The Trinity in the NT (my belief)

[Windwalker]

I might say that God's angels were involved in creation. Many Jewish scholars believed that the "US" in "Let US make man in OUR image" refers to angels.(and God Himself)

The 'im" suffix in Hebrew is the plural signification. One cherub, several cherubim. One Eloha, several Elohim.

I'm much more the mind that the early Jews were polytheistic originally, and later henotheistic, evolving into a strict monotheism much later in their history. I think trying to make the plural of God, Elohim about "angels", is a stretch.

I've also heard people claim the plural "let us" is the "majestic plural", such as a king might proclaim "We pronounce...", when it only himself speaking. Not so sure about that either. I lean more towards modern scholarship and the Documentary Hypothesis where you have different schools of thought represented in the texts.

This LORD God whom Adam and Eve tried to hide themselves from, was most likely the angel of the LORD who is referred to as LORD God. And the same LORD God who appeared to Abraham and ate with him. And the same LORD God who wrestled with Jacob.....and any where else that the LORD God actually appeared to men. Because no man can see or has seen the one true God.

That angel of the Lord in the Garden of Eden, would be a theophany. I think it's foolish to think that was Jesus before he was born as an angel of God. That was God itself, in manifest form. "God walked".

God is Spirit and has no legs. But God appeared in a form to Adam and Eve, and took on human flesh when he was born to Mary, according to the texts.

 

[Windwalker]

The angel wasn't the one true God, because He no man has seen.

That's why God took on a form, or a manifestation. We can see God manifest through Creation, "even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20). So the invisible God, can in fact be seen though manifested forms. It say it right there in Romans 1:20.

Even Moses spoke face to face to the LORD God, as a man speaks to his friend, but Moses also realized there was a God in heaven who no man can see because Moses went up on the Mount when the one true God descended on it and asked to see God's glory. But the one true God said "no man can see my face a live".

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.", or put another way, he has manifested him, or made him known, expressed, revealed, etc.

That's what the Logos is, and what the Logos does. God manifesting, and God manifested. "I and my Father are One".

 

[LightofTruth]

Yes, I mentioned the Memra of Jehovah before. I also mentioned Philo of Alexandria's Logos. The author of John uses both the Jewish view of Memra, and the Hellenized view of Logos as the starting point to talk about John's Logos as Jesus.

He's not intending to be identical to those, which he doesn't do, but is simply using them as a familiar view of God and expanding upon it with his Jesus. His goal with his gospel was to bridge the gap between the Jewish and Greek understandings of God, and introduce Jesus to them.

So citing how the Jews understood Memra, or citing how Philo used Logos, does not mean John's Logos is meant to be identical with either of those. That is not the case, as there are clear differences. He starts with those, but builds upon it with something new to them.


However one wrestles with understand the nature of what these theophanies of the Lord were, in a sense they do foreshadow the incarnation. But they of course are not the same. These theophanies were like putting on a set of clothes in order to be seen, and taken off and disappearing when done. Jesus was a living human being, from sunrise to sunset, from birth to death, and everything in between. So you don't look at the former, and then conclude the latter should be understand as identically as the former.

But the real intent of John's Logos, riffing off of Philo's Logos, and the Jew's Memra, was about God manifesting himself to the world. The Logos, is God manifesting, not only through Creation itself, but in the person of the human being Jesus, born of woman, not poofed out of thin air like an angel. Jesus the human, is Logos itself as a human being, not as an angel, continuing its eternal role as God's Manifestation, or God manifesting.

The Logos is God manifesting. And God manifesting, is God. While the manifestation may be temporary, the Manifestor is eternal.

John might also be borrowing the language of the Scripture which speaks of wisdom as a woman. Wisdom is personified as a woman even though it's not a woman. Wisdom comes from God Himself. Like when God granted wisdom to Solomon. God didn't put a woman in Solomon.

John seems to be speaking of God's creative word as that by which the heavens and earth were made by personifying it as "he" and then making it/he become flesh. By giving Jesus the name "The Word of God" God is attributing His creative word to Jesus.

This makes sense when we consider that Jesus has a God whom he calls "my God" and whom many letters refer to God as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". And by the fact that Jesus refer to his God as "the only true God".

It's complete and utter nonsense to say Jesus is God but that he also has a God. If Jesus has a God, then his God is superior to him. Reason loses the day in Trinitarian camps.

 

[LightofTruth]

That's why God took on a form, or a manifestation. We can see God manifest through Creation, "even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20). So the invisible God, can in fact be seen though manifested forms. It say it right there in Romans 1:20.


"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.", or put another way, he has manifested him, or made him known, expressed, revealed, etc.

That's what the Logos is, and what the Logos does. God manifesting, and God manifested. "I and my Father are One".

Jesus has manifested or declared the one true God who resides in heaven. That God is Jesus' God.

 

[LightofTruth]

The 'im" suffix in Hebrew is the plural signification. One cherub, several cherubim. One Eloha, several Elohim.

I'm much more the mind that the early Jews were polytheistic originally, and later henotheistic, evolving into a strict monotheism much later in their history. I think trying to make the plural of God, Elohim about "angels", is a stretch.

I've also heard people claim the plural "let us" is the "majestic plural", such as a king might proclaim "We pronounce...", when it only himself speaking. Not so sure about that either. I lean more towards modern scholarship and the Documentary Hypothesis where you have different schools of thought represented in the texts.


That angel of the Lord in the Garden of Eden, would be a theophany. I think it's foolish to think that was Jesus before he was born as an angel of God. That was God itself, in manifest form. "God walked".

God is Spirit and has no legs. But God appeared in a form to Adam and Eve, and took on human flesh when he was born to Mary, according to the texts.

I recall reading of an early Christian writer, I think it was Origin, who wrote about how the Jews believed God had a physical body. I believe as those Jews did.

The word "image" refers to a physical representation. Jesus says "they will see God" and "the angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven". Job says he will see God.
Moses was not allowed to see God's face....etc

The verse Trinitarians use to show God has no body is the one where it's said "God is spirit" . However, the context of that verse is not about the nature of God but about the nature of worship

 

[Windwalker]

John might also be borrowing the language of the Scripture which speaks of wisdom as a woman. Wisdom is personified as a woman even though it's not a woman. Wisdom comes from God Himself. Like when God granted wisdom to Solomon. God didn't put a woman in Solomon.

I can see the Holy Spirit being the personification of Wisdom. But I see Logos as something else in John's mind, something more to do with Agency, or Mediation. Those are the "roles" or rather what defines Logos theologically. The Agent of Creation, the Agent is Manifestation, or God Expressing, or Speaking, itself. It is not a third of God or a separate god. It is spoken of in a monotheistic sense. The Unknowable, letting itself be Known.

And that is what I see what Jesus is in John's mind in his prologue.

John seems to be speaking of God's creative word as that by which the heavens and earth were made by personifying it as "he" and then making it/he become flesh. By giving Jesus the name "The Word of God" God is attributing His creative word to Jesus.

This makes sense when we consider that Jesus has a God whom he calls "my God" and whom many letters refer to God as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". And by the fact that Jesus refer to his God as "the only true God".

It's complete and utter nonsense to say Jesus is God but that he also has a God. If Jesus has a God, then his God is superior to him. Reason loses the day in Trinitarian camps.

Reason has its place in discussions about things, but when it comes to a subject like God, a subject that transcends all notions of our realities, a subject that is Infinite and beyond all comprehension? God is beyond a world of dualities and words to describe things. So yes, I would say that reason - all reason - loses the day.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
​

That said first, in theological terms, Jesus as a man is considered theologically as the hypostatic union. He is considered 100% Divine, and 100% human. Of course, when it comes to the Divine, that falls into the category of Divine Mystery. In other words, it doesn't follow how we normally think in terms of divisions between this and between that. "Logic says, you can't have 200% of anything!". True, but that's a shortcoming of logic, when it comes to talking about the Divine Reality.

So, Jesus as a man, was Jesus as a man. Jesus as Divine, was the eternal Logos, or God Manifesting. As Jesus, as a created being, that was God Manifested. In other words, his Divine Nature, is God. In the same way, we have the Divine within us as well by the truth God creates all Life. Yet, we pray to God above, while God is also within. We are both apart from the Divine, and never apart from it at anytime in our lives.

While it may be a Mystery to the logical mind, that does not mean that cannot be realized and apprehended as a living Truth, beyond our mind's limited resource of reason. God above, God within. It's a matter of the mind dividing things, and why it fails to grasp the Divine.

 

[Windwalker]

I recall reading of an early Christian writer, I think it was Origin, who wrote about how the Jews believed God had a physical body. I believe as those Jews did.

I believe that could well be true. They have found artifacts with Yahweh drawn as a bull, with his wife Asherah in a late 9th century, early 8th century BCE drawing on a peice of pottery: Strange drawing found in Sinai could undermine our entire idea of Judaism

So yes, I'm sure ancient Jews imagined God in more physical terms. He even has a very large penis, or a tail, in that drawing above. He also had a physical wife god as well. Our early human ancestors would envision the Divine with the mind, by creating forms for it, such as bodies.

Children do this as well, imagining God as a man in the sky. It's natural to try to take the transcendent, and make it logical to the mind somehow. God is an "entity", a "person", a "being", a "deity", a "trinity", and such. All of which is simply the mind trying to put a wrapper around something beyond its capacity to grasp.

The word "image" refers to a physical representation. Jesus says "they will see God" and "the angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven". Job says he will see God.
Moses was not allowed to see God's face....etc

I'm not sure I'd agree that image means physical only. One's outlook and attitudes, their heart, for instance can reflect that image. It's like the word "name". It doesn't just mean a personal pronoun. It means all who you are, what you are, your character, your nature, etc. In the image of God, would mean the nature of God, not a biological skin sack. Though, yes, children might use that image to try to imagine what God is.

The verse Trinitarians use to show God has no body is the one where it's said "God is spirit" . However, the context of that verse is not about the nature of God but about the nature of worship

Are you saying you believe God has a physical body? I don't think it's just Trinitarians who would disagree with that.

 

[LightofTruth]

I can see the Holy Spirit being the personification of Wisdom. But I see Logos as something else in John's mind, something more to do with Agency, or Mediation. Those are the "roles" or rather what defines Logos theologically. The Agent of Creation, the Agent is Manifestation, or God Expressing, or Speaking, itself. It is not a third of God or a separate god. It is spoken of in a monotheistic sense. The Unknowable, letting itself be Known.

And that is what I see what Jesus is in John's mind in his prologue.


Reason has its place in discussions about things, but when it comes to a subject like God, a subject that transcends all notions of our realities, a subject that is Infinite and beyond all comprehension? God is beyond a world of dualities and words to describe things. So yes, I would say that reason - all reason - loses the day.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
​

That said first, in theological terms, Jesus as a man is considered theologically as the hypostatic union. He is considered 100% Divine, and 100% human. Of course, when it comes to the Divine, that falls into the category of Divine Mystery. In other words, it doesn't follow how we normally think in terms of divisions between this and between that. "Logic says, you can't have 200% of anything!". True, but that's a shortcoming of logic, when it comes to talking about the Divine Reality.

So, Jesus as a man, was Jesus as a man. Jesus as Divine, was the eternal Logos, or God Manifesting. As Jesus, as a created being, that was God Manifested. In other words, his Divine Nature, is God. In the same way, we have the Divine within us as well by the truth God creates all Life. Yet, we pray to God above, while God is also within. We are both apart from the Divine, and never apart from it at anytime in our lives.

While it may be a Mystery to the logical mind, that does not mean that cannot be realized and apprehended as a living Truth, beyond our mind's limited resource of reason. God above, God within. It's a matter of the mind dividing things, and why it fails to grasp the Divine.

What I find interesting is that what they say is a mystery to the logical mind and incomprehensible and against reason is the same thing they say one needs to believe in order to be saved.

I understand God is a much higher being than we could even imagine. But it's no mystery that there is NONE other like HE.

1Ti 6:13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

The only one who no man has seen nor can see and who only has immortality is the one true God Himself. The one true God never dies nor could He die because if He did eveything else would cease to exist.

The orthodox RCC claims that God died. The orthodox protestant Church claims that only the body of Jesus died.

I believe Jesus himself died and that Jesus' God could never die.

It's said that God has life within Himself and that He has GIVEN His son also to have life within himself, so that just as Jesus now lives, so too will those whom he chooses.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I hear what you are saying.... When I took a course about the Godhead, just when there was just one God we hit a stumbling block that He was manifested in three. And just when we establish He was manifested in three, we hit a stumbling block that He was one.
For an example... you mentioned "us"... which would sound like it is one God but He created The Word that did His being.
Eloyhim - is plural.
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD - the Existing one - singular our God - Eloyhim - plural is one LORD: - the Existing one - singular.
Very specific and with reason. "Us" - is one God but plural at the same time.
As far as capital letters.... did you know that the original Hebraic language had no capital letters?

Thank you for your reply, Yes right No capitals, but I made a reference as to why KJV used both all upper-case LORD (Tetragrammaton ) and the lower-case Lord ( No Tetragrammaton ) at Psalms 110.

Yes, I see Elo.him' and Adho.nai' used or substituted for God.
Adhonai' as meaning Sovereign Lord, and Elohim' as meaning God.
Both God and Lord are both titles and Not a name as when the Tetragrammaton is applied or used.

Yes, Jesus at Mark 12:29 did refer back to Deuteronomy 6:4.
1 Corinthians 8:6 adds one God the Father ' and ' one Lord Christ Jesus. The word 'and' being a connective between two persons.
I know of No Scripture that the Israelites would be viewing Messiah as God.
At the soon coming ' time of separation ' ( Matthew 25:34 ) I find Jesus does Not say blessed by him, but says blessed by his Father.
Again indicating a distinction between two. Even in Heaven, two also mentioned at Revelation 3:12.
Any thoughts about Revelation 4:11________________________

 

[Clear]

Hi @LightofTruth


LightofTruth said : "I recall reading of an early Christian writer, I think it was Origin, who wrote about how the Jews believed God had a physical body. I believe as those Jews did.

The word "image" refers to a physical representation. Jesus says "they will see God" and "the angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven". Job says he will see God. Moses was not allowed to see God's face....etc

The verse Trinitarians use to show God has no body is the one where it's said "God is spirit" . However, the context of that verse is not about the nature of God but about the nature of worship." (post #450)


Kudos to you for having some historical insight!

Just FYI, it does sound like you are describing Origen (thought I can't quite tell from your description).
Origen in De Principiis writes "How God himself is to be understood, – whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies” – is “a point which is not clearly indicated in our teachings.” in Origen De Principiis

One assumes historically, that he is describing the early stages of Christian tradition before the Christianity of his age had decided whether they were going to teach the God had a body, or not, and if he had a Body, what kind of body he could have. One of the wonderful things about Origen is that he remembered and spoke much of what the early Christians "used to teach" and "used to believe".


You may actually have been referring to a different quote.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good.

Clear
σεσεσιω

 

[LightofTruth]

Hi @LightofTruth


LightofTruth said : "I recall reading of an early Christian writer, I think it was Origin, who wrote about how the Jews believed God had a physical body. I believe as those Jews did.

The word "image" refers to a physical representation. Jesus says "they will see God" and "the angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven". Job says he will see God. Moses was not allowed to see God's face....etc

The verse Trinitarians use to show God has no body is the one where it's said "God is spirit" . However, the context of that verse is not about the nature of God but about the nature of worship." (post #450)


Kudos to you for having some historical insight!

Just FYI, it does sound like you are describing Origen (thought I can't quite tell from your description).
Origen in De Principiis writes "How God himself is to be understood, – whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies” – is “a point which is not clearly indicated in our teachings.” in Origen De Principiis

One assumes historically, that he is describing the early stages of Christian tradition before the Christianity of his age had decided whether they were going to teach the God had a body, or not, and if he had a Body, what kind of body he could have. One of the wonderful things about Origen is that he remembered and spoke much of what the early Christians "used to teach" and "used to believe".


You may actually have been referring to a different quote.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good.

Clear
σεσεσιω

You might check this out:
"The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature"
Alon Goshen Gottstein

 

[Clear]

You might check this out:
"The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature"
Alon Goshen Gottstein

Hi @LightofTruth

Thanks, I will check it out. I agree with you that the early Judaic literature did describe an anthropomorphic God who possessed a form and image after which he fashioned man.

Clear
σιφιδρω