The Trinity and Light

[jriccitelli]

I am very aware of the options Jose, I am specially familiar with Mormonism, the various sects of Christianity, and I am a knowledgeable student of world religions, Western and Eastern. Your form of Unitarianism or Socinianism, if that's where you are going, holds that Jesus was created, is that what you believe? You believe the creator was created?

[Paidion]

... yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:6 ESV)

The most natural reading of this sentence is that the reference is to two Individuals, two different centres of consciousness, the first one is the God, also known as "the Father." There is only one God. He is the Creator. The second one is Jesus Christ, our only Lord. He is the one THROUGH WHOM God created all things. Nowhere is it written that Jesus is the Creator, but rather the agent by which God the Father created. Jesus Himself, in His prayer to His Father, called Him "the only true God" and referred to Himself as someone other than "the only true God":

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3 ESV)

In 1 Cor 8:6, one can read "one God the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ" as the same Individual, only if one is already convinced that the Father and the Son are the same Individual. To believe that, is "oneness" theology or one form of modalism. A true Trinitarian doesn't believe that. Rather he believes that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are three distinct Individuals, who are One in the sense that they are of the same divine essence or "υποστασις" (hypostasis). Trinitarians refer to this one essence as "God," (although nowhere is the scriptures does the word "God" refer to a Trinity or a single essence of three divine Individuals.)

Instead of either modalism or Trinitarianism, the early Christian concept makes perfect sense and doesn't pose contradictions:

1. There is one true God, literally "the God" in the Greek of the New Testament.

2. This God begat or generated a Son as His first act (which I think marked the beginning of time). The Son was begotten (or generated) NOT created. When a person creates something, the thing created is different from himself. For example, if an artist creates a picture, the picture is not human. It is different from the artist. But when a person begets or generates, that which is begotten is similar to himself. If a person begets or generates a son, that son is human like himself. When the only true God begat a Son, that Son was divine like Himself. So the divine Son is Deity just as the Father is Deity. If you want to say that is a belief in two Gods—so be it. In Genesis 1:26, God (Elohim—a plural word) said, "Let's make man in our own image." Clearly God was talking to someone. I suggest that that "Someone" was His Son. God created man with and through His Son.

3.The Son was and is "God" in the sense of being fully divine, but He was not and is not "THE God" in the sense of being God the Father. In one sense of "God", only the Father is God—the true God. In a different sense of "God", that is, in the sense of being divine, and sharing the same essence as the Father, the Son is also "God". So in the first sense, there is only one God, and only the Father is God in this sense. In the second sense, both the Father and the Son are "God."

[TheEditor]

In another thread I said that The Father is a 'term that defines' God, as 'our origin' as Creator, substance and life, etc. the term Father is unique in the sense of God being our only origin, just as Creator is a unique term, and we have only One creator: God. Like Son, the Father must be an anthropomorphic term because there is no mother God. Just as the name Jesus means Yahweh is Salvation, yet Jesus is unique, Jesus is our salvation, God is our salvation... and The Lord is my salvation.

Hi JR,

I am only responding to this part of your post because the rest was flotsam and jetsam in my opinion. My question was, Is Jehovah uniquely the "Father" (as the creeds define it) and is Jesus "uniquely" the Son? To which you replied as quoted above.

However, the answer above to me is unintelligible. How can Jesus open the way to God as "Father" (which can be amply demonstrated throughout the NT) and yet you are saying that it is just another "term" to define "God"? (and by "God" I assume you meant the trinitarian concept of "God").

I don't see Jehovah/Yahweh/ God the Father as holding out "Papa" as "just another title." Jesus opened up a way to approach the inapproachable God as Father--something that you will note is all but absent in the OT as far as terms to refer to him are. Jesus used heartfelt, endearing parables to show how God reacts to his creation as a loving Father.

Therefore, Did Jesus teach that Jehovah/Yahweh/ God is "uniquely" the "Father", or not? And, is Jesus "uniquely" the Son?

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You are trying to have it both ways. Theos is an anarthrous noun in the underlined cases below. Zodhiates comments that as such it is most often intended to point out the quality of something which you have argued consistently that in John 1:1 means The Word (Jesus) is deity. To be consistent in 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul is saying there is only one deity. It seems plain to me.

1 Corinthians 8:4-9 (NKJV)

4. Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God (theos) but one. 5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6. yet for us there is one God (theos), the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

John 1:1 (NKJV)

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (theos).

[jriccitelli]

Is Jehovah uniquely the "Father" (as the creeds define it) and is Jesus "uniquely" the Son?

Yes and yes. This implies two different persons, and that is specifically why I believe they are two persons / this is why I am not a Modalist / and that is why I believe God is two persons. Because: both Jesus and the Father share 'all the other Unique titles' that 'God alone holds'.

You do know this is not the Fathers only name and title don't you? And you do know this is not Jesus' only name and title don't you?

God represents Himself as the Father, but God also represents Himself as the lord, the shepherd, the creator, king, savior, etc. so we know God is all of these, and these titles represent God alone. There is no one but God in this category of the shepherd, the creator, king, savior, etc.

Jesus does not represent Himself as the Father, but Jesus does represent Himself as God, the lord, the shepherd, the creator, king, savior, etc. so since these titles are reserved for God alone, and these titles represent God alone, then either Jesus is misrepresenting himself, or He is who He says He is. We realize no one but God could fulfill these foundational, promised and heavenly roles of the shepherd, the creator, king, savior, etc. As every man is a sinner, and the record stands, all men are imperfect and all need saving.

Yes the terms are unique to God. And yes the terms are unique to the Father and the Son. So why are the titles father and son different than any other father and son? That is my point. No one else could possess these titles 'in the context of' The Father and The Son, so why do you insist lord, shepherd, creator, king, savior, etc. means nothing different when speaking of Jesus or someone else, or whoever?

[Paidion]

You are trying to have it both ways. Theos is an anarthrous noun in the underlined cases below. Zodhiates comments that as such it is most often intended to point out the quality of something which you have argued consistently that in John 1:1 means The Word (Jesus) is deity. To be consistent in 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul is saying there is only one deity. It seems plain to me.

Hi Homer,
I agree with you that there are no two ways about it. But in 1 Cor 8:6, when Paul speaks of the "one God," he specifies the Father, and as you know, Jesus in his prayer to the Father, addressed Him as "the only true God." Paul specifies Jesus Christ as "the one Lord."

Neither Paul nor I have ever specified Jesus as "the one God." Rather Jesus is "God" in a generic sense, because He is the Son of God. You are "man" in a generic sense. You are not "THE man." Adam was specified as "the Man" in Gen 2:7 and in the verses following because he was the only one.

So there is only one "true God" or supreme God, as Jesus indicated in his prayer, and as Paul indicated in 1 Cor 8:6 (though he didn't use the adjective "true".) But in the generic sense, one might say there are two Gods—the Father and the Son.

It is true that "theos" in I Cor 8:6 does not have the article. But because it is modified by the adjective "eis" (one), that fact doesn't imply that it doesn't refer to the Father alone. There are other instances in which "theos" without the article refers to the Father alone when it is modified by an adjective or adjectival phrase.

[TheEditor]

No one else could possess these titles 'in the context of' The Father and The Son, so why do you insist lord, shepherd, creator, king, savior, etc. means nothing different when speaking of Jesus or someone else, or whoever?

Hi JR,

Maybe I am thick, but I can't understand this question. Please rephrase it for the slower-witted among us.

Regards, Brenden.

[Jose]

I am very aware of the options Jose, I am specially familiar with Mormonism, the various sects of Christianity, and I am a knowledgeable student of world religions, Western and Eastern. Your form of Unitarianism or Socinianism, if that's where you are going, holds that Jesus was created, is that what you believe? You believe the creator was created?

You still owe me an answer to my question about Deut 6:4. I've asked it at least four times...

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... =20#p69574

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... =30#p69578

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... =40#p69608

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... =70#p69672

But to answer your question; I believe YHWH is the creator, so no, I don't believe the creator was created.

[robbyyoung]

Hi All,

For those who are interested, check this out in the ESV translation:

Jude 1:5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Your thoughts and God bless?

[Jose]

Well, it is a disputed passage with variant readings, (Lord, Jesus, God, God Christ) with the majority of translations using Lord and not Jesus. I suppose it comes down to trying to figure out which is the better reading and why. Was it changed deliberately or was it a copyist's error? I don't read Greek but I have read that abbreviations were used by scribes, and it appears that the similarity between the abbreviations for Lord and Jesus increases the possibility of it having been copied incorrectly. On the other hand, if your life depended on being on the winning side of a controversy, then it's possible that is was changed to reflect certain theological leanings.

Since the OT never names Jesus as the one who led the Israelites out, and because I believe the rest of the NT distinguishes Jesus as a separate being from YHWH, I believe that "Lord" is more likely the correct reading.