The Narrow Path Ministries

Several people posting to this forum have seemed quite adament in their affirmation that "Jesus is God" in a Trinitarian sense.

If this is true, it just seems strange to me that "God" would have a "God"!

Matthew 27:46 And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’"

Rev 1:5,6 ... from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Jesus' words to the church at Sardis:

Revelation 3:2 Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God.

Jesus' words to the church at Philadelphia:

Revelation 3:12 If you conquer, I will make you a pillar in the temple of my God; you will never go out of it. I will write on you the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem that comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.

Paidion,
I do believe in the diety of Jesus Christ.

But it just so happens that my morning's study included a scripture that would have fit neatly into your list.

Luk 2:52 And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men.

Perry

I had to edit this post...my one post posted twice for some reason.

Paidion wrote:Several people posting to this forum have seemed quite adament in their affirmation that "Jesus is God" in a Trinitarian sense.

I have considered myself trinitarian...but not in a very traditional sense. I'm uncomfortable saying "Jesus is God" -- and do not say it for a couple reasons. First, Jesus is, obviously, not to be confused with God the Father. Second, I do not necessarily believe Jesus and God the Father are the same deity (not traditional here, me). I see them as equally divine and related (Father/Son).

Note: I edited out most of this post as I do not "fit" the description of the trinitarians Paidion described. I may re-introduce the topics I had addressed in another thread, probably about "Psalms 82 & John 10" (or something along those lines)...it posted twice as 2 posts, don't know why.
Rick

I have considered myself trinitarian...but not in a very traditional sense. I'm uncomfortable saying "Jesus is God" -- and do not say it for a couple reasons. First, Jesus is, obviously, not to be confused with God the Father. Second, I do not necessarily believe Jesus and God the Father are the same deity (not traditional here, me). I see them as equally divine and related (Father/Son).

Rick, your understanding of the relationship between God the Father, and Jesus the Son, seems to be much the same as mine. So I am wondering in what sense you consider yourself to be Trinitarian.

Hello Paidion, I see where you wrote:Rick, your understanding of the relationship between God the Father, and Jesus the Son, seems to be much the same as mine. So I am wondering in what sense you consider yourself to be Trinitarian.

I consider myself trinitarian in much the same way the originators of the doctrine did. The trinity was a rebuttal-response -- a kind of reaction -- to many debates about many topics and sub-topics. So, in this sense the trinity, as stated in the Creeds, wasn't as much an affirmation of beliefs, per se, as it was summarized statements of the stuff they didn't believe!, imo. I do not (along with the original trinitarians) believe: Jesus was a "ghost", that He was the Father "enfleshed", that He "became the Christ" at His baptism, that Jesus had a different "substance" (ontological essence) than the Father, that Jesus was "created", and so on.

But I don't affirm the Creeds in the ways most trinitarians do (like how I don't say "Jesus is God" as I mentioned before). If it was about 400AD right now I might feel very comfortable with the Nicene Creed. For back then it made a lot of sense and gave answers for all the current debates, covering them all up till that time! So I understand the trinity historically, in its own doctrinal and cultural context, etc.
______________________________________________________________

In one of Steve's lectures on the trinity he mentioned how Jesus never said to Peter in response to, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!": "Blessed are you, Peter! For flesh and blood hasn't revealed this to you but My Father in heaven! -- Who, by the way I am of the same, and not similar, substance as He --- and did I mention that am the Second Person of the Trinity? Make sure you get that down!"

Jesus only said some of that....

Steve went on to say that first century Jews just didn't think like Gentiles who later came up with the trinity doctrine, albeit out of necessity.
______________________________________________________________

You seem to think my views on the Father/Son relationship and yours are alike somehow. They may be (?). I've been studying the topic for some time and my "approach" isn't conventional. I go directly to the Bible -- and to the Bible times themselves without reference to current beliefs -- if I'm trying to find out what its authors believed. This is something quite different than trying to see if the trinity doctrine (or any other doctrine for that matter) is correct or not.

What did Josiah and the people around him believe? if I'm studying the parts of the Bible when Josiah lived. What did Abraham and his contemporaries believe? and now I have to go on further back in time to when Abraham lived. What were the beliefs of Jesus and the Apostles? which also has to include how the Jews in the First Century saw things, when I study the NT, and so forth.

The post I mostly deleted (my last one) had themes related to the trinity or godhead from this "critical" perspective. "Critical hermeneutics" are usually called "liberal" by evangelicals, or at least by the more conservative (and/or fundamentalist) ones. But when I study the Bible "critically" the only thing I seek is what did it actually mean when it was written? To do this one has to become as familiar as possible with the cultures and times of when each book was written, examine them, and then go to the Bible to see what it says. To me I'm really (very very) conservative in this approach. But if this makes me a "liberal"...I suppose it is a label I will have to deal with! What the Bible SAID is singularly important and primary to what it says, imo.

Thanks Paidion,
Rick

But I don't affirm the Creeds in the ways most trinitarians do (like how I don't say "Jesus is God" as I mentioned before).

It is interesting that even Arius, whose teachings were the fuel that triggered the Trinitarian reaction, and who supposedly taught that the Son was a created being, referred to Jesus (in one of his letters of defence) as being "fully God".

Hello All,

Here's one that has given me "Trinititarion" fits;
Mat. 4:8-9 "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their spendor". 9) "ALL THIS I WILL GIVE YOU", he said, "IF YOU WILL BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP ME".

Since Satan is a created being of God and subject to him, how then can he
"offer" Jesus (God) the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS anything?

Thought's?
In Jesus,
Bob

I wrote:But I don't affirm the Creeds in the ways most trinitarians do (like how I don't say "Jesus is God" as I mentioned before).

Paidion replied: It is interesting that even Arius, whose teachings were the fuel that triggered the Trinitarian reaction, and who supposedly taught that the Son was a created being, referred to Jesus (in one of his letters of defence) as being "fully God".

From the Athanasians' point of view the Arians taught "Once He (Christ) was not." We've commented on this before; how both the Athanasians and Arians were all involved with (really misguided by?) Greek philosophy on the "Time: Before Time" thing.

from DE SNYDODIS, Part 2. History of Arian Thought, which wrote: 27. However they [Arians] did not stand even to this; for again at Sirmium they met together against Photinus and there composed a faith again, not drawn out into such length, not so full in words; but subtracting the greater part and adding in its place, as if they had listened to the suggestions of others, they wrote as follows:—

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, 'from whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named Ephesians 3:15 '

And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus the Christ, who before all the ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and True Light and Life, who in the last of days was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, and crucified and dead and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of the age, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works; whose Kingdom being unceasing endures unto the infinite ages; for He shall sit on the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.

And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having promised to the Apostles to send forth after His ascension into heaven, to teach and to remind them of all things, He did send; through whom also are sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.

(1.) But those who say that the Son was from nothing or from other subsistence and not from God, and that there was time or age when He was not, the Holy and Catholic Church regards as aliens.

(2.) Again we say, Whosoever says that the Father and the Son are two Gods, be he anathema.

(3.) And whosoever, saying that Christ is God, before ages Son of God, does not confess that He has subserved the Father for the framing of the universe, be he anathema.

Were you referring to "God from God" above? that Christ was "fully God" according to Arius?

On (1.) above: I think I can "fit into" that one (passed the test, am safe! lol)

But it looks like I possibly just got anathemized! as I am very close to seeing the Father and Son as two deities (2.) above). Interestingly enough here, but not surprising to me: The early (post 70AD) Rabbis condemned Jewish-Christians for their belief in "two powers in heaven"!!!! (I just had to bold-that)!

Lastly, do you consider yourself an Arian, Paidion?
Thanks,
Rick

Rick_C wrote:Interestingly enough here, but not surprising to me: The early (post 70AD) Rabbis condemned Jewish-Christians for their belief in "two powers in heaven"!!!! (I just had to bold-that)!

Rick, what evidence would you cite for this assertion? I know there are references in the Talmud to people being condemned for this belief, but I have not seen any clear evidence that these were believers in Yeshua. Do you have any such info?