• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God's Trinity

Shermana

Heretic
Yup. Jesus is fully God. And fully human. He has always been God and will always be God.

Nuh uh. One cannot be "fully God" by any stretch of the grammar or concept, even if its a traditional idea. That's like saying "I am fully Shermana" as if "Shermana" is a type of being rather than a being itself. One can be fully god, as in little g, but the idea of being fully articulated G-d is simply impossible as a concept. Not even G-d would be called "Fully G-d" because there's no such thing as "Fully G-d" in the purely nominative sense. He is fully god of the gods. This is an issue where the meaning of the word "god" gets lost among Trinitarians. It's kind of a "The god" versus "A god" thing in a way.

Jesus has never been G-d, he will never be G-d, and the Trinity and Modalism will always be wrong and deviations from the original intended meanings of the Logos Theology. He has however, always been a god, the Logos, personified Wisdom incarnate, the Highest of the Angels, and the one who was ordained since the foundation of the world to be the Moshiach, the Firstborn of all Created things, the first created and beginning of the Created beings in the Heavens.
 
Last edited:

jasonwill2

Well-Known Member
Nuh uh. One cannot be "fully God" by any stretch of the grammar or concept, even if its a traditional idea. That's like saying "I am fully Shermana" as if "Shermana" is a type of being rather than a being itself. One can be fully god, as in little g, but the idea of being fully articulated G-d is simply impossible as a concept. Not even G-d would be called "Fully G-d" because there's no such thing as "Fully G-d" in the purely nominative sense. He is fully god of the gods. This is an issue where the meaning of the word "god" gets lost among Trinitarians. It's kind of a "The god" versus "A god" thing in a way.

Jesus has never been G-d, he will never be G-d, and the Trinity and Modalism will always be wrong and deviations from the original intended meanings of the Logos Theology. He has however, always been a god, the Logos, personified Wisdom incarnate, the Highest of the Angels, and the one who was ordained since the foundation of the world to be the Moshiach, the Firstborn of all Created things, the first created and beginning of the Created beings in the Heavens.

I like it when reality hits the fan and commonly held beliefs are shown to be false, frubals.
 

Shermana

Heretic
And then again only the God is real and gods are not ;)

G-d is the "god of the gods", the meaning of the word "god" is often not well understood, it means "power". There's a reason why the Father often has an article before "god", in both Hebrew and Greek, to indicate THE god as opposed to "a god". Angels are called "gods" or "Elohim", see Psalm 8:5. Even the Spirit of prophet Samuel was called an Elohim. When the angel goes down to wrestle Jacob, it's called an "Elohim", some say it was G-d himself, but later it clearly says an "Angel" was who he wrestled with. The word "Angel" is not so much a type of being but a class or job of said beings, a "messenger". The word CAN (but does not always) have a Pluralis Excentallis, similar in ways to Arabic, and so do certain other words in Hebrew.

So thus, that is why in both the Torah and the Psalms, the "Most high god" is called "god of the gods". He wouldn't be called "most high god" if there weren't other beings called "gods" to compare him too. Thus, He is THE god. To say there is any god greater than Him or equal to would be blasphemy, but to suggest that there are other beings called "gods" (powers) is not.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nuh uh. One cannot be "fully God" by any stretch of the grammar or concept, even if its a traditional idea. That's like saying "I am fully Shermana" as if "Shermana" is a type of being rather than a being itself. One can be fully god, as in little g, but the idea of being fully articulated G-d is simply impossible as a concept. Not even G-d would be called "Fully G-d" because there's no such thing as "Fully G-d" in the purely nominative sense. He is fully god of the gods. This is an issue where the meaning of the word "god" gets lost among Trinitarians. It's kind of a "The god" versus "A god" thing in a way.

Jesus has never been G-d, he will never be G-d, and the Trinity and Modalism will always be wrong and deviations from the original intended meanings of the Logos Theology. He has however, always been a god, the Logos, personified Wisdom incarnate, the Highest of the Angels, and the one who was ordained since the foundation of the world to be the Moshiach, the Firstborn of all Created things, the first created and beginning of the Created beings in the Heavens.
First of all, any language about God is necessarily metaphorical -- that is, descriptive but not definitive, for we do not stand outside God in a position to define God. When we speak of Jesus as the Word, what is that word? God! God is embodied in the Word and embodied in Divine Wisdom. It's a metaphor that works and works well, because we are embodied human beings whose experiences are necessarily also embodied experiences. The ancient Hebrews used this metaphor in Exodus, when we are told that God allows Moses a glimpse of the Divine body -- not the face, but the back side. God is not afraid of the flesh, for God found creative expression through flesh. God is known to us only through flesh. Divine wisdom comes to us in flesh, because we are flesh, and God's glory (which Moses asked to see) simply is not available to us except as it is embodied.
God is not afraid of the flesh, but loves it and becomes it.

Second, because we are particular human beings, we understand God's immanence as also particular. Jesus is that particularity in which God is especially present to us -- immanent to us -- embodied to us. Because we're talking metaphor here, I suggest that we need to grow beyond the model of a particular Christ to one that is more universal. God is embodied in the world, and embodied in us, especially, since we are the imago Dei. We are the part of creation that brings consciousness and sentience to the embodied God. That consciousness is expressed by the metaphor of Jesus of Nazareth.

Third, God as Father, as Son, as Spirit, represents a community metaphor. God created us for relationship. The whole of the bible is about God establishing right relationship with us. Relationship, in terms of human beings, is expressed in community. The Trinity, then, can be seen as a metaphor of the community of loving relationship, and God can be best understood by us, who live, embodied, within communities. We are particular beings, yet, we are also identified and shaped by -- and express ourselves through, communities.

Fourth, the image of God is the essence of our being. We are not sacred because we have been baptized or because we belong to one faith tradition over another. We are sacred because we have been born, and being born -- embodied -- makes us God's image. Christ comes not from far away in first century Palestine, but from the heart of the human soul. We are most deeply divine when we are most deeply human -- as Jesus was deeply human.

John writes, "In the beginning was the Word." He goes on to say that all things have come into being through the Word. The world is spoken into being by God. It comes from the heart of God's Being. Irenaeus speaks of creation coming out of the very "substance" of God. Creation isn't set in motion from afar. The matter of life comes directly from the womb of God's Being.

We share a common ancestry, a common beginning, and a common "heartbeat." In other words, we form a unity in diversity -- like the Trinity. God is the Oneness in which we all share.

This metaphor of One God in three Persons represents for us a wholeness of spirit, matter and energy that defines who we are as human beings, and as the image of God. Jesus, as the quintessential human being -- the completion of creation -- the whole humanity, embodies God in a special way.

Since the stuff of matter emanates from the heart of God, the stuff of matter is God, just as it is also identified as "human" or "rock" or "air." Since, as I mentioned, humanity is uniquely the image of God, and Christ is uniquely human, Christ is also uniquely God, having come body and spirit from God. In that way, Jesus is fully God, for in what way can he be said to be separate from God? Neither in his embodiment, nor in his particularity.

God is God, because God is One. Jesus is God, because Jesus is particularly One with God, and represents the complete human.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I like it when reality hits the fan and commonly held beliefs are shown to be false, frubals.
Except it's not reality. Are we not each fully who we are? How can Shermana not be fully who God has created him to be? God is God -- "I AM who I WILL BE."
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No - then Jesus wouldn't need God's help for resurrection and then he wouldn't pray to God either. That is contradictory.
Remember, though, that, as a fully human being, Jesus did have God's help, for Jesus is God embodied. God is life, and there is no separation from life. Life is ours. The death and resurrection are also metaphors for that reality.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
G-d is the "god of the gods", the meaning of the word "god" is often not well understood, it means "power". There's a reason why the Father often has an article before "god", in both Hebrew and Greek, to indicate THE god as opposed to "a god". Angels are called "gods" or "Elohim", see Psalm 8:5. Even the Spirit of prophet Samuel was called an Elohim. When the angel goes down to wrestle Jacob, it's called an "Elohim", some say it was G-d himself, but later it clearly says an "Angel" was who he wrestled with. The word "Angel" is not so much a type of being but a class or job of said beings, a "messenger". The word CAN (but does not always) have a Pluralis Excentallis, similar in ways to Arabic, and so do certain other words in Hebrew.

So thus, that is why in both the Torah and the Psalms, the "Most high god" is called "god of the gods". He wouldn't be called "most high god" if there weren't other beings called "gods" to compare him too. Thus, He is THE god. To say there is any god greater than Him or equal to would be blasphemy, but to suggest that there are other beings called "gods" (powers) is not.
Of all the Hebrew scholars I know (and I know a few!), not one of them seems to have this problem with Hebrew that you describe. Methinks you're making a mountain out of a molehill, where one is not warranted.
 

loverOfTruth

Well-Known Member
Remember, though, that, as a fully human being, Jesus did have God's help, for Jesus is God embodied. God is life, and there is no separation from life. Life is ours. The death and resurrection are also metaphors for that reality.

Let me get this straight. So God is 3 Persons(father, jesus, holy spirit). So then Jesus is 1 Person of God. So then 1 Person of God prays to another Person of God? And 1 Person of God needs help from another Person of God to come back alive while the 3rd Person of God is being a silent spectator. Nice team work.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Let me get this straight. So God is 3 Persons(father, jesus, holy spirit). So then Jesus is 1 Person of God. So then 1 Person of God prays to another Person of God? And 1 Person of God needs help from another Person of God to come back alive while the 3rd Person of God is being a silent spectator. Nice team work.
Jesus (being fully human) prays to Father. Jesus (being fully human) is resurrected by the Father. The 3rd Person (Spirit) hadn't proceeded until after the resurrection.

Remember, it's metaphor. It's intended to be descriptive, not definitive.
 

loverOfTruth

Well-Known Member
Jesus (being fully human) prays to Father. Jesus (being fully human) is resurrected by the Father. The 3rd Person (Spirit) hadn't proceeded until after the resurrection.

Remember, it's metaphor. It's intended to be descriptive, not definitive.

Well ... it shouldn't be called Trinity then. There are actually 4 Persons - father, jesus the god, jesus the human, and holy spirit. And if they are just metaphor, then they are not Real. So did the physical being pray to an unreal thing of the Quadrinity;)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well ... it shouldn't be called Trinity then. There are actually 4 Persons - father, jesus the god, jesus the human, and holy spirit. And if they are just metaphor, then they are not Real. So did the physical being pray to an unreal thing of the Quadrinity;)
No because, theologically, there is no separation of what is material and what is Divine. That's the whole point -- to teach us that God, through Christ, has reconciled us to God. So Jesus-as-fully-human is one with Jesus-as-Divine. That's why it's a metaphor that works. Because it points us to the theological truth that Jesus serves as the nexus between humanity and Divinity.
 

Shermana

Heretic
First of all, any language about God is necessarily metaphorical -- that is, descriptive but not definitive, for we do not stand outside God in a position to define God.
Please explain where exactly the metaphor is. Claiming there's a metaphor is nice, but perhaps you'd like to say what it's a metaphor for. Are you saying the entire story of Jesus is a metaphor? Are you saying that Jesus's incarnation itself is a metaphor?

I don't see why ANY language about G-d is metaphorical. If I said G-d judges and rules the whole world, is that a metaphor? I can see why some language may be metaphorical perhaps.

When we speak of Jesus as the Word, what is that word? God!
No, you're basing your presumption on the idea that John 1:1 says "Word was G-d" as opposed to "Word was a god", which I believe I've clearly explained is the better rendering as numerous non-Trinitarian scholars have agreed to. Why would G-d be the word exactly? Do you know what "Logos" means? Do you think Philo had the Logos idea wrong?

God is embodied in the Word and embodied in Divine Wisdom.
Okay, so you understand that "Word" means "Divine Wisdom", but I've asked you before to define "embodied" and you said "has a body"...okay, so please explain why the personification of Wisdom defined as the Firstborn of Creaiton in Proverbs 8, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach wouldn't be the "emobidment of Wisdom" as separate beings.

It's a metaphor that works and works well
,

But you haven't explained the metaphor at all, you've merely kept claiming that it's a metaphor.

because we are embodied human beings whose experiences are necessarily also embodied experiences.
Can anyone else explain how that makes sense in regards to the initial comparison?

The ancient Hebrews used this metaphor in Exodus, when we are told that God allows Moses a glimpse of the Divine body -- not the face, but the back side.
How do we know it's a Metaphor and that Moses didn't actually see G-d's personified being? How do you know the Mormons are wrong and that G-d doesn't in fact have a body?

God is not afraid of the flesh, for God found creative expression through flesh.
Who said anything about G-d being afraid of the flesh?

God is known to us only through flesh.
Explain what exactly you mean by "through flesh".

Divine wisdom comes to us in flesh, because we are flesh, and God's glory (which Moses asked to see) simply is not available to us except as it is embodied.
Okay, so you're saying that we can only understand things while alive in bodies? Good job captain obvious. I don't see how that fits anything you're saying though. Does anyone else?

God is not afraid of the flesh, but loves it and becomes it.
Why can't we just assume that G-d already had a body and sent the personified Spirit of Wisdom, the Firstborn of Creation as identified in Proverbs 8, in body form?

Second, because we are particular human beings, we understand God's immanence as also particular. Jesus is that particularity in which God is especially present to us -- immanent to us -- embodied to us. Because we're talking metaphor here, I suggest that we need to grow beyond the model of a particular Christ to one that is more universal.
So you say it's a Metaphor yet you're trying to say that G-d actually did embody in the Flesh? Do you not find this inconsistent?
God is embodied in the world, and embodied in us, especially, since we are the imago Dei.
When you say "Embodied in us" are you saying we are all G-d? I don't think that's what Jesus saying when he said the Spirit will dwell in us if we're worthy. A little too Pantheistic I'd say. Is G-d also embodied in murderers and rapists and thugs?
We are the part of creation that brings consciousness and sentience to the embodied God. That consciousness is expressed by the metaphor of Jesus of Nazareth.
So when you call Jesus a metaphor, are you saying that he never actually existed? Why can't that existence be expressed through His actual heavenly son, the Firstborn of Creation, the Personification of Wisdom as outlined in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach and Philos' Logos writings?

Third, God as Father, as Son, as Spirit, represents a community metaphor. God created us for relationship. The whole of the bible is about God establishing right relationship with us. Relationship, in terms of human beings, is expressed in community. The Trinity, then, can be seen as a metaphor of the community of loving relationship, and God can be best understood by us, who live, embodied, within communities. We are particular beings, yet, we are also identified and shaped by -- and express ourselves through, communities.
I can say the same thing about community by saying that G-d sent a separate being, the highest created being of Heaven. You can make up any kind of metaphor or analogy you want this way.

Fourth, the image of God is the essence of our being. We are not sacred because we have been baptized or because we belong to one faith tradition over another. We are sacred because we have been born, and being born -- embodied -- makes us God's image. Christ comes not from far away in first century Palestine, but from the heart of the human soul. We are most deeply divine when we are most deeply human -- as Jesus was deeply human.
And what do you think "image" means in the Hebrew and Greek? I think it means "shape" and "Form" quite literally. Obviously the Angels are said to have looked like us. The way you're talking I think you are saying the entire story Christianity is based on never happened at all and that it's all just a giant myth? I don't think that's "Celtic Christianity". Explain.

John writes, "In the beginning was the Word." He goes on to say that all things have come into being through the Word. The world is spoken into being by God. It comes from the heart of God's Being. Irenaeus speaks of creation coming out of the very "substance" of God. Creation isn't set in motion from afar. The matter of life comes directly from the womb of God's Being.

We share a common ancestry, a common beginning, and a common "heartbeat." In other words, we form a unity in diversity -- like the Trinity. God is the Oneness in which we all share.
Is G-d's oneness also in murderers and rapists? Are they just part of the "Diversity"? Explain this "oneness" and we'll compare it to the ideas found in the OT.

This metaphor of One God in three Persons represents for us a wholeness of spirit, matter and energy that defines who we are as human beings, and as the image of God. Jesus, as the quintessential human being -- the completion of creation -- the whole humanity, embodies God in a special way.
I agree that Jesus is the "Image" of G-d as in the representative on Earth while still being a separate spiritual entity. I agree that Jesus represents for us what we CAN be and what we are SUPPOSED to be. This is about the only paragraph I may agree with, except for being the emobidment of G-d. I see no reason why Jesus can't be the embodiment of the Highest of the Heavenly beings.
Since the stuff of matter emanates from the heart of God, t
Where do you get this that the stuff of matter emanates from the Heart of G-d?

he stuff of matter is God, just as it is also identified as "human" or "rock" or "air." Since, as I mentioned, humanity is uniquely the image of God, and Christ is uniquely human, Christ is also uniquely God, having come body and spirit from God. In that way, Jesus is fully God, for in what way can he be said to be separate from God? Neither in his embodiment, nor in his particularity.
I guess by this logic every single human being is as much as "God" as you'd say Jesus was, as well as all the Angels in Heaven. Now can you accept the idea that the "Logos" and "Wisdom" are written about as totally separate entities?
God is God, because God is One. Jesus is God, because Jesus is particularly One with God, and represents the complete human.
So if a person becomes "One with G-d" does that make that person also "God"? If so, you have a vastly different view of the Trinity than practically the entire spectrum of Christianity.
 
Top