Trinity.
Re: Trinity.
The Jewish leaders inisted on Jesus' death because they considered Him to be an imposter—claiming to be the Messiah, but was not the Messiah they expected, one which would liberate them from the dominion of Rome.
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 83.
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 83.
Re: Trinity.
Thanks for responding Paidion. I believe that the Jews well understood His claim to be equal with God, and considered it blasphemy according to the scriptures that I have posted previously. He claimed to be God, that was their reason for insisting that Pilate have Him scourged, whipped, and crucified.
With all due respect, I don't think God's plan for our salvation, and all who believe in Jesus, was based on a case of mistaken identity.
Thanks,
Phil
With all due respect, I don't think God's plan for our salvation, and all who believe in Jesus, was based on a case of mistaken identity.
Thanks,
Phil
- darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Trinity.
I think they would have responded in just the same way if he had said clearly and plainly that he was sent by God and was his designated authority with full rights to speak on his behalf. So I think this response is abused by trinitarians as a proof those thought he was claiming to in fact be the one and true God. I think reasonable people would agree we'd see a very different and consistent debate among the apostles and Jews if this is in fact what they thought he was saying.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Re: Trinity.
Hi PR,
You asked:
Fortunately, we have an answer:
"Consequently the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the San′hedrin together and began to say: “What are we to do, because this man performs many signs? If we let him alone this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But a certain one of them, Ca′iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them: “YOU do not know anything at all, and YOU do not reason out that it is to YOUR benefit for one man to die in behalf of the people and not for the whole nation to be destroyed.” This, though, he did not say of his own originality; but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was destined to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that the children of God who are scattered about he might also gather together in one. Therefore from that day on they took counsel to kill him.
(John 11:47-53)
Seems as though the Jewish leaders wanted their position and place. And, that's not too hard to understand. After all, what was the reaction of both the Protestants and Catholics to the Anabaptists when the logical implications of not baptizing infants came into consideration? What happens often to laymen who point fingers at those earning a nice living off of the Gospel? Now, consider the arrangement the Jewish leaders had, and their choice was clear to them.
Regards, Brenden.
You asked:
Qustion for anyone who cares to respond...
If Jesus didn't claim to be God, why did the Jews kill him?
Fortunately, we have an answer:
"Consequently the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the San′hedrin together and began to say: “What are we to do, because this man performs many signs? If we let him alone this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But a certain one of them, Ca′iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them: “YOU do not know anything at all, and YOU do not reason out that it is to YOUR benefit for one man to die in behalf of the people and not for the whole nation to be destroyed.” This, though, he did not say of his own originality; but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was destined to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that the children of God who are scattered about he might also gather together in one. Therefore from that day on they took counsel to kill him.
(John 11:47-53)
Seems as though the Jewish leaders wanted their position and place. And, that's not too hard to understand. After all, what was the reaction of both the Protestants and Catholics to the Anabaptists when the logical implications of not baptizing infants came into consideration? What happens often to laymen who point fingers at those earning a nice living off of the Gospel? Now, consider the arrangement the Jewish leaders had, and their choice was clear to them.
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]
Re: Trinity.
There is no statement in the New Testament in which it is recorded that Jesus claimed to be God.He claimed to be God, that was their reason for insisting that Pilate have Him scourged, whipped, and crucified.
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 83.
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 83.
Re: Trinity.
It is, of course, quite possible to interpret any passage suggesting the deity of Christ or pointing toward trinitarianism, in other ways. I happen to think that the 'deity of Christ' interpretation is the better interpretation in most of those cases, but that is not the point I'd like to make here.
To me, the much bigger issue involved (that gets lost when we focus on interpreting individual passages... and even when we get stuck on a YES or NO opinion in regards to the trinity) is that without either a binity or trinity doctrine, the very essence of the Christian doctrine of God is brought into great jeopardy, in my opinion.
What is distinct about the God of Christianity?
Is it not that God is sacrificially loving? Isn't the beauty of Christianity lost or greatly jeopardized by the suggestion that God is not inherently relational? To me, if there was ever a reality where a unitarian God existed in isolation... then love is not at the very core of the universe. Maybe energy is. Maybe power is. But not love. Love could still be a good thing in such a worldview, but it couldn't be the center of all things.
Is it not that God is incarnational? Wouldn't something great be lost if we concluded that God had never, Himself, stooped down to our turf? One of the most attractive things, to me, about Christianity, is that willingness of God to become flesh... to get dirty... to hurt with us. If God only sent His first and most prized creature to us... that wouldn't strike me as nearly as beautiful as if His very essence, in some way, became flesh. God entered our fallen dance so that we may enter the dance of a loving God.
To me, the doctrine of the Trinity is not a bunch of proof texts worth defending because tradition says I should. Relationality and incarnationality are the 2 most beautiful beliefs about God that i can even comprehend. And, in my opinion, unitarianism... taken to its logical conclusion... takes them away.
All that being said, not everyone takes beliefs to their logical conclusion. And people do disagree about what the logical conclusions of a belief actually are. Nothing I said above should be taken to mean that I question the faith of anyone who is questioning the Trinity. I am only saying that i believe the idea that "God is love" and the concept of incarnation are ideas so beautiful that they are worth defending... and that the doctrine of the Trinity (or at least binity) is simply the wrapping paper of those concepts.
To me, the much bigger issue involved (that gets lost when we focus on interpreting individual passages... and even when we get stuck on a YES or NO opinion in regards to the trinity) is that without either a binity or trinity doctrine, the very essence of the Christian doctrine of God is brought into great jeopardy, in my opinion.
What is distinct about the God of Christianity?
Is it not that God is sacrificially loving? Isn't the beauty of Christianity lost or greatly jeopardized by the suggestion that God is not inherently relational? To me, if there was ever a reality where a unitarian God existed in isolation... then love is not at the very core of the universe. Maybe energy is. Maybe power is. But not love. Love could still be a good thing in such a worldview, but it couldn't be the center of all things.
Is it not that God is incarnational? Wouldn't something great be lost if we concluded that God had never, Himself, stooped down to our turf? One of the most attractive things, to me, about Christianity, is that willingness of God to become flesh... to get dirty... to hurt with us. If God only sent His first and most prized creature to us... that wouldn't strike me as nearly as beautiful as if His very essence, in some way, became flesh. God entered our fallen dance so that we may enter the dance of a loving God.
To me, the doctrine of the Trinity is not a bunch of proof texts worth defending because tradition says I should. Relationality and incarnationality are the 2 most beautiful beliefs about God that i can even comprehend. And, in my opinion, unitarianism... taken to its logical conclusion... takes them away.
All that being said, not everyone takes beliefs to their logical conclusion. And people do disagree about what the logical conclusions of a belief actually are. Nothing I said above should be taken to mean that I question the faith of anyone who is questioning the Trinity. I am only saying that i believe the idea that "God is love" and the concept of incarnation are ideas so beautiful that they are worth defending... and that the doctrine of the Trinity (or at least binity) is simply the wrapping paper of those concepts.
Re: Trinity.
Hi Matt,
Though I can't say I agree with you, I also cannot say I disagree. You have certainly presented this from a unique perspective. To my mind, when trying to measure out things of the Divine, human concepts are meager ways of trying to articulate them. It may very well be that love could not be, as you say, at "the center" if a Unitarian God ever existed in isolation. But of course, it is by degrees.
I remember in my salad days talking with people about God, and some agnostic questions would be along the lines of, "What was He (God) doing for so long before He created us? And, what was it about being without us that made Him need us?" or something along that order. Of course, to any reasonable person, these questions would come to mind, believer or no.
To extend it, What was so un-fulfillng about the dual relationship of God--Father and Son, that required bringing angels into existence? Was something lacking? Why wait for presumably an infinite amount of time (since, the distance between 0 and 1 is still infinite) to create them?
Still, you present food for thought.
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]
- darinhouston
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Trinity.
The main thing about God is not that He is love (though he is) or that he is relational (though he is) but that he is Holy and entirely "other." What makes you think an infinite God without dimensional or temporal or other boundaries or other restrictions would necessitate another person to fulfill his loving nature any more than his creative nature would seemingly necessitate a Creation in eternity past?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Trinity.
but that he is Holy and entirely "other."
There you go getting all Kierkegaardian on us....

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]
- jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Trinity.
Well I can't accept love because it is 'to hard to understand'. For it is other worldly, and entirely something other than what I am. I suspect our concept of love may not be the same as what God actually knows and is. I do believe Oneness is akin to love, and when Jesus said husband and wife, and the Church should be one, it is just a reflection of the perfect Oneness that actually is One within our God. What is the 'beauty' or wonder of oneness, if two or more isn't in the equation?
I do know that Jesus said; if you love me you will keep my Commandments. If the first Commandment is too complex to understand and keep, how are you going to understand and keep the greatest Commandments?
And who is the 'Lord' anyway?
I do know that Jesus said; if you love me you will keep my Commandments. If the first Commandment is too complex to understand and keep, how are you going to understand and keep the greatest Commandments?
And who is the 'Lord' anyway?