God is 1 vs God is 3

[InformedIgnorance]

But I didn't give that as a reason. My reason was predicated upon "eyewitness" not "chosen."

Yet you elevate the testimony of the 'chosen' over other witnesses who were his detractors (or even merely not his chosen) - for what reason has their testimony been elevated in importance?

No. that's not what I said -- and I disagree. Jesus was absolutely not the same as the OT Messiah. Why do you think most of the Jews didn't follow him??? Because he didn't "fit the bill." In the end, the basis for Jesus' authentication came from his actions and his teachings (as I said earlier -- as proven by Matthew's portrayal of the church as "the true Israel").
...
Well, but I don't think it's that easy or that black-and-white. They did paint him as the fulfillment of prophecy, but they never claimed that he was exactly what had been expected. What was claimed was that Jesus was better than what had been expected.

In the first instance you claim he was not the fulfillment of the OT prophesy yet in the second you say they did make just that claim and then even more claims (that rather than being anointed by God he actually was God) on top of that.

In the end, the basis for Jesus' authentication came from people deciding they wanted to follow him, often because of his 'miracles' but in the end for the jewish portion of his followers it was because they believed him to be the fulfillment of their ancient prophecies. (side note you do know Israel was one of Jacob's names right?). Now perhaps in the current day the fulfillment of the OT prophecies may not be why chrisitians accept him (heck most of them have never read their bible, let alone know what the prophecies were); but that is how it was at the time.

 

[sojourner]

Yet you elevate the testimony of the 'chosen' over other witnesses who were his detractors (or even merely not his chosen) - for what reason has their testimony been elevated in importance?

Because they're the community of believers. They're the ones who share (at least to some extent) the metaphor of God Incarnate.

In the first instance you claim he was not the fulfillment of the OT prophesy yet in the second you say they did make just that claim and then even more claims (that rather than being anointed by God he actually was God) on top of that.

Let's be careful here. I claim that he was not the fulfillment of the OT prophecy as they perceived it. The prophecy said that God would deliver us. I believe God has done that -- it just happened in a different way. Instead of sending one who was anointed to restore the political might of Israel, God became Incarnate and restored us to God's Self.

In the end, the basis for Jesus' authentication came from people deciding they wanted to follow him, often because of his 'miracles' but in the end for the jewish portion of his followers it was because they believed him to be the fulfillment of their ancient prophecies. (side note you do know Israel was one of Jacob's names right?). Now perhaps in the current day the fulfillment of the OT prophecies may not be why chrisitians accept him (heck most of them have never read their bible, let alone know what the prophecies were); but that is how it was at the time.

Was it? Or was it because they realized the new Way that Jesus presented was, in the end, a better vision of God's salvific work than what the prophecies actually said?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Because they're the community of believers. They're the ones who share (at least to some extent) the metaphor of God Incarnate.

Which would indicate their testimony is more legitimate or authoritative how?

Let's be careful here. I claim that he was not the fulfillment of the OT prophecy as they perceived it. The prophecy said that God would deliver us. I believe God has done that -- it just happened in a different way. Instead of sending one who was anointed to restore the political might of Israel, God became Incarnate and restored us to God's Self.

Was it? Or was it because they realized the new Way that Jesus presented was, in the end, a better vision of God's salvific work than what the prophecies actually said?

Wow... it really seems you cannot decide whether or not he was even the prophesied messiah; you keep trying to say he was the promised one, yet better... Oh! But the people didnt use the OT to have any sort of basis by which to know of such a promised messiah. And that the texts making the promise arent really to be relied on because the new vision is 'better' so we can ignore the fact that the old 'vision' in which jesus was not presented yet is still 'present' (according to your static trinity) is filled with things that the new 'vision' is incompatible with.

This may be your mechanism by which to deal with the fact that the stories of your new god jesus doesnt match the stories of your old god yahweh, while still maintaining the static trinity; but it is a rather ineffectual argument were one to hope to convince others of the validity of your claims, due to the lack of clarity and the degree to which you dismiss your own sacred texts.

 

[sojourner]

Which would indicate their testimony is more legitimate or authoritative how?

It isn't. It doesn't have to be.

Wow... it really seems you cannot decide whether or not he was even the prophesied messiah

Perceptions vary.

you keep trying to say he was the promised one, yet better... Oh! But the people didnt use the OT to have any sort of basis by which to know of such a promised messiah. And that the texts making the promise arent really to be relied on because the new vision is 'better' so we can ignore the fact that the old 'vision' in which jesus was not presented yet is still 'present' (according to your static trinity) is filled with things that the new 'vision' is incompatible with.

You're not going to entrap me by twisting what I said. I've been very clear about where I think the authority comes from, and with regard to what the prophecies say and why they're written the way they are and understood the way they are.

You seem insist on treating the texts and the doctrines as if they were, somehow, concrete definitions, rather than malleable metaphoric images. That's your problem, not mine.

This may be your mechanism by which to deal with the fact that the stories of your new god jesus doesnt match the stories of your old god yahweh, while still maintaining the static trinity; but it is a rather ineffectual argument were one to hope to convince others of the validity of your claims, due to the lack of clarity and the degree to which you dismiss your own sacred texts.

I don't hope to convince others of the validity of my claims, other than the fact that they are legitimate ways of describing God.
Be careful: I don't dismiss the texts. There's a difference between dismissing something and seeing it for what it is. You appear to want to hold me to some false, literalistic view of them. Since I don't believe that's the correct or responsible way to approach them, your ruse is a failure.

 

[Muffled]

How is it logically impossible?

Does Jesus not sit at the right hand of the Father in heaven? In this situation, is he formless?

I believe this is largely metaphoric. There is no form in Heaven. There are images, so it is not unlikely that there is an image of God the Father sitting next to God the Son.

 

[Muffled]

I am a believer in the God Head, I believe that there are three distinct people God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The three of which are considered ONE just as a husband and wife are considered one and as a football team out on the field are considred one, and as the famous Army slogan is "An Army Of One".

This is why we find God speaking in the plural in Genesis 1:26
26 ¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I do agree with you on many points though, Christ never once said, "pray to me" nor do I believe we should pray to Christ.

I believe there is no evidence for this but you can try to find some if you like.

I believe ther is no evidence to support this view. Members of a family and team mebers of a football team are different physical persons with different spiritaul persons. I believe God is one Spirit in three figures of persons. There are millions of physical persons in the Trinity but only one physical person is completely one with the Father.

I believe that is speculation lacking evidence.

Are you saying you don't believe in praying to God or simply that you don't believe that Jesus is God in the flesh?

I believe there is a reason for that. It is not because Jesus doean't deserve worship but rather that there is too much of an opportuinty to worship the flesh instead of the Spirit within. For that reason it is better to worship the Father who is the Spirit without the flesh.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It isn't. It doesn't have to be.

I agree, it would not have to be - but by claiming it to be divine revelation and scripture you are asserting that it is, which is why I am, asking you why you have chosen to do so.

Perceptions vary.

And your perception is?

You're not going to entrap me by twisting what I said. I've been very clear about where I think the authority comes from, and with regard to what the prophecies say and why they're written the way they are and understood the way they are.

I am not trying to 'entrap' you, I honestly do not really mind what you believe - I am merely pointing out what is an obvious contradiction:
1. The static trinity which holds that jesus was conscious (with the same personality as in the NT) and had divine agency; with
2. Things happened in the OT which is not compatible with your communicated opinion on the nature of jesus' personality

But then I also identified one of the many ways that can be used to deal with such a contradiction (it also happens to be the one you have chosen), by suggesting that at times the accuracy of the record of revelation in the OT might be less than perfect.

AllI was doing was pointing out that 1 can cause problems for 2 (or vice versa) it is completely up to you to determine how you wish to deal with that not insignificant theological problem.

You seem insist on treating the texts and the doctrines as if they were, somehow, concrete definitions, rather than malleable metaphoric images. That's your problem, not mine.

No, not at all, they can absolutely be metaphorical interpretations (in fact I would suggest that for some parts of them that is the only way that they could possibly be considered even part way viable) - that does not change the fact that the OT events (even as metaphors) remain in the record of revelation, which even on a metaphorical level would have major problems for the concept of a static trinity. Such as what punishing people who do not do what god says by inflicting on them familial cannibalism, enslaving entire ethnic groups and raping their women folk or committing genocide would mean in a metaphorical sense for Jesus.

The strategy you seem to have adopted by which to explain this is effective and simple: to suggest that the record of revelation may not at times be entirely accurate. Which is all well and good - it is just that the OT (that very same record of revelation) is the very document which even suggests that a messiah was promised, in the first place. The more you suggest that perhaps some parts of the OT are not entirely accurate - you undermine the record of revelation which supports the assertion that Jesus was a messiah. As I said, it is an entirely possible mechanism by which to deal with the conflict, it is just one that causes significant problems that you will have to deal with.

I don't hope to convince others of the validity of my claims, other than the fact that they are legitimate ways of describing God.
Be careful: I don't dismiss the texts. There's a difference between dismissing something and seeing it for what it is. You appear to want to hold me to some false, literalistic view of them. Since I don't believe that's the correct or responsible way to approach them, your ruse is a failure.

You are indeed dismissing literal interpretation and those inconvenient parts where even a very flexible metaphorical interpretation do not support your position; you are dismission portions of the record as being revelation.

It is an entirely valid approach to dealing with the contradiction that arises if you propose a static trinity. It is just that such an approach merely undermines the support for the prophesied messiah claim; that doesnt mean it is wrong, merely that it causes issues that you will likely need to address (even if just for yourself)

 

[sojourner]

I agree, it would not have to be - but by claiming it to be divine revelation and scripture you are asserting that it is, which is why I am, asking you why you have chosen to do so.

I didn't claim that.

And your perception is?

That I know what I mean. You seem to have a problem with that.

I am not trying to 'entrap' you, I honestly do not really mind what you believe - I am merely pointing out what is an obvious contradiction:
1. The static trinity which holds that jesus was conscious (with the same personality as in the NT) and had divine agency; with
2. Things happened in the OT which is not compatible with your communicated opinion on the nature of jesus' personality

But then I also identified one of the many ways that can be used to deal with such a contradiction (it also happens to be the one you have chosen), by suggesting that at times the accuracy of the record of revelation in the OT might be less than perfect.

AllI was doing was pointing out that 1 can cause problems for 2 (or vice versa) it is completely up to you to determine how you wish to deal with that not insignificant theological problem.

I don't see it as a significant theological problem. I see it as a minor problem of exegesis.

No, not at all, they can absolutely be metaphorical interpretations (in fact I would suggest that for some parts of them that is the only way that they could possibly be considered even part way viable) - that does not change the fact that the OT events (even as metaphors) remain in the record of revelation, which even on a metaphorical level would have major problems for the concept of a static trinity. Such as what punishing people who do not do what god says by inflicting on them familial cannibalism, enslaving entire ethnic groups and raping their women folk or committing genocide would mean in a metaphorical sense for Jesus.

I think you're creating mountains out of molehills. I think Jesus recognized that the ancient, tribal POV was no longer viable in his world. You want to make the Trinity static. I don't think it is.

The strategy you seem to have adopted by which to explain this is effective and simple: to suggest that the record of revelation may not at times be entirely accurate.

That's not my "strategy." "Accuracy" isn't part of the equation, since "definition" isn't what we're after.

Which is all well and good - it is just that the OT (that very same record of revelation) is the very document which even suggests that a messiah was promised, in the first place. The more you suggest that perhaps some parts of the OT are not entirely accurate - you undermine the record of revelation which supports the assertion that Jesus was a messiah.

The religion was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "all about the book," as you seen to want to make it. It is all about the Tradition. And "Tradition" is what we're doing today. Perceptions, metaphors, religious positions change.

It is an entirely valid approach to dealing with the contradiction that arises if you propose a static trinity. It is just that such an approach merely undermines the support for the prophesied messiah claim; that doesnt mean it is wrong, merely that it causes issues that you will likely need to address (even if just for yourself)

It doesn't cause issues for me. It may cause issues for you, who seem to make the buck stop at the book. For me, the buck stops with perception.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

You want to make the Trinity static. I don't think it is.

I never said you did; though you have implied as much several times and explicitly stated that he was timeless - thus changeless. But more importantly I raised the IMPLICATIONS of a trinity, in particular a static trinity but it was you who said that was not a problem, you were the one who attempted to defend against arguments there were difficulties raised by the static trinity - to suggest that you personally do not hold the position does nothing to support (or to undermine for that matter) the case, all it does is to distance yourself - not the static trinity position - from such arguments.

 

[sojourner]

I never said you did;

Yet, you keep bringing it up...

though you have implied as much several times and explicitly stated that he was timeless - thus changeless.

"Timeless" is not synonymous with "changeless." One of the immutable properties of life is change. God became Incarnate. That implies a change.

But more importantly I raised the IMPLICATIONS of a trinity, in particular a static trinity but it was you who said that was not a problem, you were the one who attempted to defend against arguments there were difficulties raised by the static trinity - to suggest that you personally do not hold the position does nothing to support (or to undermine for that matter) the case, all it does is to distance yourself - not the static trinity position - from such arguments.

I have a particular understanding of and theology for God. Your arguments don't match that understanding or theology. I'm certainly not going to buy into something just for the sake of argument.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Sorry but you are wrong, from a purely logical perspective change requires at least two distinct temporal states - before and after.

I proposed the idea that the static trinity could potentially cause issues for the OT, you claimed otherwise and proceeded to defend that position. If you didn't want to discuss THAT position (rather than your own) then why would you attempt to defend the position you did not hold, my arguments applied towards the position that we were discussing, not your own personal theological position (for example, my opinion is that God does not exist in the first place, but my own position is completely immaterial in discussing the concept of a static trinity and its implications for the OT)

I was making someone of the theological implications of a static trinity apparent given the context of what was being discussed, it is up to you whether or not you wanted to defend it - of course my arguments may not match YOUR position that is because your position was not what was being examined, it was the idea of a static trinity. If you do not want to attempt to defend another position do not - but at the same time your willingness to support does not somehow magically alter the relevance of arguments for and against that other position.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry but you are wrong, from a purely logical perspective change requires at least two distinct temporal states - before and after.

Nope. Not wrong. God became Incarnate. There was a time (before) when God was not Incarnate. Then, there was a time (after) when God was Incarnate. Why can't you see that?

I proposed the idea that the static trinity could potentially cause issues for the OT, you claimed otherwise and proceeded to defend that position. If you didn't want to discuss THAT position (rather than your own) then why would you attempt to defend the position you did not hold,

I'm arguing against your position that the Trinity is static at all -- that's an assumption you're making that just doesn't hold up against either the biblical record, or the theological Tradition.

The OT prophetic position is that God will send a messenger -- a Messiah -- to restore Israel. The NT theological position is that God becomes Incarnate to reconcile the world to God's Self. That difference doesn't indicate that one position or the other is wrong. It simply means that the metaphor used to describe reconciliation has changed, because the world view of the faithful has changed. The OT was written largely from the perspective of tribal people in political captivity. The NT was written largely from the perspective of a more cosmopolitan community trying to understand how all the puzzle pieces fit together, in light of God-as-God.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Nope. Not wrong. God became Incarnate. There was a time (before) when God was not Incarnate. Then, there was a time (after) when God was Incarnate. Why can't you see that?

I do see that - I simply cannot determine how you can look at the TWO temporal states (before and after) and somehow conclude that god is 'timeless' - the idea that you do not see this as a logical contraction is the only part of your position on the nature of the trinity I do not understand, i understand your argument (and to a lesser extent your position) I simply do not understand how you do not see this obvious fallacy.

Even were I to assume the biblical god exists, your assertion of it's timeless yet changing nature is fallacious - it is self-contradicting. The only way you could possibly hope to suggest such a thing is true would be to assert that your god not be logically characterized (that it can be defined by and or contain logical contradictions without any problems), in which case, sure it might be possible for things to be logically contradictory while the concept remains consistent - but there is absolutely no point whatsoever even thinking about such a god, because even our thoughts are logically characterized, there is no way for us to even consider such an entity with any hope for our thoughts being able discern even the most rudimentary, peripheral implications of such an existence with any hope for accuracy and thus no reason to even attempt to.​

I'm arguing against your position that the Trinity is static at all -- that's an assumption you're making that just doesn't hold up against either the biblical record, or the theological Tradition.

Yet that is NOT my position (i do not believe in it to begin with so have no need to proclaim it must be static) my position is that IF there is a static trinity then it causes several theological implications for the understanding of the OT. It was this you protested and then attempted to defend, yet in doing so time and time again you have merely served to underscore the validity of the position i was demonstrating.

The OT prophetic position is that God will send a messenger -- a Messiah -- to restore Israel. The NT theological position is that God becomes Incarnate to reconcile the world to God's Self. That difference doesn't indicate that one position or the other is wrong. It simply means that the metaphor used to describe reconciliation has changed, because the world view of the faithful has changed. The OT was written largely from the perspective of tribal people in political captivity. The NT was written largely from the perspective of a more cosmopolitan community trying to understand how all the puzzle pieces fit together, in light of God-as-God.

I am not arguing (though that is my personal opinion, which has no bearing on the argument) that the promised messiah was not Jesus who was also god - I am pointing out that the idea that Jesus was god has implications on understanding the OT especially if you hold a static trinity - you then chose to try to refute my conclusion; yet instead at every stage have demonstrated the validity of my argument.

 

[sojourner]

I do see that - I simply cannot determine how you can look at the TWO temporal states (before and after) and somehow conclude that god is 'timeless' - the idea that you do not see this as a logical contraction is the only part of your position on the nature of the trinity I do not understand, i understand your argument (and to a lesser extent your position) I simply do not understand how you do not see this obvious fallacy.

Even were I to assume the biblical god exists, your assertion of it's timeless yet changing nature is fallacious - it is self-contradicting. The only way you could possibly hope to suggest such a thing is true would be to assert that your god not be logically characterized (that it can be defined by and or contain logical contradictions without any problems), in which case, sure it might be possible for things to be logically contradictory while the concept remains consistent - but there is absolutely no point whatsoever even thinking about such a god, because even our thoughts are logically characterized, there is no way for us to even consider such an entity with any hope for our thoughts being able discern even the most rudimentary, peripheral implications of such an existence with any hope for accuracy and thus no reason to even attempt to.​

First off, God can't be reduced to a mathematical equation. We simply cannot know enough about God to render a definition. I think that's what you're looking for. Second, as I said, how is "timeless" synonymous with "changeless?" God has changed as we have changed, since our perception has changed. We no longer see God in the same way the ancients did, so we use different metaphors.

Yet that is NOT my position (i do not believe in it to begin with so have no need to proclaim it must be static) my position is that IF there is a static trinity then it causes several theological implications for the understanding of the OT.

Why argue hypotheticals? It's just so much intellectual masturbation, which is not the the goal of theology.

I am not arguing (though that is my personal opinion, which has no bearing on the argument) that the promised messiah was not Jesus who was also god - I am pointing out that the idea that Jesus was god has implications on understanding the OT especially if you hold a static trinity - you then chose to try to refute my conclusion; yet instead at every stage have demonstrated the validity of my argument.

I don't hold that the Trinity is static, so obviously I don't have a dog in the fight you're hoping to join -- nor do I have a problem with the discontinuity between the prophesied Messiah and the apprehended Messiah.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

First off, God can't be reduced to a mathematical equation. We simply cannot know enough about God to render a definition. I think that's what you're looking for. Second, as I said, how is "timeless" synonymous with "changeless?" God has changed as we have changed, since our perception has changed. We no longer see God in the same way the ancients did, so we use different metaphors.

Timeless results in Changeless because that without two distinct temporal states there cannot be a change -in your own words there needs be a before and after (these are both temporal frames of reference)

Why argue hypotheticals? It's just so much intellectual masturbation, which is not the the goal of theology.

I don't hold that the Trinity is static, so obviously I don't have a dog in the fight you're hoping to join -- nor do I have a problem with the discontinuity between the prophesied Messiah and the apprehended Messiah.

Yet that is exactly what was being discussed, if it doesnt interest you you had no reason to comment on it - yet you chose to try to argue that the argument i proposed was incorrect, that was entirely your choice and yet all you did was to demonstrate the need to develop a mechanism (in your case proposing that the accuracy of the record of revelation was unreliable at times) by which to deal with these very significant theological implications, rather than trying to suggest that such implications do not exist in the first place.

Since you are now attempting to move away from arguing against the validity of the argument i proposed, i shall state it again because you have not even coming close to having any relevant critique of the argument thus far.

The idea of a trinity (especially a more 'static' trinity model which holds that Jesus always was present, always with the same personality and always with divine agency) holds significant theological implications for the old testament and vice versa.​

 

[sojourner]

Timeless results in Changeless

No. It doesn't. Change can and does occur within a timeless framework. There can be "before" and "after" from our perspective of a particular event within the continuum, yet the object under discussion can still have no beginning and no end.

The idea of a trinity (especially a more 'static' trinity model which holds that Jesus always was present, always with the same personality and always with divine agency) holds significant theological implications for the old testament and vice versa.

I disagree. And you haven't adequately explained why you think it's so.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Nothing can 'occur' within a timeless framework - there is no 'continuum' there are no temporal states, there is no before, no after. Timeless and Eternal are not the same thing. They are very very different.

If a static trinity is held, that means that regardless of whether or not the writers were aware of jesus' presence during the time of the OT, jesus was indeed present, aware of what was going on, had the same personality he is described as having during the NT and had his fully divine agency. That means either the events did not happen, he was unaware of these events, he chose not to interfere with the events, was unable to interfere with the events or actually CAUSED these events. Given a static trinity the OT thus not merely incorporates records of reputed actions of God the father, but also God the Son (and God the holy spirit). If a static trinity exists, than the record of revelation which for example states that God sent down a flood to murder almost everyone on earth - then jesus either assisted this or else merely did not intervene. This means that the OT has a significant theological implication for the concept of jesus as a member of the static trinity, or else, conversely if you maintain that jesus with the same personality, awareness and agency would not have murdered almost everyone on earth then it causes significant theological implications for the OT.

 

[sojourner]

Nothing can 'occur' within a timeless framework - there is no 'continuum' there are no temporal states, there is no before, no after. Timeless and Eternal are not the same thing. They are very very different.

If a static trinity is held, that means that regardless of whether or not the writers were aware of jesus' presence during the time of the OT, jesus was indeed present, aware of what was going on, had the same personality he is described as having during the NT and had his fully divine agency. That means either the events did not happen, he was unaware of these events, he chose not to interfere with the events, was unable to interfere with the events or actually CAUSED these events. Given a static trinity the OT thus not merely incorporates records of reputed actions of God the father, but also God the Son (and God the holy spirit). If a static trinity exists, than the record of revelation which for example states that God sent down a flood to murder almost everyone on earth - then jesus either assisted this or else merely did not intervene. This means that the OT has a significant theological implication for the concept of jesus as a member of the static trinity, or else, conversely if you maintain that jesus with the same personality, awareness and agency would not have murdered almost everyone on earth then it causes significant theological implications for the OT.

Or, it means that you're engaging in wild theological speculation based on nothing but your own imagination.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Wild theological speculation... yeah i think that just about sums up quite a lot. (and I am not so crude as to dwell on how others might respond to your reply and how it applies to much you hold dear)

Given that this is a scriptural debate forum, you certainly seem in the wrong location - even I as a non-believer am capable of engaging in debate on the subject yet you it seems call such a thing mere speculation as if it might discount the implications of the position i outlined or the strength of the argument presented.

 

[sojourner]

Wild theological speculation... yeah i think that just about sums up quite a lot.

It certainly does.

Given that this is a scriptural debate forum, you certainly seem in the wrong location

I don't see how. I thought I stated my position on the matter rather clearly: There isn't a problem with reconciling an OT perspective with a NT perspective. They are two different perspectives of the same God.

even I as a non-believer am capable of engaging in debate on the subject yet you it seems call such a thing mere speculation as if it might discount the implications of the position i outlined or the strength of the argument presented.

You appear to be capable of engaging in speculation on the subject -- not debate -- since it appears from your post above, that you have completely misapprehended, not only what the Trinity is, but the common understanding of the relationship of the texts to each other and to the theological construct of the Trinity.