Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

Homer's point was that if all three are "fully God" even outside the confines of the "godhead" (the Creeds state the Jesus was "fully God and fully Man") then how could this not mean that there are Three Gods?

Indeed there ‘could’ be three, but God says He is one. So who then is Jesus?

Jesus says He and the father are one. Ok, then they are One. I do not see why three parts could not be one. They all share the same substance and divinity, because ‘they’ say they do. I do not see any problem with this in relation to God, for God is not man (or even close) therefore trying to force the created humans concept of personhood around a being that is quite possibly larger and more dynamic than space and the whole Universe, does not make sense (like trying to say what happens in a fish bowl happens in the ocean). I am sure the sheer size and dimensions of God demand that His 'persons' or ‘personhood’ cannot be limited to our human concept of personhood.
‘Therefore’ I can revert back to believing that it makes sense that if God (super magnificent and incomprehensible) says He is One, and Jesus ‘also’ says He is One with the One God, then, If I want to believe Jesus, I find no other alternative but to believe He and the Father are One God (and Modalists can't make sense of the communication and distinctions between them).

Like I asked on the other thread; Who do you call Lord?

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I would assume by my professions here that you would know that I see Jesus as Lord.

This isn't one of those "God declares it so it's true" arguments JR? Horrors! It isn't that humans are trying to fence God in (when it comes to His nature anyway) but it does appear tha the language of God regarding Himself is such that it lends to human understanding of Father and Son relationships. Obviously, God does not have a "Spirit Wife" that he created baby Jesus (Jehovah Jr.) with (although when I was a JW Pioneer I had a chat with a bizarre little group that thought he did and her name was "Wisdom"--ala Proverbs 8). But there is some aspect of the relationship between Father and Son that these terms highlight. Maybe it is merely the love that the Father has for the Son. Maybe it is to make us understand the degree of pain the Father felt when the Son willingly laid down his life. I don't know.

But, one thing I do know; He didn't make it crystal clear. It is the result of theological cogitation, and I believe that most who accept it do so without due consideration.

As for the JWs and logical thought; Of course the theological framework is full of holes if you know where to poke for them. But the presentation is rational, it's not emotional. In some respects it is really a throwback to the rationalism of a couple hundred years ago. It also has a pigeon hole for the majority of people who do not feel "worthy" enough to go to heaven. Mormons on the other hand, I'll have to agree with you there....

Regards, Brenden.

[PR]

Morning to all...

While I had a few minutes I thought I'd take a shot at clarifying my understanding of the topic at hand...

I'm not here to defend the word trinity and it's accompanying baggage, so let me restate what I find the bible teaches:

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God

The bible also teaches that there is one God.

I find many references throughout the bible that attest to this.

I don't have time to respond to Brenden's take on John 10:33 right now. But Brenden, if you could, please let me know what your understanding of Psalm 82:6 is. I think that's a good place to continue our discussion.

Thanks,

Phil

Lamentations 3:22 Because of the Lord’s great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail.
23 They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.
24 I say to myself, “The Lord is my portion; therefore I will wait for him.”

[jriccitelli]

This isn't one of those "God declares it so it's true" arguments JR? Horrors!

Just like the Atonement, it is ‘because of His magnificence' that allows it to be true and sensible.
Jesus blood can atone for all humanity ‘because’ He is Magnificant (greater than all).
God can be three ‘because’ He is Magnificant (greater than all).
It is not because God ‘declares’ it, but because His magnificence ‘allows’ it.
Whereas Jesus being anything other than God does not ‘allow’ either to be true or sensible.
(I.e. I cannot have three persons in me, nor can a man or created thing cover the sins of the world, but God can)

I would assume by my professions here that you would know that I see Jesus as Lord (Brenden)

The next question of course then is the God of scripture (Jehovah, Yahweh, or…) Lord?

You cannot say Jesus is Lord, and also say Jehovah is Lord without them being the same God.
Either they are One Lord and One God, or you have two gods.
There is no other alternative allowed by scripture.
And the alternative is to have ‘another god’ which is just where practicing JW’s must go, and amazingly try to defend for about 1 minute, until they get upset close their briefcase and leave.
You on the other hand, I hope for better things

Scripture declares there is only One God, One Savior and One Lord, and that the One God will not share His Glory with another, and that God knows of no-other Gods (therefore ‘all other gods’ are false gods ).

[TheEditor]

This isn't one of those "God declares it so it's true" arguments JR? Horrors!

Just like the Atonement, it is ‘because of His magnificence' that allows it to be true and sensible.
Jesus blood can atone for all humanity ‘because’ He is Magnificant (greater than all).
God can be three ‘because’ He is Magnificant (greater than all).
It is not because God ‘declares’ it, but because His magnificence ‘allows’ it.
Whereas Jesus being anything other than God does not ‘allow’ either to be true or sensible.
(I.e. I cannot have three persons in me, nor can a man or created thing cover the sins of the world, but God can)

Yeah, I was kinda razzing ya.

I would assume by my professions here that you would know that I see Jesus as Lord (Brenden)

The next question of course then is the God of scripture (Jehovah, Yahweh, or…) Lord?

You cannot say Jesus is Lord, and also say Jehovah is Lord without them being the same God.
Either they are One Lord and One God, or you have two gods.
There is no other alternative allowed by scripture.
And the alternative is to have ‘another god’ which is just where practicing JW’s must go, and amazingly try to defend for about 1 minute, until they get upset close their briefcase and leave.
You on the other hand, I hope for better things

Scripture declares there is only One God, One Savior and One Lord, and that the One God will not share His Glory with another, and that God knows of no-other Gods (therefore ‘all other gods’ are false gods ).

Well, well, resorting to logical conundrums now are we? Isaiah's reference to only "one Savior" is easily dispensed with. Contextually, he was speaking to Israel for a specific rescue. Besides that, Jehovah had already raised up many "Saviors" (God's words, not mine) in the past. Were these "false Saviors" as well, because they were not Jehovah? Using YHWH's words in their context contrasting His trueness to the claims of idol-worshippers in this discussion seems a stretch. You know, people use certain exlusive words like "all" to lead to some conclusions I notice you have a hard time accepting.

Speaking of conundrums, I have many of my own that have kept me firmly in the camp of the "Unsure-ians":

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, even the One who is to be praised forever, knows I am not lying. (2 Corinthians 11:31)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing. (Ephesians 1:3)

Now may the God who supplies endurance and comfort grant you to have among yourselves the same mental attitude that Christ Jesus had, that with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5-6)

Why does Jesus have a God? By the way, as you probably know, I could easily fill this page with similar verses.

And whatever it is that you do in word or in work, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through him.
(Colossians 3:17)

This formula is rife throughout the NT, that of doing things through the office of Christ to the glory of God the Father. What is the logical implication of these verses to the unpredjudiced mind?

Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2:36)

To borrow from Jesus' words, who is greater, the one sent forth, or the one sending?

there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Who is the "one God" to believers, according to this verse? If the answer is the "Father", then what does that make the Son? If the answer is "the One God is the trinity", then what are we to make of the above verse?

I am sure trinitarian theologians have been all over these verses for 1500 years. The fact that one needs to get into mental gymnastics rivaled only by the JW 1914 chronolgy, tells me that the trinity is no simple affirmation of faith.

As I have stated before, I do not consider myself an Arian. I just cannot affirm the trinity. I believe that there are many types of people in the world, but there is one distinction that is as common as Introversion versus Extroversion, and that is this; There are those that like to have all of the blanks filled in; like to have all loose ends sewn up; those that feel much better after a decision is made, then before it. Indeed, for these people, the feeling of having a decision un-made is quite anxiety-inducing. Then there is the other type of person, one that is able to feel comfortable without forming a conclusion, or to keep options open. I am not denegrating Type 1, (I am married to one ) just making an observation. I guess it just isn't something that I feel a pressing need to decide one way or another, because no matter which way I decide, there are going to be nagging questions. So, I happily hold it in abeyence and cause consternation to the aforementioned types.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

But Brenden, if you could, please let me know what your understanding of Psalm 82:6 is. I think that's a good place to continue our discussion.

Hi Phil,

Okay. The Psalm appears to be lamenting the wrongful course of the appointed judges that were taking bribes and siding with the wrongdoers, instead of administering justice, which was their designated function. (Deuteronomy 1:17) The judges were called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" due to their position. Apparently, they took an inflated view of themselves, but were told they would "die as mortals". The Psalmist ends with the supplication that God should rise up and present righteous judgment.

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

There are those that like to have all of the blanks filled in; like to have all loose ends sewn up; those that feel much better after a decision is made, then before it. Indeed, for these people, the feeling of having a decision un-made is quite anxiety-inducing. Then there is the other type of person, one that is able to feel comfortable without forming a conclusion, or to keep options open...I guess it just isn't something that I feel a pressing need to decide one way or another, because no matter which way I decide, there are going to be nagging questions. So, I happily hold it in abeyence and cause consternation to the aforementioned types.

I think this is very true and well-said.

[TheEditor]

Thanks Steve,

My wife would agree--It is true that I cause her consternation....

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

The context of the Isaiah statements reminded them and us, that there is no other God and no other power anywhere that can save Israel and no other thing that should be trusted to do so. All other ‘saviors’ were in historical contexts, and the power and their trust was to be in God, the true Savior as they could do nothing without Him. To put Jesus in the context of just another historical event savior is impossible, and impossible to apply to He who saves us from our sins, who transfers our body, who abolishes death, who is Savior of the world - to a human deliverer in the OT. None of these men could save us or the world. And that is the Isaiah (and other Prophets) point: God alone saves, and God told them to not put trust in men to save.
“…who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” (Phil 3:20)
“… but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light” (2 Tim 1:10)
“We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God…” (1 John 4:14)
"It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world." (John 4:42)

So again: who should we trust in to save us from our sins, and transfer our bodies, and abolish death, and who also is Savior of the world? (If God is not our Saviour, it makes God a liar. It is a slap in the face to Isaiah if God changed His mind on this matter, and it makes Isaiah seem like he was wasting His breath)

“Yet I have been the LORD your God Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any god except Me, For there is no savior besides Me. 5 I cared for you in the wilderness, In the land of drought…” (Hosea 13)
I think this is very true and well-said.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I can't see how God cannot use Jesus to be the Chief Agent of our Salvation and still be the Savior. Maybe the better question would be, Why is the Father excluded from the salvific formula because the Son is sent to do the saving? I believe a false choice is being proposed to force a conclusion that doesn't need to be made, fueled by a desire to shore up a theology.

By the way, my other points still stand on their own.

Regards, Brenden.