Jesus has a God?

[21centpilgrim]

Thanks for the response Jose

"Echad", as I suspect you understand it, simply means one. One bunch of grapes is still only one singular bunch regardless of how many grapes it has. One team is one team without reference to the amount of members. The quantity of grapes or members does not alter the meaning of the word "one" - "Echad." Some use Gen 2:24 to argue that it means a compound unity, but I think that is not a valid argument. Adam and Eve did not literally become one human being. This word is yet another point of controversy in this whole trinitarian debate.

As what one-'echad, means in relation to YHWH. Doesn't Gal. 3:20 play into this discussion and have some bearing?

'Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.- Gal. 3:20

This definitely is speaking of only one singular being. And Jesus says that the testimony of the Father and of himself are two independant testimonies.

In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true.
I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”
john 8:17,18

[Jose]

Thanks for the response Jose

As what one-'echad, means in relation to YHWH. Doesn't Gal. 3:20 play into this discussion and have some bearing?

'Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.- Gal. 3:20

This definitely is speaking of only one singular being. And Jesus says that the testimony of the Father and of himself are two independant testimonies.

I think this verse does speak to the topic although it is directly speaking about angels and the Old Covenant. Interestingly, the Amplified New Testament (edited by Trinitarians) translates that verse in an untrinitarian fashion as "God is one person."

Amplified - "Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party – there can be no mediator with just one person. Yet God is [only] one person – and he was the sole party [in giving that promise to Abraham. But the law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both]

Of course on the other hand, Jesus is the meditor of the new covenant.
1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"

Here again, God is one of the parties involved in the covenant and is therefore not the mediator. When two parties are at odds with each other a third person is brought in to arbitrate between them. Jesus is the third party who mediates on man's behalf as our representative, and on God's behalf as his.

[dizerner]

Trinitarians believe God himself has supplied the Lamb, a promise not conditional upon works; God has become his own Mediator, because no human being could do it due to original sin. Trinitarians believe God is One, in some deep sense, just as Gal. 3:20 and the Shema observe; but not only One. Jesus is not functioning as an intermediary between God and God, but rather God and creation. Paul's point here was to contrast a conditional covenant with an unconditional promise, not to define the nature of God. If God unconditionally promised something, he himself will do it with no outside mediator (Moses was not the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, but rather a separate in-between covenant). We believe in Christ God did fulfill his promise and demonstrate that God is One. But we believe that God himself became the Mediator because the promise is unconditional (only the Law necessitates an earthly intermediary because it is conditional upon works not grace). There is only One Mediator between God and man precisely because of this point: God promised to do it all and be our Mediator. The Old Covenant mediator Moses only ministered death through the Law. The promise of grace is a supernatural exception to Gal. 3:20 and why we "are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:26 NAS) Paul is contrasting Law (the work of man) with grace (the work of God). And the only way God himself can become the Mediator we need, is if God is more than one Person, and comes and fulfills his own Law he required of us that no man could fulfill. So Jesus as an intermediary does not violated Gal. 3:20, since God is still One, and there are still two parties involved (God and humans). The New Covenant is that God will "put a new heart within us" and "cause us to walk in his statutes," and this represents the grace of God doing for us what we cannot do—and it is all done in and through Christ. "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. (Heb 8:6 NAS)" God is still One and the Mediator still mediates two parties yet the promise is not conditional upon our works, but rather the promise of the Spirit poured out through the work of Christ! We are saved from our old nature by becoming wrapped up in the very Trinity of God Himself! Of God we are in Christ Jesus who has been made for us the very wisdom and power of God, and revealed to us by the Spirit.

The question I would ask is this. If Paul's point was that God, by unilateral monergistic supernatural grace, promised to unconditionally fulfill his promise to Abraham no matter what, and that means that God alone fulfills the promise with no intermediary, what role does Christ play, and wouldn't Christ being an intermediary contradict Paul's very point that he's making?

"'Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one."

If Christ is not God, than God does not even need Christ to fulfill the promise God made to Abraham, since a promise doesn't need an intermediator. But for us Trinitarians, we believe the promise didn't need an intermediator because the promise was for an intermediator who would redeem us from the Law.

[Jose]

Trinitarians believe God himself has supplied the Lamb,

That's true, God provided the Lamb, but he is not the Lamb. There is the Lord God Almighty who sits on the throne and the Lamb next to him. Two separate beings. One is God Almighty, the other is Jesus the mediator between God and creation.

God has become his own Mediator, because no human being could do it due to original sin.

The idea that no human being could do it comes down to us from church tradition, but where does scripture say that?
I find that It was through a man (anthropos) that sin entered into the world and it is through another man (anthropos) that sin is taken away. Romans 5:15 "But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many."

The only requirement regarding the acceptability of Christ's sacrifice was that he be spotless, which He was

[Homer]

Jose wrote:

The idea that no human being could do it comes down to us from church tradition, but where does scripture say that?
I find that It was through a man (anthropos) that sin entered into the world and it is through another man (anthropos) that sin is taken away. Romans 5:15 "But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many."

The only requirement regarding the acceptability of Christ's sacrifice was that he be spotless, which He was

You make it sound as though any man could have potentially served as this spotless lamb by living a sinless life. Why did deity (since you do not accept Jesus as God) have to come down to earth to do the job? Isn't it because Jesus was Emmanuel, "God with us"? And what about this "God with us business" anyway?

[dizerner]

Trinitarians believe God himself has supplied the Lamb,

That's true, God provided the Lamb, but he is not the Lamb. There is the Lord God Almighty who sits on the throne and the Lamb next to him. Two separate beings. One is God Almighty, the other is Jesus the mediator between God and creation.

God has become his own Mediator, because no human being could do it due to original sin.

The idea that no human being could do it comes down to us from church tradition, but where does scripture say that?
I find that It was through a man (anthropos) that sin entered into the world and it is through another man (anthropos) that sin is taken away. Romans 5:15 "But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many."

The only requirement regarding the acceptability of Christ's sacrifice was that he be spotless, which He was

I'd have to say if Jesus is just another human, I don't see how God provided the Lamb. But also the idea that all humans sin is found both in the OT and NT, how can you say then, that it only came about through church tradition?

[TheEditor]

Though I have officially tired of trinitarian discussions, one aspect of it has always fascinated me; Why is it that we continue to conflate identity with essence? Why is it that we can't just agree that Jesus has "God-essence" (divinity) but that the "identity" of "God" (in some peculiar or special sense) is the Father? Do we not see hints of such peppered throughout the NT? For instance, we continually see a delineation between Father and Son, and Father as "God" and Son as "Lord".

We are told that no one can know the mind of the Lord so as to comprehend his ways and thoughts, but that we do have the mind of Christ. Why? It seems there are more than enough verses to cast doubt on the trinity doctrine as handed down, certainly as laid out by the Athenasian Creed. And, the mere fact that if you put 3 trinitarians in a room you have ten different opinions on it should be telling.

Recently, I have been reading Servetus' views on Jesus. He has actually been historically miscast in his views. Though Unitarians and Arians alike claim him, he appears to be neither. He had some interesting thoughts. I'll post them as I have time.

Regards, Brenden.

[Jose]

Recently, I have been reading Servetus' views on Jesus. He has actually been historically miscast in his views. Though Unitarians and Arians alike claim him, he appears to be neither. He had some interesting thoughts. I'll post them as I have time.

Regards, Brenden.

Please do., I would like to read them.

[dizerner]

It seems there are more than enough verses to cast doubt on the trinity doctrine as handed down, certainly as laid out by the Athenasian Creed. And, the mere fact that if you put 3 trinitarians in a room you have ten different opinions on it should be telling.

Just a ridiculous statement to me, sorry. "People disagree on a doctrine therefore it's untrue," is logic unworthy of... anyone. And this "more than enough verses" to disprove such and such a thing goes right back at Unitarianism, which sweeps under the rug way too many verses (like the gem, "I can easily explain away the Word being God" ). The majority of the Christian world does not embrace Trinitarianism for lack of Biblical foundation, it's preposterous, we simply cannot ditch the doctrine without ignoring a substantial amount of verses.

[Jose]

You make it sound as though any man could have potentially served as this spotless lamb by living a sinless life.

For all I know, maybe any man could have, but that is God's perogative and He chose Christ. Does scripture anywhere say that the lamb had to be divine? Honestly, I would prefer to know if I have overlooked it.

Why did deity (since you do not accept Jesus as God) have to come down to earth to do the job?

This is your presupposition that needs to be proven. Again, I would like to see some scripture stating that it was necessary for the lamb to be God.

Isn't it because Jesus was Emmanuel, "God with us"? And what about this "God with us business" anyway?

After 400 years of God being silent, Matthew quotes Isaiah and reassures Israel that God has not forgotten them, even in the midst of the Roman occupation. A Virgin bearing a son will be a sign to them that He is still with them, that He is their deliverer. The passage does not demand or imply that God was being born.