The Trinity: Was Athanasius Scripturally Right?

[sojourner]

Jesus was perfect in form and mind. Jehovah God, his Father, chose a very, very good set of parents for him. On the earth. He was the perfect, unblemished sacrificial lamb. No one else can take his place. He paid the price. Nobody else could pay the price.

Then he wasn’t human, because all humans have sinned.

 

[sojourner]

So eternal life -- what happens with that?

It’s not about reward/punishment.

 

[PearlSeeker]

@SLPCCC

Welcome to RF. Some questions to consider:

1. Can we take Gospels as gospel?
How accurate was historiography and authorship? How much are Gospels, epistles and church doctrines a genuine reflection of what Jesus originally taught and historical events?

2. Are all Gospels the same in above regard?

3. How much are Gospels aligned with each other?

4. How much Greek influence is in NT writings?

 

[YoursTrue]

Then he wasn’t human, because all humans have sinned.

what was he -- God went into Mary's womb? You think? God needed to be fed and nurtured as an infant? God was a carpenter? God can be killed? I don't think so. But -- if you do -- obviously you think you're right.

 

[YoursTrue]

It’s not about reward/punishment.

Jesus said: "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25:46
He spoke of eternal PUNISHMENT and the righteous going into eternal LIFE. I didn't make it up. He said it. So if you don't believe it, that's up to you.

 

[sojourner]

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25.

One verse -- one verse in the entire bible where the term kolasin aionion is used, and you take it, run with it, and create doctrine out of it. Matthew 25 isn't about the individual's eternal disposition, but about what's going to happen to Israel, due to the absolute corruption of her theocracy. You're lifting it out of context and applying it to texts that have nothing to do with it.

 

[sojourner]

If someone commits a crime and gets the death penalty, is that a reward? (Is it a punishment?) Or is it noncommittal?

We're not talking about criminal jurisprudence. We're talking about the nature of sin. Completely different topic, and the two don't mix.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus said: "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25:46
He spoke of eternal PUNISHMENT and the righteous going into eternal LIFE. I didn't make it up. He said it. So if you don't believe it, that's up to you.

You didn't make it up, but you're grossly misinterpreting it, because you haven't bothered to correctly exegete the text (and possibly don't have the tools to do so). It's not a matter of "believing" it -- it's a matter of understanding it. It's apparent that you don't.

 

[SLPCCC]

@SLPCCC

Welcome to RF. Some questions to consider:

1. Can we take Gospels as gospel?
How accurate was historiography and authorship? How much are Gospels, epistles and church doctrines a genuine reflection of what Jesus originally taught and historical events?

2. Are all Gospels the same in above regard?

3. How much are Gospels aligned with each other?

4. How much Greek influence is in NT writings?

Thank you, those are good questions to consider. Good topics for new threads.

 

[sojourner]

Why do you keep making these ridiculous statements?

well, I have to admit, I was unaware that correct exegesis constituted "making ridiculous statements." Perhaps, if you weren't so quick to dismiss a scholastic treatment of the texts, you could come to a better understanding of how biblical interpretation is undertaken, and you wouldn't find them so "ridiculous."

What was the purpose of the genealogies?
They had to be literal in order to prove that Jesus was the Messiah.

No. They didn't. They don't even read like legitimate genealogies.

Every time you make some cockamamie claim about the Bible you demonstrate how little you know or understand about its teachings.

...says the "teacher" who doesn't engage in any scholarship... you got no street cred here.

I know who should be embarrassed. Especially concerning the following tirade...

I'm tickled pink that you've finally tumbled to the error of your ways. You're forgiven.

Do you feel better now? What a lovely Christian response.....? so full of loving kindness.....Jesus would be proud of you....

Jesus took a whip and beat the dog slap out of people who were making a mockery of sacred things. Isn't that a "lovely Christian response, and so full of lovingkindness?" I wasn't the one who first 1) ridiculed the correct use of scholastic terms, 2) incorrectly identified my denomination and called its legitimacy into question without provocation or foundation, 3) stood in judgment of me without knowing me and intimated that I'm not to be included in the community of Christians. I wasn't the one running wild with a mistreatment of sacred text, as if I knew what I was talking about without a scholastic foundation.

I think the post was justified, given what I was handed in the first place. One tends to reap what one sows, I think.

Lets see if "the whole angry God motif is theologically untenable"...shall we? Where do you think the world is going right now...?

If you're taking the stance that "God is causing Corona virus, the bad economy, and civil unrest due to systemic violence perpetrated upon minority groups," that, too, is theologically untenable and a terrible argument. We did all this to ourselves, largely through Trump's failings and power structures that go back centuries. This has got nothing to do with "divine retribution." Jonathan Edwards' theology went out with the abolition of slavery, equality of the sexes, and systemic homophobia. Jonathan Edwards' God is an angry, entitled, bitter white guy in a wife-beater, holding a beer can and cussing at his children. That's simply not the God the biblical redactors intended to display. [edit]
Modern Christian theology is way beyond that of the iron-age bible writers. You seem stuck there, and I think it's because your dismissal of scholarship keeps your reasoning stuck there.

 

[sojourner]

what was he -- God went into Mary's womb? You think? God needed to be fed and nurtured as an infant? God was a carpenter? God can be killed? I don't think so. But -- if you do -- obviously you think you're right.

The doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus is both fully God (therefore, sinless, perfect, powerful) and fully human (born of a human mother into a human body, and "subject to every temptation as we are...") That's it. If you can't handle the apparent dichotomy, that's your issue, not the Church's. I think that the fully human Jesus needed to be fed and nurtured. I think "carpenter" is a bit of a fairy tale. I think the fully human Jesus was an itinerant rabbi. I think the fully human Jesus was killed. I also believe that the fully divine Jesus became incarnate in a human womb, that the fully divine Jesus walked among us as Emmanuel, that the fully divine Jesus was resurrected and ascended -- just as all other gods. I believe a fully human Jesus prayed to his Father God. I believe a fully divine Jesus heard the prayers of suffering and alleviated that suffering through feeding, healing, and loving.

Again, if you can't handle that, that's an issue you'll have to own. The rest of the Church is quite comfortable wrestling with the image the Trinity gives us.

 

[SLPCCC]

Jesus was not "only true God." He prayed to HIS God and Father. I've been told that was because Jesus was in his "human form" as God, yet he said he was not equal to the Father. The word 'god' or gods (elohim) is also used in reference to the judges of Israel. You probably know that, right?

Jesus prayed to the Father while he was here on earth. The word became flesh. Being in the flesh would make any spirit limited. As you said earlier, he had to be born; he had to eat; he had to do everything that a regular human had to do in order to survive. That means Everything. He didn't cheat as a human; He was in Full Human form although he was once the "Word". That means he had to do everything all humans had to do. That includes playing the son and having a father, feeling pain, and praying to his father. He was so cut off from heaven that he was able to die.

If he was God, nontrinitarians would say, how could he have died? I could easily reason, Jesus, was fully human; he was once the word, he was not playing the role of the father, he was the son; he was separate from God although he was called Mighty God, yet he died. Then yes, he can still die, be resurrected by the father, and keep the title of God.

I'm aware that other men were called gods in the Old Testament. But I don't see how you can compare them to Jesus. He was called, "God" yes, and men were called gods, but we are talking about the son of God here not an ordinary man. We are talking about a person who was not only called God but also healed the sick, forgave sins of others, resurrected the dead, someone who is proclaimed God in the Book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:8: “But to the Son [Jesus] He [God] says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteous is the scepter of Your Kingdom.” God the Father is recognizing that Jesus is God.

To compare Jesus' title of God to men who were called gods, to me, is not a logical comparison.

 

[firedragon]

Jesus prayed to the Father while he was here on earth. The word became flesh. Being in the flesh would make any spirit limited. As you said earlier, he had to be born; he had to eat; he had to do everything that a regular human had to do in order to survive. That means Everything. He didn't cheat as a human; He was in Full Human form although he was once the "Word". That means he had to do everything all humans had to do. That includes playing the son and having a father, feeling pain, and praying to his father. He was so cut off from heaven that he was able to die.

If he was God, nontrinitarians would say, how could he have died? I could easily reason, Jesus, was fully human; he was once the word, he was not playing the role of the father, he was the son; he was separate from God although he was called Mighty God, yet he died. Then yes, he can still die, be resurrected by the father, and keep the title of God.

I'm aware that other men were called gods in the Old Testament. But I don't see how you can compare them to Jesus. He was called, "God" yes, and men were called gods, but we are talking about the son of God here not an ordinary man. We are talking about a person who was not only called God but also healed the sick, forgave sins of others, resurrected the dead, someone who is proclaimed God in the Book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:8: “But to the Son [Jesus] He [God] says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteous is the scepter of Your Kingdom.” God the Father is recognizing that Jesus is God.

To compare Jesus' title of God to men who were called gods, to me, is not a logical comparison.

How does that apply to the OP if you dont mind me asking?

 

[YoursTrue]

One verse -- one verse in the entire bible where the term kolasin aionion is used, and you take it, run with it, and create doctrine out of it. Matthew 25 isn't about the individual's eternal disposition, but about what's going to happen to Israel, due to the absolute corruption of her theocracy. You're lifting it out of context and applying it to texts that have nothing to do with it.

I'm thinking you are the one not understanding that death to Adam was not a reward for his behavior. Do you think it was?? The context in this discussion is the difference between life and death, reward and punishment. It seems you completely misunderstand the issue in the Garden of Eden with Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and what God told Adam. Besides, maybe you think Jesus did not speak of eternal punishment or eternal life, opposites. Now you say "what's going to happen to Israel?" What?? Anyway, have a nice day, it's been very interesting talking to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus prayed to the Father while he was here on earth. The word became flesh. Being in the flesh would make any spirit limited. As you said earlier, he had to be born; he had to eat; he had to do everything that a regular human had to do in order to survive. That means Everything. He didn't cheat as a human; He was in Full Human form although he was once the "Word". That means he had to do everything all humans had to do. That includes playing the son and having a father, feeling pain, and praying to his father. He was so cut off from heaven that he was able to die.

If he was God, nontrinitarians would say, how could he have died? I could easily reason, Jesus, was fully human; he was once the word, he was not playing the role of the father, he was the son; he was separate from God although he was called Mighty God, yet he died. Then yes, he can still die, be resurrected by the father, and keep the title of God.

I'm aware that other men were called gods in the Old Testament. But I don't see how you can compare them to Jesus. He was called, "God" yes, and men were called gods, but we are talking about the son of God here not an ordinary man. We are talking about a person who was not only called God but also healed the sick, forgave sins of others, resurrected the dead, someone who is proclaimed God in the Book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:8: “But to the Son [Jesus] He [God] says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteous is the scepter of Your Kingdom.” God the Father is recognizing that Jesus is God.

To compare Jesus' title of God to men who were called gods, to me, is not a logical comparison.

I'm not comparing men called gods to Jesus at all. Jesus himself drew a comparison when he said that he was the SON OF GOD while they were scripturally called gods. (or elohim) When I have more time, we can go into translations of Hebrews 1:8 and look where and why it was taken from. Jesus was GIVEN the kingship, was he not? Let's start there, then perhaps when I have more time we can discuss the original placement in the Hebrew scriptures and its placement by Paul at Hebrews 1:8. For the meantime, please take a close look at Ephesians 1 - "which He exerted in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms,
21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. 22And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church,"
Matthew 28:18 helps also:
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me."
Well, it's context, context, and context.

 

[SLPCCC]

How does that apply to the OP if you dont mind me asking?

What does OP stand for? I'm not familiar with some acronyms.

 

[sojourner]

I'm thinking you are the one not understanding that death to Adam was not a reward for his behavior

Fortunately, my OT professors disagree.

The context in this discussion is the difference between life and death, reward and punishment

No, it has nothing to do with reward/punishment. In Genesis, God never says, “I punish you for this.” Consequences aren’t mentioned.

It seems you completely misunderstand the issue in the Garden of Eden with Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and what God told Adam

I don’t see where you’re in a position to make that determination, unless you’re a scholar with a specialty in Genesis and theology. Are you?

Besides, maybe you think Jesus did not speak of eternal punishment or eternal life, opposites

He may or may not have. The writer of Matthew has an agenda, which you need to understand in order to understand the Jesus quote.

Now you say "what's going to happen to Israel?" What

I know! Funny how you are reduced to “What??” When confronted with Matthew’s message, innit?

 

[SLPCCC]

. . . when I have more time we can discuss the original placement in the Hebrew scriptures and its placement by Paul at Hebrews 1:8.

Take your time so you can be thorough. Also, it would help if you have historical and scriptural support that can be tied in.

For the meantime, please take a close look at Ephesians 1 - "which He exerted in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms,
21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. 22And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church,"
Matthew 28:18 helps also:
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me."
Well, it's context, context, and context.

I agree with all of the scriptures above but I don't see how they change the interpretation of other scriptures.

 

[SLPCCC]

Both Paul and Peter refer to Jesus as our "God and Savior."

Titus chapter 2
13 προσδεχόμενοι awaiting τὴν the μακαρίαν happy ἐλπίδαhopeκαὶ and ἐπιφάνειαν manifestation τῆς of the δόξης glory τοῦ of the μεγάλου great θεοῦ God καὶ and σωτῆρος of Savior ἡμῶν of us Χριστοῦ of Christ Ἰησοῦ, Jesus,

2 Pete 1:1
δικαιοσύνῃ righteousness τοῦ of the θεοῦ God ἡμῶν of us καὶ and σωτῆρος of Savior Ἰησοῦ Jesus Χριστοῦ· Christ;

Here are other scriptures:

"for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.," (2 Peter 1:11).

"For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first," (2 Peter 2:20).

"but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen," (2 Peter 3:18).

 

[Terry Sampson]

What does OP stand for? I'm not familiar with some acronyms.

OP = original post, that is: your first post, #1.