Is the trinity "extra-biblical"

[Paidion]

Jesus said, “Who do people say that I am?”

His disciples replied, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elijah or another of the prophets.”

Jesus replied, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only because Scripture speaks of a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”

And Jesus answered, saying, “Huh?”

[darinhouston]

I'm reading a series of articles/papers by NTWright generally pertaining to Jesus' Deity and His self-awareness of same. In replying to CS Lewis' "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" argument, I really like what he says, as follows....

"[T]here is a sense in which I still believe this, but it is a heavily revised sense and must be struggled for, not lightly won. There are no short-circuited arguments in the kingdom of God."

I think this should be reflected upon often in this context.

[mattrose]

I'm reading a series of articles/papers by NTWright generally pertaining to Jesus' Deity and His self-awareness of same. In replying to CS Lewis' "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" argument, I really like what he says, as follows....

"[T]here is a sense in which I still believe this, but it is a heavily revised sense and must be struggled for, not lightly won. There are no short-circuited arguments in the kingdom of God."

I think this should be reflected upon often in this context.

This issue with Lewis's trilemma, it seems to me, is that he left out the most interesting L word (Legend). Josh McDowell, I think, popularized the addition of LEGEND into the equation. Basically nobody thinks Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. But lots of people think Jesus' deity was a legendary development. I still like Lewis's approach, but I always add the LEGEND option and I spend the bulk of my time on that one.

All that being said, "LORD" is still the logical outcome. I don't think there's a case to be made, biblically, that Jesus isn't LORD. The debate is between the phrase "Son of God" and the phrase "God the Son." The former is, of course, biblical. The latter is extra-biblical (but may very well be argued biblically).

[darinhouston]

Yes, of course... but in the context of his article it wasn't just his Lordship that was in question. This was just an example of the rigor that he thought should be applied to considering the various aspects of his divinity vs his humanity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ryan07]

LoL @ Paidion ^^^^^^

It seems to me that you can reason your way from the Father to Jesus and back again. To say they are equal is wrong, and yet since the Father is found in Jesus, and it is not just a part of the Father rather the Father in totality that is there allows a large manner of deductions to be made(many of which are inaccurate although perhaps not 'wrong').

[darinhouston]

So, do the "just as" passages in john 17 in any way affect how "Deity verses" of identity between Jesus and God might be interpreted?

20“I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, 21that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. 22The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one – 23I in them and you in me – that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

20“I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, 21that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. 22The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one – 23I in them and you in me – that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me.

Are you asking whether the Father being in Jesus and Jesus in the Father makes them part of an entity which men call "the Trinity"?
If that is so, and Jesus also prayed that those who would believe in Him in the future would be "in Us", would that make those future believers part of the "Trillionity" or what?

[darinhouston]

I'm not saying that, but the dilemma you present is exactly what I am suggesting should give us pause before we read too much into statements like "I and the Father are One" to suggest identity between Jesus and the Father.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheEditor]

Hi Darin,

Yes this, and many other dilemmas. When I was Pioneering as a JW, I spent many hours debating the trinity with Christians of all stripes. Now, I reflect on what a wasted (in some sense) effort it all was. Ones view of this is largely going to be shaped on how they were weaned theologically. For every trinitarian view of Scripture, there is a non-trinitarian explanation. For every non-trinitarian Scripture, there is a trinitarian explanation, for example; One of the favorite ones that trinitarians used to use when I talked with them was Jesus' statement to Phillip:

"Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him: “Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:8-9)

And this would be a fair point for consideration, had Phillip said "Show us God". But he didn't, he said "Show us the Father". And, trinitarians believe that the Personhood of the Father is distinct from the Personhood of the Son. In this case, Jesus was actually saying "If you have seen the Person of the Son you have seen the Person of the Father" And then he goes on to mention the "union" between the Father and Son that is also mentioned in the passage you quoted.

Anymore, I extend my hand of spiritual fellowship to any who say they believe that Jesus is the unique Son of God. Beyond that it matters little to me.

Regards, Brenden.

[mattrose]

I extend my hand of spiritual fellowship to any who say they believe that Jesus is the unique Son of God. Beyond that it matters little to me.

I am more confident than ever that God is a relationship... but I wholly agree with this statement as it regards the extension of fellowship.