|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does Scripture support the Trinity?
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
On the 12uthy thread, she wrote:
quote:
I would respectfully welcome a discussion on any Scriptures that support the Trinity, because I have struggled with this issue since I was a little girl at school and none of the nuns or priest could convince me; the best I ever got was (paraphrasing) "It's a mystery and if you don't understand it you lack faith and will burn in hell". Who says that to a 12yr old girl! (Hence my issue with the Hellfire doctrine)
I am sure she is not alone.
So let's see, there are Scriptures that:
- Have Jesus addressing the Father as if He were another person.
- Talk about the Holy Spirit as if It/He/She were another person.
- Talk about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, making it clear that they comprise the Godhead.
Yet Christians also affirm that God is one, not three.
Anyone have a better answer than "It's a mystery"?
We have been over this many times. Is it a dead horse?
[ 27. June 2005, 03:53: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
It always amazes me that Protestants who stick so closely to the Sola Scriptura ideal are so willing to accept the Trinity because it is nowhere adequately expounded in Scripture. But it is, IMO a natural progression of Pauline theology and parts of the Jewish wisdom tradition. Churches such as the Orthodox and Catholic have no problem with an idea which came to full fruition within the tradition of the early church, which is certainly so of the Trinity.
On the ideal of "the further from the source the muddier the water" I believe that Christianity is at its "purest" the closer to its cradle. The original Christianity of the Jerusalen church is lost to us. The Orthodox tradition of the Trinity modelled on the Cappodocian Fathers makes far more sense to me than Augustine.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It always amazes me that Protestants who stick so closely to the Sola Scriptura ideal are so willing to accept the Trinity because it is nowhere adequately expounded in Scripture.
That is also my opinion.
To me it seems obvious that the Scripture references to the Trinity are metaphors, and that the weight of the Scriptures make it clear that there is one God in one Person.
I know, however, that the great majority of Christian theology and opinion over the centuries does not agree.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes it is scriptural but as Paul and Freddy has said it is the experience of God as Trinity which is as yet unsystematic and not fully thought through in the Bible but which Tradition necessarily and later teases out. So, I hold and teach that trinitarianism is the only way you can be a MONOTHEIST IF you take the Christian biblically attested experience of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit seriously.
Interestingly, the Fathers tend to regard the reception of this trinitarian teaching as a matter of spiritual regeneration, not abstracted research and debate. So I can only know Jesus to be True God and True Man if I have personally known the power of the Saviour. I can only attest to the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit if I have been baptised in the same Holy Spirit. I can only know God as Father if I have come to know him as His adopted regenerate Child.
Naturally, I endorse the hurrah's for the Cappadocians.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
12uthy's comment seems like a request for a discussion on Scriptures that support the Trinity, but Freddy you seem to be asking for an attempt to explain the Trinity.
I don't think that there is much doubt that the scriptures outline that God is Trinity, but they don't explain it ontologically or anything.
Which way were you wanting to head?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The support from Scripture is simply that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.
The Divinity of the Father goes without saying.
The Divinity of the Son is clearly seen in
John 1 v 1: the Word is with God and is God.
Mark 2 v 5 - 7: only God can forgive sins but Jesus does it anyway.
John 8 v 58: Jesus assumes the name of the Godhead for himself.
John 20 v 28: Jesus accepts divine worship from Thomas.
Philippians 2 v 5 etc: Not Pauline theology but his quotation of a hymn in common use that ascribes both the nature and title of Divinity to Jesus.
The Divinity of the Spirit is clearly seen throughout Scripture beginning with Genesis 1 v 2. That the Holy Spirit is a person, rather than a force or influence is seen as passages where he is referred to as 'he': John 16 v 13.
An example of where he is directly referred to as God is Acts 5 v 3 - 4.
It's also interesting that the very early church battled with doecetism - ie that Jesus only seemed to be human. They had no problem convincing people of his divinity, but they had to reassert the idea that Jesus was also a real man in the face of those who said he didn't really suffer on the cross, that he never left a shadow or even that he walked just above the ground, leaving no footprints. It's only as the waters grew muddy away from the source that the teachers in the church felt they had to combat those who taught Jesus was a mere man.
And don't forget the baptismal formula that ascribes a collective, singular name to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - ie in the name of the Father...
I see no mystery, no difficulty here.
If you accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, as clearly demonstrated in Scripture and required by the Christian theology of Incarnation and Atonement, then the Trinity is not a problem at all.
If however, you reject the Divinity and Deity of Jesus, then of course the Trinity becomes a stumbling block.
The question must be, of course, do you reject the Trinity because you refuse the Deity of Jesus, or do you reject the Deity of Jesus because you can't grasp the obvious teaching of scripture on a trinitarian Godhead?
It seems to me that all Unitarian thinking people reject the Trinity simply because they are prejudiced against the Divinity of the Son of God in the first place.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that all Unitarian thinking people reject the Trinity simply because they are prejudiced against the Divinity of the Son of God in the first place.
Thanks for the verses on the divinity of Jesus, but you seem to have forgotten the flip side of the Trinity - one God.
What you have outlined is tri-theism.
The unitarians I have spoken with don't deny the deity of Jesus - they just deny that he is a separate "person" from the Father and the Spirit.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
12uthy's comment seems like a request for a discussion on Scriptures that support the Trinity, but Freddy you seem to be asking for an attempt to explain the Trinity.
True. Her comments about being unsatisfied with the "mystery" explanation was part of her request.
Either way is fine with me, especially since I don't expect to be able to direct anyone's comments anyway. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that all Unitarian thinking people reject the Trinity simply because they are prejudiced against the Divinity of the Son of God in the first place.
Thanks for the verses on the divinity of Jesus, but you seem to have forgotten the flip side of the Trinity - one God.
What you have outlined is tri-theism.
The unitarians I have spoken with don't deny the deity of Jesus - they just deny that he is a separate "person" from the Father and the Spirit.
I think those two possibilities are important. As I understand it, the JW objection is what Mudfrog says. My objection is what Anselm said.
So I fully accept Mudfrog's references, and agree that they do declare Jesus' divinity. My favorites, however, are the OT passages that declare that Messiah would be Jehovah Himself:
quote:
1. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall he upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of eternity, Prince of peace. (Isa. 9:6-7).
2. It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him that He may save us: THIS IS JEHOVAH we have waited for Him, we will rejoice and be glad in His salvation (Isa. 25:9).
3. Behold, the LORD JEHOVIH will come in strength, and His arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him. He shall feed His flock like a shepherd (Isa. 40:3, 5, 10-11).
4. Behold, the days come that I will raise up to David a righteous offshoot, who shall reign a king, and shall prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth: and this is His name whereby they shall call Him, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:15, 16).
5. Behold, I send Mine Angel, who shall prepare the way before Me, and the LORD whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple. (Mal. 3:1, 2; 4:5).
6. I saw, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; and there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages may worship Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed; and all dominions shall worship Him, and obey Him (Dan. 7:13, 14, 27).
7. Jehovah, remember David, who sware unto Jehovah, and vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob,If I shall enter within the tent of my house,if I shall go up upon my couch,if I shall give sleep to mine eyes, until I find out a place for Jehovah, a habitation for the Mighty One of Jacob. Lo, we heard of Him at Ephratah, we found Him in the fields of the forest. (Ps. 132:1-7, 9).
8. The Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and hear a Son, and shall call His name GOD-WITH-US (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:22, 23).
But of course these don't especially help us with the Trinity...
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Thanks for the verses on the divinity of Jesus, but you seem to have forgotten the flip side of the Trinity - one God.
Do you really need proof texts for monotheism?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
What does help, perhaps, are verses such as this one:
"If anyone loves me, he will keep my word: and my father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." John 14 v 23
This serves, in the context of there being one God (which Jesus also taught), to show that Jesus and the Father are not one person. ie the Father is not the Son.
There is also the verse where Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as being 'another (of the same kind) counsellor'. This shows that the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Jesus.
There is only one God. But the Bible also tells us that whilst the Father is God, so is the Son - who also has the attributes and titles of Yahweh. But, whilst Jesus the Son is God, he is not the same person as the Father. Neither is he an altered form of the Father. Neither is the Holy Spirit Jesus is a spiritual form. He too, being divine, is a separate person.
I recognise that the problem is not the concept nor the theology, but the weakness of the English language which confines us to unhelpful words like 'persons'.
Scripture aside - which we cannot really do! - what about this as an illustration of how one 'being' can be three 'persons' all at once whilst the three 'persons' are entirely separate and recognisable:
The female known as Elizabeth is one biological entity.
She is a wife.
She is a mother.
She is a monarch.
She comes as neither wife nor mother, as far as her subjects are concerned when she 'appears' enrobed and crowned as the Sovereign. She is Majesty and State personified. Her image, her authority has little to do with the person who actually wears the robes. And yet, whilst appearing in Majesty, she is still the other two 'persons'.
When she eats breakfast in her slippers on the other side of the table to Philip Mountbatten; when she shares moments of married, erm, 'life' with him, the last thing either of them are concerned with is crowns, parliaments, and 'Majesty'. She is his wife - and yet, she is still, in essence, the other two 'persons'.
When the family gathers for Christmas, weddings, etc. To 4 particular people she is 'Mother'. She is not wife to Charles and his siblings, she is not his Sovereign - she is his biological parents, the one he loves as parent. And yet, whilst she shares, and has shared, maternal duties, influence and affection, she has also been, in essence, the other two persons of wife and monarch.
What I am saying is that when the Queen appears as soverieng, she doesn't relinquish her married state as wife.
When she watches TV with Philip, she doesn't abdicate from the throne in order to fulfil wifely duties.
When she talks to Charles on the phone, she doesn't divorce Philip on the grounds that she cannot be 3 things at once.
And yet, being all three, she is one being, of one substance, one essence.
If Jesus is divine, either there has to be a Trinity where the three persons are one unity as God, or else there has to be three gods - in which case none of them are God in the Biblical sense - or God is modalistic. Which makes a nonesense of the New Testament which - in the story of the baptism of Jesus for example - shows very clearly the parallel existence of the three persons at the same time. In other words, the Father didn't become the Son for 33 years and then become the Spirit subsequent to Pentecost.
They are all three divine and all three in existence and operation at the same time - co-existent and co-eternal, consubstantial, undivided in essence - yet each with integrity and identity.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Not everything Christians have come to believe is contained in the bible....there is such a thing as "shared understanding" which in some religions is referred to as church tradition.
However, if that church tradition contains an element of imposition by fear [e.g., we can't explain it but if you don't believe you'll go to hell) the whole idea of describing the nature of God in a certain way loses some of its power.
I'm not a scholar of other religions, but I suspect that trinitarian religions with the highest number of people who actually believe are not the ones who have "proved" it or have threatened it. I suspect they are the ones that live according to their shared understanding and lovingly gather into that understanding all who are receptive to it.
sabine
[ 30. April 2005, 15:38: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[QB] It always amazes me that Protestants who stick so closely to the Sola Scriptura ideal are so willing to accept the Trinity because it is nowhere adequately expounded in Scripture.
It's perfectly adequately there in scripture - not all the doctrines we accept are presented in an entirely explicit way, we take scripture as the data and build our model from that - scripture makes the trinity perfectly clear, it just doesn't use the word 'Trinity' and say in a single statement 'God is three persons in one being'
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I've a confession to make. I can't see clear, irrefutable evidence in Scripture that Jesus is God without putting in some theological effort. The Arian position seems at first glance to stack up just as well - I wouldn't say it was stronger than the Trinitarian, just that it's not conclusive at the superficial level.
What clinches it for me is something that often comes out when we have a scrap over penal substitutionary atonement. The one, if you'll forgive the pun, redeeming feature of PSA to me, is that the entity being punished in this Atonement model is God Himself. If Jesus Christ is not God then all possible models of the Atonement, including the ones I think are true, appear to me to collapse to nonsense. Fitting the Christology to Scripture works reasonably well for Arianism until I ask the questions, what's it all about? What is salvation? Why did God do it this way? Christ being a created super-angel or someone less, just doesn't fit.
And that's without bringing the witness of the Church into it.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The one, if you'll forgive the pun, redeeming feature of PSA to me, is that the entity being punished in this Atonement model is God Himself. If Jesus Christ is not God then all possible models of the Atonement, including the ones I think are true, appear to me to collapse to nonsense.
You could have gone all day without saying that. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
To my mind, PSA does nothing but present a God who is too terrible to believe in. I would choose Arianism any day.
But the Gospels present a Jesus who defeats the power of darkness itself. That, to me, is what requires Him to be God.
And, as I mention above, that's what the messianic prophecies clearly say anyway.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Now here's a shocking confession for a non-conformist protestant. I accept as doctrinal truth the doctrine of the Trinity and the fully divine/fully human nature of Christ because of their authoritative declaration by the early church councils. These two doctrines do more to protect Christians from error than any others. Those who put them together after reflection on both scripture and the resurrection life of Christ in the church did us all a favour.
We can all go through again the processes of reflection and argument - and disagreement - and problems with heretical belief - which led to these formulations. But why bother? I'm much more inclined to accept the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the work of these early councils.
It is good for protestants to come to terms with the undeniable fact that while belief in the authority and inspiration of scripture is necessary, it is not always sufficient. I reckon many of need to do some work in our understanding of the doctrine of the church.
And, no, I am not an Orthodox sockpuppet.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
What Barnabas just said.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
However, if that church tradition contains an element of imposition by fear [e.g., we can't explain it but if you don't believe you'll go to hell) the whole idea of describing the nature of God in a certain way loses some of its power.
This is precisely why the trinity in many places brings forth hostility, too many are simply told to disengage one's brain and accept it. From being a mystery we can adore, the trinity is turned into a straitjacket. Alternatively one is presented with elaborate other-wordly scholastic exercises which attempts to demonstrate that 3=1.
What would be a good approach to teach and present the trinity that takes account of both head and heart?
"And that, by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: that in Christianity God is not a static thing--not even a person--but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance."
-C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity".
[ 30. April 2005, 22:38: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
To my mind, PSA does nothing but present a God who is too terrible to believe in. I would choose Arianism any day.
But the Gospels present a Jesus who defeats the power of darkness itself. That, to me, is what requires Him to be God.
Actually Freddy, simple PSA theology that emphasises the punishment that is heaped upon the Son by the Father is actually heading into a pseudo-arian direction by emphasising the separateness of the Son and the Father.
Anyway arianism is not necessarily a defence against PSA, just add a little bit of scotist acceptance theory into that and the image of the sadistic God still remains, just that it now seems all arbitrary. A robust trinitarian doctrine can prevent bad theology like this.
Have a look at this
article from the tablet.
[fixed a moronic UBB code error]
[ 30. April 2005, 22:48: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The female known as Elizabeth is one biological entity.
She is a wife.
She is a mother.
She is a monarch.
This adds up to modalism.
And Bonaventura -- i´m with you on this.
GOD BLESS!
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Actually Freddy, simple PSA theology that emphasises the punishment that is heaped upon the Son by the Father is actually heading into a pseudo-arian direction by emphasising the separateness of the Son and the Father.
Excellent point. This is just the way I see it. PSA is Arianism in disguise.
But, to get back to the OP, a Trinity of three omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Beings is an absurd impossibility. It is fine to say that it is a mystery, but this really amounts to no explanation at all.
As long as the Trinity is taken seriously, that idea is inevitably an idea of three gods. Thankfully most Christians don't even think about it. They just hold an idea of "God" in their minds, as is by far the most common biblical concept.
Given this disadvantage, isn't it more rational to accept the gospel references to "Father" and "Son" as metaphor, and to take literally Jesus' declaration that "he who has seen Me has seen the Father"? Why choose the imagery of Jesus praying and crying out to the Father over other passages that contradict it? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
"And that, by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: that in Christianity God is not a static thing--not even a person--but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance."
-C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity".
Ah! You beat me to it! I was just going to quote this! Well, I can always comment it.
If God is love -- how can he not be triune (or at least two-une (this is not a proper word))?
GOD BLESS!
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But, to get back to the OP, a Trinity of three omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Beings is an absurd impossibility.
This is not trinitarian -- it´s tritheism.
Trinity = One being, three persone/hypostates.
GOD BLESS!
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
But, to get back to the OP, a Trinity of three omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Beings is an absurd impossibility. It is fine to say that it is a mystery, but this really amounts to no explanation at all.
You are confusing 'being' with 'personhood' here, and you end up with tritheism.
Person or hypostasis in trinitarian language does not denote an individual or a being as we moderns understand the term.
One being, three hypostases.
[cross posted with k-mann]
[ 30. April 2005, 23:20: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' 1 John 5:7
One can see the great damage that much of textual criticism has done of the church when the greatest verse in Scripture on the Trinity is not even quoted.
Reformed in Christ,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
As a totally orthodox trinitarian, I would say that 1 John 5 v 7 is an interpolation into the Bible. John didn't write it. It is however a clear intimation of what the second century church believed.
As far as my illustration of Elizabeth Windsor being modalism; I thought modalism was when God was Father THEN Son, THEN HS in turn.
My (less than perfect) point was that Elizabeth is monarch, wife and mother all at the same time, but that the 'person' of monarch is not the 'person' of wife, the 'person' of wife is not the 'person' of mother.
She is three in one - a trinity of persons in one being.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
It doesn't really work Mudfrog. HRH is also a Corgi Owner, an Auntie and a Grandmother. I don't know about her hobbies, but she might well be a stamp collector. You can't just arbitrarily choose three aspects of someone's life and call them "persons."
Liz the Mother did not go to the garden to talk to Liz the Monarch (or if she did, then she'd be a raving looney.) God the Son did go to the garden to talk to God the Father. There is a relationship between the persons of the Trinity. They are united enough to be of one essence, but distinct enough to be three persons.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
I'm a simple baptist..I like the way Jesus phrases things when he speaks of himself and the Father being one, and when he tell the disciples that he will send another "counsellor", he says "you will know him for you have seen him already", referring to himself.
In short, although Jesus isn;t recorder as saying "this is how the trinity works..." he does say that he, Father and Holy Spirit are the same thing.
M
[aditted fur spalling]
[ 01. May 2005, 07:37: Message edited by: Matrix ]
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
quote:
As a totally orthodox trinitarian, I would say that 1 John 5 v 7 is an interpolation into the Bible. John didn't write it. It is however a clear intimation of what the second century church believed.
To suggest that God would allow entire verses into the text of Scripture for 1800 years before 20th century scholarship came to the rescue is dubious at best. I suppose if we find older mss that do not contain John 3:16 in them... than that will be next to go (although I am aware that there are more factors than age alone that are used by "scholarship" to figure out what truly is "Thus saith the Lord!")
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
what about this as an illustration
*snip*
The female known as Elizabeth is one biological entity.
She is a wife.
She is a mother.
She is a monarch.
As was pointed out previously this is modalism, or sabellianism.
It denies the reality of the relationships within the godhead. It is just one God who reveals different aspects of his personality to others.
Does Elizabeth the wife ever plead with Elisabeth the monarch or listen to Elisabeth the mother?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I think this scripture supports the trinity in terms of salvific experience. If the scripture is both believed and applied it is not possible to deny that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: one God indwells the believer.
Romans 8:9-14 (KJV)
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
So we see that the indwelling of God is Trinitarian in nature. Without a Trinitarian undersatnding of God the whole notion of divine indwelling become blasphemous, even idolatrous. We are a temple to the Holy Spirit are we not? Anything that is put in a temple that is not God is an idol. Has God placed the Holy Spirit (something that is not God) in his Temple? No! The only rightful occupant of a Temple is God! The Holy Spirit is God; he can be none other because we are a Temple to Him.
We can see from this passage of Scripture that each person of the Trinity indwells the Christian. Now, as a Christian I am told by Paul in Ephesians 3:14-21 'to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith'... 'that may be be filled with [i]all the fulness of God.' Christ by the Holy Spirit fills me with the fulness of God! If Christ, who indwells me, is not God why does his presence fill me with the fulness of God?
Just some thoughts...
Daron
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I think this scripture supports the trinity in terms of salvific experience. If the scripture is both believed and applied it is not possible to deny that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: one God indwells the believer.
Romans 8:9-14 (KJV)
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
So we see that the indwelling of God is Trinitarian in nature. Without a Trinitarian undersatnding of God the whole notion of divine indwelling become blasphemous, even idolatrous. We are a temple to the Holy Spirit are we not? Anything that is put in a temple that is not God is an idol. Has God placed the Holy Spirit (something that is not God) in his Temple? No! The only rightful occupant of a Temple is God! The Holy Spirit is God; he can be none other because we are a Temple to Him.
We can see from this passage of Scripture that each person of the Trinity indwells the Christian. Now, as a Christian I am told by Paul in Ephesians 3:14-21 'to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith'... 'that may be be filled with [i]all the fulness of God.' Christ by the Holy Spirit fills me with the fulness of God! If Christ, who indwells me, is not God why does his presence fill me with the fulness of God?
Just some thoughts...
Daron
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As a totally orthodox trinitarian, I would say that 1 John 5 v 7 is an interpolation into the Bible. John didn't write it. It is however a clear intimation of what the second century church believed.
As far as my illustration of Elizabeth Windsor being modalism; I thought modalism was when God was Father THEN Son, THEN HS in turn.
My (less than perfect) point was that Elizabeth is monarch, wife and mother all at the same time, but that the 'person' of monarch is not the 'person' of wife, the 'person' of wife is not the 'person' of mother.
She is three in one - a trinity of persons in one being.
Elizabeth Windsor is one person performing three roles. Perhaps - a big perhaps - if she suffered multiple personality syndrome (or whatever it is called) she might be a little closer to the notion of three persons, but still not seriously so.
The Father and the Son, for instance, not only talk about each other in the third person ("This is my Beloved Son" etc), but also in the second person: (Jn 17.5) "glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory I had with thee before the world was made".
The "thou and me" language is the language of deepest personal relationship. The Father and the Son have a "face to face" relationship of perfect knowledge, perfect love, perfect unity of will. The Father and the Son are one God (there cannot be two omnipotents - who would win a fight?) - but they possess an "I-You" relationship to each other. The Trinity is necessary for God to be love: the Father loves the Son from all eternity, and the Son loves the Father from all eternity. If God is a single person, whom does he love?
The multiple personalities of the disordered mind are not real persons: but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the most perfect community of love - absolutely one in knowledge, power, and presence (omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresence). God is a perfect unity of Love: the Father, Son and Spirit possess a closeness that is far beyond our experience - _everything_ the Father knows is known to the Son - no secrets at all, no "private thoughts", complete and total and instant sharing of the innermost thoughts of the heart, if you will.
If you and I were omniscient, I would know everyone of your thoughts as you thought them, and you would know everyone of my thoughts as I thought them. Either this would be sheer claustrophobic hell, and we would destroy each other - or we would possess a unity and transparency to each other unknown in actual human experience. No two human beings ever experience that degree of intimacy and closeness, but I imagine God does.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
Sorry I'm late to the party, dh rebooted the comp yesterday and I've only just got back.
Glad to see you started without me ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Divinity of the Son is clearly seen in
John 1 v 1: the Word is with God and is God.
I believe I already explained this scripture on the other thread
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Mark 2 v 5 - 7: only God can forgive sins but Jesus does it anyway.
Only God and whomever he decides to deligate that authority to as clearly indicated by:
(1 Corinthians 15:27) 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
John 8 v 58: Jesus assumes the name of the Godhead for himself.
(John 8:58) 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
Here he is merely saying that he was created before Abraham, so were the angels, that doesn't make him God
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
John 20 v 28: Jesus accepts divine worship from Thomas.
The word god on its own does not infer divinity, as I explained about John 1:1.
Strong's dictionary defines that word as :
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
This explains its use at:
(John 10:34-36) . . .Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?
which as I've explained before quotes:
(Psalm 82:6) 6 “I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.
It also explains:
(Psalm 82:1) . . .God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One; In the middle of the gods he judges. . .
The only way to identify exactly what kind of "god" is being referred to is to use some other title or name as well such as Almighty or Jehovah/Yahwah or whatever form you prefer.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Philippians 2 v 5 etc: Not Pauline theology but his quotation of a hymn in common use that ascribes both the nature and title of Divinity to Jesus.
(Philippians 2:5-7) 5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. . .
I think this explains itself
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Divinity of the Spirit is clearly seen throughout Scripture beginning with Genesis 1 v 2.
The fact that the Holy Spirit is Holy and powerful is not at issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That the Holy Spirit is a person, rather than a force or influence is seen as passages where he is referred to as 'he': John 16 v 13.
(John 16:13) 13 However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide YOU into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears he will speak, and he will declare to YOU the things coming. . .
Many things are refered to as he/she even though they are not really people cars, boats and even if his Holy Spirit were technically a person, it does not make it God himself. The scriptures are littered with examples of God's spirit being an active force used to fulfil his will, including the one that you yourself quoted.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
An example of where he is directly referred to as God is Acts 5 v 3 - 4.
Not sure what you are trying to say here, have you got that scripture right. (I haven't read the rest of the posts so I apologise if this has already been cleared up)
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's also interesting that the very early church battled with doecetism - ie that Jesus only seemed to be human. They had no problem convincing people of his divinity, but they had to reassert the idea that Jesus was also a real man in the face of those who said he didn't really suffer on the cross, that he never left a shadow or even that he walked just above the ground, leaving no footprints. It's only as the waters grew muddy away from the source that the teachers in the church felt they had to combat those who taught Jesus was a mere man.
This is indeed interesting but does not argue for the Scriptural basis of the Trinity
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And don't forget the baptismal formula that ascribes a collective, singular name to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - ie in the name of the Father...
A collective name is not always a singular name and does not indicate that all are the same person; My husband, I and all my children share the same name but we are very different people.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I see no mystery, no difficulty here.
If you accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, as clearly demonstrated in Scripture and required by the Christian theology of Incarnation and Atonement, then the Trinity is not a problem at all.
Incarnation and atonement are totally seperate issues and I don't have any problem with either of them since for a God who created the awesome universe such things are no problem at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If however, you reject the Divinity and Deity of Jesus, then of course the Trinity becomes a stumbling block.
You seem to assume that if I cannot accept Jesus as the Almighty God that I cannot accept him as Lord, or that I am somehow disregarding or disrespecting his role as saviour.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The question must be, of course, do you reject the Trinity because you refuse the Deity of Jesus, or do you reject the Deity of Jesus because you can't grasp the obvious teaching of scripture on a trinitarian Godhead?
If they were that obvious we wouldn't be having that discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that all Unitarian thinking people reject the Trinity simply because they are prejudiced against the Divinity of the Son of God in the first place.
Or that all Trinitarians are prejudiced against all Unitarians.
[fixed code -- 12uthy -- your code is much improved, but could you take a moment to check out the UBB code thread in the Styx -- you seem to be missing out on one simple step that would make your posts a lot easier to follow and my life a lot simpler]
[ 01. May 2005, 17:40: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as my illustration of Elizabeth Windsor being modalism; I thought modalism was when God was Father THEN Son, THEN HS in turn.
The thought that God is first the Father, then the Son, and is now with us as the HS exclusively is called sabellianism, and is a form of modalism. Modalism claims that the one-personal God picks and chooses whether he wants to manfiest as either, Father, Son or holy spirit at any given moment. You can find this teaching among "oneness pentecoastals" or "Christadelphians".
When the concept of "person" is applied to denote the Father, Son and Holy spirit, this denotes more than role that the one God is in, otherwise that would imply modalism. "Person" does not denote a being either, as that would imply tritheism. What it really means is that there are three ways of being in God, that has a certain polarity, but are not independent of each other. (I'm doing a barthian take on it here for you)
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Divinity of the Son is clearly seen in
John 1 v 1: the Word is with God and is God.
I believe I already explained this scripture on the other thread.
How do you explain the OT prophecies that say the Messiah will be God Himself?
quote:
1. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall he upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of eternity, Prince of peace. (Isa. 9:6-7).
2. It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him that He may save us: THIS IS JEHOVAH we have waited for Him, we will rejoice and be glad in His salvation (Isa. 25:9).
3. Behold, the LORD JEHOVIH will come in strength, and His arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him. He shall feed His flock like a shepherd (Isa. 40:3, 5, 10-11).
4. Behold, the days come that I will raise up to David a righteous offshoot, who shall reign a king, and shall prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth: and this is His name whereby they shall call Him, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:15, 16).
5. Behold, I send Mine Angel, who shall prepare the way before Me, and the LORD whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple. (Mal. 3:1, 2; 4:5).
6. I saw, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; and there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages may worship Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed; and all dominions shall worship Him, and obey Him (Dan. 7:13, 14, 27).
7. Jehovah, remember David, who sware unto Jehovah, and vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob,If I shall enter within the tent of my house,if I shall go up upon my couch,if I shall give sleep to mine eyes, until I find out a place for Jehovah, a habitation for the Mighty One of Jacob. Lo, we heard of Him at Ephratah, we found Him in the fields of the forest. (Ps. 132:1-7, 9).
8. The Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and hear a Son, and shall call His name GOD-WITH-US (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:22, 23).
While I'm not a fan of a Trinity that is understood as a Trinity of persons, I have no doubts about the divinity of Jesus. He is Jehovah made visible, for "he who has seen Me has seen the Father."
+
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
quote:
But, to get back to the OP, a Trinity of three omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Beings is an absurd impossibility. It is fine to say that it is a mystery, but this really amounts to no explanation at all.
You are confusing 'being' with 'personhood' here, and you end up with tritheism.
Person or hypostasis in trinitarian language does not denote an individual or a being as we moderns understand the term.
One being, three hypostases.
The Trinity does look like tritheism. I see that there must be some mysterious difference between "being" and "person." This still amounts to no explanation.
Of course, if by "person" we mean something such as three ways of understanding God, then they can plausibly be seen as one.
I personally would say, as is said in the Athanasian Creed, that the three are like the soul, body, and activity of a single individual.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I've often thought that the baptism of Jesus was an excellent illustration of the Trinity: God the Son was present - and John the Baptizer says of him "before I was born, he already was"; in Matthew, Mark, and Luke the Spirit descends and the voice of the Father is heard.
Later, Jesus accepts divine titles.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
what about this as an illustration
*snip*
The female known as Elizabeth is one biological entity.
She is a wife.
She is a mother.
She is a monarch.
As was pointed out previously this is modalism, or sabellianism.
It denies the reality of the relationships within the godhead. It is just one God who reveals different aspects of his personality to others.
Does Elizabeth the wife ever plead with Elisabeth the monarch or listen to Elisabeth the mother?
Possibly - Elizabeth the mother might well behave in a certain way because she is the Queen. As a wife, she might behave a certain way because she is also a mother. She might not speak to herself in words, but it may be that the position she holds dictates her behaviour in other spheres.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
12uthy.
Many thanks for predictably using you grossly distorted version of the Bible to back up your prejudiced argument.
I think you'll find that no church accepts your rewritten Bible as authentic opr authoritative - other than the Jehovah's Witnesses to which you belong.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
Could I put in a word for the JWs' New World Translation of the Bible, as its accuracy seems significant to this discussion? Yes, the translators obviously did bring their theological preconceptions to the task of translating - but that's inevitable; all translators bring their own theological slant, inevitably and usually unconsciously.
I belong to an NT Greek discussion list and John 1.1 comes up quite regularly. There are serious academics on the list, and the general agreement seems to be that the NWT's handling of the verse can be defended as a possible, though perhaps not very likely, translation. As someone who reads Greek I think the NWT NT (obviously I can say nothing about the OT as my Hebrew's minimal) is generally a pretty accurate translation, though the translators' determination to give as exact a translation of Koine Greek as they could does make the English painfully stilted at times.
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
At least it's a bit better than a certain version of John 1 we've read about recently that says that "the Word" should be translated as the plan. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
Hi folks,
This will be my last post for today since my health is non-too good atm but since I effectively started this fire, I feel I must clarify a few things.
Mudfrog,
I appreciate your explanation about the three "persons" and I agree that English semantics is responsible for much of the confusion.
However, if we are to take each role of God as a separate person, why limit it to a Trinity. After all, is he not:
A creator (The Father)
a Redeemer (The Son)
an evangeliser (The Spirit) but also
a Judge
an avenger and
a mighty warrior
That would make him a polytheism.
But enough of the "theospeak".
Until we can agree on a definition of the terms divinity and deity, I shall try to lay out my beliefs regarding the "3 persons" and their relationship to each other.
Jehovah is the Almighty and Eternal God and creator of all things.
Having said that, it is clear (at least to me) from Scripture that Jesus was the first person that He created and that all "other things" were created "through" Jesus but according to Jehovah's will. Thus Jesus can truly be said to be his "only begotten son"
(Since you evidently believe that the NWT is untrustworthy I shall use the English Standard Version.)
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Pro 8:22 "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
Pro 8:23 Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth,
Pro 8:26 before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
Pro 8:28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
Pro 8:29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
Pro 8:30 then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always,
Pro 8:31 rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man.
Since he is evidently a creation by Jehovah, he cannot be the same person although I concede that it could be said that he is a part of him.
The Spirit, I believe, is only a person in the sense of it being anthropomorphise in order to reassure his disciples. For every scripture that refers to the Spirit as a person, there are many, many that refer to it as a motivating and creating force.
Thus, God created all things "through" Jesus and the Holy Spirit which is why we are baptised in the name of these three.
Likewise it can be said that since the Holy Spirit is used to accomplish his will and both have come from Jehovah, both these "persons" can be said to be a part of the one God, Jehovah. Just as we can be said to have a spirit which is a part of us.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Hope this clarifies things a bit, if not you'll have to talk amongst yourselves for a while because I going to bed to rest. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Rest up, 12uthy. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
And when you get back, I'd really like to hear your take on that passage of Isaiah that Freddy cited. quote:
Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall he upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of eternity, Prince of peace. (Isa. 9:6-7).
That one.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as my illustration of Elizabeth Windsor being modalism; I thought modalism was when God was Father THEN Son, THEN HS in turn.
Does she have any relationship between these? Does the wife etarnally begets the mother? Does the monarch proceed from the wife?
What you present us with, is the teaching that God is one, but reveals himself as three. This is not my cup of tea. Think about it:
"Although Modalism initially has appeal in its simplicity, it is a dangerous teaching because it misunderstands not only “what” God is, but more importantly, “who” God is and therefore who we are. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are only modes of God (or “masks” as some taught), then the God behind the mask is unknown to us. We are forced to understand the Father, Son and Spirit as illusions and not the true God we desire to know and love. Moreover, if we are God’s children in relation to him as Father, but the Father is an illusion, then our status as his children is also an illusion (Gal 4:6)."
http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/Modalism/
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
To go back to the source:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
We have been over this many times. Is it a dead horse?
I don´t think so. For me, a dead horse must "qualify" these points:
1. Discussed over and over.
2. Not be that important.
Let´s try it out on a few things:
Evolution:
1. check
2. check
Homosexuality:
1. check
2. check
Trinity:
1. check
2. does not check.
GOD BLESS!
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
The only problem, k-mann, is that whether we use modalism or not we still don't understand what God is in Trinity- he is illusive to our understanding. So what the heck is a Person when referring to God? It sure ain't the same thing I mean when speaking of a human person. "Person" is just a word to fill in a space of unknown and perhaps unknowable. It's the same for me with the salvation of the cross: what is it? Ransom? Victory over death? Penal substitution? All of the above? Or not exactly?
To me, theological language is an approximation. It's like physicists trying to explain concepts of quantum and relativity to me, a layman, without being able to communicate the math because it would be over my head. They have to use examples like trains, elevators, spaceships, and cats in boxes to try to give me a sense of the subjects.
And theologically God is eternally over our heads except in the clues he gave to his followers during his Incarnation and the bits the Spirit gave in the OT and to Paul and other Church Fathers.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
Could I put in a word for the JWs' New World Translation of the Bible, as its accuracy seems significant to this discussion? Yes, the translators obviously did bring their theological preconceptions to the task of translating - but that's inevitable; all translators bring their own theological slant, inevitably and usually unconsciously.
I belong to an NT Greek discussion list and John 1.1 comes up quite regularly. There are serious academics on the list, and the general agreement seems to be that the NWT's handling of the verse can be defended as a possible, though perhaps not very likely, translation. As someone who reads Greek I think the NWT NT (obviously I can say nothing about the OT as my Hebrew's minimal) is generally a pretty accurate translation, though the translators' determination to give as exact a translation of Koine Greek as they could does make the English painfully stilted at times.
OK Greek scholar,
I've never heard a good defense for the NWT's inconsistent translation of κυριο&sigmaf.
This is sometimes rendered as "Jehovah", which, of course, is never found in any Greek manuscript. Ever. "The translators' determination to give as exact a translation of Koine Greek as they could"?"Generally a pretty accurate translation"?
[ 01. May 2005, 17:45: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The only problem, k-mann, is that whether we use modalism or not we still don't understand what God is in Trinity- he is illusive to our understanding. So what the heck is a Person when referring to God? It sure ain't the same thing I mean when speaking of a human person. "Person" is just a word to fill in a space of unknown and perhaps unknowable.
My view as well. You still end up with a mystery. Which is ironic, since, as I understand it, the point of the Incarnation was to shed light on human darkness:
quote:
Isaiah 9 - The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light;
Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, Upon them a light has shined.
Isaiah 42 - I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.
Isaiah 60 - Arise, shine; For your light has come! And the glory of the LORD is risen upon you. 2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, And deep darkness the people; But the LORD will arise over you, And His glory will be seen upon you. The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising.
Mark 4 - For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light.
Luke 1 - the Dayspring from on high has visited us; To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,
John 1.4 - In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it… 9That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
John 3.19 - And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 8.12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
John 12 “And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46“I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.
John 9 “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
John 18 - For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.
The point is that Jesus came to make the invisible God visible. This is why He says "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." And why John says:
quote:
John 1.18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
So it is ironic that Christianity has concocted this incomprehensible concept of a Trinity of persons.
Doesn't it work much better to see the Father-Son language as metaphor for "God-as-He-exists-beyond-all-human-understanding" and "God-as-we-can-comprehend-Him"?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Doesn't it work much better to see the Father-Son language as metaphor for "God-as-He-exists-beyond-all-human-understanding" and "God-as-we-can-comprehend-Him"?
Not when God-as-we-can-comprehend-Him says to God-as-He-exists-beyond-all-human-understanding, "Nevertheless not my will, but Thy will, be done."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
