Defending the Trinity

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
575 ἀπαύγασμα (apaugasma), ατος (atos), τό (to): [SIZE=.92em]radiance[/SIZE], effulgence, brilliance (Heb 1:3)

He is effulgence of his (i.e. the Father’s) glory...the Glory is not his and not once does he claim ownership of this Glory. This must concern the Trinitarian. To my knowledge there is not a logical explanation or spiritual reason why Jesus, if being God, would not claim the Glories true origin i.e Jesus himself, of course if Jesus were a born Son (like all sons though he has a God as a Heavenly Father) who did not pre-exist, this makes sense - he could not claim ownership of something which was not his.

Heb 1:3 is drawing on Christs true position in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in John 12:45;14:9. The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos. The meaning “effulgence” suits the context of Heb 1:3 better, because Jesus manifested the Word of God, Light i.e. the Glory of that Word was manifest through sinful flesh and overcame to reveal the Glory of God - particularly His righteousness (John 1:1; Rom 3:20,21,22,23,24,25,26)

If I were a Trinitarian I would be looking for text which is not expressive of the idea of the One and only effulging His light through a mortal condemned man - language which involved Jesus being the image of the actual substance would be disconcerting - as this is what is promised of all Gods children.

What would further concern me regarding Heb 1:3 is Pauls support of effulgence in Heb 1:4 "By the word (of God) his power" he "became" so much better than the angels - if Jesus were God this makes no sense at all - in fact why even mention it - shouldn't that be assumed? If the Word is Christs - if the Glory is Christ - If the Name was always Christs - And the Power - why compare him to a higher position to angels? mere servants! Heb 1:14

It would only be special if his position was a reward for faith (Heb 11:6)

Again you would rightly ask "why is everything light, wisdom, glory etc coming from a single source and not Christ himself?" This leads to kenotic doctrine for it must needs be designed to answer these questions.

Now this would further concern me as we discovered in Phil 2 doesn't hold the context for such complex doctrine.

And finally, we find Christ "sat down" having accomplished the works God had assigned to him he rested beside the Majesty. Notice even in his now glorified state he is not assigned a title anything beyond Son of the Most High.

The entire book of Hebrews then proceeds to high light Jesus as pictured in Heb 1:1-4 as King (Prophet and Priest) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.

There simply is no context here for a pre-existent Christ - there is plenty of awe in wonder of an obedient Son being glorified to a position of marvellous glory beside his Father but anything more is old dogma.

Purity

p.s Heb 1:4 "He became" & "He Inherited" are problematic for Trinitarians as both terms infer a changing in rank and status. However the rank and status is not the Most High. Most High infers none other beside Him is the Highest. How can God inherit anything? Psalm 50:10 ;)
 

nothead

New Member
Apr 2, 2014
447
11
0
I do have the oldster's penchant for repetition, but it behooves you too, since you never got my arguments to begin with.

Constant repetition was God's way of drumming up truth to us in the beginning, not with vain repetitions, rather the ONE LAW he said to repeat 2x daily minimum. Just because we WON'T get it, it really must be TOO SIMPLE to understand, the Shema.

So then how about bringing up something new? I gave this one 3 weeks ago on another site.

IF God is a HE then it must be one of the three PERSONS whom you say is God. IF God is a WE then maybe we could say a Trinity God is being spoken of. Let US make man in OUR image. But this only ever happens possibly 6 times in four verses in all of NT. I disagree that this actually is referring to the Trinity, but let's just say, theoretically.

God said "I brought you out of Egypt, out of bondage, and you shall have NO OTHER elohim to my presence.

So then how is Jesus also God to His presence if this is the first Command of the Ten? Woodwert?

Answer this one and I will bow down and proskuneow.

Hint: Please don't say that "I" means the Trinity. Three referents still have a plural grammatical pronoun.
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
nothead said:
I do have the oldster's penchant for repetition, but it behooves you too, since you never got my arguments to begin with.

Constant repetition was God's way of drumming up truth to us in the beginning, not with vain repetitions, rather the ONE LAW he said to repeat 2x daily minimum. Just because we WON'T get it, it really must be TOO SIMPLE to understand, the Shema.

So then how about bringing up something new? I gave this one 3 weeks ago on another site.

IF God is a HE then it must be one of the three PERSONS whom you say is God. IF God is a WE then maybe we could say a Trinity God is being spoken of. Let US make man in OUR image. But this only ever happens possibly 6 times in four verses in all of NT. I disagree that this actually is referring to the Trinity, but let's just say, theoretically.

God said "I brought you out of Egypt, out of bondage, and you shall have NO OTHER elohim to my presence.

So then how is Jesus also God to His presence if this is the first Command of the Ten? Woodwert?

Answer this one and I will bow down and proskuneow.

Hint: Please don't say that "I" means the Trinity. Three referents still have a plural grammatical pronoun.
You and impurity do have truth; you also cannot comprehend the wonder of the Godhead!
Your arguments are from the "father of lies"
Floyd.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
Floyd said:
You and impurity do have truth; you also cannot comprehend the wonder of the Godhead!
Your arguments are from the "father of lies"
Floyd.
The father of lies ;) this is funny - I doubt the serpent (or Cain) understood the Trinity, come to think of it, I don't know anyone who understands it.
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
Purity said:
Have you looked at John 8:44 for yourself?

The serpent was the liar, Cain was the murderer - linked together 1 John 3:12 “of that wicked one.

What is the wicked one?
We have been through this before!
You are wrong.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
Floyd said:
We have been through this before!
You are wrong.
1 John 3:12 is a good verse isn't it Floyd?

Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous

what is the personified wicked one?
 

Floyd

Active Member
Feb 28, 2014
937
30
28
Purity said:
1 John 3:12 is a good verse isn't it Floyd?

Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous

what is the personified wicked one?
You are obfuscating again; you have been asked by many here to stop this habit!!!
 

nothead

New Member
Apr 2, 2014
447
11
0
Did the Worm get tired?

You know who had this moniker before you. Dennis Rodman who did one thing in his life quite right. He could rebound the dickens out of the game.

And the game is very disappointed in you, Wormwood. DA WORM never got tired. He played his all every minute.

Our 'game' is life. Paul's race is the Shema race.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
Have you noticed Nothead how the Shema is referred to in James 2:19 (and elsewhere). If you also read the language of James 1:17 behind the Greek concept is an immovable God that's speaks to the Shema. It is combined with two other berakoth that surround the Shema to proclaim the themes of creation, election and redemption. James may then be regarded as using the central liturgical confession of the Jewish community to remind his Jewish readers in the Diaspora of the unswerving love of the covenant God.

See also the shema in James 4:12 with the reference to the one lawgiver and the one judge , again the Shema. He also suggests that the castigation of double-mindedness by James 1:18;4:8 harks back to the third element of the Shema, viz. loving God with all of one’s heart, soul and strength. An interesting case for the influence of the Shema on the letter of James may then be made.

This discussion is still very much on topic as the Shema is the backbone to both OT and NT teaching...as we shall see.

Purity
 

nothead

New Member
Apr 2, 2014
447
11
0
Purity said:
Have you noticed Nothead how the Shema is referred to in James 2:19 (and elsewhere). If you also read the language of James 1:17 behind the Greek concept is an immovable God that's speaks to the Shema. It is combined with two other berakoth that surround the Shema to proclaim the themes of creation, election and redemption. James may then be regarded as using the central liturgical confession of the Jewish community to remind his Jewish readers in the Diaspora of the unswerving love of the covenant God.

See also the shema in James 4:12 with the reference to the one lawgiver and the one judge , again the Shema. He also suggests that the castigation of double-mindedness by James 1:18;4:8 harks back to the third element of the Shema, viz. loving God with all of one’s heart, soul and strength. An interesting case for the influence of the Shema on the letter of James may then be made.

This discussion is still very much on topic as the Shema is the backbone to both OT and NT teaching...as we shall see.

Purity

Can't say I've studied James too much. But what you said is way cool and I will compare Shema to James soon.

Yes, Shema says Only One True God is possible for believers. The number one, Echad is alone and uniquely self-made. Therefore Shema is spot on subject for this thread.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
nothead said:
Can't say I've studied James too much. But what you said is way cool and I will compare Shema to James soon.

Yes, Shema says Only One True God is possible for believers. The number one, Echad is alone and uniquely self-made. Therefore Shema is spot on subject for this thread.
James is one of my favourite epistles...spent many years in this challenging letter.
From here on in we can discuss how the Shema is the backbone to OT/NT theology.
Purity
 

justaname

Disciple of Jesus Christ
Mar 14, 2011
2,348
149
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John 5:18-24
18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.
21 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
22 “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

I am inclined at this time to show another discourse that shows the Divinity of Christ...

What is so difficult for me to understand is the inability for some spiritually blinded people to see what the Jews of Jesus' day easily saw. In antiquity to be the Son of God is to be divine or as the scripture says "equal with God"... The Son is in complete unison with the Father...The Son gives life...The Son Judges and is honored as the Father is honored...He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father

This is not a metaphor, it is a truth. Jesus is not born of man and woman rather God and woman. The divinity of Christ cannot be escaped, it can only be suppressed. Yet suppression cannot change the truth of the matter, it only deceives the suppressor.

Regarding the Shemah, it is not in conflict with the nature of the triune God. I and the Father are One.

In the garden it was God's Word that was questioned by the serpent, enabling deception to take captive the woman. In response to the woman's captivity, Adam was taken hold by sin. As a divine decree it is God's Word that frees Adam (man) from sin. Deny the divine authority of the Word of God and stay captive to the serpent. God is His Word and it goes out and will not return void. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. Who can separate God from His Word? The serpent tried and his head is crushed. Shall we continue in the false teachings of the serpent and receive a like end, or shall we repent?
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
justaname said:
I am inclined at this time to show another discourse that shows the Divinity of Christ...
Justaname, no one here will argue Jesus' origins was divine - what you need to prove is his pre-existent deity.

Wormwood, Floyd and others have failed miserably in my view to even get remotely close. Wormwood tried with Phil 2 but become unstruck as the context work against his position - status was merely a son who made himself a servant.

Maybe you could provide a stronger contextual case than his philosophical meanderings. Otherwise Nothead and I will press on with the Biblical teaching of the Shema ;)
 

justaname

Disciple of Jesus Christ
Mar 14, 2011
2,348
149
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Purity said:
Justaname, no one here will argue Jesus' origins was divine - what you need to prove is his pre-existent deity.

Wormwood, Floyd and others have failed miserably in my view to even get remotely close. Wormwood tried with Phil 2 but become unstruck as the context work against his position - status was merely a son who made himself a servant.

Maybe you could provide a stronger contextual case than his philosophical meanderings. Otherwise Nothead and I will press on with the Biblical teaching of the Shema ;)
Simple...God's Word pre-existed all creation. God's Word was the acting force in all of creation. Jesus is the Word of God.

Let Us make him in Our image...

In origin Jesus' divinity is eternal.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
justaname said:
Simple...God's Word pre-existed all creation. God's Word was the acting force in all of creation. Jesus is the Word of God.

Let Us make him in Our image...

In origin Jesus' divinity is eternal.
Gods word "became" flesh. John 1:14 i.e Jesus has a beginning.

See how your theology makes this unfounded leap to Christ literally being God's Word.

Christ was not literally the Word. He was the word "made flesh". (John 1:14). The Greek word "logos" translated "Word" expresses the divine intention, mind, or purpose.Young defines "logos" as "a word, speech, matter, reason." In the A.V. "logos" is translated by more than 20 different English words and is used for utterances of men (e.g., John 17:20) as well as those of God (John 5:38).

Purity
 

justaname

Disciple of Jesus Christ
Mar 14, 2011
2,348
149
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Purity said:
Gods word "became" flesh. John 1:14 i.e Jesus has a beginning.
It is the flesh that became, not God's Word. Jesus is eternal. Can you deny that God's Word preexisted the incarnation?

As a man is his word, yet all men being liars, so is God His Word, although God cannot lie.

Man will not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Have you eyes yet cannot see? What has made you so blind as to deny the Lord that purchased you?