Aspen and Tigger 2 discuss 'who is God?'

[amadeus]

an anyone here tell me why it really matters?
If a person follows the words of Jesus, loves God and loves his brother/neighbour ...why would it matter if he didn't have the revelation that Jesus was God ?

This is not a tongue in cheek question, but a serious one. Anyone?

As you all know by now, I believe God will check out our heart at the End, not our doctrine.
Hope everyone here in this thread answers this Q. Thanks.

What we need is to obey the two great commandments as per Jesus as you indicated above. I do believe that a person can do that without knowing everything that God knows or even everything that God has for men.
The most important thing we need to have should be charity/love as per I Cor 13:1-13.

 

[face2face]

F2F,

I think your caricaturization of Trinitarian theology is both inaccurate and unfair. If anything, Trinitarians hold strongly to the Scriptures and do not discount any of the Scriptures you have quoted. If anything, our position may seem "complex" because we hold all these passages as accurate and true without dismissing any of them. God is one. There is only one God. That one God consists of three distinct persons with one essence. This is not a "work-around." It is simply the acceptance of what is clearly taught in Scripture. Jesus is distinct from the Father. He was not talking to himself in the Garden. He was not pulling a fast on on his disciples when he spoke of the Holy Spirit as "another counsellor." Yet, Jesus was also telling the truth when he claimed to be the "I AM." Jesus was telling the truth when he spoke of ONE name (not names) by which disciples were to be baptized....Father, Son and Holy Spirit. John was telling the truth when he spoke of Jesus as the Word of God who was God. The author of Hebrews was telling the truth when he spoke of Jesus as the essence of God and exact representation of God's being. Paul was telling the truth when he spoke of Jesus as having the very "form of God" yet released his equal standing with God and humbled himself to become a man. Moreover, we do not see any contradiction in Jesus being worshipped since God commanded that none be worshipped but Him, because he is the incarnate God.

In sum, we do take verses at face value. We would rather our acceptance of the Bible be straight-forward than accept some verses and explain away others in order to keep a theology that is reasonable to the carnal mind. If any viewpoint has to have "explanations," it is the one that has to go into great detail to explain why Scriptures aren't really saying what they appear to be saying....i.e. Jesus really wasnt being worshipped, John wasnt really calling him God, it only seems Thomas was talking to Jesus when he said, "my God," Jesus really wasnt claiming to be "I AM," etc. Again, we just accept the Scriptures as they are and embrace some mystery rather than trying to flatten the texts and cram them into a preconceived theological system. If your theology is not comfortable with some mystery, then I doubt it is very reflective of the God of the Bible.

Accurate and fair.

I did not suggest trinitarians discount Scripture, after all, they are trying to handle it (awkwardly) by forcing additional meaning onto Scripture to justify their own theological position (something unitarians can be equally guilty of at times). This is evident in your forced “work around”….“That one God consists of three distinct persons with one essence”, which is language (and mathematics) not found or taught anywhere in Scripture.

Consider the past five pages of comments on this thread and ask the readers how would Trinitarians treat John 17:3 if it said “This is eternal life – that they know us, the only true God, and our apostles, whom we sent.” Do you think they would be arguing that there is room in the category of “only true God” for Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Apostles?

Why doesn’t Jesus use this opportunity to leave a record of the triune Godhead?

Where is the Holy Spirit in all of this?

Why doesn’t Jesus use the language of triune personality in this Christologically decisive place?

Trinitarian’s such as yourself try to distract us by playing words games with the text, but you cannot dislodge Jesus’ statement or distort its message: the Father alone is the only true God; Jesus Christ is the one whom He has sent.

F2F

 

[Wormwood]

Accurate and fair.

I did not suggest trinitarians discount Scripture, after all, they are trying to handle it (awkwardly) by forcing additional meaning onto Scripture to justify their own theological position (something unitarians can be equally guilty of at times). This is evident in your forced “work around”….“That one God consists of three distinct persons with one essence”, which is language (and mathematics) not found or taught anywhere in Scripture.

Consider the past five pages of comments on this thread and ask the readers how would Trinitarians treat John 17:3 if it said “This is eternal life – that they know us, the only true God, and our apostles, whom we sent.” Do you think they would be arguing that there is room in the category of “only true God” for Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Apostles?

Why doesn’t Jesus use this opportunity to leave a record of the triune Godhead?

Where is the Holy Spirit in all of this?

Why doesn’t Jesus use the language of triune personality in this Christologically decisive place?

Trinitarian’s such as yourself try to distract us by playing words games with the text, but you cannot dislodge Jesus’ statement or distort its message: the Father alone is the only true God; Jesus Christ is the one whom He has sent.

F2F

I think the "mathematics" and language argument is a bit misleading. the Bible doesn't use the terms atheism, monotheism, or rapture either and yet we have no issue referring to these concepts from a biblical perspective. The Bible does, however, say

ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ

which says Jesus is the "radiance of the glory" and his "character/exact imprint of the nature/essence." So the term for nature/essence is used regarding Jesus having God's exact hupostasus.

Unfortunately I have not had time to read all five pages of comments. However, I think this is a bit of a straw man. If there is one thing Trinitarians try to do diligently is incorporate all of Scripture. Your example here with the Apostles implies that we take one passage and jump to all kinds of conclusions. I assure you, this is not the case. Moreover, the context of John 17 makes it very evident what Jesus is talking about and that he is not implying that the Apostles are divine in any way.

Jesus does very specifically declare who he is and where he is from. I think he makes his connection with God the Father very clear, especially to the early readers. The way Jesus uses the term "Son of God" makes it quite evident that he is drawing a very unique, familial relationship between him and the Almighty. In fact, it was so evident that the Jews wanted to kill him for blasphemy. Don't you think if Jesus was being misunderstood that he would quickly clarify his comments to the Jews by saying, "I am not trying to make myself equal with God, that would be blasphemy!" He does no such thing. He knew what he was saying and so did they. That is why they wanted him dead. We have so muddled the language with religious-speak that we can lose the poignancy of what Jesus was declaring to the early listeners. I think that is the reason why it doesn't seem as clear as you would like it to.

The Holy Spirit is another topic. I don't know that we want to open that can of worms at this point. This is quite lengthy enough.

Jesus does use triune language, as do the authors of the NT. In fact, it is glaring. Father, Son and Spirit are used in a triad throughout the NT and often used interchangably in order and refer to different working parts of our one salvation. I think the issue here is you are wanting a Western scientific expression rather than viewing the text through how Eastern eyes would have read it. In fact, there was early graffiti of Jesus on a cross with a donkey's head with the message, "Alexander worships his God." I think the early readers understood clearly the message being conveyed...which is why the Church has held to this doctrine of Jesus being divine since its inception.

Finally, Jesus was fully human. I think the confusion lies in the fact that Jesus, in his humbled position, came as a suffering servant. He even spoke of himself as the Messiah in couched terms. Why didn't he just come out and announce it!? Why didn't he transfigure in front of the multitudes rather than privately with his nearest three disciples? That was not his purpose. He didn't come to proclaim himself as God and Messiah with a bull horn. He came in meekness, humility and lived as a humble man who served others and died on their behalf. I think what you are looking for isn't there because Jesus did not come to glorify himself, but to glorify the Father who sent him. That is why he is our example. If the incarnate God can humble himself and become nothing and die for us and not toot his own horn, how much more should I, a sinner, humble myself and serve as my master served me?

 

[pastor marty]

Rock is rock/God is God/life is 2B alive/I'm 2 simple 4 this discussion ! ********<m>************

 

[bbyrd009]

I am just a bit gutted when I hear people say in effect " If they don't believe what I believe they are damed and going to hell"

God does NOT say anywhere- " You must believe that Jesus is God, ( or the trinity or whatever) ...or you will be damed. "
Yet some Christians say this, as if it is "the Gospel"...

makes it hard to ID as Christian, ya, if they can

 

[pastor marty]

***********gotta comment on pg.6/Very impressive/Kudo's 2 ye all !!************<m>***********

 

[face2face]

I think the "mathematics" and language argument is a bit misleading. the Bible doesn't use the terms atheism, monotheism, or rapture either and yet we have no issue referring to these concepts from a biblical perspective. The Bible does, however, say

ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ

which says Jesus is the "radiance of the glory" and his "character/exact imprint of the nature/essence." So the term for nature/essence is used regarding Jesus having God's exact hupostasus.

Unfortunately I have not had time to read all five pages of comments. However, I think this is a bit of a straw man. If there is one thing Trinitarians try to do diligently is incorporate all of Scripture. Your example here with the Apostles implies that we take one passage and jump to all kinds of conclusions. I assure you, this is not the case. Moreover, the context of John 17 makes it very evident what Jesus is talking about and that he is not implying that the Apostles are divine in any way.

Only a couple of posts in and you’re introducing the hypostatic union into our discussion (lol), trinitarians are very predictable

I must request that you demonstrate that this concept is purely Biblical. Please note: I am not asking you to show that the word “hypostasis” is contained in Scripture (it makes a brief appearance in Hebrews 1:3, though not in any context that Trinitarianism requires). If you are an honest trinitarian you would agree with me that the concepts underpinning our respective Christology’s must be found in, or derived from, Scripture alone. Yet the hypostatic union goes beyond anything that Scripture either states or implies.

How do you arrive at it?

 

[amadeus]

Perhaps one of the stronger arguments I have found in scripture against the trinity is found in John 17:

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17:20-23

If Jesus is describing with his words to his Father a trinitarian type of connection with Him, then would not those words I have emboldened and underlined mean Jesus was praying so that you and I could also become a part of the godhead, in not a trinity, but in a multiplicity.

I don't believe in such a multiplicity, but if a person used the above verses to support a trinity, why not a multiplicity?
The scripture is clear in that there is One God, not a multiplicity and therefore not even a trinity.

 

[bbyrd009]

The scripture is clear in that there is One God, not a multiplicity and therefore not even a trinity.

ha i dunno about "clear" lol, we are called to be like gods, so there is def some occlusion or mystery going on in that area, i guess.

 

[Helen]

Perhaps one of the stronger arguments I have found in scripture against the trinity is found in John 17:

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17:20-23

If Jesus is describing with his words to his Father a trinitarian type of connection with Him, then would not those words I have emboldened and underlined mean Jesus was praying so that you and I could also become a part of the godhead, in not a trinity, but in a multiplicity.

I don't believe in such a multiplicity, but if a person used the above verses to support a trinity, why not a multiplicity?
The scripture is clear in that there is One God, not a multiplicity and therefore not even a trinity.

Interesting post John. I have never heard that point of view before.
Not sure where I have been, but that is an interesting 'argument'.
We know that the End Goal is indeed multiplicity in One.
' The final union' Head & body, Christ & Bride...

 

[amadeus]

Interesting post John. I have never heard that point of view before.
Not sure where I have been, but that is an interesting 'argument'.
We know that the End Goal is indeed multiplicity in One.
' The final union' Head & body, Christ & Bride...

Oh, I have expressed it before, but often in the midst of so many scriptures and so much disagreement, people cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

[amadeus]

ha i dunno about "clear" lol, we are called to be like gods, so there is def some occlusion or mystery going on in that area, i guess.

Just don't get lost in the shuffle, my friend. Belief in the trinity is not going to disappear and even people who read what I wrote are not so easily going to change positions. The Pharisees in the time of Jesus had a lot on their side, and for the most part they and their followers were unwilling to even seriously consider what Truth was and what it was not. They were people and we are dealing with people.

 

[bbyrd009]

Just don't get lost in the shuffle, my friend. Belief in the trinity is not going to disappear and even people who read what I wrote are not so easily going to change positions. The Pharisees in the time of Jesus had a lot on their side, and for the most part they and their followers were unwilling to even seriously consider what Truth was and what it was not. They were people and we are dealing with people.

nice, i'm curious now if Jesus ever condemned any Sadducees...hmm, nope!

 

[Helen]

Oh, I have expressed it before, but often in the midst of so many scriptures and so much disagreement, people cannot see the forest for the trees.

I am guessing that it is like so many other things...not so much in the speaking of, but in the hearing of..
This time I could 'hear-it'...

 

[Helen]

nice, i'm curious now if Jesus ever condemned any Sadducees...hmm, nope!

I think He did...most times He just lumped them together.

Matt 16 6 "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees..."

"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired Him that He would shew them a sign from heaven."

 

[amadeus]

nice, i'm curious now if Jesus ever condemned any Sadducees...hmm, nope!

Perhaps the word condemn might not so easily fit, but...

"Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Matt 16:6

And also:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." Matt 22:9

 

[101G]

Perhaps one of the stronger arguments I have found in scripture against the trinity is found in John 17:

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17:20-23

If Jesus is describing with his words to his Father a trinitarian type of connection with Him, then would not those words I have emboldened and underlined mean Jesus was praying so that you and I could also become a part of the godhead, in not a trinity, but in a multiplicity.

I don't believe in such a multiplicity, but if a person used the above verses to support a trinity, why not a multiplicity?
The scripture is clear in that there is One God, not a multiplicity and therefore not even a trinity.

GINOLJC, TO ALL. First thanks for the reply. second, not saying that you're right or wrong in your assessment of those scriptures. but consider this, one as in a body of believers "with" the unity of the head of that body. for we're all one in CHRIST JESUS.

true, I agree, It's not a trinity scripture, but more of a unity. for the scriptures do say one body, but MANY members". just something to consider.

PCY

 

[Wormwood]

Only a couple of posts in and you’re introducing the hypostatic union into our discussion (lol), trinitarians are very predictable

I must request that you demonstrate that this concept is purely Biblical. Please note: I am not asking you to show that the word “hypostasis” is contained in Scripture (it makes a brief appearance in Hebrews 1:3, though not in any context that Trinitarianism requires). If you are an honest trinitarian you would agree with me that the concepts underpinning our respective Christology’s must be found in, or derived from, Scripture alone. Yet the hypostatic union goes beyond anything that Scripture either states or implies.

How do you arrive at it?

Well, first, I think you are dismissing a significant verse that explicitly says Jesus is the very hypostasis of God. The word means the very basis, substance or essence of something. How can you say a verse that makes such a claim about Jesus does have radical implications for our Christology? How can you say this is not in direct context with understanding the person of Jesus? The very POINT of the context is to highlight the glory of Jesus far above any angel or message of the Old Covenant! The context could not be in any more direct relationship to a discussion on Christology! He speaks of Jesus as "the heir of all things," "through whom he created the world," "the radiance of the glory," and the one who "upholds the universe by the word of his power." I mean, if that is not contextually suitable for you in a description of Jesus and his union and relationship with God, then I suppose nothing will suffice.

I assure you my Christology is found in and derived from Scripture. I know those from heretical groups like to get caught up in the word "trinity" and claim its not found in the Bible and dismiss it with a hand wave. The point is that the word "trinity" describes a Scriptural concept. Call it whatever you want. I am not wed to the term "trinity." However I am convinced that the Bible explicitly teaches that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God. I am convinced that there is one God and that the NT refers to the one name that Christians are to submit to, in Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Id be happy to look text by text with you that explains such things, but to share with you all the Scripture on the topic would create about 20 pages of material that I am sure you wouldn't be to eager to sit down and digest all in one post. However, to be clear, I am not willing to argue for arguments sake. If you are firmly set and really not interested in discussing but just discounting everything that is said because your mind is made up, then it may be better to agree to disagree. It sounds like you have had this discussion a few times and have already determined your view...in which case, I don't see the point.

 

[face2face]

Well, first, I think you are dismissing a significant verse that explicitly says Jesus is the very hypostasis of God.

The only dismissal was the concept of Hypostasis as you suggest it relates to the dogma of the trinity. The church has used philosophical concepts such as essence, nature, substance, hypostasis and person for many generations; they are fanciful notions which have their basis in the minds of men and not in the Holy Word.

The word means the very basis, substance or essence of something.

No trinitarian concepts here

How can you say a verse that makes such a claim about Jesus does have radical implications for our Christology?

Even if you choose to argue that Scripture shows Jesus to be “God and man” (or however you choose to phrase it), this does nothing to explain what being “God and man” actually entails, nor does it prove that Jesus and God are of one substance, existing as two persons within the same being, nor does it prove that Jesus was incarnated as God and man, possessing the natures, attributes and characteristics of God and humans.

These facts demand honesty on your part.

How can you say this is not in direct context with understanding the person of Jesus? The very POINT of the context is to highlight the glory of Jesus far above any angel or message of the Old Covenant!

This is merely special pleading. Yes, he was given a position, name, and privileges by God constituted “an inheritance”, clearly something he had not enjoyed previous to being formed in Mary.

You can leverage on hypostasis as much as any scholar has ever done, it does not prove that the hypostatic union is a Biblical concept. This aspect of the incarnation must necessarily be imported into Scripture, for it simply does not exist there in any form. It is merely a piece of theological speculation upon one aspect of Trinitarian Christology.

The context could not be in any more direct relationship to a discussion on Christology! He speaks of Jesus as "the heir of all things," "through whom he created the world," "the radiance of the glory," and the one who "upholds the universe by the word of his power." I mean, if that is not contextually suitable for you in a description of Jesus and his union and relationship with God, then I suppose nothing will suffice.

He has “become” the heir of all things.

You infer Jesus is God because he created the world, you got this from Colossians 1:16 / I Corinthians 8:6 “and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live”.

Strangely, if you link this with Romans 11:36, which does not refer to Jesus but provides two additional qualifiers (“from him… to him”) applied exclusively to the Father. The essential qualifier (“from him”) appears in I Corinthians 8:6, but here again it is applied exclusively to the Father, demonstrating that He (Yahweh) alone is the source of creation.

Even if we concluded that the Son is described as God’s agent of creation, this would still not make Jesus God; at the very most, it supports Arianism.

The radiance of God’s glory could be aptly answered by the inheritance the sons of God have in Christ when he returns. “We shall be like him” O how rich the promise… know the hymn? Jesus' prayer in John 17 and the promise of becoming the radiant glory of Jesus Christ, after all we are one body.

Nothing forcing you to engage.

F2F

 

[Wormwood]

The only dismissal was the concept of Hypostasis as you suggest it relates to the dogma of the trinity. The church has used philosophical concepts such as essence, nature, substance, hypostasis and person for many generations; they are fanciful notions which have their basis in the minds of men and not in the Holy Word.

I agree that no one verse spells out the Trinity, especially as you want to demand. However, the point here is that Jesus is clearly portrayed here as having the same essence as God. I don't know how you can say this is a "fanciful notion" when the very word for essence/nature is used in this verse referring to Jesus and God. I mean, what word would you want the author of Hebrews to say if he were to appease your demands for the essence of Jesus being the same as God?

Even if you choose to argue that Scripture shows Jesus to be “God and man” (or however you choose to phrase it), this does nothing to explain what being “God and man” actually entails, nor does it prove that Jesus and God are of one substance, existing as two persons within the same being, nor does it prove that Jesus was incarnated as God and man, possessing the natures, attributes and characteristics of God and humans.

These facts demand honesty on your part.

I am being honest. Jesus is clearly described as God throughout the NT and declares himself to be such. Jesus is also clearly described to be human. The complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine has more to do with heretical concepts coming in to try to either make Jesus merely a man, or created angelic being, or completely God and not man at all. It seems you lean toward the former and so you seem quite happy with the concept of Jesus being a man and are not requesting proof as much. If I were to ask you to prove Jesus was a man, you'd probably have a similar reaction to me pointing to texts that show him to be God. You just accept the fact because it is so evident throughout the NT. The same is true of Christ's divinity.

Jesus is described as being the creator.
Jesus is described as the purpose of all creation.
Jesus is described as the Alpha and Omega
Jesus is described with the imagery Daniel uses of God in John's Revelation
Jesus declares himself to be the "I AM" (and the Jews clearly understood his meaning and sought to stone him for blasphemy)
The NT authors use OT texts referring to YHWH to describe Jesus.
Jesus is worshipped (only permitted for God)
Jesus is described as the sustainer of all things
Disciples are called to be baptized in the NAME (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Jesus is declared to be "God with us"
Jesus is worshipped.
Jesus told his disciples if you see him, you have seen the Father.

Clearly this is an issue that is the centerpiece of your theology and something in which it seems there is little point in discussing. You will see every text as somehow not actually referring to Jesus or merely imported to Jesus as some kind of "inheritance." It seems this is a real emphasis of the group to which you belong, but it is clearly unorthodox and has never been accepted as a Christian belief. I think when a position mandates that rather than taking the plain meaning of a text, one has to strain over every preposition and phrase to find ways to explain it away, well...you'll ultimately find what you are determined to find (even if it isn't there).