Could you define what you think "person" means in regard to the Trinity and do you think the word as applied to the Trinity means the same today that it did in the first creeds regarding the subject? Today "person" is even applied to corporations in our law.Can you help me clarify:
Do you think Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all one person?
Yes. If you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father.Do you think Jesus has all the attributes of God?
Hmm....Deut 6:4 says "YHWH is one." Trinitarianism says "YHWH is three."dizerner wrote:Deut. 6:4 in no way contradicts Trinitarian theology
Well, I think we use humans to define personhood, and not our bodies, but our essential attributes of mind, will and emotions that give us an identity as a unique coherent conscious entity separate from others. For example, by definition one person cannot have two separates wills; they can want things to differing degrees, but not have entirely separate wills.Homer wrote:Could you define what you think "person" means in regard to the Trinity and do you think the word as applied to the Trinity means the same today that it did in the first creeds regarding the subject? Today "person" is even applied to corporations in our law.
Well, we say the Three are One. Trinitarianism says it's completely proper to call the Three as One, because of mystery.Jose wrote:Hmm....Deut 6:4 says "YHWH is one." Trinitarianism says "YHWH is three."dizerner wrote:Deut. 6:4 in no way contradicts Trinitarian theology
Yes, I know.dizerner wrote:Well, we say the Three are One. Trinitarianism says it's completely proper to call the Three as One, because of mystery.Jose wrote:Hmm....Deut 6:4 says "YHWH is one." Trinitarianism says "YHWH is three."dizerner wrote:Deut. 6:4 in no way contradicts Trinitarian theology
It's only a figure of speech, isn't it? Didn't Jesus approve of what he said? Didn't Jesus commend him for speaking wisely? Is it so far fetched to say that he gave him a "pat on the back?" Why is this even a point of debate?dizerner wrote:I disagree with your assessment. Jesus did not "pat him on the back" he said "you are not far." That's not a pat on the back, or him saying everything's okay with his interpretation.
I made no such assumption. I never talked about any of that.dizerner wrote:IAnd then it says "no one dared asked him more questions." It's far too big of an assumption by you that Jesus had nothing left to say
Because the man was going to hell, he was not in the kingdom of God. Christ himself was the Savior he needed to trust to be his Shema-keeper, Christ's righteous life and death for sinners is what fulfills the law of God on our behalf. Jesus never once compromised that message, nor did he here for this scribe. The scribe preached the Law, which is half of Gospel truth—there was no grace in what the scribe said.Jose wrote:It's only a figure of speech, isn't it? Didn't Jesus approve of what he said? Didn't Jesus commend him for speaking wisely? Is it so far fetched to say that he gave him a "pat on the back?" Why is this even a point of debate?dizerner wrote:I disagree with your assessment. Jesus did not "pat him on the back" he said "you are not far." That's not a pat on the back, or him saying everything's okay with his interpretation.
Within the context of the passage, the scribe didn't preach anything. He asked Jesus a question; "Which commandment is the most important of all?" and Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: YHWH (The Lord) our Elohim (God), YHWH (the Lord) is one. "And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him." Jesus said he "spoke intelligently" (NET), "answered wisely" (ESV), "answered with understanding" (YLT). No matter how you look at it, whether the scribe was in the kingdom or not, Jesus affirmed what he said and agreed with him that YHWH our GOD is ONE and that there is no other besides HIM. As good monotheists, they both understood that there is only one God whose name is YHWH, and that there is no other God besides YHWH.dizerner wrote:The scribe preached the Law, which is half of Gospel truth—there was no grace in what the scribe said.
What are your thoughts on this:Well, I think we use humans to define personhood, and not our bodies, but our essential attributes of mind, will and emotions that give us an identity as a unique coherent conscious entity separate from others. For example, by definition one person cannot have two separates wills; they can want things to differing degrees, but not have entirely separate wills.
It seems we assume we can have a complete understanding of the nature of the unsearchable God through human analogy, but is this valid? Do we confound things human and divine and come to the correct conclusions? I realize we have only ourselves to compare to. But if we are made in the image of God, how does the trinity fit in regard to separate persons?"This God is never called a person. The word person was never applied to God in the Middle ages. The reason for this is that the three members of the trinity were called personae (faces or countenances): The Father is persona, the Son is persona, and the Spirit is persona. Persona here means a special characteristic of the divine ground, expressing itself in an independent hypostasis.
"Thus, we can say that it was the nineteenth century which made God into a person, with the result that the greatness of the classical idea of God was destroyed by this way of speaking... but to speak of God as a person would have been heretical for the Middle Ages; it would have been to them a Unitarian heresy, because it would have conflicted with the statement that God has three personae, three expressions of his being. (Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 190)
