Christians: Where do you draw the line?

[Dunemeister]

Well if the trinitarian theology says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are made out of the same kind of thing then I think that this view is ambiguous and not Biblical. They, God, are three different persons and they have different roles. However, it's their love and purpose that make them one. In a marriage there are two people, but God in his own way makes them one.

The bible is full of ambiguities, conundrums, and paradoxes. So why worry that a concept in it is ambiguous? (Not that I think the trinity is ambiguous. Quite the contrary, I think it's perfectly univocal.) The bible says that there is only one God, yet the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all described as divine in exactly the same sense. If that doesn't mean that they're the "same kind of thing", I don't know what does. (It actually says something more, that they are one and same thing -- how's that for weird?) And if it's not biblical, then nothing is.

And again, the oneness you speak about in marriage is not the same oneness that Jesus enjoys with the Father and the Spirit. The oneness of a married couple does not imply that they are the same being. Scripture affirms that the three distinct persons of the trinity are together one and the same being.

 

[uss_bigd]

Scripture affirms that the three distinct persons of the trinity are together one and the same being.

so you say ...

Please read this with understanding

HEBREWS 5:5-10

That is how it was with Christ. He became a high priest, but not just because he wanted the honor of being one. It was God who told him,

"You are my Son, because today
I have become your Father!"
6In another place, God says,
"You are a priest forever just like Melchizedek." [a] God had the power to save Jesus from death. And while Jesus was on earth, he begged God with loud crying and tears to save him. He truly worshiped God, and God listened to his prayers. Jesus is God's own Son, but still he had to suffer before he could learn what it really means to obey God. Suffering made Jesus perfect, and now he can save forever all who obey him. This is because God chose him to be a high priest like Melchizedek.


NOW, WHAT IS THIS? A MONOLGUE?

STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE!!!!!!

 

[Katzpur]

If you don't believe the Trinity, you do not believe "everything the bible has to say about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

I'm speaking of the Trinity as described/defined by the 4th and 5th century Creeds. The first century Christians didn't believe in the fifth century creeds any more than I do.

Indeed, you are resisting the witness of scripture to the Son.

How so? I believe everything the Bible has to say about the Son.

For the bible does not affirm the physicality of the Father or the Holy Ghost. According to the bible, there is one and only one divine being, who is a spirit and exists eternally as three distinct persons. One and only one of those persons has experienced physicality. To deny this is to separate yourself theologically from the community inaugurated by Jesus.

I totally disagree, but I'll tell you what. I would like very much to engage in a One-on-one debate with you on the subject of the nature of the Godhead/Trinity. I fully expect that such a debate would not change either of our minds, but I have a feeling you are the kind of a person who can debate without getting personal. You've impressed me as relatively open-minded and respectful of religious differences. So what say you?

 

[Katzpur]

Well if the trinitarian theology says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are made out of the same kind of thing then I think that this view is ambiguous and not Biblical. They, God, are three different persons and they have different roles. However, it's their love and purpose that make them one. In a marriage there are two people, but God in his own way makes them one.

Oh, my gosh! That sounds downright... (dare I say it?) Mormon! Do you realize how perfectly you just described LDS doctrine?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Oh, my gosh! That sounds downright... (dare I say it?) Mormon! Do you realize how perfectly you just described LDS doctrine?

Well, Cat'spur, if that's what LDS's believe them I'm eye to eye with you. It just goes to show that the different forms of Christianity do share many common aspects.

Uss-bigD, on the note that Jesus had to suffer to become perfect, well, for what I understand, Jesus died on the cross to make us perfect through his atoning blood.
Remember, he always was and is perfect. He was God before he was even born, and in order for Jesus to be God, he always had to be perfect. Maybe I misunderstood you, if I did, I'm sorry.

Dunemeister, I think we are going in circles a little bit. What do you think?

 

[uss_bigd]

Well, Cat'spur, if that's what LDS's believe them I'm eye to eye with you. It just goes to show that the different forms of Christianity do share many common aspects.

Uss-bigD, on the note that Jesus had to suffer to become perfect, well, for what I understand, Jesus died on the cross to make us perfect through his atoning blood.
Remember, he always was and is perfect. He was God before he was even born, and in order for Jesus to be God, he always had to be perfect. Maybe I misunderstood you, if I did, I'm sorry.

Dunemeister, I think we are going in circles a little bit. What do you think?

thats ok, my only point was that particular part of Hebrews 5 explicitly portrays Jesus and the God the Father as seperate beings ....

the abosolute one doctrine is misleading ...

 

[Jeremy Mason]

thats ok, my only point was that particular part of Hebrews 5 explicitly portrays Jesus and the God the Father as seperate beings ....

the abosolute one doctrine is misleading ...

Jesus and the Father are two different persons. That's why we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus would just have said be baptized in the name of the Father or God if in fact God was just one person. So we are good my friend.

 

[uss_bigd]

Jesus and the Father are two different persons. That's why we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus would just have said be baptized in the name of the Father or God if in fact God was just one person. So we are good my friend.

Good indeed...

 

[Ratiocinative]

And with respect to items # 1 and #3, I imagine that the following would also apply:

1. You must believe that Jesus Christ (who is God) was His own Father and that His Father (who is God) was His own Son, and that God is both corporeal and non-corporeal at the same time and that Jesus prayed to Himself and that the Father answered His own prayers.

The Bible is very clear that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is only one God. I admit that it is somewhat hard to understand, but it would be bold for anyone to claim that anything they can't understand is automatically false. What about God(or the universe so atheists don't feel left out)? How did he or it come into existence in the first place? Everything that we understand in our physical universe has a cause, so what caused the first thing to "come into" existence, whether you believe it to God or the physical universe? Even though we have no idea how, the only conclusion to come to is that God had no cause, he has always existed. Are you going to explain to me how something can come into existence without any cause? Are you going to start believing that nothing exists anywhere because we don't understand how something had no cause?

Either you believe the Bible is true or not, don't give me that "as far as it is translated correctly" crap. You can go learn Hebrew and Greek, read the manuscripts, and translate them yourself if you don't believe any current translations are correct. Here are a few of the verse stating there is one God and no other, and you can find lots more, so feel free to look them up in whatever translation you want:

• Exodus 8:10
• Deuteronomy 6:4
• Psalms 86:10
• Isaiah 44:8
• Isaiah 45:21
• Isaiah 45:22
• Isaiah 46:9
• Isaiah 45:5
• Isaiah 45:18
• Mark 12:32
• Mark 12:29
• 1st Timothy 2:5
• 1st Corinthians 8:4
• Galatians 3:20
• James 2:19

3. You must believe Jesus didn't really mean what He said when that it is those who keep His commandments who will abide in His love, or that He is the author of salvation of those who obey Him, or that it is those who do the will of His Father who will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Christ was very adamant in telling people they need to obey, which included believing in him. Yes, it is important to obey, but not because obeying saves you. Obeying is the result of faith, so if you aren't obeying then you don't have faith, but just because you are doing good things doesn't mean you have faith. It is certainly possible to be doing good things but not have faith. Obeying is important, but God does not give the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins because you obey the law (Galatians 3:5), and in Galatians 5:4 it says that anyone who is seeking forgiveness of sins through obedience of the law has but separated from Christ. Obeying is a result of gratitude toward God, those who have faith will want to obey, but obeying doesn't save you.

And to top it all off, you must apparently believe that when Jesus said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," He wasn't talking to you. After all, if you've passed the five "absolute, core, fundamental requirements for being a Christian," He'll overlook something as trivial as you thinking you have a right to play God.

Judging people means to pass sentence upon people, saying they should not receive forgiveness. On top of that, the only thing I did was point out what the Bible says, which is the standard we are already being measured against, so I'm not creating any new standard for myself to be measured against. The Bible is very clear about what a person must do to be saved and it is my job to tell people, not to cover it up or change it because others feel offended.

 

[Dunemeister]

I totally disagree, but I'll tell you what. I would like very much to engage in a One-on-one debate with you on the subject of the nature of the Godhead/Trinity. I fully expect that such a debate would not change either of our minds, but I have a feeling you are the kind of a person who can debate without getting personal. You've impressed me as relatively open-minded and respectful of religious differences. So what say you?

Sure, let's do that. I don't mind, btw, if anyone else joins the conversation. Why don't you start the thread in the appropriate forum?

 

[Dunemeister]

so you say ...

Please read this with understanding

HEBREWS 5:5-10

That is how it was with Christ. He became a high priest, but not just because he wanted the honor of being one. It was God who told him,

"You are my Son, because today
I have become your Father!"
6In another place, God says,
"You are a priest forever just like Melchizedek." [a] God had the power to save Jesus from death. And while Jesus was on earth, he begged God with loud crying and tears to save him. He truly worshiped God, and God listened to his prayers. Jesus is God's own Son, but still he had to suffer before he could learn what it really means to obey God. Suffering made Jesus perfect, and now he can save forever all who obey him. This is because God chose him to be a high priest like Melchizedek.


NOW, WHAT IS THIS? A MONOLGUE?

STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE!!!!!!

From a trinitarian point of view, I read all passages that involve communication between the Son and the Father as follows. God the Father (who is one being with the Son but a distinct person from the Son) speaks to God the Son (or the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, Himself fully divine in the same sense as the Father but a distinct person from the Father), and vice versa. This communication is a monologue in the sense that the conversation is internal to the One God. However, the conversation is conducted between two distinct persons of the Godhead (thus it's also a dialog).

So these sorts of passages pose no particular problem for trinitarianism.

And as far as I have read, uss_bigd, you have not confronted my discussion of Matthew 28:19, which implies by the particular grammatical structure of the sentence that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are at the same time distinct yet share the same name, viz., the name of God, YHWH. That's as good a summary of trinitarianism as you're likely to find anywhere.

 

[uss_bigd]

And as far as I have read, uss_bigd, you have not confronted my discussion of Matthew 28:19, which implies by the particular grammatical structure of the sentence that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are at the same time distinct yet share the same name, viz., the name of God, YHWH. That's as good a summary of trinitarianism as you're likely to find anywhere.

let us read

Mat 28:19

Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,


hmmmm if they were one, shouldn't have been In the name of the Father, The son OR the Holy spirit???

based on the Grammatical structure huh????

i dont think so, besides you cant explain who was LET US create man in genesis ....

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunemeister, I think we are going in circles a little bit. What do you think?

A little. We might need to change tack a bit. I think my friend Katzpur is going to start another thread about the nature of God. I hope that he (I think it's "he" anyway) and I can moderate the discussion so it doesn't go off topic or cover ground already surveyed. I'd welcome your contributions to that discussion if you'd care to make any.

 

[Katzpur]

Either you believe the Bible is true or not, don't give me that "as far as it is translated correctly" crap.

I'm not going to give you any crap at all, Ratiocinative. I'm not even going to give you the time of day. Happy now?

 

[Ratiocinative]

I'm not going to give you any crap at all, Ratiocinative. I'm not even going to give you the time of day. Happy now?

From what I can tell your "rebuttal" to the Trinity is based on nothing more than your opinion that it is "silly", but you never answer why the Bible says there is only one God. Do you believe that the Bible has been corrupted, or that it is not the word of God at all? Does it or does it not say that:

• There is only one God.
• The Father is God.
• Jesus is God.
• The Holy Spirit.

I'm genuinely curious, from a physiological standpoint, how someone can live with such blatantly contradictory beliefs? Do you just not care? I just don't understand.

 

[Dunemeister]

let us read

Mat 28:19

Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,


hmmmm if they were one, shouldn't have been In the name of the Father, The son OR the Holy spirit???

based on the Grammatical structure huh????

i dont think so, besides you cant explain who was LET US create man in genesis ....

Au contraire, mon ami!

Let's rehash the Matthew passage, shall we?

...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

In GREEK (not English), if the article (the) is repeated in a list, it emphasizes the distinction to be made between the items. In fact, the inclusion of "and" makes this even more forceful. Thus "the Father...and the Son...and the Holy Spirit" in GREEK emphasizes that these three "items" are distinct from each other in some way. So far, I think that you and I agree.

However, if the writer intended to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were distinct and separate ONLY and that they had nothing essential in common (i.e., that they were three different sorts of things, so to speak), he should have said "in the names" (note the plural). However, the author says "name." By using this grammatical structure (I wish we all spoke Koine Greek, but alas it's a dead language!), the writer forces the reader to understand that these three "items" share one name. In context, the name is obviously the name of God, YHWH (Yahweh). But to share the name is to share the essence, identity, or nature of the thing. To sum up, this one sentence says (not just implies) that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are both distinct from each other yet one in essence.

Obviously, this falls short of a full affirmation along the lines of the Athanasian Creed. However, one can easily see how passages such as this made the Athanasian conclusion almost inevitable, strange as it may be.

I can see how my previous exposition of "let us make man in our image" missed the mark of your objection. So please permit me to try again.

The puzzle for us is what "us" and "our" might mean when the Triune God said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness". From a trinitarian point of view, there are two possibilities. First, perhaps the persons of the trinity spoke to each other, in which case the dialog is internal to the godhead. Or second, the Triune God spoke to the heavenly host (angels). Either way, plural pronouns are acceptable. For in one case there is a plurality of speakers, and in the other case a singular speaker who subsists as three persons.

I hope that clarifies the position. If I've still missed your point, please try to show me how. I don't want to talk past you.

 

[Katzpur]

From what I can tell your "rebuttal" to the Trinity is based on nothing more than your opinion that it is "silly", but you never answer why the Bible says there is only one God. Do you believe that the Bible has been corrupted, or that it is not the word of God at all? Does it or does it not say that:

• There is only one God.
• The Father is God.
• Jesus is God.
• The Holy Spirit.

I'm genuinely curious, from a physiological standpoint, how someone can live with such blatantly contradictory beliefs? Do you just not care? I just don't understand.

Of course I care. Why would I not want to believe what is true? My convictions are every bit as strong as yours. I simply have no use for people who cannot treat me civilly. If you are interested in why I believe as I do, you may wish to follow the one-on-one between Dunemeister and me. You have given me no reason to believe that you are capable of a respectful exchange of ideas; Dunemeister has.

 

[IIChr7:14]

Au contraire, mon ami!

Let's rehash the Matthew passage, shall we?

...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

In GREEK (not English), if the article (the) is repeated in a list, it emphasizes the distinction to be made between the items. In fact, the inclusion of "and" makes this even more forceful. Thus "the Father...and the Son...and the Holy Spirit" in GREEK emphasizes that these three "items" are distinct from each other in some way. So far, I think that you and I agree.

However, if the writer intended to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were distinct and separate ONLY and that they had nothing essential in common (i.e., that they were three different sorts of things, so to speak), he should have said "in the names" (note the plural). However, the author says "name." By using this grammatical structure (I wish we all spoke Koine Greek, but alas it's a dead language!), the writer forces the reader to understand that these three "items" share one name. In context, the name is obviously the name of God, YHWH (Yahweh). But to share the name is to share the essence, identity, or nature of the thing. To sum up, this one sentence says (not just implies) that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are both distinct from each other yet one in essence.

Matthew 28:19
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Ok so let's study Matthew 28:19 and a little grammar.

There is a complicated idea that the Oneness movement have invented in this verse. That they say that it is not in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

So there is only one way they conclude.

The name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost as these three have only one name, and they mistakenly and ignorantly have concluded that the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is the name of Jesus Christ.
Because of there doctrine that Jesus is the Father, he is also the Son and he is also the Holy Ghost.

Thats why they have concluded the word is, in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. It is not worded as in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Little did they know grammar, even if you are speaking of three entities it doesn’t necessarily mean that you will pluralized the word that will speak of the three entities, if you know a little of grammar.


Matthew 28:19“inthe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” , is right, it is of the singular but it speaks of three entities.

You must not pluralized the word “name” because by doing so, you will complicate the matter and make it wrong. If you say, “in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” it will imply that there are so many names for the Father and of the Son and for the Holy Ghost. It will destroy the truth that the bible wants us to know.

Actually the author knows his grammar and will not use "in the names" because that will complicate matters.

Example
I am ordering you in the name of Senator A , and senator B , and Senator C.

If I use in the names of Senator A, and senator B, and senator C

That would mean senator A has many names, same as senator B and C.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Example
I am ordering you in the name of Senator A , and senator B , and Senator C.

If I use in the names of Senator A, and senator B, and senator C

That would mean senator A has many names, same as senator B and C.

That don't make no sense.

note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXFmccYme2g

 

[Dunemeister]

Matthew 28:19
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Ok so let's study Matthew 28:19 and a little grammar.

There is a complicated idea that the Oneness movement have invented in this verse. That they say that it is not in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

So there is only one way they conclude.

The name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost as these three have only one name, and they mistakenly and ignorantly have concluded that the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is the name of Jesus Christ.
Because of there doctrine that Jesus is the Father, he is also the Son and he is also the Holy Ghost.

Thats why they have concluded the word is, in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. It is not worded as in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Little did they know grammar, even if you are speaking of three entities it doesn’t necessarily mean that you will pluralized the word that will speak of the three entities, if you know a little of grammar.


Matthew 28:19“inthe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” , is right, it is of the singular but it speaks of three entities.

You must not pluralized the word “name” because by doing so, you will complicate the matter and make it wrong. If you say, “in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” it will imply that there are so many names for the Father and of the Son and for the Holy Ghost. It will destroy the truth that the bible wants us to know.

Actually the author knows his grammar and will not use "in the names" because that will complicate matters.

Example
I am ordering you in the name of Senator A , and senator B , and Senator C.

If I use in the names of Senator A, and senator B, and senator C

That would mean senator A has many names, same as senator B and C.

You have apparently misunderstood what I said. I was talking about what the GREEK grammar was in the original text. That grammar forces the meaning I described. BECAUSE the author used "name" in the singular but itemized the persons using "and the", the meaning of the text is that three distinct persons share the name of YHWH. It was up to later Christian generations to tease out what exactly that meant, but it's easy to see why the church adopted the trinitarian view. It makes sense of the grammar used without distorting it.

So the problem in this case is not how some groups interpret this passage. The problem is that the grammar does not support a unitarian view of God's nature.