Christians: Where do you draw the line? (Jesus, Creator, Moses)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

That's what bugs me about the church. Because you're non-trinitarian (among other things), people say you're not a real Christian. But you believe in the deity and authority of Christ. That's all that should matter, right?

That's right. We believe in the deity and authority of Christ. We believe that He is our Savior and that it is through Him alone that we can be reconciled to our Father in Heaven. To me, that's the important thing.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

so, "God said in genesis let US create man" who was he talking to?
and, the verse that said " everything was created through him" why didnt he say through me if they are one?

so coffee with cream means coffee is the same as cream??

Coffee and cream do not provide a good analogy for what Christians are saying when they talk about the Trinity. I can't be more clear than the Athanasian Creed.

I agree fully that the Trinity is paradoxical. Unfortunately, we as Christians must live with this tension because, like it or not, the bible makes the following claims:

1. There is only one divine being.
2. The Father is divine.
3. The Son is divine in the same sense that the Father is divine.
4. The Holy Spirit is divine in the same sense that the Father and the Son are divine.
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct "persons." (Unfortunately, the church literally had to invent a concept here in order to get at what is going on, so the English word "person" is wholly inadequate. But it's what we've got. Sigh.)

So, the Church eventually settled on the idea that there is one divine substance/entity/being, but three distinct persons who "share" (is that the right word?) that divinity, which belongs to God alone. The theological concept that eventually developed was the trinity.

It's also well to note that this formulation arose as a result of intense controversy within the church. In the early centuries, the Church had to decide between three options: trinitarianism (what I've just described, championed by Athanasius), modalism -- the idea that there is one god who visits his people in three different modes or fashions, and Arianism -- the idea that there is only on god and therefore there is no possible sense in which Jesus could be anything more than a human. Indeed, Arianism was the more popular option, even beyond the Council of Nicea which decided in favor of trinitarianism. However, trinitarianism eventually won out for various reasons, including the fact that the position simply reflects best what scripture says.

So, here is a trinitarian interpretation of the sayings you present.

"God said in genesis let US create man" who was he talking to?

No matter how you look at it, this is a puzzle. If God is unitarian (not a trinity), we still have the question who he was addressing. A unitarian might say that he was addressing the angels. In fact, many do say that. Even many trinitarians say that. However, God says, let US. So is he suggesting that the angels get down to the business of creating people? Not likely, for God is the only creator. Thus the US must refer to the Triune God. Thus the persons of the trinity are addressing each other.

We should also keep in mind that this passage was written by highly unitarian Jews. In that case, what could the "us" possibly mean? Scholars have suggested that the "us" is similar to the "royal we." Royalty would often refer to themselves in the plural as a way of implying their magnificence and supremacy. It seems logical to think that God is speaking in that way here. In that case, God (whether trinitarian or not) is speaking of his own intentions. Who is he speaking to? Jews would hold that he was speaking to the "heavenly court" or the angels.

and, the verse that said " everything was created through him" why didnt he say through me if they are one?

Paul was speaking there, so of course he wouldn't say "through me". I assume you meant, "Why didn't he say through them?" Well perhaps Paul was speaking of the Triune God, not picking out any of the persons. That would be legitimate, wouldn't it? It would be just as legitimate to say "through Jesus" or "through the Father" or "through the Holy Spirit." However, in the context of the verse, "him" refers to Jesus. Paul is arguing for the supremacy of Jesus in this passage. So to call out the Father or the Holy Spirit here would not be appropriate.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Coffee and cream do not provide a good analogy for what Christians are saying when they talk about the Trinity. I can't be more clear than the Athanasian Creed.

I agree fully that the Trinity is paradoxical. Unfortunately, we as Christians must live with this tension because, like it or not, the bible makes the following claims:

1. There is only one divine being.
2. The Father is divine.
3. The Son is divine in the same sense that the Father is divine.
4. The Holy Spirit is divine in the same sense that the Father and the Son are divine.
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct "persons." (Unfortunately, the church literally had to invent a concept here in order to get at what is going on, so the English word "person" is wholly inadequate. But it's what we've got. Sigh.)

So, the Church eventually settled on the idea that there is one divine substance/entity/being, but three distinct persons who "share" (is that the right word?) that divinity, which belongs to God alone. The theological concept that eventually developed was the trinity.

It's also well to note that this formulation arose as a result of intense controversy within the church. In the early centuries, the Church had to decide between three options: trinitarianism (what I've just described, championed by Athanasius), modalism -- the idea that there is one god who visits his people in three different modes or fashions, and Arianism -- the idea that there is only on god and therefore there is no possible sense in which Jesus could be anything more than a human. Indeed, Arianism was the more popular option, even beyond the Council of Nicea which decided in favor of trinitarianism. However, trinitarianism eventually won out for various reasons, including the fact that the position simply reflects best what scripture says.

So, here is a trinitarian interpretation of the sayings you present.

"God said in genesis let US create man" who was he talking to?

No matter how you look at it, this is a puzzle. If God is unitarian (not a trinity), we still have the question who he was addressing. A unitarian might say that he was addressing the angels. In fact, many do say that. Even many trinitarians say that. However, God says, let US. So is he suggesting that the angels get down to the business of creating people? Not likely, for God is the only creator. Thus the US must refer to the Triune God. Thus the persons of the trinity are addressing each other.

We should also keep in mind that this passage was written by highly unitarian Jews. In that case, what could the "us" possibly mean? Scholars have suggested that the "us" is similar to the "royal we." Royalty would often refer to themselves in the plural as a way of implying their magnificence and supremacy. It seems logical to think that God is speaking in that way here. In that case, God (whether trinitarian or not) is speaking of his own intentions. Who is he speaking to? Jews would hold that he was speaking to the "heavenly court" or the angels.

and, the verse that said " everything was created through him" why didnt he say through me if they are one?

Paul was speaking there, so of course he wouldn't say "through me". I assume you meant, "Why didn't he say through them?" Well perhaps Paul was speaking of the Triune God, not picking out any of the persons. That would be legitimate, wouldn't it? It would be just as legitimate to say "through Jesus" or "through the Father" or "through the Holy Spirit." However, in the context of the verse, "him" refers to Jesus. Paul is arguing for the supremacy of Jesus in this passage. So to call out the Father or the Holy Spirit here would not be appropriate.

you are distortng english grammar sir .... so when Jesus said the church and i are one ... IN YOUR LOGIC ... if i am a member of the churh i am Jesus ... that is screwed....

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

That's what bugs me about the church. Because you're non-trinitarian (among other things), people say you're not a real Christian. But you believe in the deity and authority of Christ. That's all that should matter, right?

Confess Jesus as Lord. Believe that God raised him from the dead. That done, you will be saved.

But that isn't the end of the story. One must grow in grace, and part of that is learning and accepting the faith of the apostles, which was formulated (eventually) into the pre-schismatic (catholic) creeds. If one resolutely resists that doctrine, it is legitimate to wonder whether they truly confess Jesus as Lord, for Jesus is the prime author of those creeds.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Confess Jesus as Lord. Believe that God raised him from the dead. That done, you will be saved.

Seriously? You don't believe that obedience to God's commandments counts for anything?

But that isn't the end of the story. One must grow in grace, and part of that is learning and accepting the faith of the apostles, which was formulated (eventually) into the pre-schismatic (catholic) creeds. If one resolutely resists that doctrine, it is legitimate to wonder whether they truly confess Jesus as Lord, for Jesus is the prime author of those creeds.

By "that doctrine," are you referring to the Creeds (Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian)? Truly, I don't believe Jesus would recognize himself in the Creeds. Can you give me one statement by any of the Apostles that describes the relationship between the Father and the Son the way the Athanasian Creed does? And are you implying that if a person does, in fact, resist the doctrines taught in the Creeds, that he doesn't confess Jesus as Lord? Why is it not sufficient to confess the Jesus Christ of the Bible?

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

you are distortng english grammar sir .... so when Jesus said the church and i are one ... IN YOUR LOGIC ... if i am a member of the churh i am Jesus ... that is screwed....

Well no, I (or actually, the early Church) am distorting English semantics. Most people assume that "person" implies, or even simply means, "being". One person is one being. Three persons are three beings. Most of the time, and in everyday situations, that's perfectly fine. But when you are talking about God, it's not perfectly fine. In that case, we Christians are using the term "person" in a highly technical sense (in fact, the church coined the term). The sense in which we use "person", when we are talking about God, is such that it does not imply one person = one being.

Back to your quote. In Jesus' high priestly prayer (John 16 - 17), Jesus prays that the church would be one, just as he is in the Father and the Father in him. In that case, since nobody in Christian history (who has been taken seriously) thinks that the church is divine in the same sense as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is divine, theologians have concluded that here, Jesus is talking about unity of purpose, unity of love. A look at the rest of the prayer confirms this. Jesus is praying that the church would be united on the basis of love. If you read the whole Gospel of John with this in mind, the whole gospel takes on massive unity, cohesion, and plain good sense.

Believe me, I understand the difficulty that the doctrine of the Trinity poses. I believe it not because I understand it through and through. I believe it because, dammit, it stares me in the face when I read scripture. Besides, there are lots of things I believe even though I don't understand them. Many scientific theories fall into this category for me, for example. I just live with the fact that some things are true even if I can't understand all the logic.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

theologians have concluded that here, Jesus is talking about unity of purpose, unity of love. A look at the rest of the prayer confirms this. Jesus is praying that the church would be united on the basis of love. If you read the whole Gospel of John with this in mind, the whole gospel takes on massive unity, cohesion, and plain good sense.

has it ever occured to you that Jesus has unity of purpose with the father? and they are not actually one...

besides ... God was taliking to Jesus when he said LET US create man....that make perfect logical sense ... and that .. using your own logic ... when he said "one with church LIKE the father and i are one" you are affirming that Jesus meant "united one" and not absolute one....

he used "LIKE" the father and i are one .....you are contradicting your self