-
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!
Isaiah 43:11
- Thread starter Halcyon
- Start date
Booko
Deviled Hen
Halcyon said:
Personally I think a verse like the following provides a better prooftext:
Matt 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
That is, if the trinity holds, there is no reason I can think of why the Father would know something that Jesus does not.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
That's another good one, i also like this from John;
Here he is speaking to Mary and through her to the apostles, he calls God their Father too - does this mean Mary was the literal daughter of God, and that the apostles were the literal sons of God too?
How can Jesus have a God, if he is God incarnate?
Here he is speaking to Mary and through her to the apostles, he calls God their Father too - does this mean Mary was the literal daughter of God, and that the apostles were the literal sons of God too?
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Halcyon said:
Actually it's an excellent prooftext FOR the Trinity. Jesus is the Savior (Titus 1:4), and therefore, since there is no Savior but God, then Jesus must be God.
FerventGodSeeker
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
But this was God the Father speaking, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus.FerventGodSeeker said:
It is also said Jesus sits on the right hand of God, at His side. The Father and Jesus cannot therefore be one and the same, as Jesus is sitting on God's hand. But there is no Saviour beside God - Jesus is not the Saviour if he sits on the right hand of God.
Booko
Deviled Hen
Halcyon said:
Yes, but Trinitarians will argue that the verse in Isaiah didn't refer to Jesus because there was no need to at the time. Isa 43:11, I think, can be read too many ways to be of much use.
Except that in mainstream Christian belief, God is a spirit, so they will just tell you that it's not the "right hand" literally speaking, but means something metaphorical. I don't take it's main meaning as literal either, for that matter.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
Halcyon said:
Not at all. If you read the NT there are many, many verses that describe Jesus and God as equal. "The Word" referenced in the first quote is Jesus
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" John 1:1, 3, 10, 14
"I and my Father are one". John 10:30
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Hmmm, the logos yes. But this is Gnostic mythology only found in John you will notice. It only makes sense in its original Gnostic context.Buttercup said:
Yes, but this can be interpreted in many ways. I can and often do make the same claim.Buttercup said:
Yes, the logos was before Abraham.Buttercup said:
Three that bear record, but it doesn't say three alone.Buttercup said:
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Because Isaiah 43:15 says "I am the LORD, your Holy One, Israel's Creator, your King." Jesus didn't create Israel because he wasn't born yet.FerventGodSeeker said:
So you take this as allegorical. Why then do you take Jesus talking about his Father in heaven to literally mean he his the offspring of God?FerventGodSeeker said:
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Pah said:
lunamoth
Will to love
Interesting. Buttercup, along with millions of other Christians have had no trouble understanding this outside a Gnostic context.Halcyon said:
Could you give examples of all the different ways you interpret this?
Yes. The alpha and the omega.
The earliest Christians of the Church that has existed to this present day have understood the Trinity to be the Manifestation of the One True God to those of us here on earth. I understand that others do not see it this way, but I fail to understand why it is so important to deny the Trinity to Christians. OK, so you see differently. But, if you think that the Trinity is an empty, or even harmful, doctrine, you must also think that Christ was unable to keep the promises He made and that the Holy Spirit did not come and lead us into all Truth as Christ promised. At what point do you think the Spirit abandoned the Church? And, how then can you trust the Bible to tell you anything, literal, metaphorical, spiritual, or otherwise?
lunamoth
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Defij
Member
Halcyon said:
Halcyon said:
Well you have to look at that verse in Isaiah in it's historical context. First of all, that is in "Second Isaiah". This part of the book of Isaiah is not written by the prophet Isaiah, but sometime after they were taken captive into Babylon by an unknown prophet who many scholars simply call "second Isaiah".
Up until this point in their history, the Hebrew people were not necessarily "Monotheistic", but more Henotheistic. Now, after the exile, the Babylonian editors of the Tanak can look back on the reason why they are in exile and using the Book of Deuteronomy, they being to develop a very Deuteronomical view of the world; that is simply if one obeys covenant, blessing and prosperity, if one disobeys covenant, curses and the wraith of God.
Now, one of the many developments is this turn to "Monotheism" during the exile. So the author here, in his original context, of course would have no concept of "The Trinity" at all. The concept of the Messiah hadn't even been fully developed, and certainly not until we get into the New Testament, with books that have a high Christology do we have the concept of the Trinity. So yes, this verse here is very Monotheistic, and not very Trinitarian.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Go on then, explain to me why Christ was called the word of God. Also why he's only called this in the gospel fo John.lunamoth said:Interesting. Buttercup, along with millions of other Christians have had no trouble understanding this outside a Gnostic context.
Sure. I am the son of God because i am male and am a creation of God. I am a part of God, but i am also an individual.lunamoth said:
Son of God is also a title. People can become a Son or Daughter of God when the Christ descends upon them and the gain practically unadulterated understanding of God, they become one with God in a much greater sense than unenlightened people, God speaks through them as they are at one with God. However they are not fully God as God is far too great, thus a good title is a Son of God.
The earliest Christians, are you sure of that?lunamoth said:
The proto-orthodox had no concept of Trinity. The Trinity concept came into existance in the 4th century at the Council of Nicea and was later expanded upon int he Athanasian creed in the 6th century. Thats at least 325 years without a doctrine of Trinity within what would become the orthodox chuch alone. Never mind the fact that the earliest Christians were not limited to the proto-orthodox sect of Irenaeous and his buddies.
Oh i'm fine with people believing in the Trinity, i just came across a passage that seemed to go against the concept and wanted to debate it.lunamoth said:
The spirit was never with the Church, the spirit is with the people. Truth abandoned the Church as soon as man-made beliefs became more important than Christ's message.lunamoth said:
No, they didn't.FerventGodSeeker said:
Yes, you are correct. My bad. I was reffering to the fact that the logos existed before Abraham was born, since Abraham existed in a fixed time period.FerventGodSeeker said:
Quite a lot plainer actually. Along the lines of "God is three forms in one, and three forms alone" would be best.FerventGodSeeker said:
Valentinians believed in over 30 aspects of God that were one. Three of those are one, 5 of those are one, 15 of those are one etc.
Just because it says that three aspects of God are in fact only aspects of a single source does not mean that those three alone exist. Nor does it even vaguely suggest that those three forms are somehow distinct from one another to the extent that God is tri-form in nature.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
I am interested in contributing further to this debate but may I ask for clarification before I proceed?
Are you wanting us to discuss a passage from the OT to explain the idea of the trinity in the NT?
Could you explain just a bit more of what you are looking for? Sorry...just want to make sure I am understanding correctly as I am a bit confused. I can't get back till tonight or tomorrow though....
Are you wanting us to discuss a passage from the OT to explain the idea of the trinity in the NT?
Could you explain just a bit more of what you are looking for? Sorry...just want to make sure I am understanding correctly as I am a bit confused. I can't get back till tonight or tomorrow though....
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Halcyon said:
Actually, it was the LORD speaking...not the Father. And Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Because Jesus is God, there is no other savior. Trinitarians do not seek to replace God's salvation with the salvation of Jesus -- they are one and the same thing, that is, God's salvation was made available to all through Jesus.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Sure. We have gone off topic.Buttercup said:
Basically, Isaiah is a prophet (or several prophets if you believe many people wrote the book). He was a Jew, a pure monothesist, by which i mean i had no concept of a tri-form God, his God was one being alone.
He "quoted" God as saying that there is no saviour beside Him. Taking Isaiah's religious viewpoint, this seemed to me to be a prophetic warning against a saviour who people will see as equal to God. Jesus is often called the Saviour by Christians.
If this is not referring to the Saviour, which saviour is it referring to?
When i read it it was like being smacked in the face, it seemed like a prophetic declaration that Jesus is not equal to God and so cannot be the second person in any form of Trinity.
Do you happen to know the Hebrew for the english translation of Lord in this case?sojourner said:
I know that several different names and titles for God were simply translated as Lord. The original meaning would help put this into context.