I see alot of discussion back and forth about the Trinity, but very few scriptures backing up points of view, so I offer this:
The top 2 authorities that God sent to represent Him in the New Testament were Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul
Both of them stated very clearly that the Father is the only God
Jesus said it more clearly, in John 17:1, Jesus Christ is speaking out loud and directly addresses his Father, and in verse 3, Jesus says:
"And this is life eternal that they might know thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD."
So in this verse, Jesus Christ is clearly declaring that his Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
That pretty much leaves out anyone else being God.
- Jesus is not God
- the holy spirit (the gift of eternal life from God) is not God
- Jesus Christ's Father is the only true God.
The Apostle Paul said in I Corinthians 8:6 ~
"...but to us, there is BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER..."
Very clear.
The Trinity is best summarized in the following statement:
"God the Father, God the Son, God the holy spirit"
- The word 'Trinity' is not anywhere in the Bible
- The phrase 'God the Son' is not found anywhere in the Bible
- The phrase 'God the holy spirit" is not found anywhere in the Bible
The Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine
The Trinity is not a Christian doctrine
The Trinity is a false doctrine
Yes there are verses that seem to imply that Jesus is God, but those verses are either figures of speech or unclear.
But those figures and unclear verses do not negate the very clear verses that very clearly say that Jesus Christ's Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
The other verses only throw shade, but they do not eclipse the clear verses. The unclear verses must fit together with the clear verses, because they are all the word of God, and God is not the author of confusion.
I see alot of discussion back and forth about the Trinity, but very few scriptures backing up points of view, so I offer this:
The top 2 authorities that God sent to represent Him in the New Testament were Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul
Both of them stated very clearly that the Father is the only God
Jesus said it more clearly, in John 17:1, Jesus Christ is speaking out loud and directly addresses his Father, and in verse 3, Jesus says:
"And this is life eternal that they might know thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD."
So in this verse, Jesus Christ is clearly declaring that his Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
That pretty much leaves out anyone else being God.
- Jesus is not God
- the holy spirit (the gift of eternal life from God) is not God
- Jesus Christ's Father is the only true God.
The Apostle Paul said in I Corinthians 8:6 ~
"...but to us, there is BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER..."
Very clear.
The Trinity is best summarized in the following statement:
"God the Father, God the Son, God the holy spirit"
- The word 'Trinity' is not anywhere in the Bible
- The phrase 'God the Son' is not found anywhere in the Bible
- The phrase 'God the holy spirit" is not found anywhere in the Bible
The Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine
The Trinity is not a Christian doctrine
The Trinity is a false doctrine
Yes there are verses that seem to imply that Jesus is God, but those verses are either figures of speech or unclear.
But those figures and unclear verses do not negate the very clear verses that very clearly say that Jesus Christ's Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
The other verses only throw shade, but they do not eclipse the clear verses. The unclear verses must fit together with the clear verses, because they are all the word of God, and God is not the author of confusion.
###
Of course you must be right... because fundamentalism. That makes anyone right just because he says he is, despite paradoxes and ambiguities.
If aspects of the trinity are shown to occur across time and peoples and religions I'm not sure how one can conclude it to be false.
The Way focuses in and hyper emphasizes The Father aspect. Which has its role and benefits, such as order and protection, but taken to an extreme represents tyrannical nature.
If aspects of the trinity are shown to occur across time and peoples and religions I'm not sure how one can conclude it to be false.
The Way focuses in and hyper emphasizes The Father aspect. Which has its role and benefits, such as order and protection, but taken to an extreme represents tyrannical nature.
I wonder if this is the case just for the same reason that Internet news sites like to put up articles that have lists in them. "The 10 things you can do to succeed at your job" or "The 5 warning signs your marriage is in trouble".
"The 3 Gods you can turn to in times of trouble".
All right - before I get blasphemy labeled here, what is the difference between that and the "7 Redemptive Names of God" - Jehovah - my car wash or whatever?
Talk to the daddy, talk to the brother, talk to the spirit guy.
Jesus carries the authority of God, so if I rap with him as opposed to the Father, am I not talking to the Father?
What does dying on a hillside of separate identity gain you?
If aspects of the trinity are shown to occur across time and peoples and religions I'm not sure how one can conclude it to be false.
One can prove it to be conclusively false very easily when reviewing the clear sacred scriptures of the creator as provided above along with sound reasoning based on truth and logic
But one could conclude the trinity to be true if they follow the opinions of people who follow the easily-provable false doctrines of the false religion that at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. invented the false doctrine of the trinity (historically documented), and which also teaches that Mary is the mother of God (apparently a single mom since they remain mum on the existence of a father of God), and which has also had to pay over $5,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS (see legal records) to settle lawsuits from men who when they were innocent little boys were sexually abused by non-heterosexual predator pedophile priests of said false religion (see court records).
Jesus carries the authority of God, so if I rap with him as opposed to the Father, am I not talking to the Father?
What does dying on a hillside of separate identity gain you?
I think I'm speaking more generally. In terms of their roles that would be seen in non-christian religions as well.
For your question: Renewal? Like a pheonix from its ashes. The Way is stagnant, yes? They do not accept change, not even clothing sometimes. Jesus would represent the constant change that would keep the bureaucratic structure or role of the Father from becoming too rigid and collapsing into tyranny.
If aspects of the trinity are shown to occur across time and peoples and religions I'm not sure how one can conclude it to be false.
The Way focuses in and hyper emphasizes The Father aspect. Which has its role and benefits, such as order and protection, but taken to an extreme represents tyrannical nature.
I sometimes think the Trinity is like a frustrated attempt to find The theory of everything With The Trinity merely being a theological framework to explain and link together the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ...as Bolshevik said TWI focused in an extreme way on the Father.
I’ve often wondered if TWI’s portrayal of the Trinity was more like a straw man fallacy - giving a misrepresentation of it so as having an easy target - something simple to refute.
But I think the real focus of the New Testament is on Jesus Christ...not to the exclusion of the Father or the Holy Spirit- - more along the lines of Jesus Christ being the means of directing our attention to all aspects of the godhead ...perhaps a believer can be thought of as being able to switch view modes (an aspect of focus) when thinking of how God works whether as the Father, through his Son or the Holy Spirit.
Verses that say things like whoever has seen Jesus Christ has seen the Father...In Christ dwells the fullness of the godhead bodily...Christ is the image of the invisible God...lead me to infer that Christ is the authorized image of God - perhaps like an icon - click here if you want to know what God is like...from a logical aspect there is no confusion for me - the Son is not the Father...
but for all PRACTICAL purposes they are inextricably intertwined...so much so that Christ could say I and my Father are one , John 10:30...or say that not everyone that calls him Lord will enter heaven but only the one who does my Father’s will...therefore everyone that hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise house builder , Matthew 7: 21 - 27..
.as the Living Word, Christ’s words are on equal footing with Scripture - to the point where he in effect could overwrite or revise scripture as in Matthew 5 - you’ve heard it said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy but I say love your enemies and pray for them.
One can prove it to be conclusively false very easily when reviewing the clear sacred scriptures of the creator as provided above along with sound reasoning based on truth and logic
Sound logic? Really??
It's not so easy to prove a negative. And I don't see where you did so.
I see alot of discussion back and forth about the Trinity, but very few scriptures backing up points of view, so I offer this:
The top 2 authorities that God sent to represent Him in the New Testament were Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul
Both of them stated very clearly that the Father is the only God
Jesus said it more clearly, in John 17:1, Jesus Christ is speaking out loud and directly addresses his Father, and in verse 3, Jesus says:
"And this is life eternal that they might know thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD."
So in this verse, Jesus Christ is clearly declaring that his Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
That pretty much leaves out anyone else being God.
- Jesus is not God
- the holy spirit (the gift of eternal life from God) is not God
- Jesus Christ's Father is the only true God.
The Apostle Paul said in I Corinthians 8:6 ~
"...but to us, there is BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER..."
Very clear.
The Trinity is best summarized in the following statement:
"God the Father, God the Son, God the holy spirit"
- The word 'Trinity' is not anywhere in the Bible
- The phrase 'God the Son' is not found anywhere in the Bible
- The phrase 'God the holy spirit" is not found anywhere in the Bible
The Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine
The Trinity is not a Christian doctrine
The Trinity is a false doctrine
Yes there are verses that seem to imply that Jesus is God, but those verses are either figures of speech or unclear.
But those figures and unclear verses do not negate the very clear verses that very clearly say that Jesus Christ's Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
The other verses only throw shade, but they do not eclipse the clear verses. The unclear verses must fit together with the clear verses, because they are all the word of God, and God is not the author of confusion.
###
Hi GoldStar,
If you are going with a scriptural argument, you are missing the simplest and most compelling verse:
I Tim. 2:5 - For there is oneGod and onemediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
However, the problem we run into is exactly what you quoted here:
"Yes there are verses that seem to imply that Jesus is God, but those verses are either figures of speech or unclear."
In going through the verses VP applies his scriptural shenanigans to in JCNG, you say that they are "either figures of speech or unclear". I would contest that VP used that type of statement and inadequate rhetoric altogether too often rather than treating verses honestly as they appear in context. Go through every apparent contradiction he explains away in JCNG, read it without a preconceived bias.
The conclusion I have come to is that scriptures aren't a tricky little math puzzle that you can perfectly fit and solve everything in life with.
There are no "apparent contradictions" there are "flat contradictions". On this particular topic no less. And VPW is not someone to emulate with respect to honest scholarship. For example, Thomas sticking his hand into the side of the resurrected Christ and saying "my Lord and God". Don't give me that weak sauce orientalism BS it is very clearly stated in context.
Scriptures have inspired thought in my estimation. They also have man's thought. A blend of it. But you have people playing trickery. Like saying Kings is "man's view" and Chronicles is "God's view". Wait a second I thought all scripture is given by insipiration of God and is profitable for doctrine reproof correction? So Kings is "man's view" but interpreted by divine inspiration through God who is telling you man's view? Why? Why couldn't we just ask the man his view?
We have a recent poster on here Mike who likes to claim all of Victor Paul Wierwille's writings are "God breathed" from that way too often quoted verse in the Way. He has a Balaam's @$$ kind of reasoning that the vessel for God's Word is flawed or something but that's not important.
I disagree. I take my own life in point. Do I believe I have received revelation from God? Yes. Do I pray and function as a Christian? Yes. Does God continue to unfold things for me? Yes. But do I walk on a cloud where every directed step is from God's revelation? It simply doesn't work like that. What is God's revelation? Is it the sight of a bluebird in the crisp dawn focused and alive, showing God's intent for continued life? Is it a multi-colored sunrise? Is it a scripture that hits you a certain way during a multi-colored sunrise?
Oh, but as the retired schoolteacher would say "there is no standard" - there needs to be uniformity, likemindedness, a standard. They would try and say revelation works in a "Stepford Wives" calculated manner.
I would just tell them to consider the secular words of a Chliean film-maker:
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness" Alejandro Jodorowsky
There are no "apparent contradictions" there are "flat contradictions". On this particular topic no less.
There's plenty of "apparent contradictions" because so few clearly see or take into consideration the change that occurred at his resurrection. Miss or screw that one up, and you're left with contradictions a plenty.
I appreciate the TImothy verse, but John 17:3 where Jesus Christ himself declares that his Father is the only true God is the simplest and most compelling verse, but this verse in Timothy goes right along with the other ones I posted, thanks for reminding me of that one
3 hours ago, chockfull said:
GoldStar,
If you are going with a scriptural argument, you are missing the simplest and most compelling verse:
I Tim. 2:5 - For there is oneGod and onemediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
But I didn't refer to anyone's verses except for BIble verses:
3 hours ago, chockfull said:
In going through the verses VP applies his scriptural shenanigans to in JCNG, you say that they are "either figures of speech or unclear".
I apologize but I am not sure what are the other point(s) you are trying to make with the rest of the text in that post
I have had conversations with Mike and he did very clearly tell me about how he holds up the 'Doctor's" publications as very full of truth, even above the Bible, but I told him I certainly do not agree with that, the Bible is my first and last source, and I look at other sources in between to help me understand certain things
For example the Greek word transliterated 'pascha' is translated 28 times in the new testatment as Passover, but one time in Acts 12:4, 'pascha' is translated as Easter, which is incorrect, but that distinction is not found in the Bible itself, so a Greek concordance helped me understand that truth
There's plenty of "apparent contradictions" because so few clearly see or take into consideration the change that occurred at his resurrection. Miss or screw that one up, and you're left with contradictions a plenty.
That is something intriguing to think about, TLC !
Just a quick review of
Ephesians 1: 19-22
18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
and
Philippians 2: 5-11
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming 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 acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Indicates some changes definitely took place…physically, of course but also his exaltation to the place of authority… commenting on Philippians 2, in The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2: New Testament, on page 797 it says
…the participle "being" in the sense of existing is in the present tense and states Christ’s continuing condition and says “one’s essential nature can remain unchanged, though the manner in which that nature is expressed can vary greatly through changing times and circumstances.”
For me, while in TWI and following the mindset that was encouraged there - I never would have considered that there was a duality in the nature of Jesus Christ – that he was both human and divine…as John 1:18 says he was one-of-a-kind, or a unique hybrid, if you will… in the Greek – monogenes…keeping in mind what the commentary said – I venture to say Jesus Christ’s essential nature remained the same – human and divine – the Word became flesh... though the manner in which this was expressed…displayed or brought out has now been modified by a unique event in history…Jesus who was crucified is now resurrected…the humbled servant is now exalted Lord…his fragile form in the grave is now transformed into a glorious immortal body. this is a big deal in Christology which is primarily concerned with the philosophical study of the nature of Jesus’ existence and his personhood in the New Testament.
I have had conversations with Mike and he did very clearly tell me about how he holds up the 'Doctor's" publications as very full of truth, even above the Bible, but I told him I certainly do not agree with that, the Bible is my first and last source, and I look at other sources in between to help me understand certain things
For example the Greek word transliterated 'pascha' is translated 28 times in the new testatment as Passover, but one time in Acts 12:4, 'pascha' is translated as Easter, which is incorrect, but that distinction is not found in the Bible itself, so a Greek concordance helped me understand that truth
I was going to say this was maybe not on topic. But I am wondering what is meant by the Bible being a source? It doesn't produce or perceive anything. That might be a topic for another thread.
I more concerned in this thread, if possible, on how the trinitarian/non-trinitarian view affects one's thought process. (or vica versa)
Goldstar if I might ask. You've made it clear you are at least anti-trinitarian. So how do you think that impacts your views and decisions in life? (And I'm assuming there's more than just being against something, against the trinity. So you are for something, yes?)
I appreciate the TImothy verse, but John 17:3 where Jesus Christ himself declares that his Father is the only true God is the simplest and most compelling verse, but this verse in Timothy goes right along with the other ones I posted, thanks for reminding me of that one
But I didn't refer to anyone's verses except for BIble verses:
I apologize but I am not sure what are the other point(s) you are trying to make with the rest of the text in that post
I have had conversations with Mike and he did very clearly tell me about how he holds up the 'Doctor's" publications as very full of truth, even above the Bible, but I told him I certainly do not agree with that, the Bible is my first and last source, and I look at other sources in between to help me understand certain things
For example the Greek word transliterated 'pascha' is translated 28 times in the new testatment as Passover, but one time in Acts 12:4, 'pascha' is translated as Easter, which is incorrect, but that distinction is not found in the Bible itself, so a Greek concordance helped me understand that truth
Hey GoldStar,
No worries. i was starting to look into verses covered in VPW's publication Jesus Christ is Not God. That was where my soliloquy was driving anyway LOL
Thomas firsthand accounts with the resurrected Christ were the first stop. VPW in the book explains those as an orientalism meaning "my godly lord" all lower caps. I find him on shaky ground with that explanation, but maybe there is a better explanation.
Any thoughts on those?
I guess there are a lot of ways to discuss the trinity. I've been surprised at even common definitions of the term.
No worries. i was starting to look into verses covered in VPW's publication Jesus Christ is Not God. That was where my soliloquy was driving anyway LOL
Thomas firsthand accounts with the resurrected Christ were the first stop. VPW in the book explains those as an orientalism meaning "my godly lord" all lower caps. I find him on shaky ground with that explanation, but maybe there is a better explanation.
Any thoughts on those?
I guess there are a lot of ways to discuss the trinity. I've been surprised at even common definitions of the term.
VPW misused Bullinger's Figures of Speech book, Lamsa's materials on OT and NT commentaries(Rocco Errico up the ante on Aramaic), Pillai, and other Socialistic culture and customs by James Freeman, Fred Wight, Abraham Ribadney. So does Spirit and Truth Fellowship. Actually the other 2 books on Jesus Christ(Passover and Promised Seed) was more informated because of the research team led by Walter Cummins.. Schoenheit and Grasser wrote a book called One God and Lord, which does Church history a bit better that VPW.
That is something intriguing to think about, TLC !
Just a quick review of
Ephesians 1: 19-22
18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
and
Philippians 2: 5-11
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming 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 acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Indicates some changes definitely took place…physically, of course but also his exaltation to the place of authority… commenting on Philippians 2, in The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2: New Testament, on page 797 it says
…the participle "being" in the sense of existing is in the present tense and states Christ’s continuing condition and says “one’s essential nature can remain unchanged, though the manner in which that nature is expressed can vary greatly through changing times and circumstances.”
For me, while in TWI and following the mindset that was encouraged there - I never would have considered that there was a duality in the nature of Jesus Christ – that he was both human and divine…as John 1:18 says he was one-of-a-kind, or a unique hybrid, if you will… in the Greek – monogenes…keeping in mind what the commentary said – I venture to say Jesus Christ’s essential nature remained the same – human and divine – the Word became flesh... though the manner in which this was expressed…displayed or brought out has now been modified by a unique event in history…Jesus who was crucified is now resurrected…the humbled servant is now exalted Lord…his fragile form in the grave is now transformed into a glorious immortal body. this is a big deal in Christology which is primarily concerned with the philosophical study of the nature of Jesus’ existence and his personhood in the New Testament.
To me this comes off as a logical and straightforward handling of scriptures without the need of a mental shoehorn and a lot of dance steps.
Which makes it unfathomable to the Way.
More specifically I see that people have an assumed major premise that there will be no duality in Christology, in scriptures, and they expect it not in life.
...The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2: New Testament, on page 797 it says
…the participle "being" in the sense of existing is in the present tense and states Christ’s continuing condition and says “one’s essential nature can remain unchanged, though the manner in which that nature is expressed can vary greatly through changing times and circumstances.”
Although that may be true, the particular manner in which it is written strikes me as some clever effort to steer the reader's thinking into believing that there was no change whatsoever (and never has been) in the "essential nature" of one in particular, namely Jesus Christ. Which, to return to what I posted previously, very blatantly relegates whatever change(s) occurred at his resurrection to nothing more than how he is perceived, rather than reveal the stunning change in his "essential nature." In other words, I see this commentary as being heavily tainted with (or by) Trinitarian dogma.
Now... do you want (or care) to flesh out just exactly what you think this "essential nature" really means or refers to?
I sometimes think the Trinity is like a frustrated attempt to find The theory of everything With The Trinity merely being a theological framework to explain and link together the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ...as Bolshevik said TWI focused in an extreme way on the Father.
I’ve often wondered if TWI’s portrayal of the Trinity was more like a straw man fallacy - giving a misrepresentation of it so as having an easy target - something simple to refute.
But I think the real focus of the New Testament is on Jesus Christ...not to the exclusion of the Father or the Holy Spirit- - more along the lines of Jesus Christ being the means of directing our attention to all aspects of the godhead ...perhaps a believer can be thought of as being able to switch view modes (an aspect of focus) when thinking of how God works whether as the Father, through his Son or the Holy Spirit.
Verses that say things like whoever has seen Jesus Christ has seen the Father...In Christ dwells the fullness of the godhead bodily...Christ is the image of the invisible God...lead me to infer that Christ is the authorized image of God - perhaps like an icon - click here if you want to know what God is like...from a logical aspect there is no confusion for me - the Son is not the Father...
but for all PRACTICAL purposes they are inextricably intertwined...so much so that Christ could say I and my Father are one , John 10:30...or say that not everyone that calls him Lord will enter heaven but only the one who does my Father’s will...therefore everyone that hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise house builder , Matthew 7: 21 - 27..
.as the Living Word, Christ’s words are on equal footing with Scripture - to the point where he in effect could overwrite or revise scripture as in Matthew 5 - you’ve heard it said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy but I say love your enemies and pray for them.
I like this T-Bone. It reminds me of seeing the Trinity as an analog to Yin/Yang. The interface between them being the goal of one's walk. Focusing on Jesus being analogous to that line.
Although that may be true, the particular manner in which it is written strikes me as some clever effort to steer the reader's thinking into believing that there was no change whatsoever (and never has been) in the "essential nature" of one in particular, namely Jesus Christ. Which, to return to what I posted previously, very blatantly relegates whatever change(s) occurred at his resurrection to nothing more than how he is perceived, rather than reveal the stunning change in his "essential nature." In other words, I see this commentary as being heavily tainted with (or by) Trinitarian dogma.
Now... do you want (or care) to flesh out just exactly what you think this "essential nature" really means or refers to?
I thought I had already detailed out what I thought is his essential nature - - which is both human and divine – as referenced in my previous post; I never suggested anything about a change in how he is perceived…I think that would be more along the lines of a “perception is reality” tangent - meaning that the way a person sees Jesus Christ... the world...whatever is their “truth”, regardless of whether or not their conclusions are factually accurate or not.
On 3/5/2018 at 9:38 PM, T-Bone said:
That is something intriguing to think about, TLC !
Just a quick review of
Ephesians 1: 19-22
18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
and
Philippians 2: 5-11
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming 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 acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Indicates some changes definitely took place…physically, of course but also his exaltation to the place of authority… commenting on Philippians 2, in The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2: New Testament, on page 797 it says
…the participle "being" in the sense of existing is in the present tense and states Christ’s continuing condition and says “one’s essential nature can remain unchanged, though the manner in which that nature is expressed can vary greatly through changing times and circumstances.”
For me, while in TWI and following the mindset that was encouraged there - I never would have considered that there was a duality in the nature of Jesus Christ – that he was both human and divine…as John 1:18 says he was one-of-a-kind, or a unique hybrid, if you will… in the Greek – monogenes…keeping in mind what the commentary said – I venture to say Jesus Christ’s essential nature remained the same – human and divine – the Word became flesh... though the manner in which this was expressed…displayed or brought out has now been modified by a unique event in history…Jesus who was crucified is now resurrected…the humbled servant is now exalted Lord…his fragile form in the grave is now transformed into a glorious immortal body. this is a big deal in Christology which is primarily concerned with the philosophical study of the nature of Jesus’ existence and his personhood in the New Testament.
Rather I was drawing upon what the scriptures said about his dual nature…both human and divine as shown in the passages I referred to before...so let's look at them again - - and then I want to ask a couple of questions:
14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father…John 1:14 NET
6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature… Philippians 2: 6, 7 NET
“The Word became flesh” – is that speaking of something that is real or merely as something to perceive or imagine? “He existed in the form of God…and sharing in human nature” – again is this speaking of a being with an actual “dual” existence or is this about a mental construct?
I don’t think it takes any Trinitarian-dogma- tainted logic to see that these passages are speaking of a being who’s basic or inherent qualities are both human and divine. It says he existed in the form of God and shared in human nature - what's so difficult about that concept other than it doesn't agree with TWI's teaching that Jesus Christ is not God?
Going from a gruesome battered corpse to a resurrected immortal body is a stunning change indeed – and yet his essential nature was not changed – for we read of one of his resurrected appearances in Luke
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”…Luke 24:36 – 39 NASB
Jesus Christ – in his new resurrected body said “it is I myself”. This seems to be a fairly clear and concise statement made by Jesus that he was still essentially the same person he was before he was crucified and buried…I remember a comedian saying he had the very ax that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree…of course over time due to age, rust, and rot he had to replace the ax head and wooden handle – but it still occupied the same space as George’s original ax …what I’m saying is that it wasn’t like that after the resurrection of Jesus Christ…he said “it is I myself”. I believe he still had a dual nature – and his body was still recognizable as a human – for he said he had flesh and bones…but I imagine this was a new and improved body…reconstituted at the subatomic level? I don’t know…just speculation…don’t know exactly how all this was accomplished.
I like this T-Bone. It reminds me of seeing the Trinity as an analog to Yin/Yang. The interface between them being the goal of one's walk. Focusing on Jesus being analogous to that line.
Well I don’t know a whole lot about Eastern religions – I thought the Yin / Yang thing had to do with opposites – which I think was a theme in the most recent Star Wars – which I really dug that idea of everything maintaining a balance…good point though about referencing the goal of one’s walk.
I like the word “interface” that you used… a point where two systems meet and interact…I tend to think we (of the USA) live in a very materialistic world – and for those who are Christian, thoughts of God and spiritual growth may be something reserved for certain times during the week…whereas in Eastern religions I have this notion followers tend to look at everything they do as a spiritual experience…I know that’s a dumb thing to say for someone that confesses they know nothing about Eastern Religions…and not that much about Christianity either …must be the guilt of materialism talking
Well I don’t know a whole lot about Eastern religions – I thought the Yin / Yang thing had to do with opposites – which I think was a theme in the most recent Star Wars – which I really dug that idea of everything maintaining a balance…good point though about referencing the goal of one’s walk.
I like the word “interface” that you used… a point where two systems meet and interact…I tend to think we (of the USA) live in a very materialistic world – and for those who are Christian, thoughts of God and spiritual growth may be something reserved for certain times during the week…whereas in Eastern religions I have this notion followers tend to look at everything they do as a spiritual experience…I know that’s a dumb thing to say for someone that confesses they know nothing about Eastern Religions…and not that much about Christianity either …must be the guilt of materialism talking
The concept I was kicking around was that of duality - very similar to the "interface" word. Can something be more than one thing at the same time? There is a scripture about "being all things to all men". Does this present a duality of any kind? I've heard arguments about being a son and a father at the same time and a brother, depending on the to whom in the relationship. I mean I'm not ready to run right in and take up my cross for the Apostles Creed or anything, but the fact the trinity presents some form of duality of identity in Christology to me doesn't seem like something of the magnitude to split off completely from mainstream Christianity to form various splinter groups of faith. In the Way we were so proud to point out that the word "trinity" never appears in the Bible. No, "trinity" is a one-word description of a teaching that explains the duality of Jesus identity. Or the intersection of the duality of identity between man and God.
Well I don’t know a whole lot about Eastern religions – I thought the Yin / Yang thing had to do with opposites – which I think was a theme in the most recent Star Wars – which I really dug that idea of everything maintaining a balance…good point though about referencing the goal of one’s walk.
. . .
The way I understand is The Father represents law and order, The Holy Spirit, symbolized by a bird in the air, is chaos, from which creation comes (as in the first view verses of Genesis). You could also view HS as mother.
That's very general. I did quick google search and there seems to be more of that thinking out there. To me it just points to the idea that there is something in common between the two that is real and true and gave rise to each concept.
The concept I was kicking around was that of duality - very similar to the "interface" word. Can something be more than one thing at the same time? There is a scripture about "being all things to all men". Does this present a duality of any kind? I've heard arguments about being a son and a father at the same time and a brother, depending on the to whom in the relationship. I mean I'm not ready to run right in and take up my cross for the Apostles Creed or anything, but the fact the trinity presents some form of duality of identity in Christology to me doesn't seem like something of the magnitude to split off completely from mainstream Christianity to form various splinter groups of faith. In the Way we were so proud to point out that the word "trinity" never appears in the Bible. No, "trinity" is a one-word description of a teaching that explains the duality of Jesus identity. Or the intersection of the duality of identity between man and God.
Maybe we are mulling over this stuff in a similar fashion - - very cautiously … and I don’t subscribe to any rigid formula of the Trinity anyway so batting around the idea of an interface between God and man sounds like fun. We could get into a whole other topic on theophany
but for now, I like the tangents that have come up…when it comes to theological / philosophical matters, I am constantly revising ideas I have about all that…after I left behind TWI and the rigid fundamentalist mindset – I became very intrigued with how to interpret a book compiled over a long period of time during ancient cultures…the challenge is much greater than just getting a handle on the biblical languages - - it’s trying to understand the mindset of the authors AND their target audience – those who were the first to read it…
Historical proximity is an important aspect, in my humble opinion. I try to “look” as far back as possible – to the New Testament time …if there’s a Christian mainstream then I’m thinking we ought to swim upstream – to where it had its beginnings. The challenge is really to sort through what was written and figure out what were the salient points to Christianity back then…do we find things that point to connecting with God…how to interact with God…I think we do and perhaps Jesus Christ may be considered the touchpoint…
I believe Christ’s twofold nature has enabled him to be that touchpoint. Trying to think of God as forgiving may be a little abstract – but recalling Jesus on the cross saying “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34) I see a vivid demonstration of the means God used to reconnect to man…As II Corinthians 5:19 says, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself…
Christ’s duality may have been somewhat veiled in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) which have many of the same stories, sequences and similar wording – but perhaps the veil is pulled aside in John which was written much later - his gospel seems to be imbued with allusions as well as direct statements of Jesus Christ's divinity … and then moving on to the epistles of Paul – I think it might be fair to say much of what he wrote focused on the impact of Christ’s divine nature – that was Paul’s contribution to Christology
an excerpt from that link:
A foremost contribution to the Christology of the Apostolic Age is that of Paul. The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence and the identification of Christ as Kyrios. The Pauline epistles use Kyrios to identify Jesus almost 230 times, and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord. Paul viewed the superiority of the Christian revelation over all other divine manifestations as a consequence of the fact that Christ is the Son of God. Nevertheless, the view that it was apostle Paul who introduced the idea that Jesus was divine and thus distorted the actual Jesus has been widely rejected by historians.
As Richard Bauckham observes, Paul was not so influential that he could have invented the central doctrine of Christianity. Before his active missionary work, there were already groups of Christians across the region. For example, a large group already existed in Rome even before Paul visited the place. The earliest centre of Christianity was the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Paul himself consulted and sought guidance from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2; Acts 9:26-28, 15:2). “What was common to the whole Christian movement derived from Jerusalem, not from Paul, and Paul himself derived the central message he preached from the Jerusalem apostles.
On the other hand, if Jesus himself did not claim and show himself to be truly divine (i.e. on the Creator side of the Creator–creature divide), the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would not have come to a widespread agreement that he was truly divine (which they did), but would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet instead.
The Pauline epistles also advanced the "cosmic Christology" later developed in the fourth gospel, elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God, as in 2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." Also, in Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
== == == ==
Historically I tend to believe Christians around the New Testament time thought of Jesus Christ as a lot more than just another man. In a fascinating book Jesus: Lord & Savior FF Bruce examines the biblical evidence of how Jesus related to his followers. One of the interesting things he points out is the fact that followers had no qualms about calling Jesus “Lord” – a title usually reserved for God in the Old Testament. There is an interesting account in the gospels that goes along a related point - of how some of Jesus' detractors looked on him:
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions… Matthew 22: 41 – 46 NIV
The Pharisees’ answer to Jesus’ question reflects their belief that the Messiah would be just a man. However, Jesus’ reply was an assertion of his deity.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
41
26
22
19
Popular Days
Mar 8
23
Jul 8
21
Mar 10
17
Jul 20
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Bolshevik 41 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 22 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 8 2018
23 posts
Jul 8 2017
21 posts
Mar 10 2018
17 posts
Jul 20 2017
17 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
What experience with churches today exactly do you have? Aren't you one of the ones that isolated and studied PFAL collaterals for a decade plus not attending churches? In my experience the trin
Raf
Questions about the identity of Jesus Christ are almost as old as Christianity itself. The gospels and epistles are, at least in part, a rebuttal to early claims about exactly who Jesus was, both befo
Bolshevik
We're not really trying to prove or disprove existence of anything in this thread. If many people over generations talk about it, that's good enough. It exists. Do the various views of trinity/
GoldStar
The Truth about The Trinity
I see alot of discussion back and forth about the Trinity, but very few scriptures backing up points of view, so I offer this:
The top 2 authorities that God sent to represent Him in the New Testament were Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul
Both of them stated very clearly that the Father is the only God
Jesus said it more clearly, in John 17:1, Jesus Christ is speaking out loud and directly addresses his Father, and in verse 3, Jesus says:
"And this is life eternal that they might know thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD."
So in this verse, Jesus Christ is clearly declaring that his Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
That pretty much leaves out anyone else being God.
- Jesus is not God
- the holy spirit (the gift of eternal life from God) is not God
- Jesus Christ's Father is the only true God.
The Apostle Paul said in I Corinthians 8:6 ~
"...but to us, there is BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER..."
Very clear.
The Trinity is best summarized in the following statement:
"God the Father, God the Son, God the holy spirit"
- The word 'Trinity' is not anywhere in the Bible
- The phrase 'God the Son' is not found anywhere in the Bible
- The phrase 'God the holy spirit" is not found anywhere in the Bible
The Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine
The Trinity is not a Christian doctrine
The Trinity is a false doctrine
Yes there are verses that seem to imply that Jesus is God, but those verses are either figures of speech or unclear.
But those figures and unclear verses do not negate the very clear verses that very clearly say that Jesus Christ's Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
The other verses only throw shade, but they do not eclipse the clear verses. The unclear verses must fit together with the clear verses, because they are all the word of God, and God is not the author of confusion.
###
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Of course you must be right... because fundamentalism. That makes anyone right just because he says he is, despite paradoxes and ambiguities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If aspects of the trinity are shown to occur across time and peoples and religions I'm not sure how one can conclude it to be false.
The Way focuses in and hyper emphasizes The Father aspect. Which has its role and benefits, such as order and protection, but taken to an extreme represents tyrannical nature.
Edited by BolshevikGrammar tyranny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I wonder if this is the case just for the same reason that Internet news sites like to put up articles that have lists in them. "The 10 things you can do to succeed at your job" or "The 5 warning signs your marriage is in trouble".
"The 3 Gods you can turn to in times of trouble".
All right - before I get blasphemy labeled here, what is the difference between that and the "7 Redemptive Names of God" - Jehovah - my car wash or whatever?
Talk to the daddy, talk to the brother, talk to the spirit guy.
Jesus carries the authority of God, so if I rap with him as opposed to the Father, am I not talking to the Father?
What does dying on a hillside of separate identity gain you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
One can prove it to be conclusively false very easily when reviewing the clear sacred scriptures of the creator as provided above along with sound reasoning based on truth and logic
But one could conclude the trinity to be true if they follow the opinions of people who follow the easily-provable false doctrines of the false religion that at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. invented the false doctrine of the trinity (historically documented), and which also teaches that Mary is the mother of God (apparently a single mom since they remain mum on the existence of a father of God), and which has also had to pay over $5,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS (see legal records) to settle lawsuits from men who when they were innocent little boys were sexually abused by non-heterosexual predator pedophile priests of said false religion (see court records).
That's how
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think I'm speaking more generally. In terms of their roles that would be seen in non-christian religions as well.
For your question: Renewal? Like a pheonix from its ashes. The Way is stagnant, yes? They do not accept change, not even clothing sometimes. Jesus would represent the constant change that would keep the bureaucratic structure or role of the Father from becoming too rigid and collapsing into tyranny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I sometimes think the Trinity is like a frustrated attempt to find The theory of everything With The Trinity merely being a theological framework to explain and link together the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ...as Bolshevik said TWI focused in an extreme way on the Father.
I’ve often wondered if TWI’s portrayal of the Trinity was more like a straw man fallacy - giving a misrepresentation of it so as having an easy target - something simple to refute.
But I think the real focus of the New Testament is on Jesus Christ...not to the exclusion of the Father or the Holy Spirit- - more along the lines of Jesus Christ being the means of directing our attention to all aspects of the godhead ...perhaps a believer can be thought of as being able to switch view modes (an aspect of focus) when thinking of how God works whether as the Father, through his Son or the Holy Spirit.
Verses that say things like whoever has seen Jesus Christ has seen the Father...In Christ dwells the fullness of the godhead bodily...Christ is the image of the invisible God...lead me to infer that Christ is the authorized image of God - perhaps like an icon - click here if you want to know what God is like...from a logical aspect there is no confusion for me - the Son is not the Father...
but for all PRACTICAL purposes they are inextricably intertwined...so much so that Christ could say I and my Father are one , John 10:30...or say that not everyone that calls him Lord will enter heaven but only the one who does my Father’s will...therefore everyone that hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise house builder , Matthew 7: 21 - 27..
.as the Living Word, Christ’s words are on equal footing with Scripture - to the point where he in effect could overwrite or revise scripture as in Matthew 5 - you’ve heard it said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy but I say love your enemies and pray for them.
Edited by T-BoneFormatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Sound logic? Really??
It's not so easy to prove a negative. And I don't see where you did so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Two very poignant questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hi GoldStar,
If you are going with a scriptural argument, you are missing the simplest and most compelling verse:
I Tim. 2:5 - For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
However, the problem we run into is exactly what you quoted here:
"Yes there are verses that seem to imply that Jesus is God, but those verses are either figures of speech or unclear."
In going through the verses VP applies his scriptural shenanigans to in JCNG, you say that they are "either figures of speech or unclear". I would contest that VP used that type of statement and inadequate rhetoric altogether too often rather than treating verses honestly as they appear in context. Go through every apparent contradiction he explains away in JCNG, read it without a preconceived bias.
The conclusion I have come to is that scriptures aren't a tricky little math puzzle that you can perfectly fit and solve everything in life with.
There are no "apparent contradictions" there are "flat contradictions". On this particular topic no less. And VPW is not someone to emulate with respect to honest scholarship. For example, Thomas sticking his hand into the side of the resurrected Christ and saying "my Lord and God". Don't give me that weak sauce orientalism BS it is very clearly stated in context.
Scriptures have inspired thought in my estimation. They also have man's thought. A blend of it. But you have people playing trickery. Like saying Kings is "man's view" and Chronicles is "God's view". Wait a second I thought all scripture is given by insipiration of God and is profitable for doctrine reproof correction? So Kings is "man's view" but interpreted by divine inspiration through God who is telling you man's view? Why? Why couldn't we just ask the man his view?
We have a recent poster on here Mike who likes to claim all of Victor Paul Wierwille's writings are "God breathed" from that way too often quoted verse in the Way. He has a Balaam's @$$ kind of reasoning that the vessel for God's Word is flawed or something but that's not important.
I disagree. I take my own life in point. Do I believe I have received revelation from God? Yes. Do I pray and function as a Christian? Yes. Does God continue to unfold things for me? Yes. But do I walk on a cloud where every directed step is from God's revelation? It simply doesn't work like that. What is God's revelation? Is it the sight of a bluebird in the crisp dawn focused and alive, showing God's intent for continued life? Is it a multi-colored sunrise? Is it a scripture that hits you a certain way during a multi-colored sunrise?
Oh, but as the retired schoolteacher would say "there is no standard" - there needs to be uniformity, likemindedness, a standard. They would try and say revelation works in a "Stepford Wives" calculated manner.
I would just tell them to consider the secular words of a Chliean film-maker:
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness" Alejandro Jodorowsky
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
There's plenty of "apparent contradictions" because so few clearly see or take into consideration the change that occurred at his resurrection. Miss or screw that one up, and you're left with contradictions a plenty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
HI Chockfull,
I appreciate the TImothy verse, but John 17:3 where Jesus Christ himself declares that his Father is the only true God is the simplest and most compelling verse, but this verse in Timothy goes right along with the other ones I posted, thanks for reminding me of that one
But I didn't refer to anyone's verses except for BIble verses:
I apologize but I am not sure what are the other point(s) you are trying to make with the rest of the text in that post
I have had conversations with Mike and he did very clearly tell me about how he holds up the 'Doctor's" publications as very full of truth, even above the Bible, but I told him I certainly do not agree with that, the Bible is my first and last source, and I look at other sources in between to help me understand certain things
For example the Greek word transliterated 'pascha' is translated 28 times in the new testatment as Passover, but one time in Acts 12:4, 'pascha' is translated as Easter, which is incorrect, but that distinction is not found in the Bible itself, so a Greek concordance helped me understand that truth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That is something intriguing to think about, TLC !
Just a quick review of
Ephesians 1: 19-22
18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
and
Philippians 2: 5-11
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming 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 acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Indicates some changes definitely took place…physically, of course but also his exaltation to the place of authority… commenting on Philippians 2, in The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2: New Testament, on page 797 it says
…the participle "being" in the sense of existing is in the present tense and states Christ’s continuing condition and says “one’s essential nature can remain unchanged, though the manner in which that nature is expressed can vary greatly through changing times and circumstances.”
For me, while in TWI and following the mindset that was encouraged there - I never would have considered that there was a duality in the nature of Jesus Christ – that he was both human and divine…as John 1:18 says he was one-of-a-kind, or a unique hybrid, if you will… in the Greek – monogenes…keeping in mind what the commentary said – I venture to say Jesus Christ’s essential nature remained the same – human and divine – the Word became flesh... though the manner in which this was expressed…displayed or brought out has now been modified by a unique event in history…Jesus who was crucified is now resurrected…the humbled servant is now exalted Lord…his fragile form in the grave is now transformed into a glorious immortal body. this is a big deal in Christology which is primarily concerned with the philosophical study of the nature of Jesus’ existence and his personhood in the New Testament.
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I was going to say this was maybe not on topic. But I am wondering what is meant by the Bible being a source? It doesn't produce or perceive anything. That might be a topic for another thread.
I more concerned in this thread, if possible, on how the trinitarian/non-trinitarian view affects one's thought process. (or vica versa)
Goldstar if I might ask. You've made it clear you are at least anti-trinitarian. So how do you think that impacts your views and decisions in life? (And I'm assuming there's more than just being against something, against the trinity. So you are for something, yes?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey GoldStar,
No worries. i was starting to look into verses covered in VPW's publication Jesus Christ is Not God. That was where my soliloquy was driving anyway LOL
Thomas firsthand accounts with the resurrected Christ were the first stop. VPW in the book explains those as an orientalism meaning "my godly lord" all lower caps. I find him on shaky ground with that explanation, but maybe there is a better explanation.
Any thoughts on those?
I guess there are a lot of ways to discuss the trinity. I've been surprised at even common definitions of the term.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
VPW misused Bullinger's Figures of Speech book, Lamsa's materials on OT and NT commentaries(Rocco Errico up the ante on Aramaic), Pillai, and other Socialistic culture and customs by James Freeman, Fred Wight, Abraham Ribadney. So does Spirit and Truth Fellowship. Actually the other 2 books on Jesus Christ(Passover and Promised Seed) was more informated because of the research team led by Walter Cummins.. Schoenheit and Grasser wrote a book called One God and Lord, which does Church history a bit better that VPW.
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
To me this comes off as a logical and straightforward handling of scriptures without the need of a mental shoehorn and a lot of dance steps.
Which makes it unfathomable to the Way.
More specifically I see that people have an assumed major premise that there will be no duality in Christology, in scriptures, and they expect it not in life.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Although that may be true, the particular manner in which it is written strikes me as some clever effort to steer the reader's thinking into believing that there was no change whatsoever (and never has been) in the "essential nature" of one in particular, namely Jesus Christ. Which, to return to what I posted previously, very blatantly relegates whatever change(s) occurred at his resurrection to nothing more than how he is perceived, rather than reveal the stunning change in his "essential nature." In other words, I see this commentary as being heavily tainted with (or by) Trinitarian dogma.
Now... do you want (or care) to flesh out just exactly what you think this "essential nature" really means or refers to?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I like this T-Bone. It reminds me of seeing the Trinity as an analog to Yin/Yang. The interface between them being the goal of one's walk. Focusing on Jesus being analogous to that line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I thought I had already detailed out what I thought is his essential nature - - which is both human and divine – as referenced in my previous post; I never suggested anything about a change in how he is perceived…I think that would be more along the lines of a “perception is reality” tangent - meaning that the way a person sees Jesus Christ... the world...whatever is their “truth”, regardless of whether or not their conclusions are factually accurate or not.
Rather I was drawing upon what the scriptures said about his dual nature…both human and divine as shown in the passages I referred to before...so let's look at them again - - and then I want to ask a couple of questions:
14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father…John 1:14 NET
6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature… Philippians 2: 6, 7 NET
“The Word became flesh” – is that speaking of something that is real or merely as something to perceive or imagine? “He existed in the form of God…and sharing in human nature” – again is this speaking of a being with an actual “dual” existence or is this about a mental construct?
I don’t think it takes any Trinitarian-dogma- tainted logic to see that these passages are speaking of a being who’s basic or inherent qualities are both human and divine. It says he existed in the form of God and shared in human nature - what's so difficult about that concept other than it doesn't agree with TWI's teaching that Jesus Christ is not God?
Going from a gruesome battered corpse to a resurrected immortal body is a stunning change indeed – and yet his essential nature was not changed – for we read of one of his resurrected appearances in Luke
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”…Luke 24:36 – 39 NASB
Jesus Christ – in his new resurrected body said “it is I myself”. This seems to be a fairly clear and concise statement made by Jesus that he was still essentially the same person he was before he was crucified and buried…I remember a comedian saying he had the very ax that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree…of course over time due to age, rust, and rot he had to replace the ax head and wooden handle – but it still occupied the same space as George’s original ax …what I’m saying is that it wasn’t like that after the resurrection of Jesus Christ…he said “it is I myself”. I believe he still had a dual nature – and his body was still recognizable as a human – for he said he had flesh and bones…but I imagine this was a new and improved body…reconstituted at the subatomic level? I don’t know…just speculation…don’t know exactly how all this was accomplished.
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Well I don’t know a whole lot about Eastern religions – I thought the Yin / Yang thing had to do with opposites – which I think was a theme in the most recent Star Wars – which I really dug that idea of everything maintaining a balance…good point though about referencing the goal of one’s walk.
I like the word “interface” that you used… a point where two systems meet and interact…I tend to think we (of the USA) live in a very materialistic world – and for those who are Christian, thoughts of God and spiritual growth may be something reserved for certain times during the week…whereas in Eastern religions I have this notion followers tend to look at everything they do as a spiritual experience…I know that’s a dumb thing to say for someone that confesses they know nothing about Eastern Religions…and not that much about Christianity either
…must be the guilt of materialism talking 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The concept I was kicking around was that of duality - very similar to the "interface" word. Can something be more than one thing at the same time? There is a scripture about "being all things to all men". Does this present a duality of any kind? I've heard arguments about being a son and a father at the same time and a brother, depending on the to whom in the relationship. I mean I'm not ready to run right in and take up my cross for the Apostles Creed or anything, but the fact the trinity presents some form of duality of identity in Christology to me doesn't seem like something of the magnitude to split off completely from mainstream Christianity to form various splinter groups of faith. In the Way we were so proud to point out that the word "trinity" never appears in the Bible. No, "trinity" is a one-word description of a teaching that explains the duality of Jesus identity. Or the intersection of the duality of identity between man and God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The way I understand is The Father represents law and order, The Holy Spirit, symbolized by a bird in the air, is chaos, from which creation comes (as in the first view verses of Genesis). You could also view HS as mother.
That's very general. I did quick google search and there seems to be more of that thinking out there. To me it just points to the idea that there is something in common between the two that is real and true and gave rise to each concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Maybe we are mulling over this stuff in a similar fashion - - very cautiously … and I don’t subscribe to any rigid formula of the Trinity anyway so batting around the idea of an interface between God and man sounds like fun. We could get into a whole other topic on theophany
but for now, I like the tangents that have come up…when it comes to theological / philosophical matters, I am constantly revising ideas I have about all that…after I left behind TWI and the rigid fundamentalist mindset – I became very intrigued with how to interpret a book compiled over a long period of time during ancient cultures…the challenge is much greater than just getting a handle on the biblical languages - - it’s trying to understand the mindset of the authors AND their target audience – those who were the first to read it…
Historical proximity is an important aspect, in my humble opinion. I try to “look” as far back as possible – to the New Testament time …if there’s a Christian mainstream then I’m thinking we ought to swim upstream – to where it had its beginnings. The challenge is really to sort through what was written and figure out what were the salient points to Christianity back then…do we find things that point to connecting with God…how to interact with God…I think we do and perhaps Jesus Christ may be considered the touchpoint…
I believe Christ’s twofold nature has enabled him to be that touchpoint. Trying to think of God as forgiving may be a little abstract – but recalling Jesus on the cross saying “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34) I see a vivid demonstration of the means God used to reconnect to man…As II Corinthians 5:19 says, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself…
Christ’s duality may have been somewhat veiled in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) which have many of the same stories, sequences and similar wording – but perhaps the veil is pulled aside in John which was written much later - his gospel seems to be imbued with allusions as well as direct statements of Jesus Christ's divinity … and then moving on to the epistles of Paul – I think it might be fair to say much of what he wrote focused on the impact of Christ’s divine nature – that was Paul’s contribution to Christology
an excerpt from that link:
A foremost contribution to the Christology of the Apostolic Age is that of Paul. The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence and the identification of Christ as Kyrios. The Pauline epistles use Kyrios to identify Jesus almost 230 times, and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord. Paul viewed the superiority of the Christian revelation over all other divine manifestations as a consequence of the fact that Christ is the Son of God. Nevertheless, the view that it was apostle Paul who introduced the idea that Jesus was divine and thus distorted the actual Jesus has been widely rejected by historians.
As Richard Bauckham observes, Paul was not so influential that he could have invented the central doctrine of Christianity. Before his active missionary work, there were already groups of Christians across the region. For example, a large group already existed in Rome even before Paul visited the place. The earliest centre of Christianity was the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Paul himself consulted and sought guidance from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2; Acts 9:26-28, 15:2). “What was common to the whole Christian movement derived from Jerusalem, not from Paul, and Paul himself derived the central message he preached from the Jerusalem apostles.
On the other hand, if Jesus himself did not claim and show himself to be truly divine (i.e. on the Creator side of the Creator–creature divide), the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would not have come to a widespread agreement that he was truly divine (which they did), but would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet instead.
The Pauline epistles also advanced the "cosmic Christology" later developed in the fourth gospel, elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God, as in 2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." Also, in Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
== == == ==
Historically I tend to believe Christians around the New Testament time thought of Jesus Christ as a lot more than just another man. In a fascinating book Jesus: Lord & Savior FF Bruce examines the biblical evidence of how Jesus related to his followers. One of the interesting things he points out is the fact that followers had no qualms about calling Jesus “Lord” – a title usually reserved for God in the Old Testament. There is an interesting account in the gospels that goes along a related point - of how some of Jesus' detractors looked on him:
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions… Matthew 22: 41 – 46 NIV
The Pharisees’ answer to Jesus’ question reflects their belief that the Messiah would be just a man. However, Jesus’ reply was an assertion of his deity.
Edited by T-Boneneeded more 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.