sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And yet, Jesus is quoted as saying, "Why do you you call me good? No one is good but the Father."
Hmmm.....:sarcastic
Methinks further exegesis is needed before leaping to conclusions...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians:Is The Trinity Truly Biblical(A Separate Thread)
- Thread starter ChristineES
- Start date
Hmmm.....:sarcastic
Methinks further exegesis is needed before leaping to conclusions...
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
Mr Sojourner, you have to atleast make an analternative "interpretation" if you feel that the way i presented the biblical facts are erroneous. showing your skeptism will not bring discussions at a higher level sir.:angel2:
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
I agree 100%, there is a verse with that same thought.
Exactly.
Lucian
Theologian
I don't believe in a being which has three equal, eternal persons, nor do I see it in the scriptures, so I don't know how to quote something from there. I firmly believe in the divine Son of God, Christ, called Word, and Wisdom, and God, through whom the worlds were created, and in the subordination of Christ to the only true God, our Father. This is how Church Father Eusebius explains it:
"But he teaches that that one [the Father] is alone true when he says, “that they may know you, the only true God” [John 17:3], not as if one only is God, but that one is the (only) true God, with the very necessary addition of true. For also he himself is Son of God, but not true, as God is. For there is but one true God, the one before whom nothing existed. But if the Son himself is true, it is simply as an image of the true God, and he is God, for [Scripture says] “and the Word was God” [John 1:1], but not as the only true God."
Sir Isaac Newton states his reasons for his faith in twelve points:
1. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
2. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
3. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
4. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
5. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
6. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
7. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
8. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
9. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
10. It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives fro the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
11. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
12. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.
They may seem old and dusty to a modern reader, but they may also provide interesting insight!
If I compared Christ to Father God, then I would use a similar comparison as some of the Church Fathers did, that is, he is like the fire on the end of a stick lit from a bonfire.
You asked before what a modalist is, from what I understand it is someone who believes in unipersonal God who appears with different faces, the Father and the Son being nothing more than roles. Indeed, the water etc. argument is a classic modalist argument, with the water just changing form. It actually argues against the idea of a tripersonal God-being.
Important note: Since this is an extremely sensitive topic, then if it is at all possible I would not like to get into a hot debate with someone who isn't truly interested in this view or has an apologetic motive. I have no wish to fling texts back and forth, and I do not feel it would contribute to the subject at hand. If you, ChristineES, wish to know more then feel free to ask. And if this is nothing but rubbish then feel free to ignore the post.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Hello, Lucian. Thanks for offering your perspective on this "sensitive topic." It sounds like your understanding of Jesus Christ's relationship to His Father is much the same as mine.
Scott C.
Just one guy
If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and that it is to be taken literally, you have to concede that either the "oneness" or the "distinctness" of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is figurative, so that the other can be literal. In other words, I believe that only one of the following can be true:
1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are literally one Being. The separate persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is therefore figurative.
2. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are literally three separate Beings. The oneness spoken of in the Bible is therefore figurative, referring to a oneness of purpose and not a literal oneness of Person.
The same passages of scripture are used by both those who believe in (1) and those who believe in (2). The same verses are used because the literal/figurative interpretation of "one person"/"three persons" are reversed in the minds of the two groups of people.
I believe strongly in concept (2) and that the Bible most strongly argues for literally three Persons who are fully united as a figurative "one" God.
I believe that concept (1) took very strong hold somewhere in Christian history, even though it is not correct. It has been taught so strongly for so many years that it's entrenched in the hearts and minds of many Christians. It appears that many Christians are so convinved of (1) that they can't even see how a reasonable Christian could conclude (2) from the Bible. I believe that difficulty is not because of the Biblical text, but because of tradition that biases the reading of scripture.
This is not intended as an insult to anyone's point of view. It's just my observation of what I think is happening in this debate.
1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are literally one Being. The separate persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is therefore figurative.
2. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are literally three separate Beings. The oneness spoken of in the Bible is therefore figurative, referring to a oneness of purpose and not a literal oneness of Person.
The same passages of scripture are used by both those who believe in (1) and those who believe in (2). The same verses are used because the literal/figurative interpretation of "one person"/"three persons" are reversed in the minds of the two groups of people.
I believe strongly in concept (2) and that the Bible most strongly argues for literally three Persons who are fully united as a figurative "one" God.
I believe that concept (1) took very strong hold somewhere in Christian history, even though it is not correct. It has been taught so strongly for so many years that it's entrenched in the hearts and minds of many Christians. It appears that many Christians are so convinved of (1) that they can't even see how a reasonable Christian could conclude (2) from the Bible. I believe that difficulty is not because of the Biblical text, but because of tradition that biases the reading of scripture.
This is not intended as an insult to anyone's point of view. It's just my observation of what I think is happening in this debate.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It's not that your biblical facts are in error. It's your method of interpretation that is skewed from orthodox Christian theology. What you're doing is proof-texting what you already believe. What I'm pointing out is that there's "more to the Biblical story" than what you have presented here, and upon which you formulate theology. While it is true that "the Bible says these things," it is also true that the Bible says other things, too, some that do not support your theological stance. I'm not skeptical that the Bible really contains these passages. I'm skeptical that, in the larger sense, the Bible "means" what you claim it "means."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
the answer is
"Yes. The Trinity is BIBLICAL." Otherwise, the Council wouldn't have promoted it at Nicea.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Do you think that Jesus was God?
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
All you do mr. Sojourner is show your skeptism and provide general statements. you cannot even use specific examples to support your rebuttles.
Lets make it simple. The concept of the trinity from the book entitles " faith of our fathers authored by catholic bishops" states that the the trinity is composed of three CO-EQUAL BEINGS"
Jesus said "the father is greater tha n I" now Mr.sojourner the Word greater is not subject to interpretation. GREATER WILL NEVER MEAN EQUAL IN THE ENGLISH DICTIONARY!
hence, since greater does not mean equal, your concept of the trinity is already destroyed.
not unless you can BIBLICALLY PROVE THAT JESUS WAS JUST PATRONIZING THE FATHER.
GREATER DOES NOT MEAN CO-EQUAL.
Give me specifics Mr. Sojourner. your General statements are not sufficient.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I'm not familiar with that book, so I can't say whether its contents are factual, or reliable. What I do know is the Nicene Creed, which has come down to us via Tradition. it says: "...we believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ...begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. It further states: ..."We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."
What I do know is the doctrine of the Trinity, as supported by the Definition of the Union of the Divine and Human Natures in the Person of Christ, from the Council of Chalcedon.
You're shouting. It's not necessary or welcome. This was obviously the human Jesus talking to other human beings about God the Father, who is greater than Jesus the human. That has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus being fully Divine, as he is fully human. Read up on the Definition referenced above.
General statements are all your posts warrant. if you want to find out more, you do the research, as I have already done.
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
Apparetly you are the one who needs research. again focus on the topic, "is the trinity BIBLICAL" you cant argue that it was passed through tradition you know?
I can prove that Jesus only speaks spiritually, can you prove that he referred to the flesh???
or is it because you do not have any specifics to provide? :slap:
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
yes. " The word became flesh. word was with God and the word was God" i can look up the verse if you require.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
yes. " The word became flesh. word was with God and the word was God" i can look up the verse if you require.
Ok I think the Trinity is Biblical. You wont find Trinity in the Bible but if the Trinity position states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God then I guess I believe in the Trinity.
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
The Trinity's postion is that the Father the son and the HS are 3 CO-EQUAL beings in one essence. ( this is according to the book "faith of our fathers" authored by catholic bishops):yes:
This is proved to be biblically in error when Jesus said " The father is Greater than I '
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
The Trinity's postion is that the Father the son and the HS are 3 CO-EQUAL beings in one essence. ( this is according to the book "faith of our fathers" authored by catholic bishops):yes:
This is proved to be biblically in error when Jesus said " The father is Greater than I '
Do you agree that they share authority? I believe that Jesus is a subordinate of the Father, but the authority as well as other aspects is what unites them. i think that the position of the Trinity, I could be wrong.
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
You're right in saying that Jesus is a subordiante of the Father, there authority follows the same hierarchy. Jesus is greater than all principalities. He is greater than the world. But the Father is greater than all.:yes:
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Sounds good to me.