|
Post by tank on Apr 11, 2009 19:43:54 GMT -5
The more I read about the Trinity, the more confused I get!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 12, 2009 10:47:21 GMT -5
I'm kind of where DC is on this. How can you know the unknowable? But that is what the trinitarians seem to want to do: dissect a deity. Good luck with that. If I was a god, I'd be pissed. No, the anti-trinitarians dissect God. They'd have our salvation pitted to a man bearing a circumstantial relationship to God. So much for the new Adam. On page 132 'Total Truth' has a relevant discussion on the implications of the trinity, one of several. In light of the posts on family . . . "The balance of unity and diversity in the Trinity gives a model for human social life, because it implies that both individuality and relationship exist within the Godhead itself. God is being-in-communion. Humans are made in the image of God who is a tri-unity --- whose very nature consists in reciprocal love and communication among the persons of the Trinity. This model provides a solution to the age-old opposition between collectivism and individualism. Over against radical individualism, the Trinity implies that relationships are not created by sheer choice but are built into the very essence of human nature. We are not atomistic individuals but are created for relationships."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2009 11:40:44 GMT -5
I'm kind of where DC is on this. How can you know the unknowable? But that is what the trinitarians seem to want to do: dissect a deity. Good luck with that. If I was a god, I'd be pissed. No, the anti-trinitarians dissect God. They'd have our salvation pitted to a man bearing a circumstantial relationship to God. So much for the new Adam. On page 132 'Total Truth' has a relevant discussion on the implications of the trinity, one of several. In light of the posts on family . . . "The balance of unity and diversity in the Trinity gives a model for human social life, because it implies that both individuality and relationship exist within the Godhead itself. God is being-in-communion. Humans are made in the image of God who is a tri-unity --- whose very nature consists in reciprocal love and communication among the persons of the Trinity. This model provides a solution to the age-old opposition between collectivism and individualism. Over against radical individualism, the Trinity implies that relationships are not created by sheer choice but are built into the very essence of human nature. We are not atomistic individuals but are created for relationships." That's a lot of -ism's.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2009 11:47:27 GMT -5
Thanks all for your posts. One of the main reasons i ask is that in order to become a member of certain churches you get the doctrine serman. Most of them say you must believe in the Trinity. Maybe i could say that what i learned is when i try to understand what the trinity is i limit God, because our human mind is not capable of understanding this... This part of your above caught my eye---(you must believe in the Trinity) I would like to share with you something which in my studies has really helped me understand. This is directly out of my Cambridge KJV Bible which was purchased upon recommendations from the Workers. Being in the UK it is a common one used by the F&W. I purchased from Allan Publishers. Now to understand my position is that this is one of the approved Bibles with a Dictionary. On one hand I was told the Trinity was a Catholic thingy and on the other hand I am told my Bible is the best. So then should I discount what is in the Dictionary for reference of my approved Bible. If I do that then should I disregard the rest of the Dictionary references? If so then How can my Bible be one of the Best and the recommended one? Here is a direct quote from the Dictionary section about "GOD"
The fuller knowledge of God has come to us through the Incarnation and the gift of the Spirit has enabled the Christian Church to see that there is within the God-head a distinction of ‘Persons’. Human language has much difficulty in expressing the truth which the doctrine of the Trinity is intended to convey. The Christian believes in the Unity of God, i.e. it is inconceivable that the three ‘Persons’ could act otherwise than in perfect harmony together; it is inconceivable, e.g. that the Son should wish to forgive and the Father be unwilling to do so.
But at the same time the N.T. makes it clear that there are relationships within the Godhead. The Father is not the Son, and the Father and Son are both distinct from the Spirit. The doctrine of Trinity is not anywhere clearly defined in the N.T., but there are many passages which imply it if we are to give them any satisfactory explanation;------ I believe this is as clear a statement about the issue as one could have------I BELIEVE because it is Implied Hi, uk01. I don't understand the last sentence. What does that mean? I actually have that bit in my Cambridge Bible dictionary as well. But it reminds me of something my mother said. If your Bible dictionary told you to jump off a cliff would you do it? Okay, a little joke, not so funny, maybe. But my point is that the Bible dictionary is not the Bible. Let's hope that we internalize what we read directly in the Scripture, and read the Bible dictionary with the resistance that comes from knowing that it's just another person's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Apr 12, 2009 11:58:42 GMT -5
Buzzybee, I guess I don't want to be a member of any church right now, but respect others choice in that matter.
I enjoyed some of the answers here, but think I will let God explain it to me in eternity. From what I understand about that, it is a very long time, and I think all questions will be answered then.
I think that you have a good grip, and with DC's addition, and Dennis, Jessie and others, you are about as close to understanding as you will get on this side.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 12, 2009 12:16:09 GMT -5
I really have zero desire to engage in yet another drawn out debate about the doctrine...but I do want to note one thing. I'm puzzled by charges that the doctrine is a crutch intended to limit God, dissect God, make God into our own image, etc. This makes no sense to me at all.
The doctrine doesn't dispell the mystery that is the Godhead, but rather intensifies it. Indeed that is the very mystery that anti-trinitarians reject.
How can the Triune God be an attempt to create God in our own image? We can't begin to describe the mystery, how can that be construed as an attempt to limit God, creating him in our own image.
IMO, the reality of the position of the doctrine is exactly at the polar opposite of these charges. At it's heart is Scripture that clearly describes Jesus, as well as the Holy Spirit, as God. The fact is that the doctrine requires the believer to leave a great deal in the realm of mystery, which IMO is an awesome thing.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 12, 2009 12:25:59 GMT -5
I really have zero desire to engage in yet another drawn out debate about the doctrine...but I do want to note one thing. I'm puzzled by charges that the doctrine is a crutch intended to limit God, dissect God, make God into our own image, etc. This makes no sense to me at all. Those who do not believe in Trinitarian teachings (particularly that Jesus was/is God) suspect such teachings evolved over a number of centuries of trying to accomodate the mysteries and inconsistencies of Scripture. The Trinity is a consequence of starting with man's feeble attempts to explain God and building upon those as a logician assembles axioms and builds a complicated proof. We build castles of logic, explaining this and that, fitting things into neat categories, our concept of God evolving and becoming weirder and weirder, but it is our nature because...WE MUST DISECT AND UNDERSTAND. We cannot appreciate the mystery.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2009 12:30:31 GMT -5
I really have zero desire to engage in yet another drawn out debate about the doctrine...but I do want to note one thing. I'm puzzled by charges that the doctrine is a crutch intended to limit God, dissect God, make God into our own image, etc. This makes no sense to me at all. Those who do not believe in Trinitarian teachings (particularly that Jesus was/is God) suspect such teachings evolved over a number of centuries of trying to accomodate the mysteries and inconsistencies of Scripture. The Trinity is a consequence of starting with man's feeble attempts to explain God and building upon those as a logician assembles axioms and builds a complicated proof. We build castles of logic, explaining this and that, fitting things into neat categories, our concept of God evolving and becoming weirder and weirder, but it is our nature because...WE MUST DISECT AND UNDERSTAND. We cannot appreciate the mystery. Well put. Just to add also that it's simplistic to say, anti-Trinitarian. There are many points of departure from Trinitarian doctrine as described by the council of Nicene. At heart, I don't think there is any disputing by the friends that there is a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit. Tell me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 12, 2009 14:09:32 GMT -5
Just to add also that it's simplistic to say, anti-Trinitarian.
To a degree I agree with you, but statements like these aren't helpful, either...
The Trinity is a crutch for those who try desperately to box God up into one or more literal beings with boundaries.
But that is what the trinitarians seem to want to do: dissect a deity.
Now in my opinion, this is an interesting statement:
Those who do not believe in Trinitarian teachings (particularly that Jesus was/is God) suspect such teachings evolved over a number of centuries of trying to accomodate the mysteries and inconsistencies of Scripture. The Trinity is a consequence of starting with man's feeble attempts to explain God and building upon those as a logician assembles axioms and builds a complicated proof.
I actually agree with this statement, in principle. But I see it from a different perspective. The Trinity is, indeed, the result of men's feeble efforts to understand God's being. But it remains man's best effort. IMO, we have two choices: either accept Scripture that teaches about Christ's deity, and leave much to mystery, or discount Scripture (or even reject it entirely). I have yet to see someone who opposes the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity explain the countless references in Scripture describing Jesus as God.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 12, 2009 14:31:45 GMT -5
I have yet to see someone who opposes the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity explain the countless references in Scripture describing Jesus as God. That would be futile. It would be equally futile for Trinitarians to explain the countless references implying Jesus is not God. The best logical approach is not to try to merge all scripture, but to accept that people (even Bible writers) have differing opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 12, 2009 14:47:11 GMT -5
That would be futile. It would be equally futile for Trinitarians to explain the countless references implying Jesus is not God.
There is zero scripture that implies Jesus was not God. There is plenty that describes him as a man, but that doesn't imply that we wasn't God. Put it all together and he was BOTH God AND man. The trinity is the only doctrine that accepts both, rejecting no scripture describing ANY of Jesus' attributes.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 12, 2009 14:58:14 GMT -5
you're kidding, I hope, zorro. There are pages of scripture that portray Jesus as a distinct being separate from God. Do you not remember my debate about Matthew? It takes a great Trinitarian imagination to reconcile these verses with the (few, by comparison) indications that Jesus IS god.
How far simpler it is to simply accept that different people had different opinions.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Apr 12, 2009 15:08:57 GMT -5
That would be futile. It would be equally futile for Trinitarians to explain the countless references implying Jesus is not God.There is zero scripture that implies Jesus was not God. There is plenty that describes him as a man, but that doesn't imply that we wasn't God. Put it all together and he was BOTH God AND man. The trinity is the only doctrine that accepts both, rejecting no scripture describing ANY of Jesus' attributes. I remember you saying at one time you had a long talk with a head worker about this. Was his belief different or the same as the 2x2 belief. My guess is some workers are starting to ask these very same questions. Why not preach what is in the Holy Bible.Jesus was from the beginning because he was God. nitro
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 12, 2009 15:15:12 GMT -5
Why not preach what is in the Holy Bible.Jesus was from the beginning because he was God. nitro Yes, why not? And preach also that most other authors taught instead that Jesus was born of a woman, thus came into existence at that point in time. Unless you wish to exclude most of the New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 12, 2009 15:19:37 GMT -5
you're kidding, I hope, zorro. There are pages of scripture that portray Jesus as a distinct being separate from God.
No, I'm not kidding at all. The Trinity fully accepts that Jesus was a man. It fully accepts that the Son is a seperate entity from the Father. It fully accepts Scripture describing him as God. Your argument presents nothing to compell me to interpret this scripture as declaring Jesus was NOT God. On the other hand, it does require you to reject considerable amounts of scripture, which you have no qualms in doing. THAT is the crux of the issue. As I said originally, the Trinity is the only doctrine that accepts the various, seemingly contradictory, views of Jesus' being. For you to address the issue, you are forced to reject Scripture. For me personally, that's an unsastifactory methodology.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 12, 2009 15:30:31 GMT -5
Your argument presents nothing to compell me to interpret this scripture as declaring Jesus was NOT God. Which argument is that? I haven't presented any yet. I could, however, pages and pages of them. I do not have to reject ANY scripture if I take the reasonable approach that different authors were presenting different opinions. Not true. Early Christians presented many different reasonable doctrines, merging the divinity of Christ with the human Jesus, once the Johannine writings became accepted in the late second century. Here is one that makes sense to me: John describes a spirit descending from heaven and residing upon a man named Jesus. This Christ-spirit later leaves him (on the cross) and ascends back to God. Thus there lived a man named Jesus, who accepted an indwelling Spirit (God) for perhaps three years. This man, Christians accepted as the "anointed" Messiah, the "Son of God." Do not confuse the man with the anointing spirit, and it all makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 12, 2009 15:49:57 GMT -5
Which argument is that?
Your debate argument, that you referenced.
I do not have to reject ANY scripture if I take the reasonable approach that different authors were presenting different opinions.
Now you're the one kidding. You have to reject Scripture that describes Jesus as the Creator, you reject the virgin birth, you reject Scripture of Jesus himself describing himself as God, you reject Scripture of the Jews of the time recognizing and describing him as God, you reject the resurrection. That's alot.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 12, 2009 16:01:11 GMT -5
Oh, I see. You mean, I reject it as not literal. But that's only normal for a thinking person; we know for a fact that many scriptures in the O.T. are not literally true. We know many contradictory scriptures in the N.T. that require us to accept that one version or the other is untrue.
Given, then, that we CANNOT accept ALL scripture as literal, my stance seems reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 12, 2009 16:10:12 GMT -5
Oh, I see. You mean, I reject it as not literal. But that's only normal for a thinking person Actually, I think it's more a willingness to accept the mystery of the supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 12, 2009 16:13:08 GMT -5
I enjoy debating with you Zorro. Your swordplay is that of a worthy opponent.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 12, 2009 16:18:15 GMT -5
To you, as well. Gotta keep the blades sharp Adios, gonna watch the end of the Masters...looks like a great finish.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Apr 12, 2009 17:20:02 GMT -5
Jesus was the son of God. But then again all humans are sons & daughters of God. Jesus tried to teach this.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2009 22:22:27 GMT -5
Just to add also that it's simplistic to say, anti-Trinitarian.To a degree I agree with you, but statements like these aren't helpful, either... The Trinity is a crutch for those who try desperately to box God up into one or more literal beings with boundaries.
But that is what the trinitarians seem to want to do: dissect a deity.Now in my opinion, this is an interesting statement: Those who do not believe in Trinitarian teachings (particularly that Jesus was/is God) suspect such teachings evolved over a number of centuries of trying to accomodate the mysteries and inconsistencies of Scripture. The Trinity is a consequence of starting with man's feeble attempts to explain God and building upon those as a logician assembles axioms and builds a complicated proof.I actually agree with this statement, in principle. But I see it from a different perspective. The Trinity is, indeed, the result of men's feeble efforts to understand God's being. But it remains man's best effort. IMO, we have two choices: either accept Scripture that teaches about Christ's deity, and leave much to mystery, or discount Scripture (or even reject it entirely). I have yet to see someone who opposes the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity explain the countless references in Scripture describing Jesus as God. The Trinitarians have trouble with the Bible saying that Jesus was God's only begotten son, as they believe he was unbegotten, e.g. with Him from the beginning and before. And then in John 14:28, Jesus says that "the Father is greater than I". There are other places where Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is. Non-Trinitarians do accept Jesus as one with God, but they believe Jesus is subordinate to God in one respect or another. Did Jesus ever tell God what to do? No. Did God ever tell Jesus what to do? Yes. Then how can they be the same. I agree with you though, no reason to get personal or derogatory about this issue.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2009 22:29:26 GMT -5
Hi, uk01. I don't understand the last sentence. What does that mean? I actually have that bit in my Cambridge Bible dictionary as well. But it reminds me of something my mother said. If your Bible dictionary told you to jump off a cliff would you do it? Okay, a little joke, not so funny, maybe. But my point is that the Bible dictionary is not the Bible. Let's hope that we internalize what we read directly in the Scripture, and read the Bible dictionary with the resistance that comes from knowing that it's just another person's opinion. Please read my post again What---- Then consider your answer again----- According to you, one should not believe the following because it is in the Dictionary section and not the Bible. Christ "the Son of the living God" Christ "God manifest in the Flesh" So if one may be incorrect, all of it may be incorrect--- Then the bible is in error. Remember the dictionary is there to help us understand the scriptures that we are studying. Why disregard some and not all. I would suggest that the authors who helped contribute to my Bible Dictionary have a greater historical library of references supporting the quotes than those who would want to discount them. I believe the last sentence is self explanatory and in line with the quote from the Bible dictionary. I believe because there are far to many scriptural references to discount it. I don't exactly follow your logic. Did I say you had to reject the Bible dictionary? I only said you don't have to take the Bible dictionary as gospel. I personally find Bible dictionaries and other aids very useful, but I do find things I don't agree with and other things I reserve opinion on until I can check Scripture. Certainly if you quote from a Bible dictionary it can add considerable weight to your argument. But you still need to make the argument. I'm not arguing with your last sentence in the previous post, I was just looking for clarification as I'm unsure what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 12, 2009 23:46:48 GMT -5
The Trinitarians have trouble with the Bible saying that Jesus was God's only begotten son, as they believe he was unbegotten, e.g. with Him from the beginning and before.Actually, I believe Arianism has the problem with the word "begotten". I have no more problem understanding Jesus being "begotten" than I do understanding a God without beginning in the first place In other words, the argument is over the way Jesus "began", if you will. If someone can explain how God "began", or didn't "begin" for that matter, that might be interesting. Until then I'm fine with the mystery of a God without beginning. Trinitarians also have no problem with the relationship of a Son submitted to the will of his Father. IMO, there are many people who enter this study backwards; IE hung up on words. Study the attributes of God. That's the study that will lead to understanding the deity of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 12, 2009 23:49:39 GMT -5
I remember you saying at one time you had a long talk with a head worker about this. Was his belief different or the same as the 2x2 belief.
Yes, he denied Christ's deity. I've been told that he has since changed his position, but I'm not really sure.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 13, 2009 5:57:36 GMT -5
While I think Jesus is presented as God, and while I believe he bore that distinction in the flesh, and while I don't think I bear that same originality or uniqueness, it is a pleasure to be esteemed worthy of relationship and capable of companionship, loved by the one who does.
Respecting the son, the trinity implies that we have an eternal identity in our soul essence. Jesus, is the same yesterday, today, and forever. According to the adage that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, this view of the soul should inspire wonder in the deepest recesses of our souls. To think ! We were created to be residents in a permanent garden ! This offers an exquisitely elevated view of humankind, and validates what some primitive societies have recognized and honored for centuries.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 13, 2009 9:29:37 GMT -5
The Trinitarians have trouble with the Bible saying that Jesus was God's only begotten son, as they believe he was unbegotten, e.g. with Him from the beginning and before.Actually, I believe Arianism has the problem with the word "begotten". I have no more problem understanding Jesus being "begotten" than I do understanding a God without beginning in the first place In other words, the argument is over the way Jesus "began", if you will. If someone can explain how God "began", or didn't "begin" for that matter, that might be interesting. Until then I'm fine with the mystery of a God without beginning. Trinitarians also have no problem with the relationship of a Son submitted to the will of his Father. IMO, there are many people who enter this study backwards; IE hung up on words. Study the attributes of God. That's the study that will lead to understanding the deity of Christ. First, with regard to your last point. I'm afraid when it comes to a point like this, words, that is the words of the Bible is all we have to go on. So we have no choice to be "hung up on words". And if there is some doubt about the importance of words or Word, please read John 1 and Proverbs 8. Regarding the earlier paragraph, Arians had no problem in accepting "the mystery of a God without a beginning". The question of a Jesus without a beginning was much more problematic. Why does the Bible refer to Jesus as "begotten" of God, for example? The basic underlying philosophical problem is that introduced by the Jews who argued (and still do) that it is idolatrous to worship anyone but God, thus worshipping Jesus is idolatry. To get around that 'problem' you have to assume Jesus is one with God. But there is so much common sense that argues against Jesus being totally one with God: his human beginning, his conversations with God (why would he if he was one with God), his subordination to God, and his apparent beginning (begotten of God). Personally, I basically accept the Trinity doctrine, but it's not a tidy theory in my mind, and I'm not about to go chanting the Apostle's or Nicene Creed every Sunday. Many modern scholars who study Scripture are of the view that Arianism is much stronger supported philosophically than mainstream Christians give it credit. And some historians (okay, one important one I've read) believe that the "Trinity" was mainly a political solution to stop the infighting in the Church about this question. The only thing I do believe strongly, is that Trinitarianism is not an open and shut case - if you study the Scripture.
|
|