-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Would someone care to explain how we should understand Zechariah 12:10?
Zechariah 12:10 (New American Standard Bible)
"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn
Zechariah 12:10 (New American Standard Bible)
"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn
And what do the Trinitarians here do with the fact that all of the examples of "Trinitarian formulae" in the NT (Matthew 28:19, 1 John 5:8, 2 Corinthians 13:14) are later additions to the original text, meaning that there are NO straightforward examples of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit listed together as separate persons in the NT?
Sabellians, how do you understand the logos of John? I see the problem for Trinitarians in John 1, but how should the logos be defined and consistently applied so that it can both be with God and be God without being in some sense a separate person, or, if not person, a second "devine locality" apart from YHWH?
to all... since the question being discussed, or rather as it were currently, argued, revolves around the number of persons of which the Godhead consists, then hadn't we better agree on the definition of "person"? I would put forward a definition that says that each center of self-consciousness, self-will, and other-consciousness is a "person". Other definitions are welcome, as well as opinions and thoughts about how the definition of "person" that one assumes affects one's position in the greater discussion at hand.
I
The Bible says the the Word had life within Himself, then later in John, Jesus says that the Father, who has life within Himself has now given this life to His Son. In heaven, God was one being. BUT the Word was the image God used to manifest Himself to man with. It is this image that was with God (the Spirit cannot be contained to any image) and was God (although the image used by God was what would be manifested physically in Jesus, Jesus did not exist until His birth. It was the image that existed.) It has always been one true God, YHWH and one image to mediate between that Spirit and man.
I want to modify my own definition of "person" which was hastily written. I think that persons are intelligent (independently self-aware) and morally responsible (it must be both). Animals are intelligent in some sense, but not morally responsible. Israel as a nation was morally responsible, but "Israel" did not have intelligence...the people of Israel did.
C
Well, first of all, although I believe that I John 5:8 and II Corinthians 13:14 reflect Biblical theology, I don't use them in an academic discussion. Looking at the manuscript evidence, I don't think that Matthew 28:19 is a problem.
Secondly, these aren't the only Trinitarian statements. (Matt. 3:16-17, John 14:16-17 & 26, Gal. 4:6, Eph 2:18, II Thess. 3:5, I Peter 1:2, Eph. 1:3 & 13, Heb 9:14)
As for the formula, I am not a stickler for baptismal formula. It is the heart that matters, not the words. But if I have to choose, I believe that Jesus' direct instruction is sufficient as opposed to the various indirect statements of Acts.
The Trinity is the word that I use to describe my belief in these three Biblical truths.
1. That God is profoundly One.
2. That Jesus is God. That the Father is God. That the Holy Spirit is God.
3. That Jesus refers to and speaks to the Father as a separate person. That Jesus speaks of the Holy spirit as a separate person. That the writers of the New Testament spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinct persons.
Either you must ignore one or more or these truths or belief some form of trinitarianism or believe that the Bible is at best inconsistant.
Secondly, these aren't the only Trinitarian statements. (Matt. 3:16-17, John 14:16-17 & 26, Gal. 4:6, Eph 2:18, II Thess. 3:5, I Peter 1:2, Eph. 1:3 & 13, Heb 9:14)
As for the formula, I am not a stickler for baptismal formula. It is the heart that matters, not the words. But if I have to choose, I believe that Jesus' direct instruction is sufficient as opposed to the various indirect statements of Acts.
The Trinity is the word that I use to describe my belief in these three Biblical truths.
1. That God is profoundly One.
2. That Jesus is God. That the Father is God. That the Holy Spirit is God.
3. That Jesus refers to and speaks to the Father as a separate person. That Jesus speaks of the Holy spirit as a separate person. That the writers of the New Testament spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinct persons.
Either you must ignore one or more or these truths or belief some form of trinitarianism or believe that the Bible is at best inconsistant.
The trouble with Matthew 28:19 is that non of the patristic quotations of this verse prior to the council of Chalcedon use the Trinitarian formulae that we now see. Furthermore, none of the baptisms recorded in the NT are done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as Jesus is recorded to have commanded, but only in the name of Jesus. Eusebius on several occasions quoted Matthew 28:19 as saying "Baptizing them in my name", which fits the context (All authority has been given to me... teaching them everything I have commanded) and the practice described thereafter in the churches.
Okay...Matthew 3:16-17, Galatians 4:6, Ephesians 1:3&13, 2:18, Hebrews 9:14, and 1 Peter 1:2 hardly qualify as verses that could in any way make the case for the Holy Spirit as a person, much less a co-equal third person with the Father and the Son. Each of these verses mentions an activity or purpose of the Spirit which is by no means better understood if the Spirit were a full person rather than if the Spirit were simply understood as an extension of the Father's person and activity. In other words, there is no particular justification in these verses for describing the Spirit as a full person.
The remaining verses that you mentioned are John 14:16-17 & 26 (you also mentioned 2 Thessalonians 3:5, which doesnt mention the Spirit at all). In 14:17 Jesus says He will send the Spirit (future) who abides with them (present) and will be in them (future). The Spirit, then, is with and among the disciples, but not yet in them. Who does this describe perfectly? Jesus Himself.
Three Biblical truths:
1. God is profoundly One.
2. Jesus is "God with us". His body was the tabernacle (John 1:14) in which God dwelt. God (the One God, "all the fullness of the deity" Col 1:15) in-the-flesh, i.e. incarnate. He is the "Everlasting Father" or "Father of Eternity". The fully God-fully man Jesus is the Son of God because He is the One True God revealed in a new way (Heb 1:1-2)
3. That Jesus refers to and speaks of the Father as greater or more than just what the people were able to see when they looked at Jesus. Jesus was God incarnate, but God's presence was not limited to the flesh, even during His life. When you see Jesus you see the Father, but not as if you were beholding all that the Father is.
I affirm God the Father. I affirm that Jesus was God in the flesh. I believe that the Spirit is God continuing to dwell among and in us. I just don't believe that the Father is not Jesus or the Spirit, or that Jesus is not the Spirit. The One True God is the Father of all, and is also the One who revealed Himself in flesh and is also the One who continues to work in us as the Spirit.
My understanding is not unbiblical, not inconsistant; it is just different from yours. It is not LESS biblical nor LESS consistent than yours either. It comes from no source but the Bible, through and through.
The remaining verses that you mentioned are John 14:16-17 & 26 (you also mentioned 2 Thessalonians 3:5, which doesnt mention the Spirit at all). In 14:17 Jesus says He will send the Spirit (future) who abides with them (present) and will be in them (future). The Spirit, then, is with and among the disciples, but not yet in them. Who does this describe perfectly? Jesus Himself.
Three Biblical truths:
1. God is profoundly One.
2. Jesus is "God with us". His body was the tabernacle (John 1:14) in which God dwelt. God (the One God, "all the fullness of the deity" Col 1:15) in-the-flesh, i.e. incarnate. He is the "Everlasting Father" or "Father of Eternity". The fully God-fully man Jesus is the Son of God because He is the One True God revealed in a new way (Heb 1:1-2)
3. That Jesus refers to and speaks of the Father as greater or more than just what the people were able to see when they looked at Jesus. Jesus was God incarnate, but God's presence was not limited to the flesh, even during His life. When you see Jesus you see the Father, but not as if you were beholding all that the Father is.
I affirm God the Father. I affirm that Jesus was God in the flesh. I believe that the Spirit is God continuing to dwell among and in us. I just don't believe that the Father is not Jesus or the Spirit, or that Jesus is not the Spirit. The One True God is the Father of all, and is also the One who revealed Himself in flesh and is also the One who continues to work in us as the Spirit.
My understanding is not unbiblical, not inconsistant; it is just different from yours. It is not LESS biblical nor LESS consistent than yours either. It comes from no source but the Bible, through and through.
The Trinity formulae is one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. It always has been, and always will be!
To say there was no Tiune formulae before this council or that is very misleading, either through wilful intent or ignorance. As I have said before the reason for the creed was to articulate the belief of the church, against rising heresy. It is not that all of a sudden men made the Trinity up, but that it just had never been articualated before.
To refuse to believe in the Trinity is an afront to God Himself, not me or anyone else. Jesus is not the Father incarnate, and Jesus is not the Spirit. Yet they are three in one. That is one substance yet three persons, they all share the same attributes. The Father is not Jesus and Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, they are three yet one God. That alone is the Christian Biblical Truth. and always has been!
And I will bare you to mind Distinctive, that Scripture is progressive Revelation, I am sure you will know what I am talking about, especially concerning the revelation of the person of God, the Godhead in OT texts.
Just as a warning to all reading, the Triun'ness of God is not simply an academic argument. It affects how we view redemptive History, The person and work of Christ especially the Atonement. and it brings into repute the truthfulness of Scripture. Anything but the the belief of a Triune God in perfect relationship with each other has and always will be heresy. fancy words and smooth talk do not make it anyless!
Blessings
Phil
Hey Phil,
First off, thanks for your reply, and for being, as always, civil.
I do understand the history of the early church and of the councils fairly well. In fact, I count Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition to be one of my favorite extra-biblical reads. The truth about the earliest church, from the time of the apostles themselves on, is that there have been disagreements about the major, foundational beliefs of Christianity from the get-go. Even Paul had disagreements with some men who affiliated with James, the apostle and brother of Jesus, over the very nature and means of salvation!!
Theological disagreements always have and always will be with us. Because the Trinitarian understanding of God has been the "official" teaching of the church since the mid 5th century does not, as you would agree, make it correct. All this means is that by that time there was some consensus among the leaders of the church. I would argue, and Pelikan, who is most certainly orthodox in his theology, would concede- Greek thought and culture had a VERY big impact on the thinking and theology of many of the early church leaders. No doctrine shows this to be the case more than that of the Trinity.
While I understand and agree with progressive revelation, I don't agree with the modern church's absolute dispatch of any and all traces of Hebrew thought and origins in the faith of Christ. "Orthodoxy" has done just that-rend the New Covenant and its revelation from the first one and built itself instead on a synthesis of philosophy and scripture.
First off, thanks for your reply, and for being, as always, civil.
I do understand the history of the early church and of the councils fairly well. In fact, I count Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition to be one of my favorite extra-biblical reads. The truth about the earliest church, from the time of the apostles themselves on, is that there have been disagreements about the major, foundational beliefs of Christianity from the get-go. Even Paul had disagreements with some men who affiliated with James, the apostle and brother of Jesus, over the very nature and means of salvation!!
Theological disagreements always have and always will be with us. Because the Trinitarian understanding of God has been the "official" teaching of the church since the mid 5th century does not, as you would agree, make it correct. All this means is that by that time there was some consensus among the leaders of the church. I would argue, and Pelikan, who is most certainly orthodox in his theology, would concede- Greek thought and culture had a VERY big impact on the thinking and theology of many of the early church leaders. No doctrine shows this to be the case more than that of the Trinity.
While I understand and agree with progressive revelation, I don't agree with the modern church's absolute dispatch of any and all traces of Hebrew thought and origins in the faith of Christ. "Orthodoxy" has done just that-rend the New Covenant and its revelation from the first one and built itself instead on a synthesis of philosophy and scripture.
I'm not, I have said before on these boards!! The reason is that I know that you want to know for your petty rants of heresy on the person hood of God.
Now, You have have satated a few times that on other Christian websites you have been branded a heretic on your beliefs of the Godhead, now the common denominator here is your faulty beliefs on God.
Phil
Now, You have have satated a few times that on other Christian websites you have been branded a heretic on your beliefs of the Godhead, now the common denominator here is your faulty beliefs on God.
Phil
I belonged to a Pentecostal church in my youth. They stated they unequivocally stood on the Bible. We must accept it all. We heard many sermons condemning other denominations. If I am honest there was an almost arrogance of belief. And yet they ignored much of vital importance in the Bible. Doctrine, which I accept is most important was everything. But the heart of the Gospel was not to be found.
There are many and various good books on differing eras of church history. I don't think there is the 'dispatch' that you seem to be prtraying with regards to Hebraic thought with modern Christian thought. Most Certainly Greek thought and philosophy made in roads to early Christian culture, this can be very plain to see when Paul Argues against it, I assume, you are aware of the problems within the church at Corinth.
I think you have a flawed view on Hebraic thought on Christ, the most definatly changed as can be attested within the gospels themselves, especially refering to the Kingdom and the exact nature and details of the Messiah.
I would wholeheartedly disagree with your statment (if it is yours?) -- ''"Orthodoxy" has done just that-rend the New Covenant and its revelation from the first one and built itself instead on a synthesis of philosophy and scripture'' -- It amazes me how many false witness and cults have tried to use this ethos to portray their own egotistical man made doctrines. The Mormons are very good at it. The plain and simple fact God is a Triune God. the church has always believed it and always will, unfortunatley some people are easily swayed by Satans attempt to rubbish the Image of God.
Satan himself has led men to build a synthesis of lies ontop of Scripture, this is why we have heretics.
As I have said before......
The best Lies are built on truth! They are subtle twists and turns until you have been eatin by the lie. If you do not believe in the Trinity, then you do notKnow who God is! Plain and simple.
Blessings
Phil