Trinity.

Discuss topics raised by callers on the radio program
john316yes
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:38 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by john316yes » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:34 pm

Sure Homer. First, In Jesus first visitation to Earth as the incarnate Son he never comes and demands to be worshiped as God, he does this indirectly. His identity is always in someway or another covered by the unbelief Jews and little faith of his disciples. Nevertheless, when I said, God does not change, we know from scripture that it says : "He is not man that he should change his mind" and " (God) does not change like shifting shadows" and "He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow " so from that ,we know that if Jesus, the Son of God, had a relationship with the Father as he repeats time and time again in the scriptures, we can be certain that it did not start when he "dwelt among us," rather this relationship always was. The best verse that supprts this is found John`17y when Jesus prays to the Father he says, "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by TheEditor » Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:24 am

Okay then,

I was counting on my "field goggles" comment to evoke some participation.... :lol:

Homer, Yes, I think I agree about fellowship. But, in the narrow sense of personal interaction in the flesh, I guess I am trying to differentiate between impersonal Cathedral settings and the breakfast-nook variety. But point taken.

John6809, Thanks for the support. I will comment more below on the issue you raised regarding "love of truth".


John316,

So maybe if you can just tell me plainly whether you believe that Jesus is God that would be good. The funny thing is I dont know your position. I know you reject the Nicene Creed, and the trinity. I also dont know what Ho theos means. If you could explain that.


Okay. John 1:1 reads: "In beginning was the word the word was with the [ho] god [theos] and god was the word he was in beginning with the god". That is a word for word reading.

The problem comes in when trying to determine why the word "the" [ho] is not used when talking about the Word when it says "god was the word" not "the god was the word". Whatever the case, the text said that the same Word was "toward" the god and was "with" the god. You can see why some have trouble juggling such thoughts.

For me, I base my faith in Christ on agreement with Peter's statement that "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God". This met with Jesus' approval and I see no reason to believe that it wouldn't today.

But anybody who dosnt agree with church, or the trinity, there is something strange about that. It just is not American. I just dont get it. I would understand church houses in other countries, but in America that is a little starnge. Also rejecting the trinity also seems un American. Its just strange. So maybe you could clarify. Becuase maybe you need help, which then I could help you with scripture.


If I didn't believe you were serious, I would think you are what you young folks call "a troll". Un-American??? Are we talking about Scripture or the Constitution? Are you being serious??

As believers we encourage people to test the beliefs they hold. Indeed, we are quick to draw certain conclusions about those who either refuse to do so, or after doing so, choose to reject evidence presented to them that detracts from their beliefs. It may be easy to ask others to challenge their religious notions, however, making the same test ourselves may pose its own share of difficulties. This is particularly true if we have invested a great deal emotionally in those notions and much of our emotional security is linked with beliefs that are challenged in the testing. If you characterize yourself as a lover of truth, then likely you would profess to stand by the truth and defend it at all costs. So then, any pursuit of the facts that would go to enhance or affirm what you have already concluded as being true would be readily acceptable to you.

However, what if an inquiry and analysis led you to not merely affirm certain conclusions, but to the disconfirmation of some, and the drawing of new conclusions? What if you discovered that you had some illusions? What if evidence indicated that you were in some sort of denial? Would you then welcome such an inquiry? Would you then want to make such an analysis?

If your answer to the the above questions is No, is it due to fear? Is "truth" really all that important to you, or do you content yourself with remaining within some comfortable parameters?

So, as this conversation unfolds, I can tell by certain statements that you appear to have a certain belief "system". This entails not only certain cherished doctrines, but notions regarding "church" and "America". From this I can suppose that you probably have a typical Calvinist, Premillenial, "God's hand is especially on America", ideaology. If so, I would recommend that you rethink some of these notions. Challenge what you believe to be true. You may find that you are currently accepting ideas merely because others tell you they are true. And I am not referring to the trinity. Recall, it was the ecclesiastical paradigm that prevented many of the pious Jews from accepting Jesus.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

john316yes
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:38 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by john316yes » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:00 am

Editor, I still insure whether you go to church or not, if not, that is Un -American. I'm serious where in the wild world of sports did you learn that church was unnecessary? Where did you get this idea that we should just meet in a house without having a pastor? You need a pastor! This again is un-American. We don't live in TEE PEES! We are Americans. Americans go to church. It has always been that way, Dad liked it, America likes it and works good so far. I'm just joking Editor. :lol:

But yeah, for somebody not plainly affirm the deity of Christ, and the confusion that you have with Greek grammar, has led me to believe you are struggling with letting Jesus be the Lord of your life. He is the Lord you should submit to him. Do you still attend JW meetings? You need some help. Your not submitting to any Christian leader or teacher. You think their all wrong. This has to do with your unwillingness to make Jesus Lord.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Trinity.

Post by jriccitelli » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:22 am

316, I am an adult, but like others, neither do I know where it says Jesus was eternally the Son. I wouldn't argue He wasn't except that I'm sure it says at one point that 'today' I have begotten you, in Hebrews and Psalms.

I also can reason that God does not actually produce offspring (unless he really is Mormon), so begotten and Son must be Anthropomorphisms to help us understand God.

And there are so many verses that prove the Deity of Jesus why would you need to quote a creed?

And since when does being American define what scripture teaches?
Most cults i know are very American.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by TheEditor » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:28 am

John, I am relieved to hear you were joking...really.... :)

It is not just me that has had confusion with the grammar. This has been going on for centuries. But let's leave that aside. What makes you think I haven't submitted? What is it about Peter's confession that you have trouble with? Truly? I have made every effort to answer your questions, you don't even attemt to address mine.

No, I haven't attended a Kingdom Hall in many many years.

What logical connection do you see between submission to a human teaching authority and submission to Christ? Sounds awfully Roman Catholic to me.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4978
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Trinity.

Post by Paidion » Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:03 pm

I don't think anyone can find a place in scripture which states that Jesus is "the eternal son". However, I do think the following passage indicates that God begat or generated Him prior to his birth:

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, second Psalm, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you."


God "raising Jesus" seems to refer to Him being raised to fulfill His mission. And since Paul quotes "You are my Son, today I have begotten you" from the second Psalm, he seems to indicate that this was when God raised Him for a purpose—at the time He begat Him. Surely "being raised" doesn't refer to Messiah's resurrection from the dead. For God didn't "beget" Him on that day. Also in the very next verse Paul adressed Messiah's resurrection from the dead as an additional matter:

And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, “ I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David." (Acts 13:34 ESV)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 82.

PR
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:11 am

Re: Trinity.

Post by PR » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:09 am

Let's look at a couple of scriptures...

John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Now in this situation, John is acting as a reporter so to speak. So this isn't Jesus or the Jews saying this directly, this is John commenting on the event. I believe John describes Jesus "making himself equal with God" because that's what he knew to be the basis of the Jew's outrage. After all, they wanted to kill Him!

So what does it mean to be equal with God? The Greek word is basically the same as what we use for an isosceles triangle, which is equal on all three sides.

For me, and millions of others, Jesus, being "equal with God" means essentially the same as God.

John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Now here, John quotes the Jews directly. Again, the Jew's outrage is caused by Jesus blasphemous claim that He is God! Pretty incredible.

The Divinity of Christ is one of the foundational truths of the Bible, look a little closer and you'll find it. I understand that in some respects it may be beyond our comprehension, but it's true.

Thanks,

Phil

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by Homer » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:46 am

Phil,

I have no disagreement with the idea Jesus is God. I believe He gave up the state He was in and became "The Son" when He was born of the virgin Mary, and is now forever the son of God. Prior to that He existed as The Word, being an aspect of the Father, and through which all things were created. I have no problem with the term "trinity", I'm a trinitarian. But then when it is described as three persons I have a problem seeing how this is not three individuals which would seem to mean three Gods or polytheism. Some think this is no problem but how do you explain it to a monotheist?

PR
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:11 am

Re: Trinity.

Post by PR » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:25 am

Homer I think I would take them to the scriptures, as I did in my post above, that demonstrate the the Divinity of Christ. Here's another example:

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Here we see God the Father using the title "Alpha and the Omega”

Rev 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant[d] with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”


Here we see the Lord Jesus using the same title of "Alpha and the Omega".

So both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ apply the same title to themselves. Again it demonstrates "equality." Is there an aspect of this I don't fully understand? Absolutely.

For me, words like the trinity are man's imperfect attempt to describe what the bible teaches. The word "theocracy" could be used to describe aspects of the Watchtower's teachings, but it's not specifically used in the bible either.

BTW Homer, did you mean modalist? I think most of us would consider ourselves to be monotheist, at least as I understand it.

Thanks,

Phil

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by TheEditor » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:34 am

Hi Phil,

Let's consider what the Jews believed Jesus was saying.

"The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken--do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"
John 10:34-36

The Jews considered it blasphemy, because they considered Jesus claim to be the Son of God to be tantamount to claiming deity. It is worthy of note that the term "ho theos" is not found in this passage, but that's another discussion. Jesus however, does not say "You are right, I am making myself equal with God the Father." Rather, he offers what appears to be corrective counsel when he quotes from the Psalms. How do you account for that? Whay would he equivocate on an issue that, to your lights, the Jews were correct on, namely, that he was claiming to be God in this passage?

The Divinity of Christ is one of the foundational truths of the Bible


I think you meant Deity. Remember, trinitarians do make the distinction.

For me, words like the trinity are man's imperfect attempt to describe what the bible teaches. The word "theocracy" could be used to describe aspects of the Watchtower's teachings, but it's not specifically used in the bible either.


I hope you don't think that I am still a WT adherant, so, this point is probably ineffective with me at this juncture. However, one thing I have always pondered; Why is it that God seemed to choose such ineffective language to communicate this all-imprtant truth? Think about it. The words "Father" and "Son" are larded with meaning in every language, not just English. "Father" always denotes originator, progentor, etc. Read throughout the NT with a non-trinitarian perspective, and you can see how people have honestly come to non-trinitarian conclusions. It's not as though the NT goes out of it's way to underline, boldface, and italicize the trinity teaching. It kinda gets lost if you don't keep it in the forefront of your mind and sort of "read past" contradictaory passages, don't you think?

Homers point is valid; if each "person" of he trinity is "fully god" than any one of the three could be excised from the "godhead" (whatever that means) and we would still be left with "fully god". How could one not see how Monotheism seems to be intellectually at odds with trinitarianism?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Post Reply

Return to “Radio Program Topics”