honestly...THREEness and THREEnesses are EVERYWHERE, and in everything
and how we often get all fussy about how the story of it should be told...is a natural naive stage of growth, but way way too limited to really due the topic justice in any sort of effective way
such exclusive storytelling and clinging to mythic narratives seems antithesis to the life and messages and wisdom of Jesus
and quite impractical, as well as behind too many violent and crazy acts of inhumanity
and too...TWOness and TWOnesses are everywhere, as is ONEness and ONEnesses, and FOURness and Fournesses...on and on
the way we play favorites about such thing is troublemaking, yet quite natural
though i find it useful to observe the textures of our natural troubles
i also think we mostly miss the point in fundamental christianity
at the expense of more things than i can count
honestly
the arguments for and against Jesus' divinity
the arguments for and against the nature and reality of trinity and triunity and such
...my prayer is that we get on with it, so we can get beyond it
though if we schools of thought must tit for tat over such things
i guess there must be a true reason why they are not done yet
and any appeal by me to "get on with it" is perhaps just playful impishness
and too...i think that perhaps the sexuality of the trinity
(as well as lack of sexuality in the trinity discussions, very narrow historical perspectives, and xenophobic and bibliophobic issues)
are a few more way too often overlooked elements of honest discussion and exploration
You seem to think that the discussion misses the point. I halfway agree, but let me explain.
I don't care so much about a creedal statement. I think haggling about one or two letters in a creed can seem ridiculous and for most it is. What matters is the implications that come from the beliefs. I do care about the elements that the creeds bring up though that are important such as,
1. the deity of Christ: Practically, should we worship Him? Should we look to him as our savior? Should we put our complete 100% trust in Jesus if he is just a sinless man?
2. The personhood of the Holy Spirit: Is this relevant to the way we interact with the Holy Spirit and how we are led by HIM? I say yes.
3. The implied relationship within the Godhead: Is there something we can learn about the oneness that we should seek in our relationships: Husbands and wives, leaders and laity, Parents and children, etc. I think this one is EXTREMELY practical.
4. The understanding that this affects our understanding of our own redemption.
Now, let me also say... I believe that I was saved while a member of TWI. Contrary to most trinitarians that you might meet, I do not believe that a person has to be a trinitarian to be saved. On the other hand, I believe that non-trinitarian Christians are seriously handicapped spiritually because of their wrong thinking.
i think the discussion is right on the point...just the the point (of the trinity and divinity and jesus and salvation and such) is perhaps a lot lot bigger (wider, higher, whatnot) than the discussion often allows for
which is fine, imo
just being honest
to add...i really appreciate your explicit open invitation to do so
I think Jesus is just a substitute image of a yet to be knowable God. 'If you have seen me, you have seen the father" Jesus is as yet the most perfect reflection of God that our limiter minds can grasp. In that sense he is God. But he and the Father have separate wills. Same as with the Holy Spirit. It has a different identity from God the Father, and God the son, and may only be a temporary facet of God to bring knowledge of the unspeakable to those who are Christ's. Indeed too, it seems that there will come a time when everything will be handed over to God, when He can truley be known.
Is Christ and the Holy Spirit God? In a sense yes, but only for a season.
Now, let me also say... I believe that I was saved while a member of TWI. Contrary to most trinitarians that you might meet, I do not believe that a person has to be a trinitarian to be saved. On the other hand, I believe that non-trinitarian Christians are seriously handicapped spiritually because of their wrong thinking.
And on it goes. I'm quite sure you'll find numerous non-trinitarians who would say the same of trinitarians. Sadly, neither position is unequivocally provable, hence my agnostic mindset. But Jerry might be on to something. That's one of the better explanations I've heard in quite a while.
You might want to look into some church history during your study. The story of how the trinity came to be a prominent doctrine is quite intriguing.
sonofarthur, very good post and tone welcoming honest, respectful open dialog. :)
I sort of quit limiting myself to the Bible when I left TWI and looked into the Gnostic Gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the other ancient scrolls that have been found. I also looked into different "holy books" and the process Christianity has taken to get to where it is today. Seems you've been doing some of the same.
It seems to me, that the more I read, the more "spiritual" I see things and the less "divisive" regarding people, Jesus and God.... I think I see "the body" a lot bigger and the lines forming distinctions between us as blurring. (Could be the quantum physics things I've been looking into also... )
I'm not sure how I see Jesus right now, honestly. I think he definitely had mastery of the connection with God that we can have and I think he was a great "tangible" example of what things are possible in our lives and on this eart. I don't think he was any more God than we are, but I don't we've fully comprehended what he came to teach us either.
I think that we're so conditioned to pigeonhole and categorize things that we miss out on the big picture and I wonder if that's part of what SirGuess was saying.
I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense. It's hard to describe and, since I'm still learning, subject to change on a regular basis. :P
the trinity was the biggest stumbling block, for me, in taking christianity as a viable belief system. I refuse to judge anyone's take on god these days, I'll leave that up to twi dogs and their ilk.
here's the question that must be answered for me to understand jesus as anything more than he said he was:
how can Jesus, a man, be born, live and die a man, yet be God when God says he is not a man?
the only answer I have found that doesn't hatch more questions is his resurrection surely transformed him. but it does not transform what he was before his transformation.
unless something else is revealed that makes the trinity understandable, I will follow Jesus' teachings. he was a man. beyond the issue of Jesus' status as God, I have issues with what John says. if we take John 14 literally, Jesus is the comforter. if we take it figuratively, there is a one-ness with God that can only be achieved through Jesus who intercedes. I don't understand at all the separation of holy spirit as an entity unto itself. I've tried to understand my trinitarian friends' doctrines, but I'm afraid they've never been able to explain it so it makes sense.
It seems to me, that the more I read, the more "spiritual" I see things and the less "divisive" regarding people, Jesus and God.... I think I see "the body" a lot bigger and the lines forming distinctions between us as blurring. (Could be the quantum physics things I've been looking into also... )
yeah... the universe is a pretty amazing place. I watched "what the bleep do we know" near the beginning of my awakening from twi stupor and it shifted a lot of what I believed according to twi dogma... which is why I don't want to judge anyone for their beliefs (unless the belief is clearly delusional, like the one where vpw was a man of good character ). I do try to understand other positions if I can. I understand and accept that people believe the trinity, I just don't understand the doctrine itself.
Its amazing how some people treat the so-called 'importance' of some religious doctrine (often to the extent of treating non-believers of said doctrine as anathema) that, in reality, does _absolutely nothing_ of substance for humanity; morally, ethically, compassion-wise, or anything else of any real importance to the human race. And this goes in not only the trinitarian direction, but the unitarian (the biblical-related variety) direction as well, for those who seem to think that believing that Jesus Christ is not God is s-o-o important in life.
But it's like you said, JumpinJive. On it goes ..........
You seem to think that the discussion misses the point. I halfway agree, but let me explain.
I don't care so much about a creedal statement. I think haggling about one or two letters in a creed can seem ridiculous and for most it is. What matters is the implications that come from the beliefs. I do care about the elements that the creeds bring up though that are important such as,
1. the deity of Christ: Practically, should we worship Him? Should we look to him as our savior? Should we put our complete 100% trust in Jesus if he is just a sinless man?
2. The personhood of the Holy Spirit: Is this relevant to the way we interact with the Holy Spirit and how we are led by HIM? I say yes.
3. The implied relationship within the Godhead: Is there something we can learn about the oneness that we should seek in our relationships: Husbands and wives, leaders and laity, Parents and children, etc. I think this one is EXTREMELY practical.
4. The understanding that this affects our understanding of our own redemption.
Now, let me also say... I believe that I was saved while a member of TWI. Contrary to most trinitarians that you might meet, I do not believe that a person has to be a trinitarian to be saved. On the other hand, I believe that non-trinitarian Christians are seriously handicapped spiritually because of their wrong thinking.
Welcome to GSC, Son of Arthur. Great idea for a thread and great posts by everyone! I think this is one of those topics that’s so big/deep/complicated as to defy any conventional means of organizing a “study” – because as finite beings we’re attempting to understand someone infinite! You labeled this an “honest discussion” and not a debate. I don’t think it does the topic justice to draw a line in the sand with relevant Scripture and arguments of anti-Trinitarian and pro-Trinitarian folks stockpiled on either side. And to be honest with everyone I’d like to state upfront I am amazed or maybe it’s more like…uhmm…perplexed at the evolution of this topic in my personal study and reflection of the biblical data. Since leaving TWI I’ve flip flopped a number of times. And I’m not playing some politician’s waffling tactic in an open forum for fear of getting nailed by an opposing party. If there is no middle ground [who set up these rules anyway?] - I guess at this stage of exploring my faith – you can put me down as a Trinitarian.
Your particular post REALLY got my attention because your questions [QUESTIONS – I love QUESTIONS!] are very close to what issues have driven me in my studies. How does my understanding of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit affect how I apply my faith? What is the relationship of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit and what bearing does it have on me in matters of worship, prayer, guidance, redemption, evangelism, personal struggles, spiritual warfare, and interpersonal dynamics?
In my humble opinion, some topics transcend scriptural specificity and articulation. This is one of them. That may be wrong thinking on my part – perhaps being reactionary to TWI’s mindset. TWI had a tendency to reduce everything to formulas, laws, rigid concepts, ideas you could wrap your mind around – which gives one a sense of absolute comprehension and control. And even in mainstream Christianity - reviewing a number of systematic theologies [currently I have fifteen from authors of various backgrounds] I think that’s somewhat how we approach things nowadays [not necessarily with as much rigidity, reductionism, or arrogance as TWI]. We feel comfortable with everything organized in one place. I’m not knocking systematic theology – just trying to explain that I view it as a handy framework maybe even a necessary tool for sorting out things. But I don’t consider it gospel truth. I read somewhere [in an Alister McGrath book Understanding Doctrine I think] of doctrines being likened to botanists going out into the wild, bringing back samples, organizing them by genus in a greenhouse. In the wild, – these plants are scattered all over the place – but in the greenhouse they are arranged according to how the botanists decided to group them. Similarly – the Bible is not arranged like a textbook with indexes, diagrams, organized topics, etc. What one person says is a verse that is relevant to one topic – may actually touch upon another as well, or perhaps the person is wrong altogether.
So I’m not criticizing systematic theology – I’m just saying I try to remember when I read this stuff – that it’s a framework of thought, a point of view, people’s way of organizing information. I believe we have a God-breathed Word. But I don’t think there’s a God-breathed systematic theology book.
Sometimes while reading systematic theology books – I think about the early church – specifically the Book ofActs period. When studying theology and doctrinal application I think we forget how informative historical proximity [a reference source closer to the event] can be. I catch myself thinking, “We’re so sophisticated now. They didn’t have the whole Bible then. We have such an advantage now.” Yet as I read Acts I’m impressed with the confidence of their faith and practice...And with regard to historical proximity and thinking about the Trinity and the writers of the New Testament – what intrigues me is that in some instances I find – I don’t know – ambiguity. Is the writer speaking about Jesus or God? Is this something the Holy Spirit does – or Jesus or the Father?
So…boiling this all down to what do I have to offer this discussion – not a whole lot. Sorry. But I do like reading other people’s stuff…I’m still exploring…I’m not hung up on nailing this one down. Personally – I don’t think it can be done. But I could be wrong…I don’t consider it a mission-critical thing that I have to settle in order to effectively serve my Lord…I certainly would appreciate a better understanding of Him – which I think is a lifetime endeavor [and that includes the eternal portion as well]. So, I continue to practice my faith according to the dictates of my heart and understanding of the Scriptures so as to please Him.
I love the way you think!! Thank you for that quote from McGrath. I have never heard that metaphor before. I love it.
I agree. It would be foolhardy to think we can be definitive or exhaustive in this format. I didn't want that. I would be blessed just to hear what people currently think and how they came to their conclusions. Of course, I'd like to share my story too. ;)
What saddens me most is that some people have given up searching for an answer. Perhaps they have become agnostic. This is truly sad.
There are answers in the Bible. We don't have all the answers, but who Jesus is and how we are to respond to Him is clearly laid out.
some hints at room for expansion of the honest discussion....
what about aboriginal views on the trinity? (pick a bloodline, any bloodline)
or hindu? or taoist? or kabbalist? or agnostic?
or the trinities of economy, of ecology, of social dynamics, of sexuality, of physics?
..."the thesis, the anti-thesis and the holy synthesis" of whatever it is we are measuring/experiencing/observing?
cuz the Bible (and it histories) is a HUGE HUGE topic
AND a narrow narrow narrow slice of known wisdom on trinity and divinity and holy spirit and such
which is why i think that perhaps an honest discussion can only start if all involved can START from a position of being mostly mostly mostly ignorant of most all things
...then go from there
cuz it seems there is an enchanted agnosticism that trumps both nihilism and dogma
in terms of how it responds to darkness once we are thoroughly spent
I think that sometimes we read things and ignore the substance of some descriptions while accutely focusing on others. So much so, that at times that we loose the original substance of what it is we think we are talking about.
On the other thread it was omniscience. Here it is onmipresence. This is what most Christians and many other religions think of God, is it not?
So, it helps more to think of the nature of things to define and realise that nature than it does to get caught up in the story, narrative, or myth associated with such things.
IF God is omnipresent, everywhere at once, past present and future, then he is both unitarian and trinitarian and quadritarian and octogenarian etc. :) He is both everywhere and nowhere, both everything and nothing. God is the he, she, it of everything and nothing. God is the everything and the "ness" of everythingness and the nothing and the "ness" of nothingness, both the infinite and the pinpoint. God is the "ness." He, She, It is you, me, and even Dupree, blessed Trinity *sing it*!
So we get caught up in the stories and the stories become our faith instead of what be believe the nature of God is, which is what really draws you to God to begin with. It is the all knowingness and the all presentness and all lovey-dovey-ness, the all-so-much-bigger-better-smarter-more-powerful-more-knowlegable-than-you-ness. Which if true is still the you-ness. Which is what the stories are really getting at anyway. Because in IT "we live and move" and IT is in Christ in YOU. In you, out of you- put your right foot in, put your right foot out, and shake it all about...holy Moses! IT's everywhere, you can't shake IT!
As an omnipresent omniscient God he is the collective. The all knowing God that is everywhere is the everywhere present knowledge. The knowledge of everything is everywhere, in and out of everything. That is what is "God in Christ in you." Perhaps, making Jesus Lord then is making God Lord and that realization is one that it is God in man and in you and in everything. So the recieving of holy spirit is more of a realizsation that the Spirit is wholly everywhere which would make it holy in that the knowledge and realization of this is special.
Or not.
Don't be sad for us agnostics, arthorson. We all know much less than we think.
What saddens me most is that some people have given up searching for an answer. Perhaps they have become agnostic. This is truly sad.
What, exactly, is sad about becoming agnostic? I ultimately don't believe the bible supports the concept of a trinity, probably because you can't find that word or anything like it in there. But I'm not the ultimate arbiter of christian faith and practice. I could be right, I could be wrong. Unfortunately, I have no definitive way of knowing which is the case. I think being an agnostic is an honest position and ultimately the only position that CAN be taken on a whole host of subjects, not just the trinity.
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
I was raised a trinitarian, believed it for many years. Never understood it though. Then I learned about Christ not being God. I now hold to the latter teaching simply because I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in that favor.
Even if you and I disagree, does that make us enemies? My best friend is a trinitarian yet he accepts me and makes no big deal out of it as do I. I believe the more important point is we are all in the same family and we are all pulling for the same thing which I believe is to bring people into a knowledge of Christ, i.e. accepting him as Lord and Savior. Take for instance the teaching on "the rapture", "the return" whatever you want to call it. We have pretrib. rapturalists, midtrib. rapt. and posttrib. rapt. but are these the real important points. Isn't the important point that He is coming back?
Belle, SirGuessaLot, LindyHopper and JumpinJive made some great points about how ambitious this discussion is – trying to define God or just trying to consider the bigger picture. Like I said before – currently I'm in the Trinitarian camp. Not because I understand or can explain the Trinity – I don't hold to some ironclad statement of faith on the Trinity. I consider myself a Trinitarian because I recognize an assortment of similarities/connectedness/dynamics in the biblical data of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe in the deity of Christ and presently don't see Him and the Father as one and the same person. I am attracted to a lot of Trinitarian doctrine in that I see it as an attempt to make sense of the entire body of Scripture on the subject.
Whereas TWI would isolate Scripture, avoid certain passages or flat out twist them - like VPW's handling of John 1:1,2. He presents only one way to interpret how the Word could be in the beginning with God – in God's foreknowledge. He offers the definition of the Greek word for "with" pros as "together with yet distinctly independent of." Which after I left TWI and started analyzing PFAL stuff – found the definition actually negated his argument. If I am thinking about having kids sometime in the future – are my thoughts together with me yet distinctly independent of my mind? Maybe if I'm schizophrenic.
In my opinion the real interpretive tool of the Bible is our minds – the way we process information – the way we try to make sense of things. Maybe VPW was right in the way he interpreted John 1:1,2. I don't see it that way. I can't really explain how the Word could have been in the beginning with God and then become flesh – so I file that puzzle in my "Maybe-someday-I'll-figure-it-out-maybe-not-so-I'll-hold-any-conclusions/inferences-in-a-state-of-flux" folder. Like I said at first - reflecting on this topic is a mighty ambitious endeavor. I'm in WAY OVER my head.
I think we need to be aware of how subtly our little background processor [assumptions, point of view] fills in the blanks, concocts explanations, plots solutions, makes inferences, and applies intellectual shorthand. Like when I see the classic symbol for the Trinity – that someone came up with – the equilateral triangle. My mind wonders: does each angle have to be same? I know – then it wouldn't be equilateral. Or to say they're identical in terms of either two could be eliminated – I would think "no" because then you'd have one angle like this < . But who knows – you could superimpose all three angles on top of each other and it would look like this< . Big deal – it's geometry and not philosophy anyway…So in my head what it comes down to when reflecting on this symbol – is that it represents some kind of relationship of similarities/connectedness/dynamics of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I'm not saying my perception is right, my understanding is right. I'm just explaining how my mind tries to make sense of this stuff and how I try to make my interpretive tool [my mind] as much an overt process as possible so I can "see" how I'm handling the data coming in.
how can Jesus, a man, be born, live and die a man, yet be God when God says he is not a man?
which, I think, is referring to "God is not a man that He should lie". In regards to lying, God is not a man. Very true. But that's shaky ground to build a concept of who Christ is. Awfully shaky.
Jesus was the Word made flesh.
The express image of His person.
The fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelt in Him.
I believe He is God incarnate, meaning, God come in the flesh.
Thankfully, I haven't seen in this thread the straw man that Way-style 'unitarians' love to flog: That trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Father. No they don't. Read up on the doctrine before you flog that straw man.
Now, I accept Jesus' divinity unequivocally, and his eternal existence. Where I balk at trinitarian dogma is the notion of the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the Trinity. I see him as a descriptive aspect of God, much like "the Almighty" that describes that aspect of his divine nature. I'll need help to see him as a distinct person of the Trinity.
Hi, sonofarthur. Where y'at these days? Still in Denton?
What saddens me most is that some people have given up searching for an answer. Perhaps they have become agnostic. This is truly sad.
Being one of the resident agnostics, I will supply MY answer. This is not to be construed as speaking for anyone else but moi`.
Imnsho, agnostics are a little more comfortable with doubt than 'believers'. Believers seem to be of the mind set, God just HAS to be in control, if He isn't, the world doesn't make any sense. This probably is a reversion to childhood, where your parents 'were as God'. Your parents supplied everything you needed, and perhaps, a lot of the things you wanted.
When you get older, a strange thing happens. You find out your parents didn't always tell you the truth. Maybe it was your mother telling you the dog next door was really a robot dog (way before they actually showed up on the market).
In any event, this tends to lead to a search for a 'parent' who will always tell us the truth. It is a bitter pill to swallow, the people who supposedly love you most, will lie to you.
Then, you find a group which tells you they have the 'truth'. However long it takes, eventually, you find out the people who supposedly love you most (I think a lot of people here, at least at one time, would have trusted their lives to total strangers as long as they had their piffle name tag on, me being one of them) will lie to you also. Not only will they lie to you, but will also threaten your physical safety.
This is the series of events leading me down the path of the agnostic.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
26
25
34
Popular Days
Jan 27
30
Jan 22
27
Jan 23
26
Jan 26
25
Top Posters In This Topic
T-Bone 26 posts
potato 26 posts
cman 25 posts
sonofarthur 34 posts
Popular Days
Jan 27 2007
30 posts
Jan 22 2007
27 posts
Jan 23 2007
26 posts
Jan 26 2007
25 posts
Posted Images
sirguessalot
welcome to the gsc, son of arthur
ok
honestly...THREEness and THREEnesses are EVERYWHERE, and in everything
and how we often get all fussy about how the story of it should be told...is a natural naive stage of growth, but way way too limited to really due the topic justice in any sort of effective way
such exclusive storytelling and clinging to mythic narratives seems antithesis to the life and messages and wisdom of Jesus
and quite impractical, as well as behind too many violent and crazy acts of inhumanity
and too...TWOness and TWOnesses are everywhere, as is ONEness and ONEnesses, and FOURness and Fournesses...on and on
the way we play favorites about such thing is troublemaking, yet quite natural
though i find it useful to observe the textures of our natural troubles
i also think we mostly miss the point in fundamental christianity
at the expense of more things than i can count
honestly
the arguments for and against Jesus' divinity
the arguments for and against the nature and reality of trinity and triunity and such
...my prayer is that we get on with it, so we can get beyond it
though if we schools of thought must tit for tat over such things
i guess there must be a true reason why they are not done yet
and any appeal by me to "get on with it" is perhaps just playful impishness
and too...i think that perhaps the sexuality of the trinity
(as well as lack of sexuality in the trinity discussions, very narrow historical perspectives, and xenophobic and bibliophobic issues)
are a few more way too often overlooked elements of honest discussion and exploration
...end of rambling...
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
sirguessalot,
You seem to think that the discussion misses the point. I halfway agree, but let me explain.
I don't care so much about a creedal statement. I think haggling about one or two letters in a creed can seem ridiculous and for most it is. What matters is the implications that come from the beliefs. I do care about the elements that the creeds bring up though that are important such as,
1. the deity of Christ: Practically, should we worship Him? Should we look to him as our savior? Should we put our complete 100% trust in Jesus if he is just a sinless man?
2. The personhood of the Holy Spirit: Is this relevant to the way we interact with the Holy Spirit and how we are led by HIM? I say yes.
3. The implied relationship within the Godhead: Is there something we can learn about the oneness that we should seek in our relationships: Husbands and wives, leaders and laity, Parents and children, etc. I think this one is EXTREMELY practical.
4. The understanding that this affects our understanding of our own redemption.
Now, let me also say... I believe that I was saved while a member of TWI. Contrary to most trinitarians that you might meet, I do not believe that a person has to be a trinitarian to be saved. On the other hand, I believe that non-trinitarian Christians are seriously handicapped spiritually because of their wrong thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
sorry for being unclear
i think the discussion is right on the point...just the the point (of the trinity and divinity and jesus and salvation and such) is perhaps a lot lot bigger (wider, higher, whatnot) than the discussion often allows for
which is fine, imo
just being honest
to add...i really appreciate your explicit open invitation to do so
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Free Soul
I am willing to listen........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
I think Jesus is just a substitute image of a yet to be knowable God. 'If you have seen me, you have seen the father" Jesus is as yet the most perfect reflection of God that our limiter minds can grasp. In that sense he is God. But he and the Father have separate wills. Same as with the Holy Spirit. It has a different identity from God the Father, and God the son, and may only be a temporary facet of God to bring knowledge of the unspeakable to those who are Christ's. Indeed too, it seems that there will come a time when everything will be handed over to God, when He can truley be known.
Is Christ and the Holy Spirit God? In a sense yes, but only for a season.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
And on it goes. I'm quite sure you'll find numerous non-trinitarians who would say the same of trinitarians. Sadly, neither position is unequivocally provable, hence my agnostic mindset. But Jerry might be on to something. That's one of the better explanations I've heard in quite a while.
You might want to look into some church history during your study. The story of how the trinity came to be a prominent doctrine is quite intriguing.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
sonofarthur, very good post and tone welcoming honest, respectful open dialog. :)
I sort of quit limiting myself to the Bible when I left TWI and looked into the Gnostic Gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the other ancient scrolls that have been found. I also looked into different "holy books" and the process Christianity has taken to get to where it is today. Seems you've been doing some of the same.
It seems to me, that the more I read, the more "spiritual" I see things and the less "divisive" regarding people, Jesus and God.... I think I see "the body" a lot bigger and the lines forming distinctions between us as blurring. (Could be the quantum physics things I've been looking into also...
)
I'm not sure how I see Jesus right now, honestly. I think he definitely had mastery of the connection with God that we can have and I think he was a great "tangible" example of what things are possible in our lives and on this eart. I don't think he was any more God than we are, but I don't we've fully comprehended what he came to teach us either.
I think that we're so conditioned to pigeonhole and categorize things that we miss out on the big picture and I wonder if that's part of what SirGuess was saying.
I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense. It's hard to describe and, since I'm still learning, subject to change on a regular basis. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Sonofarthur,
Scripture clearly indicates the eternal existence and deity of the Son.
Welcome to GSC, Trinitarian comrade.
*****
Recommended reading for all:
Erroneous Views Concerning The Person of Christ (Loraine Boettner)
Definition of Chalcedon (in an article on the Council of Chalcedon at Wikipedia)
The Incarnation of Christ (Brian Schwertley)
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
the trinity was the biggest stumbling block, for me, in taking christianity as a viable belief system. I refuse to judge anyone's take on god these days, I'll leave that up to twi dogs and their ilk.
here's the question that must be answered for me to understand jesus as anything more than he said he was:
how can Jesus, a man, be born, live and die a man, yet be God when God says he is not a man?
the only answer I have found that doesn't hatch more questions is his resurrection surely transformed him. but it does not transform what he was before his transformation.
unless something else is revealed that makes the trinity understandable, I will follow Jesus' teachings. he was a man. beyond the issue of Jesus' status as God, I have issues with what John says. if we take John 14 literally, Jesus is the comforter. if we take it figuratively, there is a one-ness with God that can only be achieved through Jesus who intercedes. I don't understand at all the separation of holy spirit as an entity unto itself. I've tried to understand my trinitarian friends' doctrines, but I'm afraid they've never been able to explain it so it makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
yeah... the universe is a pretty amazing place. I watched "what the bleep do we know" near the beginning of my awakening from twi stupor and it shifted a lot of what I believed according to twi dogma... which is why I don't want to judge anyone for their beliefs (unless the belief is clearly delusional, like the one where vpw was a man of good character
). I do try to understand other positions if I can. I understand and accept that people believe the trinity, I just don't understand the doctrine itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Its amazing how some people treat the so-called 'importance' of some religious doctrine (often to the extent of treating non-believers of said doctrine as anathema) that, in reality, does _absolutely nothing_ of substance for humanity; morally, ethically, compassion-wise, or anything else of any real importance to the human race. And this goes in not only the trinitarian direction, but the unitarian (the biblical-related variety) direction as well, for those who seem to think that believing that Jesus Christ is not God is s-o-o important in life.
But it's like you said, JumpinJive. On it goes ..........
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Welcome to GSC, Son of Arthur. Great idea for a thread and great posts by everyone! I think this is one of those topics that’s so big/deep/complicated as to defy any conventional means of organizing a “study” – because as finite beings we’re attempting to understand someone infinite! You labeled this an “honest discussion” and not a debate. I don’t think it does the topic justice to draw a line in the sand with relevant Scripture and arguments of anti-Trinitarian and pro-Trinitarian folks stockpiled on either side. And to be honest with everyone I’d like to state upfront I am amazed or maybe it’s more like…uhmm…perplexed at the evolution of this topic in my personal study and reflection of the biblical data. Since leaving TWI I’ve flip flopped a number of times. And I’m not playing some politician’s waffling tactic in an open forum for fear of getting nailed by an opposing party. If there is no middle ground [who set up these rules anyway?] - I guess at this stage of exploring my faith – you can put me down as a Trinitarian.
Your particular post REALLY got my attention because your questions [QUESTIONS – I love QUESTIONS!] are very close to what issues have driven me in my studies. How does my understanding of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit affect how I apply my faith? What is the relationship of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit and what bearing does it have on me in matters of worship, prayer, guidance, redemption, evangelism, personal struggles, spiritual warfare, and interpersonal dynamics?
In my humble opinion, some topics transcend scriptural specificity and articulation. This is one of them. That may be wrong thinking on my part – perhaps being reactionary to TWI’s mindset. TWI had a tendency to reduce everything to formulas, laws, rigid concepts, ideas you could wrap your mind around – which gives one a sense of absolute comprehension and control. And even in mainstream Christianity - reviewing a number of systematic theologies [currently I have fifteen from authors of various backgrounds] I think that’s somewhat how we approach things nowadays [not necessarily with as much rigidity, reductionism, or arrogance as TWI]. We feel comfortable with everything organized in one place. I’m not knocking systematic theology – just trying to explain that I view it as a handy framework maybe even a necessary tool for sorting out things. But I don’t consider it gospel truth. I read somewhere [in an Alister McGrath book Understanding Doctrine I think] of doctrines being likened to botanists going out into the wild, bringing back samples, organizing them by genus in a greenhouse. In the wild, – these plants are scattered all over the place – but in the greenhouse they are arranged according to how the botanists decided to group them. Similarly – the Bible is not arranged like a textbook with indexes, diagrams, organized topics, etc. What one person says is a verse that is relevant to one topic – may actually touch upon another as well, or perhaps the person is wrong altogether.
So I’m not criticizing systematic theology – I’m just saying I try to remember when I read this stuff – that it’s a framework of thought, a point of view, people’s way of organizing information. I believe we have a God-breathed Word. But I don’t think there’s a God-breathed systematic theology book.
Sometimes while reading systematic theology books – I think about the early church – specifically the Book of Acts period. When studying theology and doctrinal application I think we forget how informative historical proximity [a reference source closer to the event] can be. I catch myself thinking, “We’re so sophisticated now. They didn’t have the whole Bible then. We have such an advantage now.” Yet as I read Acts I’m impressed with the confidence of their faith and practice...And with regard to historical proximity and thinking about the Trinity and the writers of the New Testament – what intrigues me is that in some instances I find – I don’t know – ambiguity. Is the writer speaking about Jesus or God? Is this something the Holy Spirit does – or Jesus or the Father?
So…boiling this all down to what do I have to offer this discussion – not a whole lot. Sorry. But I do like reading other people’s stuff…I’m still exploring…I’m not hung up on nailing this one down. Personally – I don’t think it can be done. But I could be wrong…I don’t consider it a mission-critical thing that I have to settle in order to effectively serve my Lord…I certainly would appreciate a better understanding of Him – which I think is a lifetime endeavor [and that includes the eternal portion as well]. So, I continue to practice my faith according to the dictates of my heart and understanding of the Scriptures so as to please Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Free Soul
Well said, T-Bone!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Tbone,
I love the way you think!! Thank you for that quote from McGrath. I have never heard that metaphor before. I love it.
I agree. It would be foolhardy to think we can be definitive or exhaustive in this format. I didn't want that. I would be blessed just to hear what people currently think and how they came to their conclusions. Of course, I'd like to share my story too. ;)
What saddens me most is that some people have given up searching for an answer. Perhaps they have become agnostic. This is truly sad.
There are answers in the Bible. We don't have all the answers, but who Jesus is and how we are to respond to Him is clearly laid out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
what about aboriginal views on the trinity? (pick a bloodline, any bloodline)
or hindu? or taoist? or kabbalist? or agnostic?
or the trinities of economy, of ecology, of social dynamics, of sexuality, of physics?
..."the thesis, the anti-thesis and the holy synthesis" of whatever it is we are measuring/experiencing/observing?
cuz the Bible (and it histories) is a HUGE HUGE topic
AND a narrow narrow narrow slice of known wisdom on trinity and divinity and holy spirit and such
which is why i think that perhaps an honest discussion can only start if all involved can START from a position of being mostly mostly mostly ignorant of most all things
...then go from there
cuz it seems there is an enchanted agnosticism that trumps both nihilism and dogma
in terms of how it responds to darkness once we are thoroughly spent
which then cultivates genuine awe
and other such holy nonsense
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I think that sometimes we read things and ignore the substance of some descriptions while accutely focusing on others. So much so, that at times that we loose the original substance of what it is we think we are talking about.
On the other thread it was omniscience. Here it is onmipresence. This is what most Christians and many other religions think of God, is it not?
So, it helps more to think of the nature of things to define and realise that nature than it does to get caught up in the story, narrative, or myth associated with such things.
IF God is omnipresent, everywhere at once, past present and future, then he is both unitarian and trinitarian and quadritarian and octogenarian etc. :) He is both everywhere and nowhere, both everything and nothing. God is the he, she, it of everything and nothing. God is the everything and the "ness" of everythingness and the nothing and the "ness" of nothingness, both the infinite and the pinpoint. God is the "ness." He, She, It is you, me, and even Dupree, blessed Trinity *sing it*!
So we get caught up in the stories and the stories become our faith instead of what be believe the nature of God is, which is what really draws you to God to begin with. It is the all knowingness and the all presentness and all lovey-dovey-ness, the all-so-much-bigger-better-smarter-more-powerful-more-knowlegable-than-you-ness. Which if true is still the you-ness. Which is what the stories are really getting at anyway. Because in IT "we live and move" and IT is in Christ in YOU. In you, out of you- put your right foot in, put your right foot out, and shake it all about...holy Moses! IT's everywhere, you can't shake IT!
As an omnipresent omniscient God he is the collective. The all knowing God that is everywhere is the everywhere present knowledge. The knowledge of everything is everywhere, in and out of everything. That is what is "God in Christ in you." Perhaps, making Jesus Lord then is making God Lord and that realization is one that it is God in man and in you and in everything. So the recieving of holy spirit is more of a realizsation that the Spirit is wholly everywhere which would make it holy in that the knowledge and realization of this is special.
Or not.
Don't be sad for us agnostics, arthorson. We all know much less than we think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
What, exactly, is sad about becoming agnostic? I ultimately don't believe the bible supports the concept of a trinity, probably because you can't find that word or anything like it in there. But I'm not the ultimate arbiter of christian faith and practice. I could be right, I could be wrong. Unfortunately, I have no definitive way of knowing which is the case. I think being an agnostic is an honest position and ultimately the only position that CAN be taken on a whole host of subjects, not just the trinity.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
looks like more then one set of three here
which are kind of two
blowing things up and rebuilding is exciting
two threes and where do i fit in..........
hmmmmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Would that be 1st John, cman? Have you researched the history of that verse? I wouldn't make it your cornerstone if I were you.
-JJ
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
have you researched the history of the bible jj?
not being antagonistic just that there is more then the kjv that speaks of three's
including these
there is more then one way to see
many will see have and will again
are we not to be taught by the comforter
books are just springboards into what is truth now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cacoon chuckers
Hi SONOFARTHUR
I was raised a trinitarian, believed it for many years. Never understood it though. Then I learned about Christ not being God. I now hold to the latter teaching simply because I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in that favor.
Even if you and I disagree, does that make us enemies? My best friend is a trinitarian yet he accepts me and makes no big deal out of it as do I. I believe the more important point is we are all in the same family and we are all pulling for the same thing which I believe is to bring people into a knowledge of Christ, i.e. accepting him as Lord and Savior. Take for instance the teaching on "the rapture", "the return" whatever you want to call it. We have pretrib. rapturalists, midtrib. rapt. and posttrib. rapt. but are these the real important points. Isn't the important point that He is coming back?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Belle, SirGuessaLot, LindyHopper and JumpinJive made some great points about how ambitious this discussion is – trying to define God or just trying to consider the bigger picture. Like I said before – currently I'm in the Trinitarian camp. Not because I understand or can explain the Trinity – I don't hold to some ironclad statement of faith on the Trinity. I consider myself a Trinitarian because I recognize an assortment of similarities/connectedness/dynamics in the biblical data of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe in the deity of Christ and presently don't see Him and the Father as one and the same person. I am attracted to a lot of Trinitarian doctrine in that I see it as an attempt to make sense of the entire body of Scripture on the subject.
Whereas TWI would isolate Scripture, avoid certain passages or flat out twist them - like VPW's handling of John 1:1,2. He presents only one way to interpret how the Word could be in the beginning with God – in God's foreknowledge. He offers the definition of the Greek word for "with" pros as "together with yet distinctly independent of." Which after I left TWI and started analyzing PFAL stuff – found the definition actually negated his argument. If I am thinking about having kids sometime in the future – are my thoughts together with me yet distinctly independent of my mind? Maybe if I'm schizophrenic.
In my opinion the real interpretive tool of the Bible is our minds – the way we process information – the way we try to make sense of things. Maybe VPW was right in the way he interpreted John 1:1,2. I don't see it that way. I can't really explain how the Word could have been in the beginning with God and then become flesh – so I file that puzzle in my "Maybe-someday-I'll-figure-it-out-maybe-not-so-I'll-hold-any-conclusions/inferences-in-a-state-of-flux" folder. Like I said at first - reflecting on this topic is a mighty ambitious endeavor. I'm in WAY OVER my head.
I think we need to be aware of how subtly our little background processor [assumptions, point of view] fills in the blanks, concocts explanations, plots solutions, makes inferences, and applies intellectual shorthand. Like when I see the classic symbol for the Trinity – that someone came up with – the equilateral triangle. My mind wonders: does each angle have to be same? I know – then it wouldn't be equilateral. Or to say they're identical in terms of either two could be eliminated – I would think "no" because then you'd have one angle like this < . But who knows – you could superimpose all three angles on top of each other and it would look like this < . Big deal – it's geometry and not philosophy anyway…So in my head what it comes down to when reflecting on this symbol – is that it represents some kind of relationship of similarities/connectedness/dynamics of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I'm not saying my perception is right, my understanding is right. I'm just explaining how my mind tries to make sense of this stuff and how I try to make my interpretive tool [my mind] as much an overt process as possible so I can "see" how I'm handling the data coming in.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Potato, you queried,
which, I think, is referring to "God is not a man that He should lie". In regards to lying, God is not a man. Very true. But that's shaky ground to build a concept of who Christ is. Awfully shaky.
Jesus was the Word made flesh.
The express image of His person.
The fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelt in Him.
I believe He is God incarnate, meaning, God come in the flesh.
Thankfully, I haven't seen in this thread the straw man that Way-style 'unitarians' love to flog: That trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Father. No they don't. Read up on the doctrine before you flog that straw man.
Now, I accept Jesus' divinity unequivocally, and his eternal existence. Where I balk at trinitarian dogma is the notion of the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the Trinity. I see him as a descriptive aspect of God, much like "the Almighty" that describes that aspect of his divine nature. I'll need help to see him as a distinct person of the Trinity.
Hi, sonofarthur. Where y'at these days? Still in Denton?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Being one of the resident agnostics, I will supply MY answer. This is not to be construed as speaking for anyone else but moi`.
Imnsho, agnostics are a little more comfortable with doubt than 'believers'. Believers seem to be of the mind set, God just HAS to be in control, if He isn't, the world doesn't make any sense. This probably is a reversion to childhood, where your parents 'were as God'. Your parents supplied everything you needed, and perhaps, a lot of the things you wanted.
When you get older, a strange thing happens. You find out your parents didn't always tell you the truth. Maybe it was your mother telling you the dog next door was really a robot dog (way before they actually showed up on the market).
In any event, this tends to lead to a search for a 'parent' who will always tell us the truth. It is a bitter pill to swallow, the people who supposedly love you most, will lie to you.
Then, you find a group which tells you they have the 'truth'. However long it takes, eventually, you find out the people who supposedly love you most (I think a lot of people here, at least at one time, would have trusted their lives to total strangers as long as they had their piffle name tag on, me being one of them) will lie to you also. Not only will they lie to you, but will also threaten your physical safety.
This is the series of events leading me down the path of the agnostic.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.