The Unitarian position posits that the doctrine of the trinity more or less came about came about through the gradual process that deified Jesus. Drawing from myths floating about at the time.
However it might be argued that Wierwille and others who hold a similar position may have it backwards.
Jesus began as a God for whom was penned an earthly life and story.
Someone living in the vicinity of the late first, early second century was moved to write a new story about a God which descended to the earth and took on the appearance of a man. A God which came down from heaven and personally lived among mankind. But nobody knew his true, secret identity! - none the characters in the narrative at least (except for the demons, which mistook him for a powerful angel of the world ruler ), - Why even the original disciples were clueless to who (and what) He was.
Some scholars have suggested the possibility that the Gospels were written long after authentic material attributed to Paul. That these Gospels were an attempt to “flesh out” an earthly life of the vague “Christ” figure described in Paul, of whom readers actually knew very little outside of Paul. He was a stranger. How appropriate that one of the earliest gospels begins in depicting Jesus this way. As “the Stranger” that enters the world and walks among mankind. Now readers had before them an exciting new “prequel” to the mysterious figure of the Pauline material - the Good news of the heavenly God, who shape-shifted into a man, and walked among us, using powers beyond those of mere mortal men to heal, and His wisdom to confound the Wise.
Could a process as this - God becoming man - have occurred in such a manner?
Perhaps not, but I haven’t had reason to entirely rule it out.
I should add that "purists" of the time - those which adhered strictly to the figure of Paul's "Christ" Spirit - did not warm up to this new human "Jesus"
in the gospel that came out (and spawned many imitators - just like the market today!) - others successfully resolved this by depicting the Christ Spirit
entering into his human Jesus host at the baptism of John. "Jesus" and "Christ" became the biparte being of various gnostic movements.
The Acts of John depicts the Christ Spirit departing from the human Jesus hanging on the cross, appearing to his disciple John hiding in a cave ("My Power! My Power! Why have you left me?" - Frag. Gospel of Peter).
Or "Eli, Eli" would have worked just as well.
Perhaps why Paul (or his editor) admonished "no one who speaks under the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed...and no one is able to say the Lord is Jesus..." (1 Cor.12:3) or perhaps one reason behind John "every spirit which avows Jesus the Christ having come in flesh is of God...every spirit which is not avowing Jesus the Lord... (1 John 4).
It's interesting to see both writers (or editors) hung up on the "Jesus is Lord" thing here.
A work entitled "Gnosticism in Corinth" considers this material in greater depth than I could even attempt here.
Suffice to say, there were some who accepted "Christ" and rejected "Jesus". Very unusual. What brought about this whole controversy?
Perhaps the publication of the Gospel depicting Paul's God descending to earth and masquerading as a man.
Apparently not everyone accepted it right away at the time.
Like the controversies one might observe today among die-hard fans of the old "Battlestar Galactica" series and the new series on Sci-Fi (which BTW, is a very good show!)
Now, lest I ramble myself into a van down by the river, I must end here for now.
Your threads should help people get a better idea of yourhusband's viewpoint. Maybe you didn't mean to be condescending – but when I saw this I took it to mean you think I'm confused or need help and deliverance from believing Jesus Christ is God.
My husband wrote this paper if anyone is interested in reading it.
275 REASONS WHY I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS A MAN (part A)
Imagine this scenario. A controversial legal case goes to court. Side A spends several days presenting 275 pieces of evidence in support of their opinion. Side B takes an hour to present 10 pieces of evidence supporting their views. Soon, your TV announcer informs you that Side B has won the case. Might you not ask "Well how in the world did they explain away the 275 pieces of evidence held by Side A?" That would be a reasonable question. If you had a special interest in the case you might investigate a little deeper. My point is this: If taken to court, I believe that the evidence about Jesus Christ's nature would overwhelmingly show him to be a man, and his identity would be clearly revealed in several ways, primarily as the Son of God and the Son of man. I further believe that any pieces of evidence indicating that he is God either in part or in whole would be few in number and could be shown to be based on flawed interpretations of the real facts. My goal is to prod you into searching the Bible for yourself. For that reason I would like to present 275 reasons why I believe that Jesus Christ is a man...
I find this above statement [in bold red] to be rather tenuous. Are interpretations flawed if they do not line up with a certain viewpoint? And exactly what are the "real facts"? Yes, the biblical evidence that indicates Jesus Christ is the Son of God/the Son of Man is overwhelming. What's lacking in any debate of this topic is substantial/definitive/declarative evidence for this "Trinity" – but in that regard the same can be said for anti-Trinitarians [the Holy Spirit will have to forgive me – it seems these discussions only revolve around Father and Son] – there is no plain and simple passage that refutes He is God – for example "Jesus Christ is not God." At best – both sides offer circumstantial evidence. There's problems and issues on both sides.
I'd also like to recommend a book - The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey. He has an interesting word study of "one" [Hebrew echad Strong's # 259] used in reference to a compound, composite or plurality and basically shows a unity of more than one person.
Which I cited in my post # 173 of Honest Discussion of the Trinity thread
Morey makes a strong case from Hebrew syntax and grammar that God is multi-personal, a composite. The theophanies in the Old Testament and the Word becoming flesh in the gospels make more sense to me when viewed as a way this multi-personal, "composite" God would "step" into our world [A very intriguing one to think about is the physical appearance of God to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3: 8 and following. It's not too far-fetched to consider that God appeared this way to them before they sinned – they don't appear to be in utter shock by His appearance in Genesis 3:8 – just embarrassed and ashamed.]
I see what you're saying – and have no problem with your logic. Your main thrust has been to show a distinction between God and Christ and a subordination of Christ to God the Father in certain aspects of Their relationship. No problem. I'm not the resident defender of Trinitarian doctrine – I label myself a Trinitarian to let other people know that's more or less where I stand on the issue. Most of the time I wonder what practical consequence there is in all this arguing when it comes down to the service we render to our Lord and fellowman – other than beating other Christians over the head because they don't see the Lord exactly like I do.
Maybe differing viewpoints are like regular TV versus High Definition TV. On the demo shelf are both TV sets [side by side] viewing the same channel – the local news. At a casual glance, both screens look the same, perhaps. But upon further investigation the viewer notices much more detail and sharpness on the screen of the High Definition TV. It's a dumb analogy and it's flawed because the Bible doesn't mention HD TV. My only point with it is that there's nothing wrong with either TV set – they're both "looking" at the same show. It's a difference in how the picture for each TV set is processed from start to finish. Overall, the picture is the same and the content is the same – your local anchors in living color reading the top stories.
Our mental processor picks and chooses what data to consider, we make decisions on how to categorize data and what to accept and reject. What makes one person's perception differ from another is how they process the data. Although home theater buffs would argue about the technical/visual superiority of HD TV – my intention with the above analogy was to make only one point – showing a difference in processing data. I'm not implying one viewpoint is intellectually or doctrinally superior to another. Personally, I lean heavily towards the Trinitarian camp because the biblical data [like the points in Morey's book] seem to fill in more of the details of the image of God for me.
...I believe we will see two things, the nature and the identity of Jesus Christ. #1. The nature of Jesus Christ. In other words, if we ask the question "What is he?", then the only correct answer would be "He is a man." #2. The identity of Jesus Christ. A person's identity can be described in various ways, either by showing familial relationships or by revealing some other aspect about that person. Suppose your friend pointed at me and said "Who is that?" You could accurately respond by saying any of the following: He is Ted, He's the man who lives on Elmhurst Drive, He's the window cleaner, He is the son of James, He is Ruby's son, He's Jean's husband, He's the Third Grade Spelling Bee Champ. Any or all of these responses would be truthful and accurate. Likewise, if we ask "Who is Jesus?" there are several accurate answers. Most notably the Bible's response would be either "He is the Son of God" or "He is the Son of man." These responses reveal family relationships. Other Biblical responses could include: He is the Christ, He is the Messiah, He is the mediator between God and men, or He is the future King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I believe that as the Bible clearly establishes a number of correct answers as to who Jesus is that it will also reveal itself to be void of information showing Jesus to be God. The "Doctrine of the Trinity" will appear nowhere, and many biblical concepts will contradict the possibility of its existence...
I agree certain aspects of the nature and identity of Jesus Christ can be found through study of the Scriptures by noting familial relationships and names/titles applied to Him. [A whole other subject worth pursuing – but would be a big digression – is studying His statements and actions in the gospels] And in regards to His nature and identity it is my opinion that a student of the Bible is only getting part of the picture if they do not consider all relevant passages. A few other titles are listed in Isaiah – among other things the Son will be called is "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father":
Isaiah 9:6,7 NIV
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.
And in Hebrews the Father addresses Him as "God":
Hebrews 1:8 NIV
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."
As far as your saying: "The "Doctrine of the Trinity" will appear nowhere, and many biblical concepts will contradict the possibility of its existence"I would like to mention to all who read this thread – doctrine is something that is derived by man's selection of passages that they think can be categorized into a certain topic. As Alister McGrath pointed out [in his book Understanding Doctrine if I rightly recall] – he likens passages in the Bible to how vegetation occurs in the wild. In other words – they're not grouped together by categories with chapter headings, subject matter, cross references, indexes, etc. Like botanists who go into the wild, gather samples and group them in a greenhouse for further study – is the Theologian gathering all the passages that he thinks are relevant to a topic.
I would like to know what biblical concepts contradict the idea of the Trinity. Perhaps you're depending on VPW's argument that the Old Testament said there was one God. However, as I mentioned in my previous post of Morey's book, the same Hebrew word for "one" is used in the following verses:
Genesis 2:24 NIV
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh
Genesis 11:6 NIV
The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."
Deuteronomy 6:4 NIV
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
The two usages of "one" noted in Genesis actually refer to more than one person. Biblical Hebrew has another word to indicate solitary or singular but was not used in Deuteronomy 6. And bearing in mind Rabbi Nazzi's comments on Hebrew and Chaldee languages Honest Discussion of the Trinity[/b] post # 176] "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. Pharaoh, 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]."
It seems one possible inference that can be drawn from all this is that the concept of the Trinity may indeed be found in the Bible – just not all spelled out in one passage. Furthermore, I would like to add the "doctrine of Jesus Christ not being God" is not found in Scripture – but like the concept of the Trinity – it can be inferred from select passages to the exclusion of others.
The "doctrine of Jesus Christ not being God" often runs along the lines of arguments to refute His divinity by noting His human limitations – reasoning that these mortal constraints indicate He cannot be God. However, Scripture reveals that these were self-imposed restraints by our Lord - as Philippians 2 reveals His two natures [human and divine] and identity - His equality with God the Father and applies the title "Lord" to Him – a title that was exclusively used for the God of Israel in the Old Testament. While on earth, Jesus CHOSE to restrain His divine power and veil His glory. As a servant He never used His divine powers for His own good [like changing the stone into bread while being tempted in the wilderness] but only used them in rendering service to others [as in feeding the five thousand].
Philippians 2:5-11 NIV
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
275 REASONS WHY I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS A MAN (part B)...
The totally unsubstantiated claim of there being a God the Son who is fully human and fully God (or half and half) is used over and over again to prove its own existence! This is called circular reasoning, but that doesn't matter if sticking to your church's teachings is more important than learning the truth...
I believe you are mistaken on this accusation. The error in circular reasoning is that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. For example: "The Bible says God exists. The Bible is true – so God exists." The assumption in the previous argument is that the Bible is true. This debate is over the deity of Christ, right? We're both assuming the Bible IS true. You're asserting arguments for the deity of Christ are without biblical basis - and so far I have referred to Scripture for my reasons in believing in His deity. The arguments in your paper are one-sided, appealing to verses that focus on His humanity ignoring the passages that speak of His deity.
My argument [as noted in my post # 11 – referring to Philippians 2:5-11, and the references to His selective use of divine power like feeding the five thousand but not creating food for Himself when tempted in the wilderness] is that Scripture does seem to suggest Jesus had two natures while on this earth – human and divine.
Personally I'm not sticking to any particular church's teaching – I currently don't belong to any, nor subscribe to a particular denomination. In fact, I'm open to other viewpoints and have a number of commentaries and systematic theology books from authors of various backgrounds/doctrines to attest to that…"Learning the truth" – I recognize to be such a well-worn pat phrase from TWI daze: Their assumption of accuracy, their belief that they have the right interpretation – that they have the truth. Their explanation of how Jesus did the things He did since He was only human - is by attributing them to His operation of the manifestations of the Spirit [WWJD = I operate all 7 all the time] – using one dubious doctrine to prove another.
The signs, miracles and wonders that Jesus did perhaps go beyond overt similarities with those done by others in the Bible – in that they validated His identity: John 2:11 "This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him" and Matthew 12: 22,23 "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. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
Cynic, I for one would appreciate other input on this thread – the more viewpoints the better for a lively, well-rounded discussion… Glad to be Out, I am not trying to be combative. It is just that the tone of the initial post on this thread and the other thread [part B] is condescending and argues against Christ's deity with little regard for the implications of His statements and deeds in the gospels. My intention with posting any of this stuff has not been to defend the doctrine of the Trinity nor try to convert anyone. One reason has been I am tired of hearing the same old arguments from anti-Trinitarians – and please forgive me – but they start sounding like recycled VPW rhetoric with appeals to studying the accuracy of the Word, assuming their interpretation is correct and imagine Trinitarians worship a weird thing called a "Trinity." I thought it might interest some people to see some "fresh" material – so I make it a point to cite some books that cover different ground.
I used to buy VPW's argument about holding to the 99 clear verses on a topic and relegating the unclear verse to limbo for further research down the road…someday…maybe. But deeming a passage as clear or unclear can be a matter of opinion. How VPW handled a verse that could put a wrench in his doctrine – was to declare it unclear, not in the original text [like he knew what was in the ORIGINAL text], say the essence of the verse means just the opposite. One such example of the last point is how he handled John 1:1, 2 – in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with [Greek pros] God. He states pros has the idea of together with yet distinctly independent - - okay, in my mind that means at least two distinct persons. VPW said the only way it could be is that the Word was with God in His foreknowledge. So God's foreknowledge was together with yet distinctly independent of God. God was schizophrenic.
One reason I prefer the Scripture-rich doctrine of the Trinity is that it attempts to consider ALL the biblical data of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and doesn't resort to reductionism when plumbing the attributes of God. One strong argument for the deity of Christ is analyzing what the gospels reveal of Jesus' self-consciousness. The following excerpts are from Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson, Baker Book House 1985, pages 684 to 688:
"In looking at the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ, we begin with Jesus' own self-consciousness. What did Jesus think and believe about himself?...We should note that Jesus did not make an explicit and overt claim to deity. He did not say in so many words, "I am God." What we do find, however, are claims which would be inappropriate if made by someone who is less than God. For example, Jesus said that he would send "his angels [Matthew 13:41]; elsewhere they are spoken of as "the angels of God" [Luke 12:8-9; 15:10]. That reference is particularly significant, for not only the angels but also the kingdom is spoken of as his: "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and evildoers." This kingdom is repeatedly referred to as the kingdom of God, even in Matthew's Gospel, where one would expect to find "kingdom of heaven" instead.
More significant yet are the prerogatives which Jesus claimed. In particular, his claim to forgive sins resulted in a charge of blasphemy against him. When the paralytic was lowered through the roof by his four friends, Jesus did not respond with a comment about the man's physical condition or his need for healing. Rather, his initial comment was, "My son, your sins are forgiven" [Mark 2:5]. The reaction of the scribes indicates the meaning attached to his words: "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"…[page 684]
…Jesus claimed other prerogatives as well. In Matthew 25:31-46 he speaks of judging the world. He will sit on his glorious throne and divide the sheep from the goats. The power of judging the spiritual condition and assigning the eternal destiny of all people belongs to him. Certainly this is a power which only God can exercise…
…The authority which Jesus claimed and exercised is also clearly seen with respect to the Sabbath. The sacredness of the Sabbath had been established by God [Exodus 20:8-11]. Only God could abrogate or modify this regulation. Yet consider what happened when Jesus' disciples picked heads of grain on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees objected that the Sabbath regulations [at least their version of them] were being violated. Jesus responded by pointing out that David had violated one of the laws by eating of the bread reserved for the priests. Then, turning directly to the situation at hand, Jesus asserted: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath" [Mark 2:27-28]. He was clearly claiming the right to redefine the status of the Sabbath, a right which belongs only to someone virtually equal to God…[page 685]
…There are additional indications of Jesus' self-estimation. One is the way in which he juxtaposes his words with the Old Testament, the Scripture of his time. Time and again he says, "You have heard that it was said,…but I say to you…" [e.g., Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28]. Here Jesus presumes to place his word on the same level as Old Testament Scripture. It might be argued that this was merely a claim to be a prophet of the same stature as the Old Testament prophets. It is notable, however, that they based their claim to authority upon what God had said or was saying to and through them. Thus, one finds the characteristic formula, "The word of the Lord came to me saying…" [e.g., Jeremiah 1:11; Ezekiel 1:3]. Jesus, however, does not cite any formula in setting forth his teaching. He simply says, "I say to you…" Jesus is claiming to have the power in himself to lay down teachings as authoritative as that given by the Old Testament prophets.
…Jesus also by implication, direct statement, and deed indicates that he has power over life and death. Hannah in her song of praise credits God with having the power to kill and make alive . In Psalm 119, the psalmist acknowledges about a dozen times that it is Jehovah who gives and preserves life. In John 5:21 Jesus claims this power for himself: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will." Perhaps the most emphatic statement is found in his words to Martha, "I am the resurrection and life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall live" [John 11:25].
Jesus specifically applied to himself expressions which conveyed his self-understanding. One of these is "Son of God."…It signified that Jesus had a relationship to the Father distinct from that of any other human. That Jesus was thereby claiming a unique sonship…was understood by the Jews. We read in John 5:2-18, for example, that they reacted with great hostility when, in defense of his having healed on the Sabbath, Jesus linked his work with that of the Father. As John explains, "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal to God" [verse 18]. From all the foregoing, it seems difficult, except on the basis of a certain type of critical presupposition, to escape the conclusion that Jesus understood himself as equal with the Father, and as possessing the right to do things which only God has the right to do…" [page 687, 688]
Cynic, I for one would appreciate other input on this thread – the more viewpoints the better for a lively, well-rounded discussion… Glad to be Out, I am not trying to be combative. It is just that the tone of the initial post on this thread and the other thread [part B] is condescending and argues against Christ's deity with little regard for the implications of His statements and deeds in the gospels. My intention with posting any of this stuff has not been to defend the doctrine of the Trinity nor try to convert anyone. One reason has been I am tired of hearing the same old arguments from anti-Trinitarians – and please forgive me – but they start sounding like recycled VPW rhetoric with appeals to studying the accuracy of the Word, assuming their interpretation is correct and imagine Trinitarians worship a weird thing called a "Trinity." I thought it might interest some people to see some "fresh" material – so I make it a point to cite some books that cover different ground.
I used to buy VPW's argument about holding to the 99 clear verses on a topic and relegating the unclear verse to limbo for further research down the road…someday…maybe. But deeming a passage as clear or unclear can be a matter of opinion. How VPW handled a verse that could put a wrench in his doctrine – was to declare it unclear, not in the original text [like he knew what was in the ORIGINAL text], say the essence of the verse means just the opposite. One such example of the last point is how he handled John 1:1, 2 – in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with [Greek pros] God. He states pros has the idea of together with yet distinctly independent - - okay, in my mind that means at least two distinct persons. VPW said the only way it could be is that the Word was with God in His foreknowledge. So God's foreknowledge was together with yet distinctly independent of God. God was schizophrenic.
One reason I prefer the Scripture-rich doctrine of the Trinity is that it attempts to consider ALL the biblical data of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and doesn't resort to reductionism when plumbing the attributes of God. One strong argument for the deity of Christ is analyzing what the gospels reveal of Jesus' self-consciousness. The following excerpts are from Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson, Baker Book House 1985, pages 684 to 688:
"In looking at the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ, we begin with Jesus' own self-consciousness. What did Jesus think and believe about himself?...We should note that Jesus did not make an explicit and overt claim to deity. He did not say in so many words, "I am God." What we do find, however, are claims which would be inappropriate if made by someone who is less than God. For example, Jesus said that he would send "his angels [Matthew 13:41]; elsewhere they are spoken of as "the angels of God" [Luke 12:8-9; 15:10]. That reference is particularly significant, for not only the angels but also the kingdom is spoken of as his: "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and evildoers." This kingdom is repeatedly referred to as the kingdom of God, even in Matthew's Gospel, where one would expect to find "kingdom of heaven" instead.
More significant yet are the prerogatives which Jesus claimed. In particular, his claim to forgive sins resulted in a charge of blasphemy against him. When the paralytic was lowered through the roof by his four friends, Jesus did not respond with a comment about the man's physical condition or his need for healing. Rather, his initial comment was, "My son, your sins are forgiven" [Mark 2:5]. The reaction of the scribes indicates the meaning attached to his words: "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"…[page 684]
…Jesus claimed other prerogatives as well. In Matthew 25:31-46 he speaks of judging the world. He will sit on his glorious throne and divide the sheep from the goats. The power of judging the spiritual condition and assigning the eternal destiny of all people belongs to him. Certainly this is a power which only God can exercise…
…The authority which Jesus claimed and exercised is also clearly seen with respect to the Sabbath. The sacredness of the Sabbath had been established by God [Exodus 20:8-11]. Only God could abrogate or modify this regulation. Yet consider what happened when Jesus' disciples picked heads of grain on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees objected that the Sabbath regulations [at least their version of them] were being violated. Jesus responded by pointing out that David had violated one of the laws by eating of the bread reserved for the priests. Then, turning directly to the situation at hand, Jesus asserted: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath" [Mark 2:27-28]. He was clearly claiming the right to redefine the status of the Sabbath, a right which belongs only to someone virtually equal to God…[page 685]
…There are additional indications of Jesus' self-estimation. One is the way in which he juxtaposes his words with the Old Testament, the Scripture of his time. Time and again he says, "You have heard that it was said,…but I say to you…" [e.g., Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28]. Here Jesus presumes to place his word on the same level as Old Testament Scripture. It might be argued that this was merely a claim to be a prophet of the same stature as the Old Testament prophets. It is notable, however, that they based their claim to authority upon what God had said or was saying to and through them. Thus, one finds the characteristic formula, "The word of the Lord came to me saying…" [e.g., Jeremiah 1:11; Ezekiel 1:3]. Jesus, however, does not cite any formula in setting forth his teaching. He simply says, "I say to you…" Jesus is claiming to have the power in himself to lay down teachings as authoritative as that given by the Old Testament prophets.
…Jesus also by implication, direct statement, and deed indicates that he has power over life and death. Hannah in her song of praise credits God with having the power to kill and make alive . In Psalm 119, the psalmist acknowledges about a dozen times that it is Jehovah who gives and preserves life. In John 5:21 Jesus claims this power for himself: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will." Perhaps the most emphatic statement is found in his words to Martha, "I am the resurrection and life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall live" [John 11:25].
Jesus specifically applied to himself expressions which conveyed his self-understanding. One of these is "Son of God."…It signified that Jesus had a relationship to the Father distinct from that of any other human. That Jesus was thereby claiming a unique sonship…was understood by the Jews. We read in John 5:2-18, for example, that they reacted with great hostility when, in defense of his having healed on the Sabbath, Jesus linked his work with that of the Father. As John explains, "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal to God" [verse 18]. From all the foregoing, it seems difficult, except on the basis of a certain type of critical presupposition, to escape the conclusion that Jesus understood himself as equal with the Father, and as possessing the right to do things which only God has the right to do…" [page 687, 688]
End of excerpts
T-Bone
I'm so sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I meant no condescension or ill will at all. I just simply thought that you might like to see the paper. Have a great day.
Thank you, Glad to be Out – and no offense taken. I am glad you posted it – thinking over opposing viewpoints is a good catalyst for discussion and re-assessment of one's own opinions. As I said in post # 14 – I did not intend to be pugnacious – I just thought that some of the arguments were couched in demeaning jabs at Trinitarians rather than debating specific passages.
I wish more people would have gotten involved on the thread. I don't consider myself the defender of all things Trinitarian or the Unknown Theologian [with a LARGE brown paper bag over my three heads]. I don't think the Jesus is God/not God issue is clearly and squarely addressed by a simple reading of the Scriptures. There's lots of room for discussion. I think points can be given to both sides by inferences from certain passages.
*** Warning *** Warning *** Warning ***Rant Alert and Possible Derailment ***! The reason I chime in on these discussions is for the fun of exploring/re-evaluating my own and other folks' viewpoints - and in learning how to articulate theological issues. I derive more satisfaction in discovering a hidden or faulty assumption on my part than winning someone over to my way of thinking. I have expressed such intentions on other doctrinal threads before – and I'll tell you WHY it is such an impetus in drafting my posts. Some of the many things that I had assimilated while in TWI were their arrogant, narrow-minded and combative attitudes – when it came to developing a teaching topic for Twig/Branch, doctrinal discussions and often in a counseling situation. In my opinion this is an evil intellectual environment – only bondage, manipulation and deception can come from it…Now that I am FREE from that insane group – I proceed MUCH MORE CAUSTIOUSLY and RESPONSIBLY when expressing matters of faith, considering the possibility of influence it may have on another person…Bringing it back to our present discussion [***The Rant Alert and Possible Derailment Warning has expired***] – I sometimes look at valid contributions from either side of this issue like Andrew bringing his brother Simon Peter to see Jesus.
John 1:40-42 NASB
40(BF)One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the (BG)Messiah" (which translated means Christ).
42He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of (BH)John; you shall be called (BI)Cephas" (which is translated (BJ)Peter).
Hopefully, Christians can be more like Andrew and Simon Peter when sharing or considering the identity of Christ. Andrew identified Jesus by a term in Scripture and encouraged Peter to meet Him face to face. Peter may have initially gone to meet Him out of respect for his brother, intellectual/religious curiosity or whatever reason – but the fact remains Peter did go to meet Him – which was the start of a wonderful relationship between Peter and Christ [interesting side note – Jesus starts out the relationship by giving Simon another name to be identified by – "Peter"]. We all see Christ differently – I don't think it's that important if we have difficulty articulating how we see Him or compare "notes" – I think the personal relationship with Him is the big deal.
"In looking at the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ, we begin with Jesus' own self-consciousness. What did Jesus think and believe about himself?...We should note that Jesus did not make an explicit and overt claim to deity. He did not say in so many words, "I am God." What we do find, however, are claims which would be inappropriate if made by someone who is less than God. For example, Jesus said that he would send "his angels [Matthew 13:41]; elsewhere they are spoken of as "the angels of God" [Luke 12:8-9; 15:10]. That reference is particularly significant, for not only the angels but also the kingdom is spoken of as his: "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and evildoers." This kingdom is repeatedly referred to as the kingdom of God, even in Matthew's Gospel, where one would expect to find "kingdom of heaven" instead.
More significant yet are the prerogatives which Jesus claimed. In particular, his claim to forgive sins resulted in a charge of blasphemy against him. When the paralytic was lowered through the roof by his four friends, Jesus did not respond with a comment about the man's physical condition or his need for healing. Rather, his initial comment was, "My son, your sins are forgiven" [Mark 2:5]. The reaction of the scribes indicates the meaning attached to his words: "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"…[page 684]
…Jesus claimed other prerogatives as well. In Matthew 25:31-46 he speaks of judging the world. He will sit on his glorious throne and divide the sheep from the goats. The power of judging the spiritual condition and assigning the eternal destiny of all people belongs to him. Certainly this is a power which only God can exercise…
…The authority which Jesus claimed and exercised is also clearly seen with respect to the Sabbath. The sacredness of the Sabbath had been established by God [Exodus 20:8-11]. Only God could abrogate or modify this regulation. Yet consider what happened when Jesus' disciples picked heads of grain on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees objected that the Sabbath regulations [at least their version of them] were being violated. Jesus responded by pointing out that David had violated one of the laws by eating of the bread reserved for the priests. Then, turning directly to the situation at hand, Jesus asserted: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath" [Mark 2:27-28]. He was clearly claiming the right to redefine the status of the Sabbath, a right which belongs only to someone virtually equal to God…[page 685]
…There are additional indications of Jesus' self-estimation. One is the way in which he juxtaposes his words with the Old Testament, the Scripture of his time. Time and again he says, "You have heard that it was said,…but I say to you…" [e.g., Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28]. Here Jesus presumes to place his word on the same level as Old Testament Scripture. It might be argued that this was merely a claim to be a prophet of the same stature as the Old Testament prophets. It is notable, however, that they based their claim to authority upon what God had said or was saying to and through them. Thus, one finds the characteristic formula, "The word of the Lord came to me saying…" [e.g., Jeremiah 1:11; Ezekiel 1:3]. Jesus, however, does not cite any formula in setting forth his teaching. He simply says, "I say to you…" Jesus is claiming to have the power in himself to lay down teachings as authoritative as that given by the Old Testament prophets.
…Jesus also by implication, direct statement, and deed indicates that he has power over life and death. Hannah in her song of praise credits God with having the power to kill and make alive . In Psalm 119, the psalmist acknowledges about a dozen times that it is Jehovah who gives and preserves life. In John 5:21 Jesus claims this power for himself: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will." Perhaps the most emphatic statement is found in his words to Martha, "I am the resurrection and life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall live" [John 11:25].
Jesus specifically applied to himself expressions which conveyed his self-understanding. One of these is "Son of God."…It signified that Jesus had a relationship to the Father distinct from that of any other human. That Jesus was thereby claiming a unique sonship…was understood by the Jews. We read in John 5:2-18, for example, that they reacted with great hostility when, in defense of his having healed on the Sabbath, Jesus linked his work with that of the Father. As John explains, "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal to God" [verse 18]. From all the foregoing, it seems difficult, except on the basis of a certain type of critical presupposition, to escape the conclusion that Jesus understood himself as equal with the Father, and as possessing the right to do things which only God has the right to do…" [page 687, 688]
End of excerpts
In reference to the authority that Christ claimed to have, there is one explanation in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, where it refers to the authority of Christ being given to him by God; and only for a finite length of time, as there will come a time in the future when ' the Son shall also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all'. It seems to me possible that Jesus understood himself as possessing the right to do things which only God has the right to do because God gave him that right as a result of that distinct relationship with the Father. I would agree that the personal relationship with God is the big deal and that those in TWI who were only interested in researching the Bible without grasping the point that the real goal of the research is to know God certainly missed the boat.
Jean, I Corinthians 15:24-28 is indeed an intriguing reference for this discussion – and one that I find a bit confusing in light of Luke 1:30-33 where Gabriel's words to Mary indicated Christ's kingdom will have no end, Revelation 11:15 Christ will reign forever and Revelation 22:1-3 mentioning the throne of God and of the Lamb.
I Corinthians 15:23-28 NASB
23But each in his own order: Christ (AH)the first fruits, after that (AI)those who are Christ's at (AJ)His coming,
24then comes the end, when He hands over (AK)the kingdom to the (AL)God and Father, when He has abolished (AM)all rule and all authority and power.
25For He must reign (AN)until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26The last enemy that will be (AO)abolished is death.
27For (AP)HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET But when He says, "(AQ)All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28When (AR)all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that (AS)God may be all in all.
Luke 1:30-33 NASB
30The angel said to her, "(AL)Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you (AM)shall name Him Jesus.
32"He will be great and will be called the Son of (AN)the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him (AO)the throne of His father David;
33(AP)and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, (AQ)and His kingdom will have no end."
Revelation 11:15 NASB
15Then the (AJ)seventh angel sounded; and there were (AK)loud voices in heaven, saying, "(AL)The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of (AM)His [c]Christ; and (AN)He will reign forever and ever."
Revelation 22:1-3 NASB
1Then (A)he showed me a (B)river of the (C)water of life, clear (D)as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of [a]the Lamb,
2in the middle of (E)its street (F)On either side of the river was (G)the tree of life, bearing twelve [b]kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3(H)There will no longer be any curse; and (I)the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will (J)serve Him;
Robert Morey in The Trinity: Evidence and Issues on page 519 refers to the I Corinthians passage, "…Trinitarians do not believe that the Messianic kingdom is eternal. It began with the ministry of Christ on earth and was established when He sat down at the right hand of the Father in heaven and will end when He returns in glory ." Morey's explanation may be right – but I'm hesitant to give it much weight since it is derived from an assumption. The passage does not offer much detail on the kingdom it mentions. I wish I could ask Paul "Would you please elaborate a little more on this turning over the kingdom business in I Corinthians 15?"
The NIV Bible CommentaryVolume 2: The New Testament, editors Kenneth Barker & John Kohlenberger III on page 652 presents a little more detailed explanation that agrees with Morey's viewpoint – arguing from the context of I Corinthians 15 "…Some think the reference to "the end" in vv.24-27 refers to the absolute end of this world. They hold that what follows "then" in verse 24 is identical with what follows the "then" in v.23. According to this view, the end in v.24 is the final end, and it is not preceded by a literal thousand-year reign in which Christ puts his enemies under his feet. But this interpretation changes radically Paul's idea of events following each other in temporal sequence, to an abrupt "then the end will come," where there is no more sequence. This seems arbitrary, and it does not take adequate account of the fuller teaching on this subject in Rev. 20:4-10 – a passage that posits a reign of Christ and a time when this earth will have peace and rejuvenation before its final destruction [Rev. 21:1]."
Trying to sort out all this stuff by two categories – like the Ben Franklin method – Column A, He's not God and Column B, He is God seems to be an exercise in futility sometimes. And this is one of the reasons why I say I'm not a defender of the Trinity. I lean towards it – admitting I'm a Trinitarian is maybe an approximation or shorthand for my attempt to understand the nature of God. From the Corinthian passage I get the idea of a "merging" ["that God may be all in all" I Corinthians 15:28] – so I don't know – let's make a Column C, Combination of Columns A & B – whoa I better confer with Star Trek engineers and ask about the risks of mixing matter with antimatter – would we jeopardize the integrity of the warp core? Who knows?! Just imagine an open discussion like this amongst in-residence Corps [if that were possible – LOL] - fights would break out "Captain, a warped Corps breech is imminent!"
Wow, a student of the Word AND a Star Trek fan. That's incredible. It seems a little odd to me that a Trinitarian wouldn't believe that Christ's reign wasn't eternal. It would seem to me that if someone thought he was God they would be likely to think that his reign was eternal since he's an eternal being. I'm not a very knowledgeable scholar in this matter but that would seem to be logical to me. I think it's possible for Christ to rule over the house of Jacob forever and still be subject unto God, since it seems to me to be at least possible that the New Jerusalem will be a location on the third Earth.
BTW this is jeaniam, not John. I forgot to switch AGAIN. My bad. Sorry.
Hi John or Jean – sorry to get you two confused…guess it comes from me being a Dualitarian …Yes – that would be one logical assumption – if we ignore passages like I in Corinthians 15 where Christ turns over the kingdom [whatever "kingdom" it's referring to – and I personally think it's the Messianic Kingdom as stated in my post # 18] – or passages that indicate the Son's authority to reign is derived from the Father. Does this detract from Christ being an eternal being? I don't think so. Though His lordship is derived from the Father – He is truly vested as Lord of lords and King of kings – not managing a puppet regime as a vassal king. This is clear by Him willingly handing over the kingdom to His Father .
I'm not saying my concept of the Trinity is correct – or even declaring Trinitarians are right and non-Trinitarians are wrong. I'm far from being a knowledgeable scholar on any Bible stuff – especially this topic! What I used to like about TWI's doctrine of Jesus Christ not being God was how it made for a much more manageable/understandable concept of God. Some of what turned me off to Trinitarian doctrine was holding onto TWI's description of it. Another thing was the [now this is my take on everything – remember I'm not the official Trinity spokesman – which would make me a…Quadrinity…or Quadrplex…3 Plus 1er…oh wait…scrap that idea – I'm not an eternal being] blending/confusing/complex nature of some pro-Trinitarian books I read on the subject. The last few years – my studies pursue a much more detailed investigation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and they're relationship to each other and…me – coupled with a new sense of freedom after reading Morey's book Trinity: Evidence and Issues. After his pointing out the multi-personal aspect of God revealed in the Old Testament and details of the theophanies – I no longer feel bound to prove 3 is 1 or that the Son is the Father [that is TWI's version of the Trinity]– because…BECAUSE… BECAUSE – I don't see that in the Bible.
Recommended Posts
gladtobeout
T-Bone,
Maybe this will help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Glad to be out
I applause your time and efforts of what it took to do this..
this did a whole lot for my heart...since I have been trying to reestablish a connection to right teachings since my departure from twi....
you definitely wow'd me here..
God Bless You
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Nice article, but I can see the other side just as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Jesus is a man, Christ is spiritual.
It's Jesus the Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Boy, that does look like a lot of work. Impressive.
Perhaps though, we should start with the 275 pieces of evidence pointing to the existence of the man Jesus who we are saying is the Christ.
Ok 75.
I'll settle for 25.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Who is Jesus? Indeed.
The Unitarian position posits that the doctrine of the trinity more or less came about came about through the gradual process that deified Jesus. Drawing from myths floating about at the time.
However it might be argued that Wierwille and others who hold a similar position may have it backwards.
Jesus began as a God for whom was penned an earthly life and story.
Someone living in the vicinity of the late first, early second century was moved to write a new story about a God which descended to the earth and took on the appearance of a man. A God which came down from heaven and personally lived among mankind. But nobody knew his true, secret identity! - none the characters in the narrative at least (except for the demons, which mistook him for a powerful angel of the world ruler ), - Why even the original disciples were clueless to who (and what) He was.
Some scholars have suggested the possibility that the Gospels were written long after authentic material attributed to Paul. That these Gospels were an attempt to “flesh out” an earthly life of the vague “Christ” figure described in Paul, of whom readers actually knew very little outside of Paul. He was a stranger. How appropriate that one of the earliest gospels begins in depicting Jesus this way. As “the Stranger” that enters the world and walks among mankind. Now readers had before them an exciting new “prequel” to the mysterious figure of the Pauline material - the Good news of the heavenly God, who shape-shifted into a man, and walked among us, using powers beyond those of mere mortal men to heal, and His wisdom to confound the Wise.
Could a process as this - God becoming man - have occurred in such a manner?
Perhaps not, but I haven’t had reason to entirely rule it out.
I should add that "purists" of the time - those which adhered strictly to the figure of Paul's "Christ" Spirit - did not warm up to this new human "Jesus"
in the gospel that came out (and spawned many imitators - just like the market today!) - others successfully resolved this by depicting the Christ Spirit
entering into his human Jesus host at the baptism of John. "Jesus" and "Christ" became the biparte being of various gnostic movements.
The Acts of John depicts the Christ Spirit departing from the human Jesus hanging on the cross, appearing to his disciple John hiding in a cave ("My Power! My Power! Why have you left me?" - Frag. Gospel of Peter).
Or "Eli, Eli" would have worked just as well.
Perhaps why Paul (or his editor) admonished "no one who speaks under the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed...and no one is able to say the Lord is Jesus..." (1 Cor.12:3) or perhaps one reason behind John "every spirit which avows Jesus the Christ having come in flesh is of God...every spirit which is not avowing Jesus the Lord... (1 John 4).
It's interesting to see both writers (or editors) hung up on the "Jesus is Lord" thing here.
A work entitled "Gnosticism in Corinth" considers this material in greater depth than I could even attempt here.
Suffice to say, there were some who accepted "Christ" and rejected "Jesus". Very unusual. What brought about this whole controversy?
Perhaps the publication of the Gospel depicting Paul's God descending to earth and masquerading as a man.
Apparently not everyone accepted it right away at the time.
Like the controversies one might observe today among die-hard fans of the old "Battlestar Galactica" series and the new series on Sci-Fi (which BTW, is a very good show!)
Now, lest I ramble myself into a van down by the river, I must end here for now.
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
the statement 'I and my Father are one' has most in a tizzy.
fact is there is a spirit and there is man
putting these two together is no easy task
for Jesus to do what he did and defeat the God of death has caused no end of confusion.
Yet there it is plain as day in most every book in the bible.
Jesus beat death for us all.
He could not have done it as the man Joseph and Mary fathered.
Yes Joseph was the biologocal father of Jesus.
There is nothing that says otherwise.
God didn't come down and boink Mary.
Anyways back to Jesus Christ.
All those that said he was Christ were correct in their prophesy.
Correct because of the spirit in themselves.
But "the Christ" must be something special.
One that was not expected by the God that ruled the world.
Well Jesus Christ put that God to shame and in derision.
As he still does, being King and winner in the fight for Life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Your threads should help people get a better idea of your husband's viewpoint. Maybe you didn't mean to be condescending – but when I saw this I took it to mean you think I'm confused or need help and deliverance from believing Jesus Christ is God.
I find this above statement [in bold red] to be rather tenuous. Are interpretations flawed if they do not line up with a certain viewpoint? And exactly what are the "real facts"? Yes, the biblical evidence that indicates Jesus Christ is the Son of God/the Son of Man is overwhelming. What's lacking in any debate of this topic is substantial/definitive/declarative evidence for this "Trinity" – but in that regard the same can be said for anti-Trinitarians [the Holy Spirit will have to forgive me – it seems these discussions only revolve around Father and Son] – there is no plain and simple passage that refutes He is God – for example "Jesus Christ is not God." At best – both sides offer circumstantial evidence. There's problems and issues on both sides.
I'd also like to recommend a book - The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey. He has an interesting word study of "one" [Hebrew echad Strong's # 259] used in reference to a compound, composite or plurality and basically shows a unity of more than one person.
Which I cited in my post # 173 of Honest Discussion of the Trinity thread
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=302302
and
in my post # 176 - same thread
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=302401
Morey makes a strong case from Hebrew syntax and grammar that God is multi-personal, a composite. The theophanies in the Old Testament and the Word becoming flesh in the gospels make more sense to me when viewed as a way this multi-personal, "composite" God would "step" into our world [A very intriguing one to think about is the physical appearance of God to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3: 8 and following. It's not too far-fetched to consider that God appeared this way to them before they sinned – they don't appear to be in utter shock by His appearance in Genesis 3:8 – just embarrassed and ashamed.]
I see what you're saying – and have no problem with your logic. Your main thrust has been to show a distinction between God and Christ and a subordination of Christ to God the Father in certain aspects of Their relationship. No problem. I'm not the resident defender of Trinitarian doctrine – I label myself a Trinitarian to let other people know that's more or less where I stand on the issue. Most of the time I wonder what practical consequence there is in all this arguing when it comes down to the service we render to our Lord and fellowman – other than beating other Christians over the head because they don't see the Lord exactly like I do.
Maybe differing viewpoints are like regular TV versus High Definition TV. On the demo shelf are both TV sets [side by side] viewing the same channel – the local news. At a casual glance, both screens look the same, perhaps. But upon further investigation the viewer notices much more detail and sharpness on the screen of the High Definition TV. It's a dumb analogy and it's flawed because the Bible doesn't mention HD TV. My only point with it is that there's nothing wrong with either TV set – they're both "looking" at the same show. It's a difference in how the picture for each TV set is processed from start to finish. Overall, the picture is the same and the content is the same – your local anchors in living color reading the top stories.
Our mental processor picks and chooses what data to consider, we make decisions on how to categorize data and what to accept and reject. What makes one person's perception differ from another is how they process the data. Although home theater buffs would argue about the technical/visual superiority of HD TV – my intention with the above analogy was to make only one point – showing a difference in processing data. I'm not implying one viewpoint is intellectually or doctrinally superior to another. Personally, I lean heavily towards the Trinitarian camp because the biblical data [like the points in Morey's book] seem to fill in more of the details of the image of God for me.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I'm not on either 'side'.
Is that allowed?
There are spiritual forcres at work though.
Not many see it, but some do.
The victory has already been, is and is to come.
Gen 2:4 These 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
One day........the day......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I agree certain aspects of the nature and identity of Jesus Christ can be found through study of the Scriptures by noting familial relationships and names/titles applied to Him. [A whole other subject worth pursuing – but would be a big digression – is studying His statements and actions in the gospels] And in regards to His nature and identity it is my opinion that a student of the Bible is only getting part of the picture if they do not consider all relevant passages. A few other titles are listed in Isaiah – among other things the Son will be called is "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father":
Isaiah 9:6,7 NIV
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.
And in Hebrews the Father addresses Him as "God":
Hebrews 1:8 NIV
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."
As far as your saying: "The "Doctrine of the Trinity" will appear nowhere, and many biblical concepts will contradict the possibility of its existence" I would like to mention to all who read this thread – doctrine is something that is derived by man's selection of passages that they think can be categorized into a certain topic. As Alister McGrath pointed out [in his book Understanding Doctrine if I rightly recall] – he likens passages in the Bible to how vegetation occurs in the wild. In other words – they're not grouped together by categories with chapter headings, subject matter, cross references, indexes, etc. Like botanists who go into the wild, gather samples and group them in a greenhouse for further study – is the Theologian gathering all the passages that he thinks are relevant to a topic.
I would like to know what biblical concepts contradict the idea of the Trinity. Perhaps you're depending on VPW's argument that the Old Testament said there was one God. However, as I mentioned in my previous post of Morey's book, the same Hebrew word for "one" is used in the following verses:
Genesis 2:24 NIV
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh
Genesis 11:6 NIV
The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."
Deuteronomy 6:4 NIV
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
The two usages of "one" noted in Genesis actually refer to more than one person. Biblical Hebrew has another word to indicate solitary or singular but was not used in Deuteronomy 6. And bearing in mind Rabbi Nazzi's comments on Hebrew and Chaldee languages Honest Discussion of the Trinity[/b] post # 176] "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. Pharaoh, 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]."
It seems one possible inference that can be drawn from all this is that the concept of the Trinity may indeed be found in the Bible – just not all spelled out in one passage. Furthermore, I would like to add the "doctrine of Jesus Christ not being God" is not found in Scripture – but like the concept of the Trinity – it can be inferred from select passages to the exclusion of others.
The "doctrine of Jesus Christ not being God" often runs along the lines of arguments to refute His divinity by noting His human limitations – reasoning that these mortal constraints indicate He cannot be God. However, Scripture reveals that these were self-imposed restraints by our Lord - as Philippians 2 reveals His two natures [human and divine] and identity - His equality with God the Father and applies the title "Lord" to Him – a title that was exclusively used for the God of Israel in the Old Testament. While on earth, Jesus CHOSE to restrain His divine power and veil His glory. As a servant He never used His divine powers for His own good [like changing the stone into bread while being tempted in the wilderness] but only used them in rendering service to others [as in feeding the five thousand].
Philippians 2:5-11 NIV
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I believe you are mistaken on this accusation. The error in circular reasoning is that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. For example: "The Bible says God exists. The Bible is true – so God exists." The assumption in the previous argument is that the Bible is true. This debate is over the deity of Christ, right? We're both assuming the Bible IS true. You're asserting arguments for the deity of Christ are without biblical basis - and so far I have referred to Scripture for my reasons in believing in His deity. The arguments in your paper are one-sided, appealing to verses that focus on His humanity ignoring the passages that speak of His deity.
My argument [as noted in my post # 11 – referring to Philippians 2:5-11, and the references to His selective use of divine power like feeding the five thousand but not creating food for Himself when tempted in the wilderness] is that Scripture does seem to suggest Jesus had two natures while on this earth – human and divine.
Personally I'm not sticking to any particular church's teaching – I currently don't belong to any, nor subscribe to a particular denomination. In fact, I'm open to other viewpoints and have a number of commentaries and systematic theology books from authors of various backgrounds/doctrines to attest to that…"Learning the truth" – I recognize to be such a well-worn pat phrase from TWI daze: Their assumption of accuracy, their belief that they have the right interpretation – that they have the truth. Their explanation of how Jesus did the things He did since He was only human - is by attributing them to His operation of the manifestations of the Spirit [WWJD = I operate all 7 all the time] – using one dubious doctrine to prove another.
The signs, miracles and wonders that Jesus did perhaps go beyond overt similarities with those done by others in the Bible – in that they validated His identity: John 2:11 "This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him" and Matthew 12: 22,23 "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. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I’d probably be in this discussion, but should avoid the stress of what would probably be an extended dogfight for a few weeks.
T-Bone,
Slay and eat!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Cynic, I for one would appreciate other input on this thread – the more viewpoints the better for a lively, well-rounded discussion… Glad to be Out, I am not trying to be combative. It is just that the tone of the initial post on this thread and the other thread [part B] is condescending and argues against Christ's deity with little regard for the implications of His statements and deeds in the gospels. My intention with posting any of this stuff has not been to defend the doctrine of the Trinity nor try to convert anyone. One reason has been I am tired of hearing the same old arguments from anti-Trinitarians – and please forgive me – but they start sounding like recycled VPW rhetoric with appeals to studying the accuracy of the Word, assuming their interpretation is correct and imagine Trinitarians worship a weird thing called a "Trinity." I thought it might interest some people to see some "fresh" material – so I make it a point to cite some books that cover different ground.
I used to buy VPW's argument about holding to the 99 clear verses on a topic and relegating the unclear verse to limbo for further research down the road…someday…maybe. But deeming a passage as clear or unclear can be a matter of opinion. How VPW handled a verse that could put a wrench in his doctrine – was to declare it unclear, not in the original text [like he knew what was in the ORIGINAL text], say the essence of the verse means just the opposite. One such example of the last point is how he handled John 1:1, 2 – in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with [Greek pros] God. He states pros has the idea of together with yet distinctly independent - - okay, in my mind that means at least two distinct persons. VPW said the only way it could be is that the Word was with God in His foreknowledge. So God's foreknowledge was together with yet distinctly independent of God. God was schizophrenic.
One reason I prefer the Scripture-rich doctrine of the Trinity is that it attempts to consider ALL the biblical data of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and doesn't resort to reductionism when plumbing the attributes of God. One strong argument for the deity of Christ is analyzing what the gospels reveal of Jesus' self-consciousness. The following excerpts are from Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson, Baker Book House 1985, pages 684 to 688:
"In looking at the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ, we begin with Jesus' own self-consciousness. What did Jesus think and believe about himself?...We should note that Jesus did not make an explicit and overt claim to deity. He did not say in so many words, "I am God." What we do find, however, are claims which would be inappropriate if made by someone who is less than God. For example, Jesus said that he would send "his angels [Matthew 13:41]; elsewhere they are spoken of as "the angels of God" [Luke 12:8-9; 15:10]. That reference is particularly significant, for not only the angels but also the kingdom is spoken of as his: "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and evildoers." This kingdom is repeatedly referred to as the kingdom of God, even in Matthew's Gospel, where one would expect to find "kingdom of heaven" instead.
More significant yet are the prerogatives which Jesus claimed. In particular, his claim to forgive sins resulted in a charge of blasphemy against him. When the paralytic was lowered through the roof by his four friends, Jesus did not respond with a comment about the man's physical condition or his need for healing. Rather, his initial comment was, "My son, your sins are forgiven" [Mark 2:5]. The reaction of the scribes indicates the meaning attached to his words: "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"… [page 684]
…Jesus claimed other prerogatives as well. In Matthew 25:31-46 he speaks of judging the world. He will sit on his glorious throne and divide the sheep from the goats. The power of judging the spiritual condition and assigning the eternal destiny of all people belongs to him. Certainly this is a power which only God can exercise…
…The authority which Jesus claimed and exercised is also clearly seen with respect to the Sabbath. The sacredness of the Sabbath had been established by God [Exodus 20:8-11]. Only God could abrogate or modify this regulation. Yet consider what happened when Jesus' disciples picked heads of grain on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees objected that the Sabbath regulations [at least their version of them] were being violated. Jesus responded by pointing out that David had violated one of the laws by eating of the bread reserved for the priests. Then, turning directly to the situation at hand, Jesus asserted: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath" [Mark 2:27-28]. He was clearly claiming the right to redefine the status of the Sabbath, a right which belongs only to someone virtually equal to God…[page 685]
…There are additional indications of Jesus' self-estimation. One is the way in which he juxtaposes his words with the Old Testament, the Scripture of his time. Time and again he says, "You have heard that it was said,…but I say to you…" [e.g., Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28]. Here Jesus presumes to place his word on the same level as Old Testament Scripture. It might be argued that this was merely a claim to be a prophet of the same stature as the Old Testament prophets. It is notable, however, that they based their claim to authority upon what God had said or was saying to and through them. Thus, one finds the characteristic formula, "The word of the Lord came to me saying…" [e.g., Jeremiah 1:11; Ezekiel 1:3]. Jesus, however, does not cite any formula in setting forth his teaching. He simply says, "I say to you…" Jesus is claiming to have the power in himself to lay down teachings as authoritative as that given by the Old Testament prophets.
…Jesus also by implication, direct statement, and deed indicates that he has power over life and death. Hannah in her song of praise credits God with having the power to kill and make alive . In Psalm 119, the psalmist acknowledges about a dozen times that it is Jehovah who gives and preserves life. In John 5:21 Jesus claims this power for himself: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will." Perhaps the most emphatic statement is found in his words to Martha, "I am the resurrection and life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall live" [John 11:25].
Jesus specifically applied to himself expressions which conveyed his self-understanding. One of these is "Son of God."…It signified that Jesus had a relationship to the Father distinct from that of any other human. That Jesus was thereby claiming a unique sonship…was understood by the Jews. We read in John 5:2-18, for example, that they reacted with great hostility when, in defense of his having healed on the Sabbath, Jesus linked his work with that of the Father. As John explains, "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal to God" [verse 18]. From all the foregoing, it seems difficult, except on the basis of a certain type of critical presupposition, to escape the conclusion that Jesus understood himself as equal with the Father, and as possessing the right to do things which only God has the right to do…" [page 687, 688]
End of excerpts
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
gladtobeout
T-Bone
I'm so sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I meant no condescension or ill will at all. I just simply thought that you might like to see the paper. Have a great day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thank you, Glad to be Out – and no offense taken. I am glad you posted it – thinking over opposing viewpoints is a good catalyst for discussion and re-assessment of one's own opinions. As I said in post # 14 – I did not intend to be pugnacious – I just thought that some of the arguments were couched in demeaning jabs at Trinitarians rather than debating specific passages.
I wish more people would have gotten involved on the thread. I don't consider myself the defender of all things Trinitarian or the Unknown Theologian [with a LARGE brown paper bag over my three heads]. I don't think the Jesus is God/not God issue is clearly and squarely addressed by a simple reading of the Scriptures. There's lots of room for discussion. I think points can be given to both sides by inferences from certain passages.
*** Warning *** Warning *** Warning ***Rant Alert and Possible Derailment ***! The reason I chime in on these discussions is for the fun of exploring/re-evaluating my own and other folks' viewpoints - and in learning how to articulate theological issues. I derive more satisfaction in discovering a hidden or faulty assumption on my part than winning someone over to my way of thinking. I have expressed such intentions on other doctrinal threads before – and I'll tell you WHY it is such an impetus in drafting my posts. Some of the many things that I had assimilated while in TWI were their arrogant, narrow-minded and combative attitudes – when it came to developing a teaching topic for Twig/Branch, doctrinal discussions and often in a counseling situation. In my opinion this is an evil intellectual environment – only bondage, manipulation and deception can come from it…Now that I am FREE from that insane group – I proceed MUCH MORE CAUSTIOUSLY and RESPONSIBLY when expressing matters of faith, considering the possibility of influence it may have on another person…Bringing it back to our present discussion [***The Rant Alert and Possible Derailment Warning has expired***] – I sometimes look at valid contributions from either side of this issue like Andrew bringing his brother Simon Peter to see Jesus.
John 1:40-42 NASB
40(BF)One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the (BG)Messiah" (which translated means Christ).
42He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of (BH)John; you shall be called (BI)Cephas" (which is translated (BJ)Peter).
Hopefully, Christians can be more like Andrew and Simon Peter when sharing or considering the identity of Christ. Andrew identified Jesus by a term in Scripture and encouraged Peter to meet Him face to face. Peter may have initially gone to meet Him out of respect for his brother, intellectual/religious curiosity or whatever reason – but the fact remains Peter did go to meet Him – which was the start of a wonderful relationship between Peter and Christ [interesting side note – Jesus starts out the relationship by giving Simon another name to be identified by – "Peter"]. We all see Christ differently – I don't think it's that important if we have difficulty articulating how we see Him or compare "notes" – I think the personal relationship with Him is the big deal.
Love and peace flowing your way – T-Bone
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
In reference to the authority that Christ claimed to have, there is one explanation in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, where it refers to the authority of Christ being given to him by God; and only for a finite length of time, as there will come a time in the future when ' the Son shall also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all'. It seems to me possible that Jesus understood himself as possessing the right to do things which only God has the right to do because God gave him that right as a result of that distinct relationship with the Father. I would agree that the personal relationship with God is the big deal and that those in TWI who were only interested in researching the Bible without grasping the point that the real goal of the research is to know God certainly missed the boat.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Jean, I Corinthians 15:24-28 is indeed an intriguing reference for this discussion – and one that I find a bit confusing in light of Luke 1:30-33 where Gabriel's words to Mary indicated Christ's kingdom will have no end, Revelation 11:15 Christ will reign forever and Revelation 22:1-3 mentioning the throne of God and of the Lamb.
I Corinthians 15:23-28 NASB
23But each in his own order: Christ (AH)the first fruits, after that (AI)those who are Christ's at (AJ)His coming,
24then comes the end, when He hands over (AK)the kingdom to the (AL)God and Father, when He has abolished (AM)all rule and all authority and power.
25For He must reign (AN)until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26The last enemy that will be (AO)abolished is death.
27For (AP)HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET But when He says, "(AQ)All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28When (AR)all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that (AS)God may be all in all.
Luke 1:30-33 NASB
30The angel said to her, "(AL)Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you (AM)shall name Him Jesus.
32"He will be great and will be called the Son of (AN)the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him (AO)the throne of His father David;
33(AP)and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, (AQ)and His kingdom will have no end."
Revelation 11:15 NASB
15Then the (AJ)seventh angel sounded; and there were (AK)loud voices in heaven, saying, "(AL)The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of (AM)His [c]Christ; and (AN)He will reign forever and ever."
Revelation 22:1-3 NASB
1Then (A)he showed me a (B)river of the (C)water of life, clear (D)as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of [a]the Lamb,
2in the middle of (E)its street (F)On either side of the river was (G)the tree of life, bearing twelve [b]kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3(H)There will no longer be any curse; and (I)the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will (J)serve Him;
Robert Morey in The Trinity: Evidence and Issues on page 519 refers to the I Corinthians passage, "…Trinitarians do not believe that the Messianic kingdom is eternal. It began with the ministry of Christ on earth and was established when He sat down at the right hand of the Father in heaven and will end when He returns in glory ." Morey's explanation may be right – but I'm hesitant to give it much weight since it is derived from an assumption. The passage does not offer much detail on the kingdom it mentions. I wish I could ask Paul "Would you please elaborate a little more on this turning over the kingdom business in I Corinthians 15?"
The NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2: The New Testament, editors Kenneth Barker & John Kohlenberger III on page 652 presents a little more detailed explanation that agrees with Morey's viewpoint – arguing from the context of I Corinthians 15 "…Some think the reference to "the end" in vv.24-27 refers to the absolute end of this world. They hold that what follows "then" in verse 24 is identical with what follows the "then" in v.23. According to this view, the end in v.24 is the final end, and it is not preceded by a literal thousand-year reign in which Christ puts his enemies under his feet. But this interpretation changes radically Paul's idea of events following each other in temporal sequence, to an abrupt "then the end will come," where there is no more sequence. This seems arbitrary, and it does not take adequate account of the fuller teaching on this subject in Rev. 20:4-10 – a passage that posits a reign of Christ and a time when this earth will have peace and rejuvenation before its final destruction [Rev. 21:1]."
Trying to sort out all this stuff by two categories – like the Ben Franklin method – Column A, He's not God and Column B, He is God seems to be an exercise in futility sometimes. And this is one of the reasons why I say I'm not a defender of the Trinity. I lean towards it – admitting I'm a Trinitarian is maybe an approximation or shorthand for my attempt to understand the nature of God. From the Corinthian passage I get the idea of a "merging" ["that God may be all in all" I Corinthians 15:28] – so I don't know – let's make a Column C, Combination of Columns A & B – whoa I better confer with Star Trek engineers and ask about the risks of mixing matter with antimatter – would we jeopardize the integrity of the warp core? Who knows?! Just imagine an open discussion like this amongst in-residence Corps [if that were possible – LOL] - fights would break out "Captain, a warped Corps breech is imminent!"
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Wow, a student of the Word AND a Star Trek fan. That's incredible. It seems a little odd to me that a Trinitarian wouldn't believe that Christ's reign wasn't eternal. It would seem to me that if someone thought he was God they would be likely to think that his reign was eternal since he's an eternal being. I'm not a very knowledgeable scholar in this matter but that would seem to be logical to me. I think it's possible for Christ to rule over the house of Jacob forever and still be subject unto God, since it seems to me to be at least possible that the New Jerusalem will be a location on the third Earth.
BTW this is jeaniam, not John. I forgot to switch AGAIN. My bad. Sorry.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi John or Jean – sorry to get you two confused…guess it comes from me being a Dualitarian
…Yes – that would be one logical assumption – if we ignore passages like I in Corinthians 15 where Christ turns over the kingdom [whatever "kingdom" it's referring to – and I personally think it's the Messianic Kingdom as stated in my post # 18] – or passages that indicate the Son's authority to reign is derived from the Father. Does this detract from Christ being an eternal being? I don't think so. Though His lordship is derived from the Father – He is truly vested as Lord of lords and King of kings – not managing a puppet regime as a vassal king. This is clear by Him willingly handing over the kingdom to His Father .
I'm not saying my concept of the Trinity is correct – or even declaring Trinitarians are right and non-Trinitarians are wrong. I'm far from being a knowledgeable scholar on any Bible stuff – especially this topic! What I used to like about TWI's doctrine of Jesus Christ not being God was how it made for a much more manageable/understandable concept of God. Some of what turned me off to Trinitarian doctrine was holding onto TWI's description of it. Another thing was the [now this is my take on everything – remember I'm not the official Trinity spokesman – which would make me a…Quadrinity…or Quadrplex…3 Plus 1er…oh wait…scrap that idea – I'm not an eternal being] blending/confusing/complex nature of some pro-Trinitarian books I read on the subject. The last few years – my studies pursue a much more detailed investigation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and they're relationship to each other and…me – coupled with a new sense of freedom after reading Morey's book Trinity: Evidence and Issues. After his pointing out the multi-personal aspect of God revealed in the Old Testament and details of the theophanies – I no longer feel bound to prove 3 is 1 or that the Son is the Father [that is TWI's version of the Trinity]– because…BECAUSE… BECAUSE – I don't see that in the Bible.
Edited by T-BoneLink 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.