Trinitarian? Sure, sort of

Desert Snake said:

You also said the word 'g-d' contextually would be non specific, so yes there is a problem with your contradiction.
Besides just being contradictions, [not how to argue that.

You have a vague deity, also, as you've added gnosticism into the hodge podge of statements concerning this.

Click to expand...

I have no deity, but the NT does, and that deity is Yahweh, not Jesus. I haven't "added gnosticism". Rather, Paul's letters are a fine example of Christ being experienced in a "gnostic" manner.

Desert Snake said:

Because the Lord manifests,
John 1:10

John 1:1
John 1:10
•
Matthew 1:20

If you are reading your Bible, the Lord manifests as Jesus, He's God.

Type of Triune, I don't believe the Spirit to be a separate person, nor a person, nor the aspects of God, to be distinct as described by some theologians.

Click to expand...

Trinity | Definition, Theology, & History

Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be one of the central Christian affirmations about God. It is rooted in the fact that God came to meet Christians in a threefold figure: (1) as Creator, Lord of the history of salvation, Father, and Judge, as revealed in the Old Testament; (2) as the Lord who, in the incarnated figure of Jesus Christ, lived among human beings and was present in their midst as the “Resurrected One”; and (3) as the Holy Spirit, whom they experienced as the helper or intercessor in the power of the new life.



Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:13). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.


TrinityThe Trinity, tempera and gold on parchment by Taddeo Crivelli, from a manuscript from 1460–70; in the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. God the Father holds the crucified Christ, with the dove—as the Holy Spirit—between the two.J. Paul Getty Museum (object no. 2005.2.recto); digital image courtesy of the Getty's Open Content Program
The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism). The second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). The high point of these conflicts was the so-called Arian controversy in the early 4th century. In his interpretation of the idea of God, Arius sought to maintain a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of that oneness, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father. It was not until later in the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, St. Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance in some traditions.

steveb1 said:

As I said, an angelic being like Paul's self-emptying "Son", the Gospels' Son of Man who lives in the clouds, a godlike (not God) being like Philo of Alexandria's "Logos", a God-representative angel like the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of the Presence, Yahoel, Metatron and any number of other celestial but not divine figures.

Click to expand...

That's a belief, that you are presenting as argument fact. Your belief is that Jesus isn't [g-d, and has to do with interpretive religious belief.
So it isn't a "argument inherent fact". It's a religion perspective.

MJFlores said:

Trinity | Definition, Theology, & History
snipped

Click to expand...

Exactly - the Trinity developed over time, and tragically, outside of the original Jewish christology that it derived from. The original christology was about "Jesus", an angelic being, God's agent of creation, who bore God's image and name, and who in Paul's term, underwent a "kenosis" or self-emptying in which he suffered, died, was buried and rose again. This happened in the lower heavens, the sphere of Paul's Powers and Principalities, not on earth.

The Gospels took the celestial Jesus and invented an earthly life for him. A figure who had previously been a heavenly spirit, revealing himself in visions and revelations, became via the Gospels, a flesh and blood man who lived on earth.

As you can tell, I am a fan of Christ Myth theory, which posits a possible angelic Jesus but denies a historical Jesus.

steveb1 said:

I have no deity, but the NT does, and that deity is Yahweh, not Jesus. I haven't "added gnosticism". Rather, Paul's letters are a fine example of Christ being experienced in a "gnostic" manner.

Click to expand...

That is a specific type of religion belief, interpretation, therefore, you should have just said, it's your belief that Jesus in spirit form, or the over-self, isn't g-d.

Desert Snake said:

That's a belief, that you are presenting as argument fact. Your belief is that Jesus isn't [g-d, and has to do with interpretive religious belief.
So it isn't a "argument inherent fact". It's a religion perspective.

Click to expand...

The only belief is yours and other posters who mistakenly think JC is God, whereas I showed that the NT denies that belief, as in John 17:3 where Jesus explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead by calling the Father "you, the only true God". That's not a belief, it's a scriptural fact. Sadly so-called Christians substitute their unbiblical Trinitarian beliefs for biblical facts.

steveb1 said:

Exactly - the Trinity developed over time, and tragically, outside of the original Jewish christology that it derived from. The original christology was about "Jesus", an angelic being, God's agent of creation, who bore God's image and name, and who in Paul's term, underwent a "kenosis" or self-emptying in which he suffered, died, was buried and rose again. This happened in the lower heavens, the sphere of Paul's Powers and Principalities, not on earth.

The Gospels took the celestial Jesus and invented an earthly life for him. A figure who had previously been a heavenly spirit, revealing himself in visions and revelations, became via the Gospels, a flesh and blood man who lived on earth.

As you can tell, I am a fan of Christ Myth theory, which posits a possible angelic Jesus but denies a historical Jesus.

Click to expand...

My premise or argument, does say that Jesus in Spirit form, the over-self, is God.

You are arguing against something I never said.

Desert Snake said:

That is a specific type of religion belief, interpretation, therefore, you should have just said, it's your belief that Jesus in spirit form, or the over-self, isn't g-d.

Click to expand...

No belief. Biblical fact. Nowhere does the NT think of Jesus as God. That's a biblical FACT.
Your belief that the NT thinks of Jesus as God is an UNBIBLICAL fantasy.

Desert Snake said:

My premise or argument, does say that Jesus in Spirit form, the kver-self, is God.

You are arguing against something I never said.

Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere. So what's your take on other posters' Trinitarianism?

steveb1 said:

No belief. Biblical fact. Nowhere does the NT think of Jesus as God. That's a biblical FACT.
Your belief that the NT thinks of Jesus as God is an UNBIBLICAL fantasy.

Click to expand...

You are back to arguing a text you said is made up, [the gospels, is gnostic, [who knows what deity, and mixing religion interpretation with actual text.

So, it's a terrible argument.

Desert Snake said:

You are back to arguing a text you said is made up, [the gospels, is gnostic, [who knows what deity, and mixing religion interpretation with actual text.

So, it's a terrible argument.

Click to expand...

It's a realistic argument, as the topic is the Trinity as opposed to what the NT actually says about Jesus. It doesn't matter if the Gospel Jesus is a myth - it is the Gospel Jesus that we are talking about relative to Trinitarianism. We are not talking about Gnostic or Pagan texts, but only the Gospel. We are forced, therefore, to take seriously what the Gospels say about Jesus, whether or not we think he was historical or mythical. The subject is narrowed by the parameters of the Gospels' depiction of Jesus.

Desert Snake said:

It's wrong. My beliefs are similar to what you wrote, however the Celestial being is of course 'g-d'.
The nt is different authors, however it is difficult to say that they don't agree with my take on that, because of certain ideas presented.

Click to expand...

You can believe that the celestial being is God, but that is not borne out by the scriptures that determine the immediate scope of this debate. The NT simply does not think of Jesus as God. It thinks of him as a preexistent, archangelic "Son" who God used as agent of creation and set the divine name upon him as the celestial, angelic Son of Man. "Celestial" does not demand that a being be God - the angels, the council of the Sons of God, the righteous dead, are all celestial beings, but none of them are God.

steveb1 said:

It's a realistic argument, as the topic is the Trinity as opposed to what the NT actually says about Jesus. It doesn't matter if the Gospel Jesus is a myth - it is the Gospel Jesus that we are talking about relative to Trinitarianism. We are not talking about Gnostic or Pagan texts, but only the Gospel. We are forced, therefore, to take seriously what the Gospels say about Jesus, whether or not we think he was historical or mythical. The subject is narrowed by the parameters of the Gospels' depiction of Jesus.

Click to expand...

The triune or trinity is all 'Spirit form'.

The Adonai Elohim as in the Old Testament.

Desert Snake said:

The triune or trinity is all 'Spirit form'.

The Adonai Elohim as in the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

Fine, but nowhere does the NT call Jesus "God". Which is what this thread is really about.

Jesus excluded himself from the Godhead when he called the Father "You, the only true God".

I'll go on citing that scripture - John 17:3 - until people understand that it indeed excludes Jesus from being God.

steveb1 said:

You can believe that the celestial being is God, but that is not borne out by the scriptures that determine the immediate scope of this debate. The NT simply does not think of Jesus as God. It thinks of him as a preexistent, archangelic "Son" who God used as agent of creation and set the divine name upon him as the celestial, angelic Son of Man. "Celestial" does not demand that a being be God - the angels, the council of the Sons of God, the righteous dead, are all celestial beings, but none of them are God.

Click to expand...

The problem there is that you are mixing up languages, incorrectly.

So the Angelic host, is Elohim, 'god', for instance.
'LORD GOD' thusly, being by your argument would not necessarily refer to G-d.

Adonai Elohim, for instance

Desert Snake said:

The problem there is that you are mixing up languages, incorrectly.

So the Angelic host, is Elohim, 'god', for instance.
'LORD GOD' thusly, being by your argument would not necessarily refer to G-d.

Adonai Elohim, for instance

Click to expand...

If I'm mixing up language incorrectly, so did Jesus in John 17:3 where he calls the Father "the only true God".

You really need to take up your objections with John, whose Jesus clearly excludes himself from the Godhead.

steveb1 said:

If I'm mixing up language incorrectly, so did Jesus in John 17:3 where he calls the Father "the only true God".

You really need to take up your objections with John, whose Jesus clearly excludes himself from the Godhead.

Click to expand...

That verse doesn't do that, actually.
However, that aside, we use verses contextually, because they can be interpretive, as to how one is interpreting the words, [like inference.

So, it's better to just present ones beliefs, if any, concerning something, then use verses contextually, [[that isn't even necessary, to present their belief.

Romans 10:9
'God has raised'

John 10:17
'I myself raise'[Jesus

• so, Jesus raises Himself, [John 10:17, and, God raises Jesus, [Romans 10:9

God is one Being, therefore Jesus is God.

Desert Snake said:

That's a belief, that you are presenting as argument fact. Your belief is that Jesus isn't [g-d, and has to do with interpretive religious belief.
So it isn't a "argument inherent fact". It's a religion perspective.

Click to expand...

Interpretive religous beliefs?
I pulled it out at Encyclopedia Britannica
WTF [wait that's funny] did you post?

MJFlores said:

Interpretive religous beliefs?
I pulled it out at Encyclopedia Britannica
WTF [wait that's funny] did you post?

View attachment 32313

Click to expand...

Interesting yet nonsense.