Circular reasoning is not proof.

No. The Spirit that was in the son existed before Abraham. That is the Father. That is why he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." He was revealing that he is the same God that spoke to Abraham and told him "I AM that I AM."

That's a very difficult reading to take, especially when barely two verses earlier he says he must glorify the Father, not himself. Are you saying that Jesus changes between the divine and the flesh in those couple of sentences? And what is your take on the 'day' of Jesus' that Abraham looked forward to?

Again, I honestly wish I could explain how those intricate details worked, but alas, I cannot. I can only tell you that when Jesus got hungry or thirsty or sleepy, it was not the spirit inside of him because God never hungers, thirsts, or sleeps. Yet there is no "man" that can multiply two fish and fives loaves, tell the wind to be still and it obeys him, walk on water, or do any of the other miracles that Jesus did. He was both God and man. How all the intricate details worked, I simply do not know.

No, it's not about detail. It's much more fundamental then that - it's about trying to find a coherent way of reading the statement's of Jesus that is consistent and allows us to interpret correctly. As you can agree, our interpretations are very different, based largely on these 'details' about how to read what Jesus says, and whether it is only the divine nature speaking self-referentially, or whether he is speaking of a real relationship as a whole person to the Father. Without a proper hermaneutic, the text is whatever you make, rather than what God made it. I think it is actually critical to your argument that you are able to give a textual reason as to how you distinguish between these two things.

I disagree that it isn't relevant which person is talking if you believe they are separate. Because if you believe they are separate persons, then the Father and Holy Spirit cannot say that they died for your sins because they would be liars. Let me ask that in the form of a question: Do you believe that the Father and/or the Holy Spirit died for your sins?

Answer: No, I don't. But I don't see why that means I should to distinguish between persons when God speaks every single time. In newspapers, sometimes it says the prime minister said something, other times the government - most of the time, it's not relevant that the particular specific agent is identified, because the government does not say anything the prime minister himself says.

The waters are not "muddied" by using sonship language. When you put all of the scripture together, it is very clear. It isn't confusing or ambiguous. But you are reading it with the presupposition that there is a trinity and not reading it based on what the text SAYS. Paul distinguishes between Father, Son, and Spirit because there IS a distinction in the three. But there is no DIVISION of the three. They are the same being.

As above. You have already agreed that your interpretation can't make clear certain things. Now, of course, that doesn't in itself mean anything, but where it becomes tricky is when the language of not only Jesus, by also Paul, seems to be there and seems to unnecessarily obfuscate. To what end?

Then how is the definition of "Father" different today than it was back then?

Jesus uses Father (Abba) in a highly specific sense to indicate his particular relationship with the Father, and then by extension the ability for others to know the Father via Christ (which is 90% of the theology of John). Paul, in particular, extends on this. The reference in Isaiah is obviously pre the incarnation, and thus is not necessarily referring to that same specific relationship between Christ and the Father. Father is rarely used in the OT, and is dwarfed by its use by Jesus in the gospels. It is far more likely that the use of Father is a more general word, describing the characteristics of God in terms of fatherliness, than it is meant to be a specific reference to that relationship.

You have the freedom to reject it. But it doesn't change the truth.

Whatever. Clearly we'll have to just disagree on this point, and let everyone else reading be the judge.

Really, then why did you so subtly not bold him saying " I will come again and receive you to MYSELF?"

Because that line wasn't part of the specific point I'm making. Why are you calling attention to that particular line?

Yes because we do not know him after the flesh but after the Spirit.

But clearly he expects the people who were with him to fully know him while he was in the flesh, yes?

The burden is upon you to answer that question because that is exactly what you have been asking me. You say that the "entirety" of the Godhead cannot be in Jesus Christ because to say so would be to say that every "ounce" of God must be in there and that obviously cannot be because God is omnipresent and the universe cannot even contain him. Yet you have to answer the same question if you believe that the Son is a separate Spirit from the Father, and is omnipresent. Even if you believe that the Spirit of the son was in the flesh of the son, then you also do not believe that the Spirit of the son was in Jesus Christ in his entirety. Or, you have to believe that the Spirit of the son is NOT omnipresent. So which is it?

I did answer the question. I just didn't understand why you couldn't put the Son in the flesh in his entirety, even if he otherwise is an omnipresent spirit. And Jesus is not a 'seperate' person in at least one important sense. His essence is inseparable from the rest of God. But his person is distinguishable.

But I want to clarify something you appear to have misread somewhere: My argument to you earlier was not on the basis of God's omniscience per se. It was on the basis of specific events such as the baptism or the transfiguration, where God explicitly makes himself known outside of Jesus, in a relational setting, and often in three distinct ways. Ergo, it becomes much less tenable to say that God, as a whole single unit, was in Christ, because in what sense then was God not in Jesus, and in what sense is God relating to JEsus? I'm not arguing from a principle of omnipresence, I'm arguing simply from what the text says.

Again, that is what I am asking you. I don't believe in "persons" in the Godhead, you do. So I am asking you what is the significance of saying "First, Second, or Third person" in the Godhead? If there is no significance, where did that terminology come from, and why is it used so consistently among trinitarians?

Again the terminology comes from the way they are listed in the baptismal formula from the Great Commission. I don't know if there is a particular significance, other than that the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and Son. I guess you could just say it's kind of 'shorthand' reference, which is why it gets used. Not quite sure why you're hammering away at this point - perhaps you could enlighten me, please?

 

[TruthFromFrank]

Colossians 2:8-10
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:



John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Your point?

 

[newbirth]

When Jesus Christ was on this earth, He was totally MAN but there was one huge difference. God, the Holy Spirit, was working THROUGH Jesus Christ and HE (God) did all the miracles/healings/forgivings. So, when He(Jesus) forgave man's sins, it was actually God working through Him. In this case, Jesus was Man and He could forgive sins, obviously now, God did this all. Jesus was the instrument on earth to do this, to demonstrate to man, God's power, to prove to man that God exists.

Who was his Father? Who impregnated Mary...Is the scripture lying?..are you saying Christ was a bastard because, Joseph said he was not his father. Was Mary lying, she said she was a virgin. Was Jesus lying ...Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
You my friend are not a believer... You just denied the Christ.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[newbirth]

Your point?

My point is you don't know who Christ is...

 

[TruthFromFrank]

Who was his Father? Who impregnated Mary...Is the scripture lying?..are you saying Christ was a bastard because, Joseph said he was not his father. Was Mary lying, she said she was a virgin. Was Jesus lying ...Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
You my friend are not a believer... You just denied the Christ.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Do you for one moment think that God will impregnate Mary to create His own Son on this earth, because that is what you are implying that Mary had to be impregnated to give birth to Jesus Christ. Also to make a statement that I deny Christ is simply not true. My understanding is though very much different to yours.

God has the power to create a child without having to impregnate a woman and He made a choice to use Mary as she was a symbol of pureness as she was still a virgin and obviously a good person as well with high moral standards and God knew this. God also has the power to work through Jesus Christ to perform miracles etc. As Jesus Christ knew where He came from, He could utter the words "Before Abraham was, I AM". Jesus did not create Himself. He is however, the first creation of God. Anything wrong with my statement?

 

[TruthFromFrank]

My point is you don't know who Christ is...

I know who Jesus Christ is, do you?

 

[newbirth]

Do you for one moment think that God will impregnate Mary to create His own Son on this earth, because that is what you are implying that Mary had to be impregnated to give birth to Jesus Christ. Also to make a statement that I deny Christ is simply not true. My understanding is though very much different to yours.

Are you saying Mary never became pregnant?

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

God has the power to create a child without having to impregnate a woman and He made a choice to use Mary as she was a symbol of pureness as she was still a virgin and obviously a good person as well with high moral standards and God knew this. God also has the power to work through Jesus Christ to perform miracles etc. As Jesus Christ knew where He came from, He could utter the words "Before Abraham was, I AM". Jesus did not create Himself. He is however, the first creation of God.

In the beginning was the Word,[SUP][a][/SUP]
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]He was with God in the beginning.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were created through Him,
and apart from Him not one thing was created
that has been created.

Anything wrong with my statement?

You are asking answers.....

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

 

[TruthFromFrank]

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

You are now saying that the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary. What next?