Trinity.

[Paidion]

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am YAHWEH; and beside me there is NO SAVIOUR.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Does anybody see Yeshua in these passages?

As I indicated in my post above, the Father and the Son share the name "Yahweh". And so there is no Saviour other than Yahweh. Both the Father and the Son are Saviours.

The second passage is not found in the Septuagint nor in the Hebrew from which the Septuagint was translated. Somehow it got into the Masoretic text.

Here is a translation of the verse from the Septuagint:

For a child was begotten to us and a son was given to us, whose rule is upon his shoulder, and his name is called "messenger of great counsel", for I will bring well-being upon the rulers and health to him.

[TheEditor]

Revelation progress’s throughout the book and in chap. 22 you have the lamb sitting on the same throne as God. Don’t you find this a bit presumptuous for anyone to do including an angel or exalted servant? They are sitting on the ‘same’ throne. (emphasis mine)

If we can’t accept His Deity, it is going to be even harder to understand and accept how we can be so assuming to sit down ‘with’ Him on God's throne (Rev. 3:21). (emphasis mine)

?????

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Rev. 3:21

Jesus grants Christians the right to sit on His throne with him, the same as the Father granted the Son the position He has. Where does the "presumption" come in exactly? And, I don't understand how you made this comment and didn't recognize how it cut you off at your knees?

As for the Alpha and Omega; I am not sure why I should feel obliged to answer, since you have done such an adroit job of ignoring the verses that I raised, but I'm just that kinda guy.

On the one hand I would say that this reference to Alpha and Omega is the only real verse that has ever given me pause. So, I have looked at it from two possible ways.

First, the possibilty that it is the Father speaking and not the Son. I certainly see this as likely in chapter one, but not so much chapter 22. There is nothing like "I Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega". The fact that the term "first and last" is used cannot in itself show that it is the Son speaking.

Possiblity number two; It is a reference in Chapter 22 to God's Eternal Word.

I incline to the first choice. Jesus, if not a parenthetical statement by the Father, identifies only as Alpha and Omega because this is the final consumation in Rev. 22, and this would be yet another title that the Father has bestowed, "Kiss the Son lest God be angry, and you perish in the way". Who am I to argue with God what titles He shares with His Son? But none of this proves the trinity.

Curiously, of the handful of spurious addtions to the NT as evinced by the best scholarship, at least two (and perhaps more) were deliberately trinitarian. 1 John 5 is the most familiar, but also Rev. 1:11 where an "extra" Alpha and Omega" is inserted into the mouth of Christ, just to make sure there is no confusion on the matter.

JR, are you really concerned over my salvation becase I don't have this thing buttoned up?

As for the rest of your post, I am put in mind of something I read in a book by GK Chesterton. He said, "To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. . . The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits." -- Orthodoxy.

I find trying to act the logician with things of God, head-splitting--and frankly, unecessary.

I read Paidion's position above, and, this is probably the most comprehendable one I have read to date.

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

Paidion,

If I understand you, divinity is "what you are composed of", Father and Son are the positions held, but then what does "God" refer to?

[TheEditor]

Pardon my interjection, but good question Homer.

This is, in some sense, one of the reasons for all the confusion and difficulties. For instance, John 1:1, rendered this way:

In the beginning was the Homer, and the Homer was with the man, and man was the Homer. The same was in the beginning with the man.

Essentially, this is how it reads. Now, some questions; Who is "the man"? If "the man" was "with the Homer", then how is "the Homer, man"? The KJV and most translations would say that "the Homer is the man", but as we know, since the Greek leaves out the "the" in the last place, we are left with what could be translated as defining "nature" (man) and not indentity (man).

Personally, if it were merely a matter of saying that Jesus is "God" (divine, or deity) I think we could all agree on that. But, the trinitarian formula asserts far more than that, and lards the doctrine with all kinds of qualifiers.

When I was a JW, I couldn't quite understand why the WT said "divine" but not "deity" with reference to Christ, and why Orthodox insisted "divinity" was insufficient, considering that the Greek word translated "Godhead" is actually "divine nature", and what believers are told they will share in the future.

It would seem to me, that even from an Arian perspective, God would of necessity "draw from Himself" to "create" the Son, hence, he would be of the same nature. But what do I know?

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

Jesus grants Christians the right to sit on His throne with him, the same as the Father granted the Son the position He has. Where does the "presumption" come in exactly? And, I don't understand how you made this comment and didn't recognize how it cut you off at your knees? (Brenden, above)

It is because I had this discussion of Rev.3 a dozen times, and I’ve read the story more than a couple hundred times. I thought you had too. Some recognize that no human could ‘overcome’ death and raise Himself to life. And also, that the Lamb, receives worship, power, it is His book of Life, etc. this is not what happens, or applies to us. Are we going to equate ourself with the Lamb? No, we are granted life by the Lamb and our new life is only ‘in’ the Lamb.
"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful" (Rev. 17:14)
We do not overcome, and neither does it say the Lamb overcame because he was with God, it says The Lamb overcame ‘because’ He is Lord of lords and King of kings.
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes” (Deuteronomy 10:17)
It never says that by His Spirit, or because God caused it so, no it says ‘Jesus’ overcame. And the same with His blood; it was only Christ’s blood. There is nothing unblemished or spotless but God alone.
“… knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1 Peter 1:19)

I’m sorry I added another question verse to the list, but since we were discussing the same dialog that begins the Revelation, I feel it is never good to ignore the opening points of any book. Just as we cannot walk off the foundation of Genesis, Moses and the Prophets when considering the NT and Jesus.

I dont know why it is so hard for God to get across that non-are equal or co-equal with God?

Paidion, could Satan also be 'made' like God then?

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I suspect one of the following three options is true,

1.) We are fundamentally talking past one another (ie, neither of us is understanding the point the other is trying to make_
2.) One of us is failing to understand the other and is making points not under discussion
3.) One of us (or both) is deliberately trying to obfuscate and confuse, just to be snarky

Option One is not true, since I do know what point you are trying to make vis-a-vis "one" true God versus a "false" God. And, option Three isn't true, even though I know people might think me capable of such a thing, then I am left with option Two.

I think I do understand your points. So I think you are reading past mine either because you do not want to answer, or because the "creedal spectacles" don't allow you to see the point, such as when I was a JW and I read 1John 5:1 countless times, but never saw the implications of the word "everyone" in the text. It is truly an interesting phenomena of human psychology.

When I was 18 and in downtown Seattle doing street witnessing at 6:30 in the morning to the bus commuters, we used to be regularly dogged by a "counter-cult" evangelist (self-styled) that used to stand nearby us as we were talking to someone and rudely talk about the WT so that the person we were talking to could hear. I now realize that he was correct (at least by half) about the WT. But his manner was deplorable. Either way, I found it humorous. He was the first one to use the "either Jesus is true God or false God" argument on me; and even then it smacked of "Witness will answer counselor's question Yes or No; Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Maybe I am completely deftless here, and if anyone else cares about this thread at this point, I'd appreciate you helping JR point out my deftlessness, but I am going to list what you just wrote and ask you why I am wrong in my understanding. Here goes:

Are we going to equate ourself with the Lamb? No, we are granted life by the Lamb and our new life is only ‘in’ the Lamb.

"For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has

given him authority

to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man." -- John 5:26, 27

Does your reasoning in the quote above also apply to this verse? If not, why not?

the Lamb, receives worship, power, it is His book of Life

Two points; First, I am sure you are familiar with the word proskuneoo

pros-koo-neh'-o
From G4314 and probably a derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): - worship.

This is used countless times in the Bible for any act of bowing down in respect, etc. Interestingly, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, and Satan tried to get Jesus to bow down to him, he rebuked him saying, only God deserved "latreuseis", which is different from proskuneoo and appears to be the only word used exclusively for God. But maybe that doesn't mean anything, just an interesting aside.

As far as the Lamb's Book of Life; since we know that, according to Jesus, "the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (John 5:22-23) then I have no quandry here.

Some recognize that no human could ‘overcome’ death and raise Himself to life

Of course no human could do anything approaching what Jesus did if it had not been granted him from above. So? Some people realize that if one could raise themselves from the dead, then it's quite questionable that they were "really" dead. However, the Scriptures thankfully clear up the confusion when they tell us "This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses." (Acts 2:32) I have no problem recognizing Jesus words regarding the Temple of his body as him speaking with the Father's words on his tongue; he was a proxy and prophet for the Father. Either Jesus truly "died" or he didn't. If he didn't, then we are dead in our trespasses.

We do not overcome, and neither does it say the Lamb overcame because he was with God, it says The Lamb overcame ‘because’ He is Lord of lords and King of kings.

I have no idea what this verse is supposed to mean? We are told in the NT that we "overcome" in several cases. Is there a point here I am missing?

It never says that by His Spirit, or because God caused it so, no it says ‘Jesus’ overcame.

I am getting the distinct impression that even if I showed you a verse where it did say just that, it wouldn't dislodge you even momentarily from your paradigm. I have already shown you where the Scriptures say that it was God the Father that granted Jesus "all authority"; "all judging"; to "have life in himself", etc. etc. and these haven't as much as dented your mental bullwork, so why should yet another verse?

"And he who overcomes, and he who keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations--'And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; they shall be smashed to pieces like clay vessels'-- as I also have received from My Father; and I will give him the morning star." Rev. 2:27, 28

I dont know why it is so hard for God to get across that non-are equal or co-equal with God?

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that there are some of us that find objections to the trinity harder to "overcome" than you? (Perhaps this is the "overcoming" that we need to accomplish? )

Regards, Brenden.

[PR]

Hi Brenden, I'm popping back in to respond to your answer to my earlier post.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that in this particular instance Jesus calling himself God's son means that He's not God the son?

b) That Jesus pointed out the fallacy in their thinking by reminding them that if the appointed judges of Israel could be called "gods"--and these were only "to whom the word of God came", then how could they rightly accuse him of blasphemy if he, as the one sent by God, refers to himself as God's Son?

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

I see His reference to Psalm 82:6 in a different sense. Here He is primarily using this scripture as a rebuke, comparing their utter failure to believe who He truly is with the with the failures of the OT judges. A stinging aside, so to speak, to the main discourse, not a definitive statement regarding His true nature and identity.

Here was your interpretation of the verse:

Okay. The Psalm appears to be lamenting the wrongful course of the appointed judges that were taking bribes and siding with the wrongdoers, instead of administering justice, which was their designated function. (Deuteronomy 1:17) The judges were called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" due to their position. Apparently, they took an inflated view of themselves, but were told they would "die as mortals". The Psalmist ends with the supplication that God should rise up and present righteous judgment.

When taken in context from John 10:22 through vs 39, and when you include the similar John 5:18 verse, these are clear references to Jesus's equality with God. Again, I find Jesus's answer in 10:34-36 to be an aside, not the controlling verse so to speak.

27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

38 "but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” Note that this comes after the Psalm 82 reference.

John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Again, when taken in context, the Diety of Christ is perhaps the central message of the entire Gospel of John.

For example:

He is eternal “Before Abraham was I am” (Jn 8:58)

That He has full knowledge of the Father (Jn 7:29; 8:55;10:14ff)

He has equal power and efficacy with the Father (Jn 5:17)

He can forgive sins (Jn 8:11)

He is Judge of the World (Jn 5:22,27)

He is rightly to be adored (Jn 5:23)

He is the light of the world (Jn 8:12)

He is the way, the truth and the light (Jn 14:6)

His disciples may and ought to pray to the Father in His name, additionally they may to Him (Jesus) (Jn 14:13ff 16:23ff)

The solemn confession of the Apostle Thomas “My Lord and my God.” is acceptable and in fact, an act of Faith (Jn 20:28)

Thanks,

Phil

[Paidion]

If I understand you, divinity is "what you are composed of", Father and Son are the positions held, but then what does "God" refer to?

Yes, that's fairly close, but not quite. "Divinity" or "God" is what the Son IS,id est, his essence. Just as your essence is "man" and not "dog" or "cat" or "God" (Divinity).

What confuses the issue for some is that "God" is used in two different ways in John 1:1 while they presume it is used in the same way. In the clause "The Logos was with the God", the words "the God" refers to the One Real God whom Jesus addressed as such as recorded in John 17:3.

In the next clause "The Logos was God", the word "God" refers to the essence of divinity. It tells the KIND OF THING the Logos is. The order of the words indicates this. Literally they are "and God was the Logos" (with no article before "God"). This word order, placing "God" before the verb "was" is characteristic of Greek grammar. Here are two other places in which this is done:

"God is love" (1 John 4:8). The word order is "The God love is." Notice "love" is placed BEFORE the verb "is". This is done to show that "love" is the kind of thing or quality that the God IS. The same clause is used in 1 John 4:16.

Another example: "Your word is reality (or "truth")" (John 17:17). The word order is "Your word reality is". Again by placing "reality" BEFORE "is" instead of after it, indicates that Jesus is affirming that reality is the kind of thing God's word is.

Martin Luther, whatever else he was, was a good Greek scholar. He said it very succinctily:

"The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism"

Sabellianism was a form of Modalism, the concept that that God is a single divine Being who expressses Himself as the Father, and as the Son, and as the Holy Spirit, just as an actor can express himself as three different characters by wearing three different masks. So if the apostle John had been a Modalist, he would have written, "The Logos was the God", meaning that the Logos was the same Person as the One Real God.

Arianism is thought to have taught that the one Real God created his Son. (Though the Arians used the the word "begat" not "created"). In any case, Luther thought an Arian would translate the clause as "And the Logos was a god" (as the NWT has it). If that had been the intention of the apostle John, he would have had the words in natural order. rather than placing "God" before "was".

You can tell by listening to a person read John 1:1 whether or not he understands it in the way intended. If he puts the emphasis on "was", that is, "And the Logos WAS God", you know that he thinks it is saying that the Logos was the great God Himself, as a Modalist believes. Indeed the word "was" is where almost everyone puts the emphasis. However, if the reader puts the emphasis on "God", that is, "And the Logos was GOD", you know that he understands that it is saying that God, (or Divinity, or Deity) is the very essence of the Logos.

[TheEditor]

Hi PR,

When taken in context from John 10:22 through vs 39, and when you include the similar John 5:18 verse, these are clear references to Jesus's equality with God. Again, I find Jesus's answer in 10:34-36 to be an aside, not the controlling verse so to speak.

Yeah, there may be a bit of confusion. I gave you my understanding of that Psalm, because that's what you asked. If you had asked, "What did Jesus mean by his use of that verse"? that would have been a different question. But, I still say he was using an isolated text of Scripture to show them that the term "Son of God" was not blasphemy, because the use of "gods" was not blasphemy when applied to humans. Jesus made this application very clear. He did the same in another instance when the Jews accused him of violating the Sabbath when he referenced David eating the showbread:

"At that season Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath. His disciples got hungry and started to pluck heads of grain and to eat. At seeing this the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry? How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?" (Matthew 12:1-4)

Also, why would I take the Pharisaical reaction to Jesus calling himself "God's son" any more instructive as to what Jesus was saying, than their mistaken notion that he was violating the Sabbath?

Even trinitarian commentators admit that this was the reasoning Jesus was using in this passage.

I'll reply to your other verses a bit later, I have to do something with my son.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Hi PR,

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that in this particular instance Jesus calling himself God's son means that He's not God the son?

Yes, that's correct. Not only this particular instance, but no instance that I can see is Jesus ever using the term "Son of God" to mean "God the Son". This term appears nowhere in the NT.

I see His reference to Psalm 82:6 in a different sense. Here He is primarily using this scripture as a rebuke, comparing their utter failure to believe who He truly is with the with the failures of the OT judges. A stinging aside, so to speak, to the main discourse, not a definitive statement regarding His true nature and identity.

See my previous post. I forgot to include this quote from you in that answer. Sorry.

Let me take your examples verse by verse, you have listed:

He is eternal “Before Abraham was I am” (Jn 8:58)

This is another one of those heady verses. I like Barclay's comments on them. However, there is more going on here than Jesus trying to identify as the Great "I AM". If you get a chance to read his comments, you may find them interesting. egó eimi ho ón is different than egó eimi, but that's as far as I really want to go here. There's plenty of information online "I am" sure.

That He has full knowledge of the Father (Jn 7:29; 8:55;10:14ff)

I am not sure how Jesus having full knowledge of the Father helps or hurts the case for the trinity.

He has equal power and efficacy with the Father (Jn 5:17)

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." -- John 5:16, 17

Maybe I am clueless, but I don't see the point?

He can forgive sins (Jn 8:11)

Yes, he can. But this verse doesn't say that. It says "Go and sin no more". But to the point of Jesus forgiving sins (cf. Matthew 9:2-8; Mark 2:5-12; Luke 5:20-26; Luke 7:47-50) Surely Jesus has the right to do this because, as he said, "the Father has commited all judging to the Son". Interestingly, in Jesus' commision to his disciples, he seems to grant them a similar authority: "Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending you." And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: "Receive holy spirit. If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you retain those of any persons, they stand retained" (John 20:21-23) Although I don't believe this has the same intent or meaning, but a very big church seems to.....

He is Judge of the World (Jn 5:22,27)
He is rightly to be adored (Jn 5:23)
He is the light of the world (Jn 8:12)
He is the way, the truth and the light (Jn 14:6)

Again, no disagreement here. But I am not sure how this helps or harms the trinity teaching, other than to tell us in certain passages that the Father has given such authority to the Son.

His disciples may and ought to pray to the Father in His name, additionally they may to Him (Jesus) (Jn 14:13ff 16:23ff)

Yes, Jesus is the mediator between God and Man. Supplications to Christ are mentioned in Scripture, but these appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Remember, Jesus taught his followers to pray, "Our Father who is in Heaven..."

The solemn confession of the Apostle Thomas “My Lord and my God.” is acceptable and in fact, an act of Faith (Jn 20:28)

Well, this verse and it's Greek construct is one of those passages that is quite vexing. Even those that affirm the trinity will admit (if they are honest) that there is something odd about it's cadence. Some trinitarian scholars feel that Thomas is addressing both Jesus and his Father in this passage "the Father as expressed through the Son". Given the nature of the evidence, it is far too heady for a discussion like this. I would say though, that I find it curious that the Gospel most relied upon for trinitarian formula (the Gospel of John) leaves out what could have been the 1-2 punch to put this whole thing on an absolute footing--but John didn't. After this statement by Thomas, rather than affirm in no uncertain terms a trinitarian formula, John rather says this:

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." -- John 20:30, 31.

Not, "the Eternal Son", not "God Himself", but "the Christ, the Son of God."

I like Barclay's comments on Thomas:

"Thomas had two great virtues. He absolutely refused to say that he understood what he did not understand, or that he believed what he did not believe.

There is an uncompromising honesty about him. He would never still his doubts by pretending that they did not exist. He was not the kind of man who would rattle off a creed without understanding what it was all about. Thomas had to be sure--and he was quite right. Tennyson wrote:

"There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds."


There is more ultimate faith in the man who insists on being sure than in the man who glibly repeats things which he has never thought out, and which he may not really believe. It is doubt like that which in the end arrives at certainty. -- William Barclay.

Regards, Brenden.