|
Post by Rob O on Jun 8, 2009 23:32:48 GMT -5
It would be good for someone to give a 1 or 2 sentence summary on what they mean. It seems that some saying there is one God, but some saying there are three separate God’s. Have I even got that right? There is one God (in being), the essence of whom subsists equally and fully as 3 persons. Each person of the Godhead is fully God and none are subservient to the other. They live in a divine, eternal dance of unity forever giving of themselves to the others. This is how it can be said that "God is love". Love is an action. God could not eternally be love if there was not more than one person in the Godhead. Love only has meaning when it is enacted to an object. God could not "be love" if there was no eternally existing focus for love. To say "God is love" is to say each person of the Godhead has eternally acted out love toward the other persons. God has always existed as 3 persons. There was never a time when any of those persons did not exist. One person of the Godhead, put on humanity (loosely analagous to the way a human might put on a coat), and became the Son. The confusion around the topic often stems from the way non-trinitarians attempt to avoid those verses which explicitly claim that the Son is God. On the other hand, trinitarians fully accept the humanity of Jesus. The humanity of Jesus is completely human and is subject to God. The humanity of Jesus was made; it had a beginning in time. Jesus' humanity was subject to all the limitations of being human. But Jesus' divine nature, as God, has never not existed. Two natures united in one person.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 8, 2009 23:52:39 GMT -5
<< On the other hand, trinitarians fully accept the humanity of Jesus. >>>
I'm not sure this is universally true.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 9, 2009 0:09:14 GMT -5
It would be good for someone to give a 1 or 2 sentence summary on what they mean. It seems that some saying there is one God, but some saying there are three separate God’s. Have I even got that right? There is one God (in being), the essence of whom subsists equally and fully as 3 persons. So is there one God? So there are three Gods? Is this to say that God is not complete unless all are there, and that they AREN'T fully God individually? BTW, this is not the only reason it can be said that God is love. Without commenting on all of this seperately, I will just say that it doesn't really go towards explaining the questions that are raised if we were to believe that Jesus is God.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 9, 2009 0:26:45 GMT -5
Without commenting on all of this seperately, I will just say that it doesn't really go towards explaining the questions that are raised if we were to believe that Jesus is God.
You asked for a brief explanation of the doctrine, not a dissertation addressing every question raised. One point Rob raised that is spot on is this one: The confusion around the topic often stems from the way non-trinitarians attempt to avoid those verses which explicitly claim that the Son is God. In fact, I believe I asked you to address one already...reply 42 of this thread. Ready to give it a go?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 9, 2009 0:27:58 GMT -5
Yes. No. There are three persons. "God" and "person" are not interchangeable. This mixes categories resulting in a question that can't be answered. You are fully human but you are not all of humanity. Each person of the Godhead is fully God but each person is not all of God. Actually it is, but I'm not going to argue about it. This is part of the confusion; the attempt to over simplify and reduce. Jesus is fully God but He is not all of God. And Jesus is fully human but He is not all of humanity. God is a plural entity, not exactly the same but somewhat analagous to the way humanity is a singular entity of plurality. At the end of the day, God can not be reduced to human understanding. It is simply not possible for a finite, linear mind to grasp a non-finite, non-corporeal being. I am a trinitarian not because I believe it is true, but because it is a good short-hand that covers all the biblical data about God. The doctrine of the trinity no more fully explains God than an ant's perspective of a human fully captures what it is to be human. But it's the best we have. Ultimately, 1) There is one God 2) The Father is God, the Spirit is God, the Son is God 3) The Father is not the Spirit, who is not the Son, who is not the Father 4) The Son is fully God and fully human However you want to attempt to understand that is your own journey. I notice there are currently multiple active threads about this topic. It's easy to get bogged down into arguing about it and I can argue with the best. But it's more meaningful to live out our beliefs. A belief that is just theoretical has no life-changing value. It's just a thing in the mind. What it means for me to understand that Jesus is fully God and fully human is that though He was already everything of importance, He took on our frail humanity and became a servant, experiencing and identifying with our suffering. He got down into the nitty-gritty of life and called for people to care about others, to engage in community, to question authoritarian structures that oppress and don't practice what they preach, to bring healing, to agitate for social justice. Jesus showed that none of us are so great that we are exempt from the universal command to love others. That love is not just a fuzzy feeling, but is an act of the will. Despite what anyone believes about God, if they are not engaged in acts of love, then they have no claim on God.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jun 9, 2009 4:45:42 GMT -5
Todd, you didn't answer my question. Why is it okay to worship Jesus? fs FS, Sorry, I didn't have much time to reply before… Yes I am quite fine with worshiping Jesus, even though you are saying that we should only worship God. Here is WHY I think this… I am not saying anything. I didn't give my opinion. I am asking you a question because I'm trying to understand what you are meaning. Look at it this way… If I made something, and you said how amazing that thing was, in that I would take the honor and worship of that thing as honor and worship to me because my knowledge/skill/nature is manifested or magnified in that thing. So if I said to you, “only me shalt though worship, and no other”, you can see why I would be fine with you worshiping things that are of me, because I have effectively put “me” into that thing. God made the heaven and the earth. Are you saying it is okay to worship the stars? What's the difference between worshiping Jesus and worshiping the stars? As another example, my sister-in-law often calls my son “mini-Todd” and “Toddlet”, because of how much he looks like me, and not only that, also comments on his looks, and I don’t say this to boast (oh ok, yes I do), but she says how he will be a “stunner” when he grows up. Don’t you think I would take that as a compliment? Yes I do. So, do you think that God, who has told us to worship only him, would have any problem whatsoever with anybody worshiping his son because of the things of that are of him… his very nature and spirit. In worshipping Jesus, who is exactly the same spirit as God, we are worshipping God. Are you saying God's spirit can be called God? fs
|
|
|
Post by WALL-E on Jun 9, 2009 6:06:28 GMT -5
God is a spirit, isn't he? Oh, what does that make the Holy Spirit, then? Spirit of a spirit? ©®¶¬°µ«»£¥?
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jun 9, 2009 8:04:46 GMT -5
I seem to have a completely different take on it. All three are God as opposed to being human.
Your dad and you are both human, but you are not each other. Jesus and His Father are both God, but they are not each other.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 9, 2009 8:22:29 GMT -5
Without commenting on all of this seperately, I will just say that it doesn't really go towards explaining the questions that are raised if we were to believe that Jesus is God. You asked for a brief explanation of the doctrine, not a dissertation addressing every question raised. One point Rob raised that is spot on is this one: The confusion around the topic often stems from the way non-trinitarians attempt to avoid those verses which explicitly claim that the Son is God. In fact, I believe I asked you to address one already...reply 42 of this thread. Ready to give it a go? Yes I did, but the brief explanation didn't explain the very questions I have regarding this, and I find it funny in a way that people will at some point in every conversation about trinity, say that "I don't understand it". I wonder why they believe in something that doesn't make sense. Regarding reply #42, the bible you use has worded it differently to mine, and mine could be read as God and Jesus listed as seperate people appearing. Either way, I have no problem calling Jesus a great God. Anyway, I'm not sure what you want me to address here and whether I have or not.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 9, 2009 8:37:47 GMT -5
and I find it funny in a way that people will at some point in every conversation about trinity, say that "I don't understand it". I wonder why they believe in something that doesn't make sense. Not fully understanding a topic is not the equivalent of it not making sense. I don't understand gravity but I believe in it. In any case, the trinity does make sense to me even though I cannot possibly fully understand it. It's the only explanation I have researched (assuming that the NT authors were inspired by God) that incorporates the many facets of God which were taught by the early church. I also reiterate my prior comment: I notice there are currently multiple active threads about this topic. It's easy to get bogged down into arguing about it and I can argue with the best. But it's more meaningful to live out our beliefs. A belief that is just theoretical has no life-changing value. It's just a thing in the mind. What it means for me to understand that Jesus is fully God and fully human is that though He was already everything of importance, He took on our frail humanity and became a servant, experiencing and identifying with our suffering. He got down into the nitty-gritty of life and called for people to care about others, to engage in community, to question authoritarian structures that oppress and don't practice what they preach, to bring healing, to agitate for social justice. Jesus showed that none of us are so great that we are exempt from the universal command to love others. That love is not just a fuzzy feeling, but is an act of the will. Despite what anyone believes about God, if they are not engaged in acts of love, then they have no claim on God.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 9, 2009 8:44:57 GMT -5
People have no problem considering that "God" dwells within us, but have those who reject the Trinity ever critically considered how that can be if the Holy Spirit - that dwells within us - is not God? Zorro, I don't know if I fit into the category of one who rejects the trinity seeing it appears I don't know what is meant by that word, but if I was filled with the Holy Spirit 100%, to the point that every word I spoke was words that God would speak, and every decision I made was exactly the decision God would make, so much so that you could not tell the difference between me and God, that still doesn't make me God, even though I am 100% full of the Holy Spirit. Todd, when I consider the workings of the Holy Spirit, I think about Gen 1 where it says the spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep....it is God's Holy Spirit that "sees" what is in the heart of man. Perhaps when the Holy Spirit "dwells" within us there is always this unconscious comparison of our own spirit to what the Holy Spirit is....a conscience that is enlivened, quickened, if you will.....
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 9, 2009 8:48:56 GMT -5
Without commenting on all of this seperately, I will just say that it doesn't really go towards explaining the questions that are raised if we were to believe that Jesus is God. You asked for a brief explanation of the doctrine, not a dissertation addressing every question raised. One point Rob raised that is spot on is this one: The confusion around the topic often stems from the way non-trinitarians attempt to avoid those verses which explicitly claim that the Son is God. In fact, I believe I asked you to address one already...reply 42 of this thread. Ready to give it a go? Zorro! I just thought of a simple example that might simply things so some of us can get this wrapped around our minds.....is it not common for a human person to identify themselves as " me, myself and I"? Isn't that 3 persons in one? If that is understandable why is it so hard ot understand the 3 persons in one that is God? God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 9, 2009 8:52:12 GMT -5
No. There are three persons. "God" and "person" are not interchangeable. So God is three "persons". Yet I thought that some people had called them God individually. I agree that Jesus is fully God. There is nothing ungodly in him at all. He is 100%. Maybe you have not known of the love of God towards his people also. Why do all trinitarians have this common disclaimer, that seems to indicate that "we don't have a clue what we are on about". Sorry, it is just that every time I try to understand what people mean by "trinity", and get them to explain certain events in the bible, I get told that "we don't understand God". Well, to me it seems very easy to understand, because if God said "this is my Son", I assume that he means that "this is my son", and not some fully God that is not all of God, but one of three persons that are a God.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 9, 2009 9:01:42 GMT -5
Todd, I'm not going to debate every point. On this comment only... Well, to me it seems very easy to understand, because if God said "this is my Son", I assume that he means that "this is my son", and not some fully God that is not all of God, but one of three persons that are a God. Yes, but the Father also refers to the Son as God. Not like a God or full of God...but God. Hebrews 1 - 8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
|
|
|
Post by WALL-E on Jun 9, 2009 9:15:22 GMT -5
I'm not clear on where Paul was getting all that he says in Heb. 1. Paul overheard God talking to Jesus? Where did this happen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2009 9:16:15 GMT -5
Let us substitute Todd for God.
The family Todd includes Todd the Father, Todd the wife (spirit) and Todd the son. They are ALL Todd, but are three separate personages.
The difference between the son of God and the son of Todd is that the son of God was fully begotten by the father whereas the son of Todd was begotten equally by the father and mother Todd, unless we believe that God the Father and Spirit are two different entities and co-produced the son of God.
However there is only ONE spirit and that is God. This God spirit includes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All three dwell in believers in the form of one spirit. The Father and Son are different personages. The Holy Ghost (spirit) ?
The Father and Son may be two different personages within the one spirit God (Holy Ghost), in which case both are indeed God. As for the Holy Ghost, we know there is only one spirit so it cannot be a separate or different spirit from God who is one spirit. Is the Holy Ghost a separate entity from God and Jesus or is it the spiritual form of both?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 9, 2009 9:31:13 GMT -5
Todd, I'm not going to debate every point. On this comment only... Well, to me it seems very easy to understand, because if God said "this is my Son", I assume that he means that "this is my son", and not some fully God that is not all of God, but one of three persons that are a God. Yes, but the Father also refers to the Son as God. Not like a God or full of God...but God. Hebrews 1 - 8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” This chapter talks about God, and his son (v1 & v2). I have said it before that I have not problem with Jesus being called God, because that is what he was over his kingdom. Did you happen to notice that when talking to the Son he says "your God, has anointed you", so it is plain to see that it isn't talking about the one and same God, even though the Son was being called "God".
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 9, 2009 9:35:18 GMT -5
Did you happen to notice that when talking to the Son he says "your God, has anointed you", so it is plain to see that it isn't talking about the one and same God, even though the Son was being called "God". Like saying to a human, "the human race has anointed you." Rob or zorro, I'd like to hear someone address Linda's simplistic understanding. Is it too polytheistic?
|
|
|
Post by WALL-E on Jun 9, 2009 9:46:10 GMT -5
Ah. So Paul just pulled bits and pieces from the scriptures, lined them up in a way that proves his point, wrote them down, and we call that doctrine?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2009 10:14:46 GMT -5
I am glad, in reading something as powerful as the Sermon On The Mount, that Jesus did not engage in metaphysical crap, Greek translations, word striving or arguing to prove points. That is what gave His simple message such power.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 9, 2009 11:47:53 GMT -5
Rob or zorro, I'd like to hear someone address Linda's simplistic understanding. Is it too polytheistic? Hopefully, the content of this post will not only answer this question, but a couple of other issues on the table, as well. First of all, we need to understand that we are all collectively trying to describe the indescribable. Personally, I feel it's like an entirely different dimension that we've never experienced and in eternity we'll "get it". But in the meantime we look at Scripture describing the multi-faceted God, try to wrap our mind around it all, try to describe it....but ultimately, all analogies will fail in some manner. We simply must accept this. What Scripture clearly tells us is that: 1. There is only one God. 2. God is multiple persons. In the OT the number was unknown. Jesus coming to earth clarified that those persons numbered 3: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 3. It was further clarified that all 3 of those persons is fully God; they all possess the fullness of Godly attributes, or essence. So with that Scriptural guidance in hand, we start the analogies....understanding that every analogy will fail in one of the 3 points above. Analogies that that emphasize the threeness are not wrong, simply incomplete. I happen to like the analogy that just as we are man, we are not all of mankind. Similarly, just as Jesus is God, he is not all of God. I find that a helpful view. However, it falls short of addressing the oneness of God (left alone such analogies would indeed be too polytheistic). There are many analogies that focus on oneness; someone can be a father, son, and brother for example. However, these types of analogies fail to describe the separate persons of God (left alone these analogies run too close to modalism). Further, analogies that get close to describing both oneness and threeness, fail in describing equality of attributes - water, steam and ice, for example (these types of analogies can lead us in the direction of subordinationism, for example). I believe the charge that a trinitarians' acknowledgment of the mystery or tension we are left with as we try to wrap our human minds around this all is to be equated with "not having a clue" is unfair. What I would suggest to anyone that opposes the trinitarian view is to take a good hard look at the 3 points laid out above. All three points are clearly supported by Scripture. The challenge to you is to come up with a better "solution". On your marks, get set, go. PS. Throwing Scripture out the window is not an option
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jun 9, 2009 13:39:45 GMT -5
Todd, these posts say that Jesus isn't God and say Jesus is fully God. Please explain what you mean. In response these people saying that Jesus’ record of himself wasn’t true because of the lack of the testimony of another man, Jesus went to reasonable lengths here to tell them that this wasn’t the case. It goes against anyone that says that Jesus is God. They are 2 separate beings which is why Jesus was telling them that he also had the witness of another... His father. . . . . . 41.Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42.Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. So, Jesus isn’t God. I agree that Jesus is fully God. There is nothing ungodly in him at all. He is 100%. fs
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 9, 2009 20:25:12 GMT -5
This is totally a different concept, yet much the same as the trinity idea. God the Father is God. Jesus is His son, the Son of God, who was with Him before the earth was made, who either assisted in creation or actually performed it. He was equal with God (Phil. 2:6), thus is worthy of worship. God sent His Son to earth as His living Word in human form and Jesus accepted that place and the constrictions of humanity (Phil. 2:7-8). While they were separated (and I believe at all other times as well) they were bound together by the Holy Spirit - the common spirit possessed by both.
It is Jesus' desire (John 17) that we, too, receive that Spirit and he stated he would ask His Father to send him (John 14:16) so that those with him on earth and all who believe through them would share in the unity that the Holy Spirit gave the Father and Son.
Maybe it's because this understanding came to me in what I would call a revelation, I find it very easy to comprehend and wrap my mind around. It may be lacking something, but it satisfies me in understanding the God/Son/Spirit relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 9, 2009 20:39:31 GMT -5
Like saying to a human, "the human race has anointed you." Rob or zorro, I'd like to hear someone address Linda's simplistic understanding. Is it too polytheistic? I actually didn't understand Linda's comment. She seemed to be saying that Jesus wasn't human yet from what I know of Linda that wouldn't be her belief. I think it more sensible to let her clarify her post before commenting. The earliest Hebrews were polytheistic. They saw all the other gods as subordinate to Yahweh and it could be argued that they also taught quite early that the other gods were created by Yahweh. The recovery of the knowledge of God, IMO, was progressive. But from an early point they were already teaching that Yahweh is a unity of one, not a singularity of one. I think from a perspective like yours, it's easy to say that the writers of the different documents finally collected into the Bible all had different ideas and the 'discrepancies' are simply because everybody had their own beliefs. However, for those who take the inspiration of scripture seriously, I find it baffling when they discount the many clear references to Jesus' deity.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 9, 2009 20:42:48 GMT -5
This is totally a different concept, yet much the same as the trinity idea. God the Father is God. Jesus is His son, the Son of God, who was with Him before the earth was made, who either assisted in creation or actually performed it. He was equal with God (Phil. 2:6), thus is worthy of worship. God sent His Son to earth as His living Word in human form and Jesus accepted that place and the constrictions of humanity (Phil. 2:7-8). While they were separated (and I believe at all other times as well) they were bound together by the Holy Spirit - the common spirit possessed by both. It is Jesus' desire (John 17) that we, too, receive that Spirit and he stated he would ask His Father to send it (John 14:16) so that those with him on earth and all who believe through them would share in the unity that the Holy Spirit gave the Father and Son. Maybe it's because this understanding came to me in what I would call a revelation, I find it very easy to comprehend and wrap my mind around. It may be lacking something, but it satisfies me in understanding the God/Son/Spirit relationship. Emy! I like this understanding....it just comes to me that perhaps in order to have that "personal relationship with God" to concentrate on the Son of God is the key for that is the "form" of God that is understandable to our mere flesh, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 9, 2009 20:55:30 GMT -5
This chapter talks about God, and his son (v1 & v2). I have said it before that I have not problem with Jesus being called God, because that is what he was over his kingdom. This doesn't do justice to the raft of passages which teach that in some way Jesus is God, not just called God. Of course I noticed. That is completely covered by the trinitarian view. God is echad, the 'united one'. Who is being referred to as God in the NT is completely context dependent. Sometimes it refers to the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Spirit, and sometimes the Godhead. But the references to the Father as God in distinction to the Son, do not give us permission to discount the many references to the deity of Jesus. When a passage says that Jesus is praying to God, a trinitarian accepts that while on earth, Jesus operated only out of his humanity. The man Jesus prayed to God. That does not override the NT teaching that Jesus was also deity by nature, and that what is deity cannot ever not be deity. He chose not to operate out of deity, as it says and I paraphrase: "being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal to God but took on the form of a servant and became human". The Greek word morphe, or 'form', is very strong and very clear. It refers to what something is in itself; its very essence and structure. That which has the morphe of God, must in its very essence be God, not just merely look like or be similar to. Jesus is God, not just called God. I would also like to hear your answer to Freespirit's question: Is it okay to worship the stars?As I said earlier, this is not just a theoretical belief. If Jesus is God, then He has every right to be worshiped and it is our call to worship Him, to honour Him as our God and Saviour. But if Jesus is not God, then to worship him is idolatry as surely as it would be idolatry to worship money, or the stars or any other human. Idolatry is not just an ancient concept. The heart of idolatry is to ultimately esteem something created, in the place of the Creator. It is to take one's focus off that which matters and to focus on things that are temporary. God is not egotistical that He desires our worship for His own sake. Instead, when we focus on God and His ultimacy we find it easier to give of ourselves to others, to be servants rather than exalting our own ego.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jun 9, 2009 21:20:52 GMT -5
Hi DC....I don't see my view as polytheistic. There is only one God, just as there is only one humanity.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jun 9, 2009 21:32:40 GMT -5
Hi Rob....just clarifying...
I don't believe Jesus stopped being God when He came to earth. He allowed Himself to be limited by the flesh, just as humanity is, but He was still God embodied in humanity. When He was resurrected, He was once again freed from the limitation of the flesh...it sounds odd to say it like this, but He returned to the complete freedom of His own species.
Blessings, Linda
|
|