Questions for Trinitarians
It seems to me that there is not a single Trinitarian scripture in the entire Bible except 1 John 5:7 in the Authorized Version, and this statement does not appear in the Greek of any manuscript until the 12th century. Early Trinitarians did not quote it in support of Trinitarianism because it did not exist at the time.
All the other passages which are purported to "imply" Trinitarianism imply it only to those have already been convinced that it is true.
Jesus is Deity in the sense that He is the only begotten Son of God, and in that sense is divine in exactly the same sense as the Father. But nowhere is it taught that Jesus is God in the sense of being part of a Trinity.
Indeed, His own prayer to His Father indicates that Jesus Himself regarded the Father as "the only true God" John 17:3
As I see it, none of the passages which Steve has listed imply that Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense .
1. John 1:1. states the Word was with THE God, but NOT that the word WAS the God. Rather the word was Deity, or God material, or God in essence. The order of the words are inverted (verb before subject as they are when it is written "Your word is truth" and "God is love". In Greek such inversions indicate that "truth" is the kind of thing that His word is, that "love" is the kind of thing God is, and in John 1:1, that "God" (or "Deity") is the kind of thing that the Word was.
Benjamin, I don't know where you get the translation "the Word was fully God." The word "fully" just ain't there in the Greek.
Martin Luther, a great Greek scholar put it succinctly:
"The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism."
Sabellianism is the view that God is a single Individual who expressed Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The view is also called "modalism" or "Oneness".
Luther's understanding of Arianism was that they believed Jesus was a created being, and might be called a "god" in the sense that He was powerful. This is the position of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose New World Translation has "The word was a god."
In my opinion, a correct translation would be:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Deity.
2. John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Jesus is called "the only begotten God" in this verse because He was begotten as the Son of God, and is therefore Deity.
3. John 8: 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
This tells us that Jesus existed in the days of Abraham. Nothing more. Indeed, when three "men" appeared to Abraham, one of them spoke to Abraham. That one, Abraham addressed as Yahweh. The other two were called "angels". All this means is that Jesus shared the name "Yahweh" with His Father. This comes out in Genesis 19:24 in which there are "two Yahwehs", one in heaven and the one on earth who had been talking with Abraham.
Gen 19:24 Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven...
4. Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form..
Jesus was as fully Deity as the Father. For He was of the same essence from the beginning of time when He was generated from the Father (or "begotten" if you prefer). So yes, the fullness of Deity, which is what Jesus always was, dwelled in bodily form on earth.
5. Perhaps Titus 2:13 is the most convincing passage in the attempt to justify the concept that Jesus is none other than "the Great God" Himself.
... looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus NAS95
The Greek bears out this translation since there is no definite article preceeding "Saviour" in any of the manuscripts which we now possess. Unfortunately, no manuscript containing this verse prior to 325 A.D. has survived.
However, a number of translators, namely, the King James, Douay, Rotherham, ASV, and KJ21 have translated it in this way:
. .. looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and our Saviour, Christ Jesus
Obviously, these translators have allowed for a distinction between "our great God" and "our Saviour, Christ Jesus".
It has been pointed out that "our great God" is not going to personally appear on earth when Christ comes. That is true. But this passage is speaking of "the appearing of the glory" of our great God and that of our Saviour, Christ Jesus. The Father and the Son share the same glory, and this glory will appear when Jesus returns.
In spite of the Greek as we have it today, it is highly unlikely that Paul meant "our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus" since nowhere else in the New Testament is Jesus called "the great God".
Rev 1:8 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Even though this verse immediately succeeds one which speaks of the coming of Christ, it may refer to the Father alone. Doubtless "Lord God" is a translation of the Greek for "Yahweh God". For "Yahweh" does not appear in the Greek New Testament, nor in the Septuagint, since by that time the pronunciation of the sacred name, or even the inscription of it, was avoided lest it should be profaned. The very meaning of "Yahweh" is the "one who was, and is, and is to come".
On the other hand, it may refer to Christ, since He shares the name "Yahweh" with the Father. He also is "the One who was, and is, and is to come". For there was never a time when He did not exist. For He was generated at the beginning of time. So to say that Jesus is Yahweh, is not to say that He is part of a Trinity that is somehow both "one" and "three".
6. Rev 1:17, 18 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
I am not sure why this passage is supposed to identify Jesus as being God in a Trinitarian sense. Is it because He said, "I am the first and the last"? Jesus was indeed the first born of all creation. He was generated or begotten at the beginning of time. I am not sure in what sense He is last. Can someone help me here? In any case, I don't think this passage supports the concept of the Trinity in the least.
All the other passages which are purported to "imply" Trinitarianism imply it only to those have already been convinced that it is true.
Jesus is Deity in the sense that He is the only begotten Son of God, and in that sense is divine in exactly the same sense as the Father. But nowhere is it taught that Jesus is God in the sense of being part of a Trinity.
Indeed, His own prayer to His Father indicates that Jesus Himself regarded the Father as "the only true God" John 17:3
As I see it, none of the passages which Steve has listed imply that Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense .
1. John 1:1. states the Word was with THE God, but NOT that the word WAS the God. Rather the word was Deity, or God material, or God in essence. The order of the words are inverted (verb before subject as they are when it is written "Your word is truth" and "God is love". In Greek such inversions indicate that "truth" is the kind of thing that His word is, that "love" is the kind of thing God is, and in John 1:1, that "God" (or "Deity") is the kind of thing that the Word was.
Benjamin, I don't know where you get the translation "the Word was fully God." The word "fully" just ain't there in the Greek.
Martin Luther, a great Greek scholar put it succinctly:
"The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism."
Sabellianism is the view that God is a single Individual who expressed Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The view is also called "modalism" or "Oneness".
Luther's understanding of Arianism was that they believed Jesus was a created being, and might be called a "god" in the sense that He was powerful. This is the position of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose New World Translation has "The word was a god."
In my opinion, a correct translation would be:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Deity.
2. John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Jesus is called "the only begotten God" in this verse because He was begotten as the Son of God, and is therefore Deity.
3. John 8: 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
This tells us that Jesus existed in the days of Abraham. Nothing more. Indeed, when three "men" appeared to Abraham, one of them spoke to Abraham. That one, Abraham addressed as Yahweh. The other two were called "angels". All this means is that Jesus shared the name "Yahweh" with His Father. This comes out in Genesis 19:24 in which there are "two Yahwehs", one in heaven and the one on earth who had been talking with Abraham.
Gen 19:24 Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven...
4. Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form..
Jesus was as fully Deity as the Father. For He was of the same essence from the beginning of time when He was generated from the Father (or "begotten" if you prefer). So yes, the fullness of Deity, which is what Jesus always was, dwelled in bodily form on earth.
5. Perhaps Titus 2:13 is the most convincing passage in the attempt to justify the concept that Jesus is none other than "the Great God" Himself.
... looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus NAS95
The Greek bears out this translation since there is no definite article preceeding "Saviour" in any of the manuscripts which we now possess. Unfortunately, no manuscript containing this verse prior to 325 A.D. has survived.
However, a number of translators, namely, the King James, Douay, Rotherham, ASV, and KJ21 have translated it in this way:
. .. looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and our Saviour, Christ Jesus
Obviously, these translators have allowed for a distinction between "our great God" and "our Saviour, Christ Jesus".
It has been pointed out that "our great God" is not going to personally appear on earth when Christ comes. That is true. But this passage is speaking of "the appearing of the glory" of our great God and that of our Saviour, Christ Jesus. The Father and the Son share the same glory, and this glory will appear when Jesus returns.
In spite of the Greek as we have it today, it is highly unlikely that Paul meant "our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus" since nowhere else in the New Testament is Jesus called "the great God".
Rev 1:8 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Even though this verse immediately succeeds one which speaks of the coming of Christ, it may refer to the Father alone. Doubtless "Lord God" is a translation of the Greek for "Yahweh God". For "Yahweh" does not appear in the Greek New Testament, nor in the Septuagint, since by that time the pronunciation of the sacred name, or even the inscription of it, was avoided lest it should be profaned. The very meaning of "Yahweh" is the "one who was, and is, and is to come".
On the other hand, it may refer to Christ, since He shares the name "Yahweh" with the Father. He also is "the One who was, and is, and is to come". For there was never a time when He did not exist. For He was generated at the beginning of time. So to say that Jesus is Yahweh, is not to say that He is part of a Trinity that is somehow both "one" and "three".
6. Rev 1:17, 18 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
I am not sure why this passage is supposed to identify Jesus as being God in a Trinitarian sense. Is it because He said, "I am the first and the last"? Jesus was indeed the first born of all creation. He was generated or begotten at the beginning of time. I am not sure in what sense He is last. Can someone help me here? In any case, I don't think this passage supports the concept of the Trinity in the least.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hi Paidion,
As for the last-mentioned references in Revelation, I did not intend that Rev.1:17-18 be considered apart from verse 8. The two statements are evidently made by the same speaker, who claims both to be "the Almighty" and to have "died and lived." The latter is clearly Christ, so the evidence is that He is the Almighty.
I have never committed myself to any one attempt to explain in which sense Christ is God (or "Deity") and in which sense He is separate (or can be considered separately) from the Father. Your own statements recognize both phenomena. You and I both speak of Christ as being distinct from the Father, but also as deity, or as God.
We may or may not agree as to how these data are to be harmonized (nor do I even care how they are harmonized), but the presence of both data (as I have argued) requires that we speak of Christ and the Father as, in one sense, "one" and, in another sense, "two."
I believe the same can be said of the Holy Spirit...meaning that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are, in one sense, "one," and in another sense, "three."
This is why I commonly endorse "some form of trinity doctrine." Since "trinity" means "three in unity" or "in one," I can see nothing for any Christian to object to in the term. If we say that we should not use such a term because it has too much traditional baggage attached to it, then with what term shall we replace it? I simply use the term, and affix my regular disclaimers.
The absence of any explanation in scripture of the exact nature of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit seems indicative of what God does and what He does not think we need to understand.
Some people's proclivity to add to the basic scriptural facts their own extrabiblical explanations or analogies has led to much unnecessary debate among Christians as to which image best approximates the true relationship as it exists among these three.
My contention is that, if God had wished for us to know such details, He would have said something to reveal or clarify them. To date, I have not yet discovered how the knowledge of such things would enhance my relationship with the Father or with Christ.
As for the last-mentioned references in Revelation, I did not intend that Rev.1:17-18 be considered apart from verse 8. The two statements are evidently made by the same speaker, who claims both to be "the Almighty" and to have "died and lived." The latter is clearly Christ, so the evidence is that He is the Almighty.
I have never committed myself to any one attempt to explain in which sense Christ is God (or "Deity") and in which sense He is separate (or can be considered separately) from the Father. Your own statements recognize both phenomena. You and I both speak of Christ as being distinct from the Father, but also as deity, or as God.
We may or may not agree as to how these data are to be harmonized (nor do I even care how they are harmonized), but the presence of both data (as I have argued) requires that we speak of Christ and the Father as, in one sense, "one" and, in another sense, "two."
I believe the same can be said of the Holy Spirit...meaning that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are, in one sense, "one," and in another sense, "three."
This is why I commonly endorse "some form of trinity doctrine." Since "trinity" means "three in unity" or "in one," I can see nothing for any Christian to object to in the term. If we say that we should not use such a term because it has too much traditional baggage attached to it, then with what term shall we replace it? I simply use the term, and affix my regular disclaimers.
The absence of any explanation in scripture of the exact nature of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit seems indicative of what God does and what He does not think we need to understand.
Some people's proclivity to add to the basic scriptural facts their own extrabiblical explanations or analogies has led to much unnecessary debate among Christians as to which image best approximates the true relationship as it exists among these three.
My contention is that, if God had wished for us to know such details, He would have said something to reveal or clarify them. To date, I have not yet discovered how the knowledge of such things would enhance my relationship with the Father or with Christ.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Jesus prayed:This is why I commonly endorse "some form of trinity doctrine." Since "trinity" means "three in unity" or "in one," I can see nothing for any Christian to object to in the term.
John 17:22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
So when we become One with the Father and the Son, just as the Father and the Son are One now, will the Trinity become a quadrillionity?
I'm not being facetious here. Jesus prayed that we would actually become One with Him and the Father "just as" He and the Father are One.
I am not a Trinitarian. I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a "third Person". Nor do I believe He is a mere force. I believe the very Persons of the Father and the Son, as they extend themselves throughout the Universe, and especially in the hearts of the faithful IS the Holy Spirit.
John 14:22,23 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered him, "If a person loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him."
Jesus and the Father make their dwelling in us who love Christ and keep His word. Is that not the Holy Spirit? Why propose a "Third Divine Person"?
The Father and the Son share the name "Yahweh". They also share the same Spirit. That is the Holy Spirit ---- the extension of Their personalities.
The Holy Spirit is NOT a mere force from God. The Spirit is personal ---- the Spirit of the Father and the Son. The Spirit may be called "He" since "there is One Spirit", and that Spirit is personal.
Indeed, we read that the Lord (Jesus) IS the Spirit!
2 Cor 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Someone might claim that "the Lord" in this verse refers to the Father. But I think from the context, that it refers to the Son.
In some scriptures are references to "the spirit of Jesus". Other scriptures refer to "the spirit of the God [the Father]". If the Holy Spirit is a third Person, why do we never read of "the spirit of the Spirit"?
Also, you will notice that, in the scriptures, prayer is never addressed to the Holy Spirit. Our modern hymns certainly address the Spirit. Example: "Come Holy Spirit, we need thee". I've heard modern prayers addressed to the Spirit. But absolutely none in the biblical accounts. I know this doesn't prove anything, but it does seem a rather strong indicator. Most biblical prayers are offered to the Father. But there are also some addressed to the Son ---- "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
But none to the Spirit.
Justin Martyr had a long talk, lasting several days, with Trypho, a Jew, and his Jewish comanions. Both Justin AND Trypho spoke of the Holy Spirit. Certainly, Trypho was not referring to "a third Person", since he believed Yahweh to be a single Individual "and there is no other." Trypho spent a lot of time in the discourse, trying to show Trypho from the scriptures that Jesus was indeed the Son of God and was Deity. But he never attempted to show that the Holy Spirit was Deity. For both understood the Spirit to be just that ---- the spirit of God.
It is interesting that Justin asked at one point whether there could be a THIRD person who is Deity (I'm doing this by memory. The words may be inexact). Trypho replied, "Well, hardly, since you've made all this effort trying to prove that there is TWO." Then Justin replied that he was just checking to see whether Trypho was contradicting himself. I never did understand the reason for Justin asking the question. But it was clear that he was not trying to suggest that there really is a third Person who is Deity.
Perhaps not all interesting facts would enhance that relationship.To date, I have not yet discovered how the knowledge of such things would enhance my relationship with the Father or with Christ.
On the other hand, wouldn't knowing more accurately the truth about the Deity, and the relationship between the Father and the Son, enhance our relationship with Them? Isn't it ONE way to get to know them better?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Hello Paidion,
Reading what you posted I could actually use what you stated to explain the trinity, not explain it away.
Paul several times mixes who dwells in us. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, Christ in you, and as you noted the Father and Son come and make their "home" in/with us.
To me, this shows not that God is three, but that the NT writers saw the three as one, and as such mix them without qualm.
Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit means the same thing and baptizing in the name of Jesus, because these are NT expressions of God. Baptizing in the name of Jesus shows us that the Apostles either disobeyed the great comission, or that they understood that the "three" are "one".
I once asked a "Jesus only" if he believed the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The answer was "yes". Then I asked how many God's there are. "One". That, as a trinitarian, is what I believe.
Reading what you posted I could actually use what you stated to explain the trinity, not explain it away.
Paul several times mixes who dwells in us. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, Christ in you, and as you noted the Father and Son come and make their "home" in/with us.
To me, this shows not that God is three, but that the NT writers saw the three as one, and as such mix them without qualm.
Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit means the same thing and baptizing in the name of Jesus, because these are NT expressions of God. Baptizing in the name of Jesus shows us that the Apostles either disobeyed the great comission, or that they understood that the "three" are "one".
I once asked a "Jesus only" if he believed the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The answer was "yes". Then I asked how many God's there are. "One". That, as a trinitarian, is what I believe.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
I find myself in complete agreement with Steve's position. But it is too bad that in some circles Paidion would be condemned as a heretic.
I recently purchased some older copies of The Christian Research Journal where T. D. Jakes was being raked over the coals for his "oneness" position, which, as explained by Jakes, seemed almost orthodox to me. The editor explained how Jesus, The Father, and the Holy spirit were three in person yet one in essence. I don't get that explanation. I do some woodworking. If I cut down an oak tree, make lumber out of it, and make a table out of the lumber, would not the stump, the table, and the lumber that is left be of the same essence? They are all wood, and of the same tree at that.
I think we get in trouble explaining things with words the scriptures never used.
Where I think we do have a problem is in how we act toward the Father, Son , and Spirit. Seems to me God the Father is disrespected at times. We have been viewing and discussing a video by evangelist Jay John on the ten commandments. At the end of the section re taking God's name in vain, He said that God's name is Jesus Christ. That's news to me! Then at worship time we were invited to worship Jesus - no mention of the Father.
Then it is Jesus who is disrespected by some. We see the emblem of the dove displayed but not the cross. The Holy Spirit being prayed to (where did they get that!). It has even been claimed that the greatest event in history was the coming of the Spirit at pentecost; Jesus' death and resurrection are second best! Or worse?
I'm afraid we have more practical issues to trouble ourselves with than a logomachy about the exact nature of God.
I recently purchased some older copies of The Christian Research Journal where T. D. Jakes was being raked over the coals for his "oneness" position, which, as explained by Jakes, seemed almost orthodox to me. The editor explained how Jesus, The Father, and the Holy spirit were three in person yet one in essence. I don't get that explanation. I do some woodworking. If I cut down an oak tree, make lumber out of it, and make a table out of the lumber, would not the stump, the table, and the lumber that is left be of the same essence? They are all wood, and of the same tree at that.
I think we get in trouble explaining things with words the scriptures never used.
Where I think we do have a problem is in how we act toward the Father, Son , and Spirit. Seems to me God the Father is disrespected at times. We have been viewing and discussing a video by evangelist Jay John on the ten commandments. At the end of the section re taking God's name in vain, He said that God's name is Jesus Christ. That's news to me! Then at worship time we were invited to worship Jesus - no mention of the Father.
Then it is Jesus who is disrespected by some. We see the emblem of the dove displayed but not the cross. The Holy Spirit being prayed to (where did they get that!). It has even been claimed that the greatest event in history was the coming of the Spirit at pentecost; Jesus' death and resurrection are second best! Or worse?
I'm afraid we have more practical issues to trouble ourselves with than a logomachy about the exact nature of God.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Isn't the fact that God is called "Elohim" in the OT which is a plural description of God fairly clear evidence that God is not a singular individual person? After all the singular description of God would be "El" but it was God who chose to describe himself as "Elohim."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
That's true. Most people I personally know would call any non-trinitarian a heritic. I don't feel that way, about Paidion or others. If you asked most trinitarians to explain it, they couldn't anyway. They are simply stating what they have been told.Homer wrote:...it is too bad that in some circles Paidion would be condemned as a heretic.
My main point in responding was to say that many of Paidion's points I would affirm. Yet I would call myself a trinitarian. Sometimes, when you dig deep enough, you can actually see your own pre-suppositions being ported into the text. That's why I stop were I do on this issue. I try not to over-think it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Sean,
Me too! And thankfully I don't see where we are required to. I think if we act as the apostles acted in this matter we are on safe ground.
Me too! And thankfully I don't see where we are required to. I think if we act as the apostles acted in this matter we are on safe ground.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
I
I used something similar to show that we can speak of THREE (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) while there are yet only TWO (distinct Persons in the Deity).
First I held two straight pieces of wood, one longer than the other. Then I asked, "How many pieces of wood are there?"
Someone answered, "Two"
I said that the longer one represented the Father, and the shorter one the Son. Then I fitted them together to form a cross. Then I asked again, "How many entities are there"? Some said that there was still two, but they were joined together.
I responded, "Would you believe THREE? There's the long piece, the short piece, and then there's the WOOD itself, which is the essence of both. The WOOD itself represents the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Jesus. Both the Father and the Son share the same Spirit. They are of the same essence. So this cross I have formed is a single object in some sense composed of all three!
I gave this illustration as a non-Trinitarian. But if any of you think it's a good explanation of "The Trinity", then so be it! Perhaps I'm a Trinitarian after all in your eyes.
I even know a number of people who are Oneness, who think they are Trinitarians.
However, when I say I am a non-Trinitarian, I mean that I am not a classical Trinitarian as defined by the church of the fourth century.
I found this analogy interesting.do some woodworking. If I cut down an oak tree, make lumber out of it, and make a table out of the lumber, would not the stump, the table, and the lumber that is left be of the same essence? They are all wood, and of the same tree at that.
I used something similar to show that we can speak of THREE (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) while there are yet only TWO (distinct Persons in the Deity).
First I held two straight pieces of wood, one longer than the other. Then I asked, "How many pieces of wood are there?"
Someone answered, "Two"
I said that the longer one represented the Father, and the shorter one the Son. Then I fitted them together to form a cross. Then I asked again, "How many entities are there"? Some said that there was still two, but they were joined together.
I responded, "Would you believe THREE? There's the long piece, the short piece, and then there's the WOOD itself, which is the essence of both. The WOOD itself represents the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Jesus. Both the Father and the Son share the same Spirit. They are of the same essence. So this cross I have formed is a single object in some sense composed of all three!
I gave this illustration as a non-Trinitarian. But if any of you think it's a good explanation of "The Trinity", then so be it! Perhaps I'm a Trinitarian after all in your eyes.
I even know a number of people who are Oneness, who think they are Trinitarians.
However, when I say I am a non-Trinitarian, I mean that I am not a classical Trinitarian as defined by the church of the fourth century.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald