Nor is it required. Inventing a question that cannot be answered does mean that contradictions exist.
That's right. I didn't "invent" a question to try to manufacture contradictions. I simply responded to you post # 82's suggestion that "One of the most common tactics of trinitarian apologists is to claim a mystery is beyond human understanding AS IF that supports the claim." The mystery of God's ineffable nature is not a Trinitarian tactic, but a universal fact that neither supports nor detracts from Trinitarianism, that neither supports nor detracts from Unitarianism.
Musical notes ARE music. So are chords. Each note is a sound, and when played together the chord is likewise a sound. In each case the sound is recognizable as what we call “music.” By analogy of “deity” to “music,” each of the three persons, like each note of the chord, is deity (music), and together they form deity (music) through three distinct sounds (persons, according to Trinitarian circles -- I wouldn't use that word). But the real harmony is in the Trinity (chord). Played simultaneously, the individual notes comprising the chord are subsumed in a single identifiable sound; our ear does not immediately pick the chord apart (although we can do so intellectually, and on the sheet music). It’s just music to the ear. It’s just God.
I certainly agree that relationships among things "are not required to be 3." Nor 2. Nor 4. What's your point?
I don't agree with calling God the Father a person. That's just not the right descriptor of His substance or essence or -- to use the original Trinitarian word -- His ousia. God is a hypostasis. “Person” is just the wrong translation of hypostasis. With all due respect to the KJV’s translation of that word in Hebrews 1:3 as “person,” we need to consider what happens when we juxtapose -- as the Nicenes did 1700 years ago -- hypostasis with ousia. They are not the same. Students of Greek and Latin who look at hypo and stasis as mirror images of sub and stantia are falling into a trap. I don’t want to downplay the importance of Hebrews 1:3 for Greek trinitarian theology, but we should be cautious in presuming that the author of Hebrews used the word in the exact same sense as, for example, the Cappadocian Fathers did three centuries later.
Gregory of Nyssa’s Letter to Peter works out the distinction between ousia and hypostasis as relating to the different names and properties attributed to God. J.H. Srawley, The Catechetical Oration of St. Gregory of Nyssa (1903) p. 26 n. 1 explains:
“As a theological term the word hypostasis was originally used as a possible equivalent to ousia (‘being,’ or ‘existence’), as being the substratum or underlying existence of things. Cp. Heb. i. 3 (‘the express image of His being’ (hypostaseōs). It was still used in this sense in the earlier years of the fourth century. But later the two terms were distinguished, and currency was given to this distinction by the formula of the Cappadocian Fathers to denote the Trinity ‘One Being’ (ousia) ‘in three persons’ (hypostaseis). The later Western term ‘person’ has different associations from hypostasis, which denotes ‘a particular centre of being.’”
Does any of this interest you? I suspect not. I hope I am wrong.
Mattathias
Well-known member
It is neither raised nor explained in scripture. No one in the Bible is using the philosphical language that trinitarianism uses.
Why is it necessary to attempt to do what scripture doesn’t do? Why is what is contained in scripture insufficient?
What was the result of the speculation that eventually produced trinitarianism? A new and different understanding of God, Messiah and Holy Spirit. An understanding that was unknown to Jesus and the Apostles, coming centuries after their day.
Dr. Brown asked the right question: Was it a valid development of what is written in scripture?
The monotheism of Israel, the monotheism of the Jews, the monotheism of Jesus, the monotheism of the earliest Christians was - as Gregory of Nyssa boasted - destroyed by it.
In part but not whole but that was not your point, was it? Again, you keep changing your reference. When one refers to God, one refers to the whole of God and this is why Jesus can never be God. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Your arguments are missing the mark. Even if they were keeping to the same reference, it does not support 3.
Well, he is. God is said to be the Supreme Being. If you look up the definition of Being, a sense or synonym is person.
From https://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-a-person.html
Yes, God is a person. But, when we say that God is a “person,” we do not mean that He is a human being. We mean that God possesses “personality” and that He is a rational Being with self-awareness. Theologians often define person as “an individual being with a mind, emotions, and a will.” God definitely has an intellect (Psalm 139:17), emotions (Psalm 78:41), and volition (1 Corinthians 1:1). So, yes, God is a person.
No one doubts the personhood of man, and man is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27). All through the Bible, the personal pronouns He, Him, and His are used of God.
Only to knock it down. Jeuss did not teach the trinity. Why do you?
Because in my view, the early Church Fathers were correct in concluding that His salvific role requires His divinity. Few Christians today dwell on the question of the necessary qualifications for playing that salvific role. We might ask the question this way: what must be the victim’s nature in order to pay the price for mankind's sin? Would a sinless man fill the bill here? Or must the victim have been something more – and if so, how much more?
The early Church Fathers wrestled with this. They ultimately concluded that the ransom price was high indeed. They ultimately concluded that the victim must be divine. It was a conclusion about how to reverse the curse and repairing the rift between God and man. The blood of God Incarnate was required to wash away mankind's sin. No lesser solvent would do.
What helped me understand this was an exegesis of Paul’s use of the pleroma – translated as “fullness” – twice in Colossians and twice in Ephesians. In Colossians, Paul attributes to Christ the fullness of God, Colossians 1:19 (“For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”); Colossians 2:9 (“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”). And in Ephesians, he hints at that same fullness present in Christ being transferable to humanity, Ephesians 3:19 (“and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God”); Ephesians 4:13 (“until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”). For Paul, there was at least some sense in which mankind could, through Christ, attain to the divine.
The early Church Fathers who worked out the Trinity doctrine thought so too. Athanasius’ fourth century work On the Incarnation famously states “God became man that man might become God.” He wasn’t blaspheming that we would all become equal to God. He was commenting on restoration of mankind’s union with God. Other Patristics did to. Clement of Alexandria, in the first chapter of his Exhortation to the Heathen, writes “I say, the Word of God became man, that you may learn from man how man may become God.” Origen, in the third chapter of his Contra Celsus, writes “from Him there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be divine.”
I agree with them. You are free to disagree, and I'll respect your view -- as I hope you can respect mine.
The_H_C
New member
Very good replies! In my over 40 yrs. of studying the Scriptures, I’ve discovered that the context of, ie., the content surrounding, these verses often clarify them in a way that doesn’t support a Trinitarian view.Jer 23:
5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Calling or giving a name to someone or something does not mean that someone or something IS the name:
Jer 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
Is Jerusalem God? (no..) Being called a certain name is often done simply because the object shares some similarity, likeness, connection, or representation of the name it is called.
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
This is a translation issue. "By whom also he made the worlds" is "through whom he has given form to the ages". The word translated "worlds" in some versions is "aionion" and it means "ages", not worlds. I'm not going into more specifics, but you can research it if you want.
Heb 1:
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
This is too much to explain here, but if you want to read a commentary on it: https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Hebrews/1/8
Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
This is similar to the Jeremiah verses above. Giving someone a name does not mean the person IS the name.
Matt 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. It does not say he is God.
Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
It does not say Jesus Christ is God of all. Jesus is the man God MADE both Lord and Christ (Act2 2:36).
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
This is a translation issue. Newer translations have "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (ESV) or similar. Adam grasped at equality with God. Jesus didn't.
Col 1:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Yes, Jesus is the IMAGE of God, not God.
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
The things Jesus created, and is still creating, are right there in the verse: "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers". They are positions of leadership within his church. Jesus did not create the heaven and earth, God did (Gen 1:1; Isa 44:24).
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Jesus is before all things in preeminence, not time.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Yes. Those verses do not say that Jesus is God.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
The fullness of God dwelt in Jesus Christ. It does not say Jesus Christ is God.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Both God and Jesus Christ are referred to as the first and the last. It does not mean they are both God.
Concerning this: "He did not inherit the sin nature all the rest of us inherit from Adam." If Jesus Christ had a sin nature he could not have been the acceptable sacrifice. He himself would have need salvation.
So, Jesus is not your authority but the early church fathers are your authority.
This thread is about
Why Christ's Deity is important
and your answer is ‘His salvific role requires His divinity, in your view’ - even though you admit Jesus did not teach the trinity.A point of clarification. Being divine means being from God. No one denies Jesus is OF God. The thread is about a man being a deity. Jesus never said he was a deity or that it was important to believe he was a deity. And you seem to be using the term divine to mean he is a deity, rather than merely being FROM or OF God. Correct?
Well, the Bible tells us that Jesus was a man who was sinless. That’s good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for you?
Why must your theology be rooted, not only in speculation but contrary to what Scripture actually states?