...and from a "the bible is the Word of God" point of view, if either side can demonstrate that something can be found in the bible, it doesn't matter if it makes sense to an individual. I would say that any number of Christian beliefs "don't make sense" but are believed just because one chooses to believe what the bible says.
While my personal opinion is that the unitarian position can more easily be supported by the bible than the trinitarian, Trinitarians do back up their arguments with scripture and unitarians often include in their arguments misrepresentations or oversimplifications of what trinitarians believe.
I don't understand what you mean. Can you rephrase?
you said "No disrespect intended, but why does something need to make sense to be true?" and I said "truth is assumed on both sides"... what I meant is the question is moot. all kinds of things are absolutes and don't make sense because we don't know the math behind them, or can't reason out point a to z on our own because we don't have the training.... but that has nothing to do with this, because we have two opinions based on evidence given, with entire constructs of reasoning that are sensible, vague, and at times seemingly invented, which are being called "truth".
What I mean is, there's always the possibility that something "doesn't make sense" because we just don't understand it, not because there is something inherrantly wrong with it.
so, back to why I want to see some sense... since the assertion was made that God made it obvious in the bible to see the "truth" of the trinity, that's what I'm looking for here. it might be obvious to some people because they want to see it, but I'm not one of those, so it's going to be more of a challenge for me to see it. I'm not swallowing it just because someone else likes the idea. I also didn't say there's something wrong with it, but that also isn't enough to make me believe it.
...and from a "the bible is the Word of God" point of view, if either side can demonstrate that something can be found in the bible, it doesn't matter if it makes sense to an individual. I would say that any number of Christian beliefs "don't make sense" but are believed just because one chooses to believe what the bible says.
but much of this comes down to personal opinion... whether something is interpreted figuratively or literally. there is no believing what the bible says without make a subjective judgment. trinity is true if you take some things literally and the rest figuratively. Jesus is not God if you take other things literally and the rest figurately.
I'm left once again at my original statement, that I expect that something others consider so obvious should be easy to make sense of, and I think that's entirely reasonable.
I think it would be good for us to look at some examples of what you are saying.
As far as the word "clearly" goes: I do NOT believe any of it is "CLEAR" if by clear you mean that it is fully understandable. I also agree that there are different ways of interpreting individual verses.
It took the church over 300 years to figure out how to verbalize, in a succinct statement, what the whole church agreed that the Bible taught. So, I guess you couldn't call the verbalization itself clear (i.e. the creedal statement of the trinity).
When I use the word clearly, I am talking about the individual elements of the creed such as Jesus being God, The Holy Spirit being a person, the Father and Son interacting with each other, clear presence of some kind of distinction between the Father, Son, and the HS...
I think it is foolhardy to argue anything here from the perspective of the creed itself. I think it is better to look at the individual elements.
What I have seen time and again is that NTFWPs (Non-trinitarians from a Way Persuasion) are unable to discuss these elements one at a time. To oversimplify for the sake of discussion I propose we individually discuss the following key points:
1) God is One
2) Jesus is a person and is God
3) The Father is a person and is God
4) The Holy Spirit is a person and is God
5) Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same person
I think the reason that NTFWPs cannot discuss these topics individually is because they think that these 5 claims are self-contradictory. I disagree. What IF the Bible "CLEARLY" makes everyone of these claims? Does that mean that the Bible contradicts itself?
I can try to explain why these claims are not self-contradictory. If you fully accept all five claims then, WHALLA!, you are a trinitarian (even though you might not be able to express it just like the church of the first 300 years had difficulty expressing what they "CLEARLY" believed as judged by their writings from the time.)
It took the church over 300 years to figure out how to verbalize, in a succinct statement, what the whole church agreed that the Bible taught.
sorry, sonofarthur... history does not bear this claim out. the whole church never did agree on this, there were dissenters aplenty both before and after the creed was formulated.
2) Jesus is a person and is God
as I have time, I'll be looking at the word Logos because it seems that the weight of scripture in support of this position hinges on the word Logos and the oneness of the father and the son (and also of the disciples, I might add).
I can try to explain why these claims are not self-contradictory. If you fully accept all five claims then, WHALLA!, you are a trinitarian (even though you might not be able to express it just like the church of the first 300 years had difficulty expressing what they "CLEARLY" believed as judged by their writings from the time.)
please do explain, I am very willing to read. I still don't beleive that these positions were universally held by the "church" from the beginning, as there is plenty of evidence that many disagreed and argued a different position.
Correct quote from the Bible: "God is not a man THAT he should lie."
Incorrect quote: "God is NOT a man." ----let's not take things out of context. Taking things out of context is twisting and manipulating scripture.
First of all, who says; "God is NOT a man" is taking things out of context and twisting and manipulating scripture? This is an unfair assumption you are making. Moreover, it is an extremely narrow (and dangerous) assumption for one to be making. One of the first rules to proper biblical interpretation and in rightly dividing the Word of God is to simply read exactly what is written. What is written in this particular scripture is that God is not a man. It is also written that He does not lie. Actually this scripture is revealing a number of truths about God - not just a single truth about Him. This one scripture reveals at least these following truths:
1. That God is not a man, and that,
2. He, God does not lie. It also reveals an even deeper truth - specifically one about men, that is,
3. Unlike God, men DO lie.
I wouldn't rely too heavily on the Nicene creed (or any other creed that was ever written by men) as being the final authority on the true nature of God. As sincere as those creeds might be they are fraught with lies, seeing (and being) that they all come from the lips, and likewise the pens of men. You have God's Word (not mine) on that. (For further explanation, see the truths - specifically #3 above).
Most biblical men (scholars) already have a difficult time with the Word of God (bible) in regards to exactly what is/was written and what exactly is being said; without further interjecting their own creeds and doctrines into what is/was written. It's the same basic problem that often obstructs and impedes one's spiritual growth, i.e. that of man bringing God's Word down to their level rather than men desiring to bring themselves up to the level of the Word of God. What we must constantly realize is this aspect of men will always be there. It exists not merely and only in the greatest biblical scholar of whom we give credence to, but as well as in the most devout and sincere Christian believer.
First of all, who says; "God is NOT a man" is taking things out of context and twisting and manipulating scripture? This is an unfair assumption you are making. Moreover, it is an extremely narrow (and dangerous) assumption for one to be making. One of the first rules to proper biblical interpretation and in rightly dividing the Word of God is to simply read exactly what is written. What is written in this particular scripture is that God is not a man. It is also written that He does not lie. Actually this scripture is revealing a number of truths about God - not just a single truth about Him. This one scripture reveals at least these following truths:
1. That God is not a man, and that,
2. He, God does not lie. It also reveals an even deeper truth - specifically one about men, that is,
3. Unlike God, men DO lie.
Respectfully, I disagree with your use of grammar. The word "THAT" is extremely important.
This verse is only saying that God is not like men in that they lie and He does not.
Nevertheless, even if I were to agree with your reading of that verse, nothing in this statement says that God cannot BECOME a man as well in the future. The verse was written before the incarnation of Jesus and only describes God's being at THAT time.
In regards to Potato, our reading of the grammar is perhaps not "crystal clear". Notwithstanding, this doesn't affect the issue of whether or not Jesus, a man, could not also be God.
I know it is difficult for NTWP to understand this, but trinitarians are monotheistic.
Trinitarians see the Godhead as three persons, because of the different verses that show how Jesus and the Holy Spirit have the authority and power we associate with God.
Jesus forgave sins, created the world, is called the Good sheperd (Psalm 23) and others.
Robert Bowman wrote a book on the need to believe in the trinity, it is mostly targeted at JW's but I found it interesting.
And knowing how vpw screwed up a lot of the Bible, why is this argument sacrosanct?
sorry starbird, you don't get to answer my question and no one else does either. that's not a discussion.
I have posed my questions solely for myself, as well as the topics that bear looking into to make what I consider an informed decsion on the question, is Jesus God. they're my questions and no one else's because someone else may need a different question answered. the discussion at hand has been very helpful in identifying those areas where I lack understanding in the trinity and where I need answers if I'm going to adjust my opinion at all.
I do feel like I have a better understanding of what the concept of the trinity means and I thank everyone for giving their insight and viewpoints.
I have no issues with whether trinitarianism is considered monotheistic or not. my question is much simpler. is Jesus God? separate issue.
It is a separate issue. While I have not fully embraced the Trinity as the best explanation of the Godhead, coming to understand Jesus as God was much easier.
-He is the express image of God's person. Another way of saying that is "Jesus' image (ie, His physical presence) is what God 'would look like' in person. The expression "God come in the flesh" is apt.
-On a related note, the "fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelleth in my Lord".
For me the path began with believing in Jesus' divinity. My Waybrain chafed at the idea that Jesus might be "divine". But if He is the Son of God, what's not divine about Him? From there, the scriptures that declare Him to be God became clear to me.
The quote from the poet illustrates a point that came up elsewhere in this thread...that the knowlege of the Holy isn't always about logic, and it certainly isn't about human reasining. A prerequisite to receiving the knowledge of God is to start with a sense of awe at His Glory. His knowledge comes by the Holy Spirit, not keys, as you know. sorry I was unclear.
thats fine darling...
most of my posts and replys have not been based on my own opinion,
i use the scriptures to prove a point..
and of course it is up to you to find for yourself the answers.
based on scriptural evidence..
love starbird x x x
Starbird, if we are to have an honest discussion I think you'll have understand that everybody posting here is doing so on scriptural evidence. Your points are offered as a non-sequiter without an opportunity to offer a scriptural counterpoint. We're having an "honest discussion" here, not a sparring session. I respect you scriptural view, though I certainly disagree.
you know what's funny? I find I'm equally offended by the assumption that it's scripturally obvious that "Jesus is not God" as I am the statement that the "truth" of the trinity is scriptural.
"every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against
the spirit will not be forgiven.
and whoever says a word against the son of man will be forgiven;
but whoever speaks against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age
or in the age to come" {matthew. 12:31,32}
if the holy spirit were a person and were god, this text would flatly contradict
the trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the holy spirit was greater
than the son. instead, what jesus said shows that the father, to whom the "spirit" belonged
is greater than jesus the son of man.
One should never try to interpret clear passages in the light of unclear or ambiguis passages. (Atleast Vic was right on that one.) You are using the issue of Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit to make a point. That issue is a very argued and unclear topic. I have heard probably 5 or 6 different, equally plausible explanations of what this is, and I am unconvinced of any of them.
One thing, though, that seems obvious to me is that God the Father forgives people for blasphemy against Him ALL the time.
Just because on the issue of blasphemy there is a difference between when you do it to the Son and when you do it to the Spirit doesn't make The Holy Spirit "greater" than the Son.
Also, what does it mean to be greater??? I admit that the Jesus said that his Father was "greater" than Himself (John 14:28). So. Knowledgeable Trinitarians know that there are biblical distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are not just distinctions of will (which we have already discussed). They are also distinct in function. For example, the Father didn't die on the cross...but the Son did. The son doesn't author the scripture, but the Holy Spirit does (1 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit doesn't speak of his own initiative but only what the Father and/or Spirit tell Him to say (John 16:13).
On the other issue, the Holy Spirit is clearly distinct from the Father. John 14:16 and 17 read,
16“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
"jesus said to her {mary magdelene} do not hold me, for i have not yet ascended to my father;
but go to my brethren and say to them, i am ascending to my father and your father,to
MY GOD and your god" {john.20:17}
so to the resurrected jesus, the father was god, just as the father was god to mary magdelene.
interestingly, not once in the scriptures can you find the father addressing the son as "my god"
starbird x x x
This is an argument from silence. That is not a good argument.
The Father said to Jesus "Your throne, Oh God, is..." Hebrews 1:8. The very word of God (as authored by the Holy Spirit) calls Jesus God MANY times.
The fact of the matter is, we don't have many quotes in the NT of the Father. We have MANY more quotes from Jesus. Who knows whether the Father has ever called the Son, "my God"? I don't know, and neither do you.
Certainly, as a human, who walked on this Earth as you and I should also walk, he would refer the Father as "My God". So. This does not prove your point, but it does prove a point I made earlier.
NTFWPs have a hard time sticking to one issue at a time.
The issue at hand is, does the Bible say that Jesus is God?
"every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against
the spirit will not be forgiven.
and whoever says a word against the son of man will be forgiven;
but whoever speaks against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age
or in the age to come" {matthew. 12:31,32}
if the holy spirit were a person and were god, this text would flatly contradict
the trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the holy spirit was greater
than the son. instead, what jesus said shows that the father, to whom the "spirit" belonged
is greater than jesus the son of man...
Back up and look at the entire incident:
Matthew 12:22-32 NIV
22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 "Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
30 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
I don't see the passage as emphasizing the Spirit as being greater – what strikes me about the account is that both parties were referring to what really drove out the demons. The Pharisees said it was Beelzebub – Jesus said it was the Spirit of God. I'm not sure what the unforgivable sin was or if it's something that one can commit in this age. Perhaps it's significant to note that one of Jesus' favorite ways to refer to Himself was as "The Son of Man" – which emphasized His humanity. He looked like everybody else. Maybe that's why speaking against the Son of Man – who appeared as a humble human – was understandably a less serious sin – one that was forgivable.
It seems the healing of this demon-possessed man was truly amazing because it states, "all the people were astonished." Judging by the crowd's reaction it was undeniable proof of the power of God and made them wonder if Jesus was indeed the Messiah – yet the Pharisees attributed it to Satan…The only comparison I see of who is greater than who – is that the Holy Spirit is stronger than Beelzebub…So perhaps – it was forgivable to speak against Jesus – who looked like an ordinary human – but to witness an undeniable proof of the power of Spirit of God – to see a miracle like this and yet speak against the Holy Spirit by denying who really did it – is unforgivable…Refusing to acknowledge the Spirit's work places one in a very precarious position – for it is the Spirit who bears witness to Christ [John 15:26] and who convicts the sinner [John 16:7-11].
"jesus said to her {mary magdelene} do not hold me, for i have not yet ascended to my father;
but go to my brethren and say to them, i am ascending to my father and your father,to
MY GOD and your god" {john.20:17}
so to the resurrected jesus, the father was god, just as the father was god to mary magdelene.
interestingly, not once in the scriptures can you find the father addressing the son as "my god"
Scripture clearly portrays the Son as subordinate to the Father – I don't see what the problem is. There is a passage where the Father does address the Son as God:
Hebrews 1:5-9 NIV
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him."
7 In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire."
8 But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
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
Oakspear
...and from a "the bible is the Word of God" point of view, if either side can demonstrate that something can be found in the bible, it doesn't matter if it makes sense to an individual. I would say that any number of Christian beliefs "don't make sense" but are believed just because one chooses to believe what the bible says.
While my personal opinion is that the unitarian position can more easily be supported by the bible than the trinitarian, Trinitarians do back up their arguments with scripture and unitarians often include in their arguments misrepresentations or oversimplifications of what trinitarians believe.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
either or sucks
the truth
what is truth
for in him we live and move and have our being
why is it so many must be so analytical
trust in man's words rather then the spirit
sheep ready for the slaughter
not that that is so bad
but to have a awakening to reality............
in part
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
you said "No disrespect intended, but why does something need to make sense to be true?" and I said "truth is assumed on both sides"... what I meant is the question is moot. all kinds of things are absolutes and don't make sense because we don't know the math behind them, or can't reason out point a to z on our own because we don't have the training.... but that has nothing to do with this, because we have two opinions based on evidence given, with entire constructs of reasoning that are sensible, vague, and at times seemingly invented, which are being called "truth".
so, back to why I want to see some sense... since the assertion was made that God made it obvious in the bible to see the "truth" of the trinity, that's what I'm looking for here. it might be obvious to some people because they want to see it, but I'm not one of those, so it's going to be more of a challenge for me to see it. I'm not swallowing it just because someone else likes the idea. I also didn't say there's something wrong with it, but that also isn't enough to make me believe it.Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
but much of this comes down to personal opinion... whether something is interpreted figuratively or literally. there is no believing what the bible says without make a subjective judgment. trinity is true if you take some things literally and the rest figuratively. Jesus is not God if you take other things literally and the rest figurately.
I'm left once again at my original statement, that I expect that something others consider so obvious should be easy to make sense of, and I think that's entirely reasonable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Potato,
I think it would be good for us to look at some examples of what you are saying.
As far as the word "clearly" goes: I do NOT believe any of it is "CLEAR" if by clear you mean that it is fully understandable. I also agree that there are different ways of interpreting individual verses.
It took the church over 300 years to figure out how to verbalize, in a succinct statement, what the whole church agreed that the Bible taught. So, I guess you couldn't call the verbalization itself clear (i.e. the creedal statement of the trinity).
When I use the word clearly, I am talking about the individual elements of the creed such as Jesus being God, The Holy Spirit being a person, the Father and Son interacting with each other, clear presence of some kind of distinction between the Father, Son, and the HS...
I think it is foolhardy to argue anything here from the perspective of the creed itself. I think it is better to look at the individual elements.
What I have seen time and again is that NTFWPs (Non-trinitarians from a Way Persuasion) are unable to discuss these elements one at a time. To oversimplify for the sake of discussion I propose we individually discuss the following key points:
1) God is One
2) Jesus is a person and is God
3) The Father is a person and is God
4) The Holy Spirit is a person and is God
5) Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same person
I think the reason that NTFWPs cannot discuss these topics individually is because they think that these 5 claims are self-contradictory. I disagree. What IF the Bible "CLEARLY" makes everyone of these claims? Does that mean that the Bible contradicts itself?
I can try to explain why these claims are not self-contradictory. If you fully accept all five claims then, WHALLA!, you are a trinitarian (even though you might not be able to express it just like the church of the first 300 years had difficulty expressing what they "CLEARLY" believed as judged by their writings from the time.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
sorry, sonofarthur... history does not bear this claim out. the whole church never did agree on this, there were dissenters aplenty both before and after the creed was formulated.
as I have time, I'll be looking at the word Logos because it seems that the weight of scripture in support of this position hinges on the word Logos and the oneness of the father and the son (and also of the disciples, I might add).
please do explain, I am very willing to read. I still don't beleive that these positions were universally held by the "church" from the beginning, as there is plenty of evidence that many disagreed and argued a different position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
First of all, who says; "God is NOT a man" is taking things out of context and twisting and manipulating scripture? This is an unfair assumption you are making. Moreover, it is an extremely narrow (and dangerous) assumption for one to be making. One of the first rules to proper biblical interpretation and in rightly dividing the Word of God is to simply read exactly what is written. What is written in this particular scripture is that God is not a man. It is also written that He does not lie. Actually this scripture is revealing a number of truths about God - not just a single truth about Him. This one scripture reveals at least these following truths:
1. That God is not a man, and that,
2. He, God does not lie. It also reveals an even deeper truth - specifically one about men, that is,
3. Unlike God, men DO lie.
I wouldn't rely too heavily on the Nicene creed (or any other creed that was ever written by men) as being the final authority on the true nature of God. As sincere as those creeds might be they are fraught with lies, seeing (and being) that they all come from the lips, and likewise the pens of men. You have God's Word (not mine) on that. (For further explanation, see the truths - specifically #3 above).
Most biblical men (scholars) already have a difficult time with the Word of God (bible) in regards to exactly what is/was written and what exactly is being said; without further interjecting their own creeds and doctrines into what is/was written. It's the same basic problem that often obstructs and impedes one's spiritual growth, i.e. that of man bringing God's Word down to their level rather than men desiring to bring themselves up to the level of the Word of God. What we must constantly realize is this aspect of men will always be there. It exists not merely and only in the greatest biblical scholar of whom we give credence to, but as well as in the most devout and sincere Christian believer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Respectfully, I disagree with your use of grammar. The word "THAT" is extremely important.
This verse is only saying that God is not like men in that they lie and He does not.
Nevertheless, even if I were to agree with your reading of that verse, nothing in this statement says that God cannot BECOME a man as well in the future. The verse was written before the incarnation of Jesus and only describes God's being at THAT time.
In regards to Potato, our reading of the grammar is perhaps not "crystal clear". Notwithstanding, this doesn't affect the issue of whether or not Jesus, a man, could not also be God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
In the words of the great Elizabethan poet:
"all knowledge that begins not with His glory is but a giddy, but a vertiginous circle, but an elaborate and exquisite ignorance."
---John Donne
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
how does this apply in the context of honest discussion of the trinity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
"every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against
the spirit will not be forgiven.
and whoever says a word against the son of man will be forgiven;
but whoever speaks against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age
or in the age to come" {matthew. 12:31,32}
if the holy spirit were a person and were god, this text would flatly contradict
the trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the holy spirit was greater
than the son. instead, what jesus said shows that the father, to whom the "spirit" belonged
is greater than jesus the son of man.
"jesus said to her {mary magdelene} do not hold me, for i have not yet ascended to my father;
but go to my brethren and say to them, i am ascending to my father and your father,to
MY GOD and your god" {john.20:17}
so to the resurrected jesus, the father was god, just as the father was god to mary magdelene.
interestingly, not once in the scriptures can you find the father addressing the son as "my god"
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I know it is difficult for NTWP to understand this, but trinitarians are monotheistic.
Trinitarians see the Godhead as three persons, because of the different verses that show how Jesus and the Holy Spirit have the authority and power we associate with God.
Jesus forgave sins, created the world, is called the Good sheperd (Psalm 23) and others.
Robert Bowman wrote a book on the need to believe in the trinity, it is mostly targeted at JW's but I found it interesting.
And knowing how vpw screwed up a lot of the Bible, why is this argument sacrosanct?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I believed in the humanity of Jesus long before twi, so my belief is not sancrosact for vpw's sake.
I have no issues with whether trinitarianism is considered monotheistic or not. my question is much simpler. is Jesus God? separate issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
simple answer potato baby....no..
jesus is gods son.
god is jesus's father
holy spirit is gods active force..
love starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
sorry starbird, you don't get to answer my question and no one else does either. that's not a discussion.
I have posed my questions solely for myself, as well as the topics that bear looking into to make what I consider an informed decsion on the question, is Jesus God. they're my questions and no one else's because someone else may need a different question answered. the discussion at hand has been very helpful in identifying those areas where I lack understanding in the trinity and where I need answers if I'm going to adjust my opinion at all.
I do feel like I have a better understanding of what the concept of the trinity means and I thank everyone for giving their insight and viewpoints.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Anyone who believes in an omnipresent God, is a unitarian. Period(.) no matter how you dice it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
thats fine darling...
most of my posts and replys have not been based on my own opinion,
i use the scriptures to prove a point..
and of course it is up to you to find for yourself the answers.
based on scriptural evidence..
love starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
-He is the express image of God's person. Another way of saying that is "Jesus' image (ie, His physical presence) is what God 'would look like' in person. The expression "God come in the flesh" is apt.
-On a related note, the "fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelleth in my Lord".
For me the path began with believing in Jesus' divinity. My Waybrain chafed at the idea that Jesus might be "divine". But if He is the Son of God, what's not divine about Him? From there, the scriptures that declare Him to be God became clear to me.
The quote from the poet illustrates a point that came up elsewhere in this thread...that the knowlege of the Holy isn't always about logic, and it certainly isn't about human reasining. A prerequisite to receiving the knowledge of God is to start with a sense of awe at His Glory. His knowledge comes by the Holy Spirit, not keys, as you know. sorry I was unclear.
Starbird, if we are to have an honest discussion I think you'll have understand that everybody posting here is doing so on scriptural evidence. Your points are offered as a non-sequiter without an opportunity to offer a scriptural counterpoint. We're having an "honest discussion" here, not a sparring session. I respect you scriptural view, though I certainly disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
Lindy, can you elaborate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Could you elaborate, lindy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
you know what's funny? I find I'm equally offended by the assumption that it's scripturally obvious that "Jesus is not God" as I am the statement that the "truth" of the trinity is scriptural.
I got a laugh out of that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
One should never try to interpret clear passages in the light of unclear or ambiguis passages. (Atleast Vic was right on that one.) You are using the issue of Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit to make a point. That issue is a very argued and unclear topic. I have heard probably 5 or 6 different, equally plausible explanations of what this is, and I am unconvinced of any of them.
One thing, though, that seems obvious to me is that God the Father forgives people for blasphemy against Him ALL the time.
Just because on the issue of blasphemy there is a difference between when you do it to the Son and when you do it to the Spirit doesn't make The Holy Spirit "greater" than the Son.
Also, what does it mean to be greater??? I admit that the Jesus said that his Father was "greater" than Himself (John 14:28). So. Knowledgeable Trinitarians know that there are biblical distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are not just distinctions of will (which we have already discussed). They are also distinct in function. For example, the Father didn't die on the cross...but the Son did. The son doesn't author the scripture, but the Holy Spirit does (1 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit doesn't speak of his own initiative but only what the Father and/or Spirit tell Him to say (John 16:13).
On the other issue, the Holy Spirit is clearly distinct from the Father. John 14:16 and 17 read,
16“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
This is an argument from silence. That is not a good argument.
The Father said to Jesus "Your throne, Oh God, is..." Hebrews 1:8. The very word of God (as authored by the Holy Spirit) calls Jesus God MANY times.
The fact of the matter is, we don't have many quotes in the NT of the Father. We have MANY more quotes from Jesus. Who knows whether the Father has ever called the Son, "my God"? I don't know, and neither do you.
Certainly, as a human, who walked on this Earth as you and I should also walk, he would refer the Father as "My God". So. This does not prove your point, but it does prove a point I made earlier.
NTFWPs have a hard time sticking to one issue at a time.
The issue at hand is, does the Bible say that Jesus is God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Back up and look at the entire incident:
Matthew 12:22-32 NIV
22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 "Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
30 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
I don't see the passage as emphasizing the Spirit as being greater – what strikes me about the account is that both parties were referring to what really drove out the demons. The Pharisees said it was Beelzebub – Jesus said it was the Spirit of God. I'm not sure what the unforgivable sin was or if it's something that one can commit in this age. Perhaps it's significant to note that one of Jesus' favorite ways to refer to Himself was as "The Son of Man" – which emphasized His humanity. He looked like everybody else. Maybe that's why speaking against the Son of Man – who appeared as a humble human – was understandably a less serious sin – one that was forgivable.
It seems the healing of this demon-possessed man was truly amazing because it states, "all the people were astonished." Judging by the crowd's reaction it was undeniable proof of the power of God and made them wonder if Jesus was indeed the Messiah – yet the Pharisees attributed it to Satan…The only comparison I see of who is greater than who – is that the Holy Spirit is stronger than Beelzebub…So perhaps – it was forgivable to speak against Jesus – who looked like an ordinary human – but to witness an undeniable proof of the power of Spirit of God – to see a miracle like this and yet speak against the Holy Spirit by denying who really did it – is unforgivable…Refusing to acknowledge the Spirit's work places one in a very precarious position – for it is the Spirit who bears witness to Christ [John 15:26] and who convicts the sinner [John 16:7-11].
Scripture clearly portrays the Son as subordinate to the Father – I don't see what the problem is. There is a passage where the Father does address the Son as God:
Hebrews 1:5-9 NIV
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him."
7 In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire."
8 But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So far, we've gotten farther than I expected.
Some people are willing to discuss this, but there's a lot of dogmatism
on both sides, so some posters may not be participating intellectually
to the same degree as the others, relying more on knee-jerk reactions
than actual discussion.
Now, one thing that's come up, which I think many of us can agree on,
is that both sides have some merit, and make some good points,
and likewise are unable to refute well certain other points.
Thus, I have arrived at a position guaranteed to tick off both sides.
When seeking understanding of something, one rule of thumb is
Ockham's Razor. It's a tool for eliminating incorrect possibilities.
The main part of the rule states that when two or more explanations fully
explain something, the simpler one is the correct answer.
That's sufficient for most situations.
There's another part to that, however.
When two or more explanations explain something, but none of them
FULLY explain it, then NONE of them are correct, and the correct
answer is still missing.
Having seen both sides offer their explanations over the years,
I personally will apply Ockham's Razor to this, and say that it
is my informed opinion that NEITHER side is ENTIRELY correct,
and the TRUE answer is something else, a third option which might
be considered "in between", or might not.
(I've reviewed the other positions I've seen as well, and find they are
less able to explain fully than the 2 positions we're discussing.)
So, it is my informed opinion that I don't know the answer, but it's
not one of the answers currently being offered.
Told you I'd tick off everybody at the same time....
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.