Trinity.

[dizerner]

I seek to discover God's self-revelation, not define something that makes sense to me. Muslims would heartily agree with your condemnation. Also concerning the early church father's Trinitarian ideas; first they "didn't have any" now they are "not clear enough." Of course it's a difficult concept, but the question is, does Scripture teach it, and if it does, we would see early Christian wrestling with the idea.

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

I never said that early "fathers" didn't "have any" trinitarian concepts. I have maintained that there exists enough enigma in the early "fathers" writings to be uncertain what they thought. Let's face it, 'not by diversity but by distribution: not by division but by distinction'...give me a break. And Tertullian was known to have hated philosophy. I shudder to think of what gems he would have come up with had he been enamored of it.

But, as time advanced toward Nicea, as can be seen from Tertulian, a trinitarian concept began to be codified. To me it reflects what happens when people don't have "day jobs" and sit around contemplating their navel. Tertullian indicates he is in the minority and at one time large parts if not a majority of the Church were Arian. My point is, it probably doesn't matter in the long run. Fun to debate; fun to talk about. But, I grow as weary of some of my spiritual compatriots who say that trinitarians are deluded and are on God's naughty list for their beliefs as I do of the trinitarians that think the oppposite. It's just there happen to be more trinitarians here.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

Hi Dizerner,

I never said that early "fathers" didn't "have any" trinitarian concepts. I have maintained that there exists enough enigma in the early "fathers" writings to be uncertain what they thought. Let's face it, 'not by diversity but by distribution: not by division but by distinction'...give me a break. And Tertullian was known to have hated philosophy. I shudder to think of what gems he would have come up with had he been enamored of it.

But, as time advanced toward Nicea, as can be seen from Tertulian, a trinitarian concept began to be codified. To me it reflects what happens when people don't have "day jobs" and sit around contemplating their navel. Tertullian indicates he is in the minority and at one time large parts if not a majority of the Church were Arian. My point is, it probably doesn't matter in the long run. Fun to debate; fun to talk about. But, I grow as weary of some of my spiritual compatriots who say that trinitarians are deluded and are on God's naughty list for their beliefs as I do of the trinitarians that think the oppposite. It's just there happen to be more trinitarians here.

Regards, Brenden.

Well, you sure are saying a lot of things here .

1. First off Paidion was the one that said Trinitarianism did not become a common belief. Don't assume everything I say is about you .

2. Whether a concept becomes codified over time has absolutely no bearing on its truth: none, zero, zilch, nada. Completely irrelevant point.

3. Asserting that theology happens when people aren't working at menial tasks and instead are navel gazing, seems simply irreverent. Not only does it disparage seeking out the knowledge of God, and rightly dividing the Word of Truth, it implies that "working for food that perishes" is much more important.

4. How many of who says what and whether the other is condemned, well that may be important to some, but I think that adults can discuss what the Scripture says to them without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you think I'm condemned, or I think you are, we can say what and why without making it personal.

[dizerner]

Lest we fear all these efforts are a merely a "navel-gazing waste," perhaps some exhortational material from a man of God might be encouragement.

• . . It has been said by some one that "the proper study of mankind is man." I will not oppose the idea, but I believe it is equally true that the proper study of God's elect is God; the proper study of a Christian is the Godhead. The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father. There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the Divinity. It is a subject so vast, that all our thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep, that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can compass and grapple with; in them we feel a kind of self-content, and go our way with the thought, "Behold I am wise." But when we come to this master-science, finding that our plumb-line cannot sound its depth, and that our eagle eye cannot see its height, we turn away with the thought, that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass's colt; and with the solemn exclamation, "I am but of yesterday, and know nothing." No subject of contemplation will tend more to humble the mind, than thoughts of God. We shall be obliged to feel—
  
  "Great God, how infinite art thou,
  What worthless worms are we!"
  
  . . But while the subject humbles the mind it also expands it. He who often thinks of God, will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods around this narrow globe. He may be a naturalist, boasting of his ability to dissect a beetle, anatomize a fly, or arrange insects and animals in classes with well nigh unutterable names; he may be a geologist, able to discourse of the megatherium and the plesiosaurus, and all kinds of extinct animals; he may imagine that his science, whatever it is, ennobles and enlarges his mind. I dare say it does, but after all, the most excellent study for expanding the soul, is the science of Christ, and him crucified, and the knowledge of the Godhead in the glorious Trinity. Nothing will so enlarge the intellect, nothing so magnify the whole soul of man, as a devout, earnest, continued investigation of the great subject of the Deity. And, whilst humbling and expanding, this subject is eminently consolatary. Oh, there is, in contemplating Christ, a balm for every wound; in musing on the Father, there is a quietus for every grief; and in the influence of the Holy Ghost, there is a balsam for every sore. Would you lose your sorrows? Would you drown your cares? Then go, plunge yourself in the Godhead's deepest sea; be lost in his immensity; and you shall come forth as from a couch of rest, refreshed and invigorated. I know nothing which can so comfort the soul; so calm the swelling billows of grief and sorrow; so speak peace to the winds of trial, as a devout musing upon the subject of the Godhead.

Spurgeon — as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad you quit your day job.

[jriccitelli]

3. The Father is God; The Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God... God is not the Father; God is not the Son; God is not the Holy Spirit' (from Paidions post)

I have seen 'God is not the Father; God is not the Son; God is not the Holy Spirit' written in some diagrams or triangles that supposedly explain the Trinity, I have never accepted that line, and I do not know why it is necessary.

The scriptures say all the things Paidion mentioned in his list. But where is Paidion's list in the scriptures? Or how do you defend the following with scripture?
One God is actually Two gods.
There are two Lords.
There are two Kings.
There are two Saviors.
There are two YHWHs.
There are two Creators etc. etc.
There is another being who is Just like God, yet who is not God.
God has an equal who is not God.
Anything but Monotheism is un-biblical, and creating an effigy out of the word Trinity does not excuse others of turning Jesus into a creature who is not God.

[jriccitelli]

I only posted the Tertullian quote because someone else brought it up (which seemed like a very fair response to Paidion’s comments on 1 John5), and because Paidion thinks the word Trinity is the foundation for Monotheism (it is Monotheism that is foundational to Jesus Deity, and thus: The Trinity). And to make my point, that it is not the trinity that is foundational to the doctrine of God, but it is simply an explanation that answers the disbelief about Jesus’ Deity.

I see nothing in the New Testament writers nor in the second-century writers which comes across as Trinitarianism. Of course, those who already believe in this understanding of God tend to read it into the texts. As for the Old Testament, some Trinitarians claim to find the Trinity there. Yet Israelite and Jewish teachers have found no such thing over the centuries. They have always believed in God as a single, divine Individual, beside which there is no other’ (Paidion, Feb 14)

You said it, both Christians and Israelites believe in One God who is 'a single, divine Individual, beside which there is no other' nothing has changed except for the incarnation of Jesus, they do not believe Jesus is God. And neither do you.

What we do find in all scripture is that there is but One God and One Lord and King, forever, and we believe Jesus is who He claimed to be.

Trinity is just a word of definition, like the word theology, that defines the doctrine of God and Jesus (where monotheism defines the doctrine of God). It is a straw man to attack the word. Like attacking the word ‘Theology’ and saying ‘I don’t see that word in the bible!’

You and the others are free to explain: how a son of god is not also a god / How someone exactly like another is not the other / How any being can be equal to God, and still be acceptable to God and scripture / How Jesus can be King, Lord, God and Creator when God is all these things / and why your answer is better than the others, and why it agrees with God. Because if Jesus is not God: He is a false God, a false prophet, a creature, or a demon.

I have always deplored having to reason from ancient commentators, and Tertullian does start philosophizing in his answer to the questions. I said earlier that explaining what spirit is, and what it consists of, is almost impossible. But the same is true of the other position, if they say Jesus is another being and not God, you need to defend and explain that somehow too, rather than belittling our answers of how this could be.

I read the whole thing Darin posted too. Darin’s author seemed to give evidence that Jesus was God, then denies it without any good reason. I found that article to be one of the most difficult long-winded merry go-rounds of reasoning I have ever read. The article ended without ever making any good argument against Trinitarianism or for what I don’t know? I am an excellent reader, I have read numerous ancient and obscure religious teachings and commentaries along with modern authors, but I think both the Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad Gita had a better sense of direction and purpose than that long article. I made a page of comments on that article, but I would rather forget it, as I don’t know what part was so profound or purposeful.

Brenden, there are also tons of odd religious books filled with other strange beliefs about God and Jesus that never end (why don't you go criticize those beliefs?), and you are criticizing the right to write rebuttals to these strange teachings? There is no end to trying to point out the falsehood and contradictions in the continuous flow of bad theology and falsehood out there, because it keeps coming out everyday, but your posing an argument that seems to be: what good does it do? Or what difference does it make? What does God care after all?

I think that is a rather un-biblical view. After all, the whole bible is a rebuttal to wrong thinking and the worship of other gods.

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

1. First off Paidion was the one that said Trinitarianism did not become a common belief. Don't assume everything I say is about you .

Okay.

2. Whether a concept becomes codified over time has absolutely no bearing on its truth: none, zero, zilch, nada. Completely irrelevant point.

Whether or not something is arrived at over time may or may not have a bearing on the truth of the matter. It may not, in the case of research; or in the case of a divine revelation that takes place later in the stream of time. But I would say it does make a difference when something is thought to be truth "later" such as the Talmudic embellishments of the Law. My thinking is that when it comes to theological matters, developmenent over time is what creates sects and divisions--both works of the flesh.

3. Asserting that theology happens when people aren't working at menial tasks and instead are navel gazing, seems simply irreverent. Not only does it disparage seeking out the knowledge of God, and rightly dividing the Word of Truth, it implies that "working for food that perishes" is much more important.

Not irrelevent at all. When I attacked said "navel gazing" I am criticizing something I both engage in and enjoy. I'm not approaching this from a "fer' it or agin' it" mindset. That being said, most of this high-minded, divisive stuff does happen when men have the freedom of not fleeing from persecution, or having to work for a living. I said nothing about work having to be "menial"; though clearly there is nothing wrong with labor, at least Paul didn't think so. Is there a bit of elitism in your comment? And Paul said that one who doesn't work to provide a living for his family was worse than an apostate. Sounds like Paul would disagree with you.

4. How many of who says what and whether the other is condemned, well that may be important to some, but I think that adults can discuss what the Scripture says to them without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you think I'm condemned, or I think you are, we can say what and why without making it personal.

You'll have to explain how you think I may have made this personal.

As to your Spurgeon quotes: I admire Spugeon's passion (and his sense of humor was a kick) but Spurgeon unfortunatley was a Calvinist; maybe he didn't navel gaze enough.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

You said it, both Christians and Israelites believe in One God who is 'a single, divine Individual, beside which there is no other' nothing has changed except for the incarnation of Jesus, they do not believe Jesus is God. And neither do you.

JR, I am confused here, Is a "person" an "individual"? If so, are there not three individuals in the God-head? (whatever that means). This really is the big rub, isn't it? And the trinity is not a "way" to explain how there can still be "one God". You could do that with a Binatarian concept. No, this is a centuries-old cherished notion that the vast majority of Christians accept without a halt or a blush and you know that to be true.

Brenden, there are also tons of odd religious books filled with other strange beliefs about God and Jesus that never end (why don't you go criticize those beliefs?),

I did. Spent years doing it. Years ago you would have been on my list of people to call on (Would have referrred to you as a "Return Visit" in the day) and I would have thought "Am I in the mood for JR today?" And if the answer was "Yes", we would have chatted. And both of us would have parted after a couple of hours, no difference in our thinking whatsoever. Or, maybe I would have called on that Muslim fellow, or that atheist, or that Hindu or Jew. But that was then. I choose to post here, because this affords me a fellowship of sorts and an opportunity to read others thoughts.

and you are criticizing the right to write rebuttals to these strange teachings?

What?

There is no end to trying to point out the falsehood and contradictions in the continuous flow of bad theology and falsehood out there, because it keeps coming out everyday, but your posing an argument that seems to be: what good does it do? Or what difference does it make? What does God care after all?

It may appear that way. It may appear that I am saying "What's the diffence". And I am, sort of.

I see Jesus ministry in the flesh as a sort of microcosm. The crowds that saw and heard Jesus said, "He deceives the people," and others of them said "He is a good man." (John 7:12,13) "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth" (1 Pet. 2:22) and even Judas Iscariot confessed after he betrayed him: "I have betrayed innocent blood" (Matt. 27:4) Crowds were astonished at his "winsome" words. (Luke 4:22) They were "amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority." (Matt. 7:28,29) Even "the Jews were amazed and asked, 'How did this man get such learning without having studied?'" (John7:15) The Temple guards said "No one ever spoke the way this man does." (John 7:46) His influence was such that the Pharisees said in fear "Look how the whole world has gone after him!" (John 12:19) And, he had the added appeal of his miraculous works; "When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs that this man?" (John 7:31)

If an individual is not drawn to the person revealed in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then what could another person possibly say that would convince him? What accretions to our understanding of who Jesus was and is would appeal to a non-believer? Do you really believe that insistence on a doctrine that even the supposedly faithful, a) Have a hard time understanding; b) Have an even harder time explaining, and c.) Has the (perhaps unintended?) result of keeping God even more inaccessable, is going to net a bigger catch than Jesus did while on earth? After all, how successful at winning large numbers of genuine followers was the sinless Son of God while he was in the flesh?

I think that is a rather un-biblical view. After all, the whole bible is a rebuttal to wrong thinking and the worship of other gods.

I am surprised that you think this is what the Bible was given to us for.

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

I noticed JR wrote something I was thinking only moments before I read it:

I said earlier that explaining what spirit is, and what it consists of, is almost impossible.

And if we humble ourselves and think about it a moment, I think we will acknowledge it to be true.

We read that God is spirit and invisible, that the Holy Spirit is spirit. It seems that Jesus now has a spiritual body, as we hope for some day. Yet Jesus could be touched and felt post-resurrection and consumed food. Some believe that when we get to heaven we will not see God, as He is invisible; that we will only see Jesus, who is God. There is another realm other than this physical realm. Who is it that can say what relations may exist is the realm of the spirit? Who can say that the Trinity can not be true, based on our limited knowledge of that other realm? All we have to go on are figures of speech, analogies, metaphors, etc. Jesus is said to be at God's right hand. What does that mean? Does God who is invisible and omni-present have a hand? Who can say he does or does not. Yet we believe that in some sense Jesus is at God's right hand because the scriptures say so. Likewise I believe Jesus is God because I find it in the scriptures.

And so I accept the Trinity as the best explanation of the biblical data.

[TheEditor]

I said earlier that explaining what spirit is, and what it consists of, is almost impossible.

And if we humble ourselves and think about it a moment, I think we will acknowledge it to be true.

We read that God is spirit and invisible, that the Holy Spirit is spirit. It seems that Jesus now has a spiritual body, as we hope for some day. Yet Jesus could be touched and felt post-resurrection and consumed food. Some believe that when we get to heaven we will not see God, as He is invisible; that we will only see Jesus, who is God. There is another realm other than this physical realm. Who is it that can say what relations may exist is the realm of the spirit? Who can say that the Trinity can not be true, based on our limited knowledge of that other realm? All we have to go on are figures of speech, analogies, metaphors, etc. Jesus is said to be at God's right hand. What does that mean? Does God who is invisible and omni-present have a hand? Who can say he does or does not. Yet we believe that in some sense Jesus is at God's right hand because the scriptures say so. Likewise I believe Jesus is God because I find it in the scriptures.

And so I accept the Trinity as the best explanation of the biblical data.

Hi Homer,

I have no problem with someone saying that they feel the trinity is the "best explanation of the Biblical data". I disagree, that's all. Not because I necessarily have a better one, I'm just not so certain we can have an explanation.

My main problem with the trinity is the judgmentalism and dogmatism that often comes with it. If it were crystal clear, there would be no need to use pressure and stentorian presentations to make people accept it. Calvinism is often presented the same way. Dogmatism is greater evidence of ignorance than of learning.

Knowledge puffs up wheras love builds up. As JR rightly noted, human language is at a loss when trying to define "spirit". Would not the same be true of the nature of God? It could never be adequate to explain spirit, God's nature, how the Son was "begotten", and etc. We would need a language we do not posess. Paul said, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding [piece of] brass or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophesying and am acquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to transplant mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:1-2)

When discussing the "nature" of God and His relationship to the Son, how much "love" is there when we demand others see things that we cannot adequately see ourselves? It seems to me that with some matters, if you are off by an inch it may as well be a mile. Of what practical benefit is it in trying to get one to draw close to God? I have a cartoon hanging near my desk by Charles Schulz. Snoopy and Lucy are locked in an embrace and the caption is, "A Hug is better than all the theology in the world".

Regards, Brenden.