"Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharoah, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout [the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographia] speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Genesis 41:41; Daniel 3:29; Ezra 1:2, etc." [from Tzvi Nassi, The Great Mystery, Jerusalem: Yanetz, 1970, page 6] [page 94, 95]
End of Excerpts
Morey also refers to two other verses where the plural pronoun is used of God:
Genesis 11:7 "…let Us go down and, confuse their language…"
Isaiah 6:8 "Then I heard the voice of [Yahweh], saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?"
I never bought vpw's explanation of the plural voice. it seemed like quite a stretch without evidence, like his assertion that soul-life comes from the man because in his opinion that's the only way Jesus' blood could be clean enough to be the sinless offering.
I'm not satisfied, so will continue to seek an answer.
Good. Keep searching. Let me know what you find.
I don't claim to have all the answers. The question of whether or not Jesus had the ability to sin is one of them.
That being said, I do think the question is somewhat a moot one. The fact is, whether or not He could have sinned, He never DID. Thus, He was a perfect human and able to atone for the sins of others with His death.
When I say that I am satisfied, I don't mean that I am no longer wanting an answer. I only mean that my lack of a clear understanding on this issue does not hinder my willingness or ability to have faith in other things which ARE clear from scripture.
I am sure that there are plenty of things in the Bible that I do NOT understand. There are many things that I will NEVER understood in this life, because the Bible doesn't provide CLEAR explanations for everything it says.
I don't want to become so focused on the things that are unclear that I fail to embrace and obey the things that ARE clear.
Jesus is clearly called God in the Bible.
The Bible clearly, and repeatedly claims that there is only one TRUE God.
I am left with three options:
1) I can throw away the whole thing (in essence what you are doing if you twist scripture to deny its clear message)
2) I can believe that Jesus is the one True God
3) I can call Jesus a false GOD (this would be even more devastating than #1
Okay trinitarians, I agree that there are several places in the bible where Jesus is referred to as God (the verse in Hebrews and the statement by Thomas "My Lord and My God") and others where the implication is that he is God, or at least possesses qualities assumed to be God's exclusively. I also agree that unitarian, or at least Wierwille's, explanation of these verses is contrived to fit the unitarian position.
What verses, or at least sections of scripture, explain how God can exist as two or three "persons" with distinct wills and natures, how one "person" (the son) can be fully God and fully man, etc.
I know what trinitarians in general believe and how they explain it, but what does the bible say about it?
My opinion is that there are contradictions. Trinitarians explain away verses that indicate a disagreement in wills between the Father & the Son who are both supposedly God. Unitarians use craetive grammar to gloss over statements where Jesus is called God. But are there any clear verses that lay it all out?
The fact is, whether or not He could have sinned, He never DID. Thus, He was a perfect human and able to atone for the sins of others with His death.
I don't argue with the biblical interpretation of the sinless redeemer. I can accept that readily, but along with the acceptance comes the realization that what he did was incredible because he didn't have to do it... he could have sinned, he not only had the temptation to sin thrown in his face, but sin was a distinct option.
I don't believe the question, therefore, is moot. could Jesus, being God, actually sin? if he could, then God can sin and I don't see that idea as harmonizing with the scriptures. or, can God, being all-powerful, commit sin? does the potential, then, for evil in God mean that he is not all light and love as the scriptures teach?
This site has documented at 30 errors in vpw's main book alone, why should any of us consider his views on anything?
As for different wills, Jesus came in the flesh and willingly limited himself to the flesh. As such, when the cross was coming, he didn't want to endure the pain that was coming, but he submitted to the father's will.
Okay trinitarians, I agree that there are several places in the bible where Jesus is referred to as God (the verse in Hebrews and the statement by Thomas "My Lord and My God") and others where the implication is that he is God, or at least possesses qualities assumed to be God's exclusively. I also agree that unitarian, or at least Wierwille's, explanation of these verses is contrived to fit the unitarian position.
What verses, or at least sections of scripture, explain how God can exist as two or three "persons" with distinct wills and natures, how one "person" (the son) can be fully God and fully man, etc.
I know what trinitarians in general believe and how they explain it, but what does the bible say about it?
My opinion is that there are contradictions. Trinitarians explain away verses that indicate a disagreement in wills between the Father & the Son who are both supposedly God. Unitarians use craetive grammar to gloss over statements where Jesus is called God. But are there any clear verses that lay it all out?
"you heard that i said to you, iam going away and i am coming back to you.
if you loved me, you would rejoice that i am going my way to the father,
because the father is greater than i am" {john14:28}
"jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said "father, the hour has come;
glorify your son, that your son may glorify you" {john 17:1,3,5}
"a revelation by jesus christ, which god gave him" {rev 1:1}
"jesus said to them: if god were your father, you would love me, for from god
i came forth and am here, neither have i come on my own initiative at all
but that one sent me forth" {john 8:42}
"next the end when he hands over the kingdom to his god and father" {1corinthians 15:24}
"for he must rule as king till god has put all enemies under his feet" {1 corinthians 15:25}
This site has documented at 30 errors in vpw's main book alone, why should any of us consider his views on anything?
:huh:
We shouldn't...it wasn't my intention to convey that...sorry if I was unclear. My point is that neither the Trinitarian nor the Unitarian position is unassailable, and that both appear to gloss over verses that don't match their theology.
As for different wills, Jesus came in the flesh and willingly limited himself to the flesh. As such, when the cross was coming, he didn't want to endure the pain that was coming, but he submitted to the father's will.
Good logical explanation, but that's still your opinion, not a clear scripture on the subject. I suspect that such an animal does not exist.
Trinitarians explain away verses that indicate a disagreement in wills between the Father & the Son who are both supposedly God. Unitarians use craetive grammar to gloss over statements where Jesus is called God. But are there any clear verses that lay it all out?
I think that's a reasonable request for both sides. starbird put some up for the unitarian position. who else will contribute? I do think a discussion of context would be important here, but NOT interpretation until we have a decent list from both sides.
Okay trinitarians, I agree that there are several places in the bible where Jesus is referred to as God (the verse in Hebrews and the statement by Thomas "My Lord and My God") and others where the implication is that he is God, or at least possesses qualities assumed to be God's exclusively. I also agree that unitarian, or at least Wierwille's, explanation of these verses is contrived to fit the unitarian position.
What verses, or at least sections of scripture, explain how God can exist as two or three "persons" with distinct wills and natures, how one "person" (the son) can be fully God and fully man, etc.
I know what trinitarians in general believe and how they explain it, but what does the bible say about it?
My opinion is that there are contradictions. Trinitarians explain away verses that indicate a disagreement in wills between the Father & the Son who are both supposedly God. Unitarians use craetive grammar to gloss over statements where Jesus is called God. But are there any clear verses that lay it all out?
Oak, what you brought up makes me think of Morey's suggestion in Trinity: Evidence and Issues – of God being multi-personal. What qualities deem a person an individual – as distinct from another? I know it's comparing apples to oranges but the only idea I can come up with at the moment to think about your point is – identical twins. Though they have many similarities – each is a distinct person with a will of their own. I dunno,,,don't think it's a Siamese Twins thing either – God the Father and Jesus the Son joined together at the…uhmmm…whatever…by the Holy Spirit …hmmm…well would that technically be Siamese Triplets?
In my opinion – you've nailed down the biggest issues on this topic – that will never be resolved – because I don't think Scripture addresses them: WHERE in the Bible does it explain HOW God can exist as two or three "persons" with distinct wills, natures? How can a person be fully God and fully human? Are there any clear verses that lay it all out?...And to all your questions my mind comes up with NOTHING!
I personally think discussions like this are a lot of fun. Like I said in post # 13 some topics transcend scriptural specificity and articulation - precisely because of your questions! And maybe that's the hang up in discussions about this. I look at the biblical data – the grammar and syntax suggest that God is multi-personal. But I am at a loss when it comes to explaining HOW such a being or beings would function in this world. I'm not gonna win any arguments there. Maybe a Unitarian – I'm guessing here – begins with an assumption – they explain how they think God functions in our world. A Trinitarian accepts the grammar and syntax but ignores the issue of explaining how God works. A Unitarian assumes an explanation of how God works but ignores the grammar and syntax…
…And in thinking about how God functions in our world Morey brings up another thing to think about – Theophanies. From Morey's Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Chapter Eight, The Theophanies, page 106:
One of the most interesting subjects in Old Testament theology is what Trinitarian theologians have called "theophany." Because of the vast number of passages involved, the theophanies constitute one of the major arguments not only for the multi-personal nature of God, but also for the Incarnation and the deity of Jesus Christ. The word "theophany" comes from two Greek words – theos and phaino which simply mean the appearance of God in human form.
End of excerpt
In this chapter Morey said that the Old Testament references that tell us God appeared to man it is a literal manifestation of God in some kind of physical form which could be seen and heard by man. God's appearance to Abraham in Genesis 12:7 NIV
The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
The word "appeared" is ra'ah [Strong's # 7200] and refers to seeing literally or figuratively. Was this a vision or an actual appearance – the word ra'ah could be taken either way. I lean towards it meaning a literal physical appearance of God in some form because of passages like Genesis 3:8 that indicate the people actually encountered God by one of the five senses. A few of the other passages where this ra'ah is used: Genesis 26:2 God's appearance to Isaac…Exodus 3:16 God's appearance to Moses…I Samuel 3:21 God's appearance to Samuel. And as mentioned earlier a most notable appearance of God is found in the Garden of Eden – the word ra'ah is not used – for it does not say God appeared to Adam and Eve – but it does say Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden.
Genesis 3:8 NIV
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Good logical explanation, but that's still your opinion, not a clear scripture on the subject. I suspect that such an animal does not exist.
if there were clear scripture, it sure would be easier, wouldn't it? so far I find more clear scripture on the side of Jesus being the son of God and not God, yet then there are troublesome statements in scripture that don't appear reconciliable. there are a few scriptures that seem to clearly say Jesus is God if you interpret them a certain way, but the trinity is a troublesome doctrine of itself when you look at Jewish history and tradition because it's impossible to support, then there is plenty of issues that can only be explained away with elaborate constructions.
Your're right T-Bone, I don't think the information is there. Insisting that it is, and that those who disgree are wrong is a debate that will never end.
It looks to me like the early Christians, including the writers of the bible were in disgreement over who Jesus was, what he did, what he accomplished...
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
so here's god and the spirit of god
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
then we get lord god
3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
then there is a 'my spirit' that this lord talks about
one way it says it took 6 days to do the heavens and earth
in another it's 'the day'
and o yeah the first verse says he already did it
so i'd think jesus was right when he said the comforter would lead us to the all truth
Your're right T-Bone, I don't think the information is there. Insisting that it is, and that those who disgree are wrong is a debate that will never end.
It looks to me like the early Christians, including the writers of the bible were in disgreement over who Jesus was, what he did, what he accomplished...
Oak,
You have asked good questions.
You have asked where the Bible clear lays out the how of the Trinity. I think there are some partial answers in the scripture. To some degree God's answer is "we see in a glass dimly, but then we shall see face to face" (2 Corinthians).
While that may not be the best answer we want, it is probably the best answer that we are given.
That being said, there are clues given within the scripture as the how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interact with each other. The Father sent the Son. The Father sends the HS on the request of the Son. The HS doesn't speak of his own initiative but speaks on behalf of both the Father AND the Son. The HS directs and leads the believer.
I remember somewhere that the marriage relationship has been given as a picture of Christ and His Church. In the same passage, this relationship of oneness is also used to symbolize the relationship between the Father and the Son.
(I will give verse references later if you request. I am at work and don't have my books with me and don't want to misquote.)
I appreciate your question Oak. But listen. Just because the HOW is not clearly defined and layed out in scripture does NOT give anyone warrant to deny that which IS clearly laid out in scripture.
THAT Jesus is God is clear in scripture. HOW He is God and man simultaneously is NOT clearly laid out. Men have tried to logically deduce some of the answers to HOW. To some extent, I think they are right. At times, they have missed the mark.
That there is only ONE God is clear in scripture. Tbone has done a decent job at defining what the Bible means by "one". There can be no division in oneness, but when we say that God is one we don't mean one in person or will.
It is CLEAR in scripture that Jesus prays to, talks to, received orders from, relies upon, and even worships the Father. Thus, it can easily and rightly be derived that the Father and the Son are distinct in some way. But to take this distinction so far as to conclude that Jesus is somehow a lesser or secondary or different god is to contradict the clear verses.
Here is the problem as I see it: men want to have all the answers. When we don't understand things we tend to discount it. We HAVE been given ENOUGH information to know WHO God is, but we do not understand HOW God is who He is. Thus, we need Faith.
Someone shared a good piece of wisdom with me when I was struggling with this topic: If we could understand God then He would cease to be God. Our minds are too small to understand God entirely. He is simply TOO big and TOO complex. Nevertheless, He relates to us on our level. Our focus should be on the person of Jesus as that is how God has decided to most fully reveal Himself to us.
The Father said, "this is my beloved Son, hear ye Him".
The Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus.
Jesus said of himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
If we focus on Jesus, all the rest will become clear in time and eternity.
But we must never make the gross error of twisting and denying the clear scriptures that declare WHO Jesus is, just because we cannot understand them.
Your're right T-Bone, I don't think the information is there. Insisting that it is, and that those who disgree are wrong is a debate that will never end...
...
And in light of that, Oak - if I may add another thing to think about in all this – in my opinion when it comes to a Christian setting priorities on what to study and implement into practice I think my focus should be on the clearest biblical topics – that wouldn’t confuse even a child. My personal faith/viewpoint looks at the Bible as things God wants me to know and do – somewhat as a child would view their relationship and growth process with his/her parents. Naturally a child may not be aware of this relationship/process at the early stages – but as the child matures there comes an increasing realization that among other things, the parents have been trying to communicate what is essential to know living in this world and what responsibilities and privileges are associated with that. Hopefully the parents try to teach things that are essential to living in reality along with matters of beliefs and values. Things like the value and necessity of working honestly for a living, understanding things about personal finances, maintaining health, planning ahead, the value of another human being, etc.
…On another thread I talked along these lines - of seeing what effect does viewing Jesus as God/not God have on a Christian’s practice of faith. Sometimes we Christians get so hung up on a pet doctrine – it becomes extremely difficult to see there may be some dissonance between our faith and our practice. As Garth mentioned in post # 12, we Christians can get so caught up in the priority of our doctrinal position on this or that, that we forget all about weightier matters like compassion, morality, ethics, etc. That’s why I appreciate other viewpoints – especially from people who are “theologically neutral” [in other words they don’t accept the Bible as the Word of God, non-Christians] and have no stake in the debate. I think their input is valuable in the process of critical thinking. Sometimes we Christians can unknowingly load so much doctrinal assumptions into a passage – that it hampers our analytical thinking skills…Okay – I’m done with my philosophical soap box for today…Carry on…
I got in this blog late. But, before you can understand that Jesus is God, one has to get spirit, soul and body straight. VP was way off base. According to his doctrine Jesus cant be God. So, he was a trinitarian. He went opposite of most traditional Christian doctrinal beliefs. What turned him. Rejection?
I got in this blog late. But, before you can understand that Jesus is God, one has to get spirit, soul and body straight. VP was way off base. According to his doctrine Jesus cant be God. So, he was a trinitarian. He went opposite of most traditional Christian doctrinal beliefs. What turned him. Rejection?
According to his doctrine Jesus cant be God. So, he was a trinitarian.
Huh?? Not being facetious, but that didn't make sense.
...It looks to me like the early Christians, including the writers of the bible were in disgreement over who Jesus was, what he did, what he accomplished...
Oak, that is something to consider. After John the Baptist was imprisoned, it seems even he needed some assurance of Jesus' identity.
Luke 7:18-23 ESV
18 The disciples of John reported all these things to him. And John, 19 calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?" 20 And when the men had come to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, 'Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?'" 21 In that hour he healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed sight. 22 And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is the one who is not offended by me."
I think the reason John needed assurance, was because at that time, Israel was under the yoke of brutal Roman rule.
There are two aspects to Christ and the Messiah's appearance in the O.T., the first is as the coming as the suffering lamb, the sacrifice for sin, the 2nd is the coming as the mighty ruler.
The Jewish rulers, had focused on the King aspect, the King was coming again, and would release this yoke of bondage. Thus, awaiting the conquering King Messiah, who would rule over the earth.
In their focus on this, they forgot about, or couldn't see the meek, sacrificial lamb. Sacrifice would have to come first.
When Christ sat in the temple and read how he had come to heal, etc., he stopped at the next section. His sacrifice and atonment for sin would have to come first.
They saw the Lamb of God.
They rejected him. In Luke, I forget the verse as I don't have my Bible with me, it says, we will not have this man rule over us.
At one point Christ literally offers the Kingdom now. The leadership wants him crucified.
Anyway, my point is, since they had neglected the prophesies of the Lamb, the suffering one, and they didn't see him overthrow the Romans and establish his Kingdom, they were doubting.
This is sad, because at one time, even John the Baptist had said, Behold, the LAMB of God. Now, he's starting to doubt.
Yet, the amazing thing is when Christ was on the cross he recites Psalms 22:1, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? If you read the rest of the Psalm (which, in this context, Christ on the cross, is just amazing), realizing this psalm was a song, and a prophecy of himself, and he is reciting, or possibly singing it on the cross, it was a sign to all that this truly was the Messiah - the Lamb, and the second half of this psalm, the King as Ruler.
He testifed of himself for all to hear.
He died as the Lamb, and will return as the High Priest, Ruler and King.
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
bliss
Thanks T-Bone for sharing this.
I just wanted to add a little ''help'' for all those reading, and participating.................
Please PRAY about this topic. It is a very divisive one at best, and not easy to read if you are convinced that the Way had it all right!
In all our endevours, we should pray before we do them, and pray to get understanding.
Ask the Father to show you what you need to know at this time.
Then, be a Berean! Study what is written here, to see whether these things are so.
I am stepping down from the box now.......................
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I'm not satisfied, so will continue to seek an answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I never bought vpw's explanation of the plural voice. it seemed like quite a stretch without evidence, like his assertion that soul-life comes from the man because in his opinion that's the only way Jesus' blood could be clean enough to be the sinless offering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Good. Keep searching. Let me know what you find.
I don't claim to have all the answers. The question of whether or not Jesus had the ability to sin is one of them.
That being said, I do think the question is somewhat a moot one. The fact is, whether or not He could have sinned, He never DID. Thus, He was a perfect human and able to atone for the sins of others with His death.
When I say that I am satisfied, I don't mean that I am no longer wanting an answer. I only mean that my lack of a clear understanding on this issue does not hinder my willingness or ability to have faith in other things which ARE clear from scripture.
I am sure that there are plenty of things in the Bible that I do NOT understand. There are many things that I will NEVER understood in this life, because the Bible doesn't provide CLEAR explanations for everything it says.
I don't want to become so focused on the things that are unclear that I fail to embrace and obey the things that ARE clear.
Jesus is clearly called God in the Bible.
The Bible clearly, and repeatedly claims that there is only one TRUE God.
I am left with three options:
1) I can throw away the whole thing (in essence what you are doing if you twist scripture to deny its clear message)
2) I can believe that Jesus is the one True God
3) I can call Jesus a false GOD (this would be even more devastating than #1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Okay trinitarians, I agree that there are several places in the bible where Jesus is referred to as God (the verse in Hebrews and the statement by Thomas "My Lord and My God") and others where the implication is that he is God, or at least possesses qualities assumed to be God's exclusively. I also agree that unitarian, or at least Wierwille's, explanation of these verses is contrived to fit the unitarian position.
What verses, or at least sections of scripture, explain how God can exist as two or three "persons" with distinct wills and natures, how one "person" (the son) can be fully God and fully man, etc.
I know what trinitarians in general believe and how they explain it, but what does the bible say about it?
My opinion is that there are contradictions. Trinitarians explain away verses that indicate a disagreement in wills between the Father & the Son who are both supposedly God. Unitarians use craetive grammar to gloss over statements where Jesus is called God. But are there any clear verses that lay it all out?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I don't argue with the biblical interpretation of the sinless redeemer. I can accept that readily, but along with the acceptance comes the realization that what he did was incredible because he didn't have to do it... he could have sinned, he not only had the temptation to sin thrown in his face, but sin was a distinct option.
I don't believe the question, therefore, is moot. could Jesus, being God, actually sin? if he could, then God can sin and I don't see that idea as harmonizing with the scriptures. or, can God, being all-powerful, commit sin? does the potential, then, for evil in God mean that he is not all light and love as the scriptures teach?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Oak
This site has documented at 30 errors in vpw's main book alone, why should any of us consider his views on anything?
As for different wills, Jesus came in the flesh and willingly limited himself to the flesh. As such, when the cross was coming, he didn't want to endure the pain that was coming, but he submitted to the father's will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
"you heard that i said to you, iam going away and i am coming back to you.
if you loved me, you would rejoice that i am going my way to the father,
because the father is greater than i am" {john14:28}
"jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said "father, the hour has come;
glorify your son, that your son may glorify you" {john 17:1,3,5}
"a revelation by jesus christ, which god gave him" {rev 1:1}
"jesus said to them: if god were your father, you would love me, for from god
i came forth and am here, neither have i come on my own initiative at all
but that one sent me forth" {john 8:42}
"next the end when he hands over the kingdom to his god and father" {1corinthians 15:24}
"for he must rule as king till god has put all enemies under his feet" {1 corinthians 15:25}
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
We shouldn't...it wasn't my intention to convey that...sorry if I was unclear. My point is that neither the Trinitarian nor the Unitarian position is unassailable, and that both appear to gloss over verses that don't match their theology.
Good logical explanation, but that's still your opinion, not a clear scripture on the subject. I suspect that such an animal does not exist.Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I think that's a reasonable request for both sides. starbird put some up for the unitarian position. who else will contribute? I do think a discussion of context would be important here, but NOT interpretation until we have a decent list from both sides.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Oak, what you brought up makes me think of Morey's suggestion in Trinity: Evidence and Issues – of God being multi-personal. What qualities deem a person an individual – as distinct from another? I know it's comparing apples to oranges but the only idea I can come up with at the moment to think about your point is – identical twins. Though they have many similarities – each is a distinct person with a will of their own. I dunno,,,don't think it's a Siamese Twins thing either – God the Father and Jesus the Son joined together at the…uhmmm…whatever…by the Holy Spirit …hmmm…well would that technically be Siamese Triplets?
In my opinion – you've nailed down the biggest issues on this topic – that will never be resolved – because I don't think Scripture addresses them: WHERE in the Bible does it explain HOW God can exist as two or three "persons" with distinct wills, natures? How can a person be fully God and fully human? Are there any clear verses that lay it all out?...And to all your questions my mind comes up with NOTHING!
I personally think discussions like this are a lot of fun. Like I said in post # 13 some topics transcend scriptural specificity and articulation - precisely because of your questions! And maybe that's the hang up in discussions about this. I look at the biblical data – the grammar and syntax suggest that God is multi-personal. But I am at a loss when it comes to explaining HOW such a being or beings would function in this world. I'm not gonna win any arguments there. Maybe a Unitarian – I'm guessing here – begins with an assumption – they explain how they think God functions in our world. A Trinitarian accepts the grammar and syntax but ignores the issue of explaining how God works. A Unitarian assumes an explanation of how God works but ignores the grammar and syntax…
…And in thinking about how God functions in our world Morey brings up another thing to think about – Theophanies. From Morey's Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Chapter Eight, The Theophanies, page 106:
One of the most interesting subjects in Old Testament theology is what Trinitarian theologians have called "theophany." Because of the vast number of passages involved, the theophanies constitute one of the major arguments not only for the multi-personal nature of God, but also for the Incarnation and the deity of Jesus Christ. The word "theophany" comes from two Greek words – theos and phaino which simply mean the appearance of God in human form.
End of excerpt
In this chapter Morey said that the Old Testament references that tell us God appeared to man it is a literal manifestation of God in some kind of physical form which could be seen and heard by man. God's appearance to Abraham in Genesis 12:7 NIV
The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
The word "appeared" is ra'ah [Strong's # 7200] and refers to seeing literally or figuratively. Was this a vision or an actual appearance – the word ra'ah could be taken either way. I lean towards it meaning a literal physical appearance of God in some form because of passages like Genesis 3:8 that indicate the people actually encountered God by one of the five senses. A few of the other passages where this ra'ah is used: Genesis 26:2 God's appearance to Isaac…Exodus 3:16 God's appearance to Moses…I Samuel 3:21 God's appearance to Samuel. And as mentioned earlier a most notable appearance of God is found in the Garden of Eden – the word ra'ah is not used – for it does not say God appeared to Adam and Eve – but it does say Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden.
Genesis 3:8 NIV
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
…interesting…some food for thought…
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
if there were clear scripture, it sure would be easier, wouldn't it? so far I find more clear scripture on the side of Jesus being the son of God and not God, yet then there are troublesome statements in scripture that don't appear reconciliable. there are a few scriptures that seem to clearly say Jesus is God if you interpret them a certain way, but the trinity is a troublesome doctrine of itself when you look at Jewish history and tradition because it's impossible to support, then there is plenty of issues that can only be explained away with elaborate constructions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Good posts, T-Bone & Potato! :B)
Your're right T-Bone, I don't think the information is there. Insisting that it is, and that those who disgree are wrong is a debate that will never end.
It looks to me like the early Christians, including the writers of the bible were in disgreement over who Jesus was, what he did, what he accomplished...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
so here's god and the spirit of god
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
then we get lord god
3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
then there is a 'my spirit' that this lord talks about
one way it says it took 6 days to do the heavens and earth
in another it's 'the day'
and o yeah the first verse says he already did it
so i'd think jesus was right when he said the comforter would lead us to the all truth
and it says the spirit is truth
yeah keep looking but let it be shown to you also
that would be my suggestion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Oak,
You have asked good questions.
You have asked where the Bible clear lays out the how of the Trinity. I think there are some partial answers in the scripture. To some degree God's answer is "we see in a glass dimly, but then we shall see face to face" (2 Corinthians).
While that may not be the best answer we want, it is probably the best answer that we are given.
That being said, there are clues given within the scripture as the how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interact with each other. The Father sent the Son. The Father sends the HS on the request of the Son. The HS doesn't speak of his own initiative but speaks on behalf of both the Father AND the Son. The HS directs and leads the believer.
I remember somewhere that the marriage relationship has been given as a picture of Christ and His Church. In the same passage, this relationship of oneness is also used to symbolize the relationship between the Father and the Son.
(I will give verse references later if you request. I am at work and don't have my books with me and don't want to misquote.)
I appreciate your question Oak. But listen. Just because the HOW is not clearly defined and layed out in scripture does NOT give anyone warrant to deny that which IS clearly laid out in scripture.
THAT Jesus is God is clear in scripture. HOW He is God and man simultaneously is NOT clearly laid out. Men have tried to logically deduce some of the answers to HOW. To some extent, I think they are right. At times, they have missed the mark.
That there is only ONE God is clear in scripture. Tbone has done a decent job at defining what the Bible means by "one". There can be no division in oneness, but when we say that God is one we don't mean one in person or will.
It is CLEAR in scripture that Jesus prays to, talks to, received orders from, relies upon, and even worships the Father. Thus, it can easily and rightly be derived that the Father and the Son are distinct in some way. But to take this distinction so far as to conclude that Jesus is somehow a lesser or secondary or different god is to contradict the clear verses.
Here is the problem as I see it: men want to have all the answers. When we don't understand things we tend to discount it. We HAVE been given ENOUGH information to know WHO God is, but we do not understand HOW God is who He is. Thus, we need Faith.
Someone shared a good piece of wisdom with me when I was struggling with this topic: If we could understand God then He would cease to be God. Our minds are too small to understand God entirely. He is simply TOO big and TOO complex. Nevertheless, He relates to us on our level. Our focus should be on the person of Jesus as that is how God has decided to most fully reveal Himself to us.
The Father said, "this is my beloved Son, hear ye Him".
The Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus.
Jesus said of himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
If we focus on Jesus, all the rest will become clear in time and eternity.
But we must never make the gross error of twisting and denying the clear scriptures that declare WHO Jesus is, just because we cannot understand them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth -
i find this phrase to be most interesting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
And in light of that, Oak - if I may add another thing to think about in all this – in my opinion when it comes to a Christian setting priorities on what to study and implement into practice I think my focus should be on the clearest biblical topics – that wouldn’t confuse even a child. My personal faith/viewpoint looks at the Bible as things God wants me to know and do – somewhat as a child would view their relationship and growth process with his/her parents. Naturally a child may not be aware of this relationship/process at the early stages – but as the child matures there comes an increasing realization that among other things, the parents have been trying to communicate what is essential to know living in this world and what responsibilities and privileges are associated with that. Hopefully the parents try to teach things that are essential to living in reality along with matters of beliefs and values. Things like the value and necessity of working honestly for a living, understanding things about personal finances, maintaining health, planning ahead, the value of another human being, etc.
…On another thread I talked along these lines - of seeing what effect does viewing Jesus as God/not God have on a Christian’s practice of faith. Sometimes we Christians get so hung up on a pet doctrine – it becomes extremely difficult to see there may be some dissonance between our faith and our practice. As Garth mentioned in post # 12, we Christians can get so caught up in the priority of our doctrinal position on this or that, that we forget all about weightier matters like compassion, morality, ethics, etc. That’s why I appreciate other viewpoints – especially from people who are “theologically neutral” [in other words they don’t accept the Bible as the Word of God, non-Christians] and have no stake in the debate. I think their input is valuable in the process of critical thinking. Sometimes we Christians can unknowingly load so much doctrinal assumptions into a passage – that it hampers our analytical thinking skills…Okay – I’m done with my philosophical soap box for today…Carry on…
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
There are just some things that we won't know until another day......
So for all you music fans,
here's Nicole Nordeman with
Someday
I believe in the rest of the story
I believe there's still ink in the pen
I have wasted my very last day
Trying to change what happened way back when
I believe it's the human condition
We all need to have answers to why
More than ever, I'm ready to say that I
Will still sleep peacefully
With answers out of reach from me until?
(chorus)
Someday all that's crazy
All that's unexplained
Will fall into place
And someday all that's hazy
Through a clouded glass
Will be clear at last
And sometimes we're just waiting
For someday
We are born with a lingering hunger
We are born to be unsatisfied
We are strangers who can't help but wander
And dream about the other side of?
(chorus) Someday.........
Every puzzle's missing piece
Every unsolved mystery
More than half of every whole
Rests in the Hands that hold you for someday?.
Thanks sonofarthur and everyone for this discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks, Bliss - that's a wonderful song - and it fits here perfectly!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
If you don't know why your moral compass points north, then you will forever be lost in the dense forest of situational ethics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Son of the Master
I got in this blog late. But, before you can understand that Jesus is God, one has to get spirit, soul and body straight. VP was way off base. According to his doctrine Jesus cant be God. So, he was a trinitarian. He went opposite of most traditional Christian doctrinal beliefs. What turned him. Rejection?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Huh?? Not being facetious, but that didn't make sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Oak, that is something to consider. After John the Baptist was imprisoned, it seems even he needed some assurance of Jesus' identity.
Luke 7:18-23 ESV
18 The disciples of John reported all these things to him. And John, 19 calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?" 20 And when the men had come to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, 'Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?'" 21 In that hour he healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed sight. 22 And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is the one who is not offended by me."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I think the reason John needed assurance, was because at that time, Israel was under the yoke of brutal Roman rule.
There are two aspects to Christ and the Messiah's appearance in the O.T., the first is as the coming as the suffering lamb, the sacrifice for sin, the 2nd is the coming as the mighty ruler.
The Jewish rulers, had focused on the King aspect, the King was coming again, and would release this yoke of bondage. Thus, awaiting the conquering King Messiah, who would rule over the earth.
In their focus on this, they forgot about, or couldn't see the meek, sacrificial lamb. Sacrifice would have to come first.
When Christ sat in the temple and read how he had come to heal, etc., he stopped at the next section. His sacrifice and atonment for sin would have to come first.
They saw the Lamb of God.
They rejected him. In Luke, I forget the verse as I don't have my Bible with me, it says, we will not have this man rule over us.
At one point Christ literally offers the Kingdom now. The leadership wants him crucified.
Anyway, my point is, since they had neglected the prophesies of the Lamb, the suffering one, and they didn't see him overthrow the Romans and establish his Kingdom, they were doubting.
This is sad, because at one time, even John the Baptist had said, Behold, the LAMB of God. Now, he's starting to doubt.
Yet, the amazing thing is when Christ was on the cross he recites Psalms 22:1, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? If you read the rest of the Psalm (which, in this context, Christ on the cross, is just amazing), realizing this psalm was a song, and a prophecy of himself, and he is reciting, or possibly singing it on the cross, it was a sign to all that this truly was the Messiah - the Lamb, and the second half of this psalm, the King as Ruler.
He testifed of himself for all to hear.
He died as the Lamb, and will return as the High Priest, Ruler and King.
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.