• 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!

The Trinity: Was Athanasius Scripturally Right?

YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
firedragon said:
Well, Im talking about today, not when Jesus was alive. And I am not talking about my view, I am just reiterating the Trinitarian view.
Click to expand...
Ok. May I ask what is the trinitarian view you are reiterating, because there is more than one view of the trinity that I am aware of. Hopefully you understand there is nothing that a trinity explanation one might produce that causes me to ascribe to it. Becauses the scriptures are clear. Jesus spoke of the only true God. That was not directed towards himself. It was directed to the one he called the only true God heaven. He was not in heaven when he said that. Never did he say he was God. There are various definitions of the word God. For Jesus to speak of the only true God demonstrates he knew there was more than one god but the others were not truly God, the One who sent him. Therefore the words must be taken in context. No scripture or set of scriptures shows three persons are God, each equal to the other, and yet one God. I hope this helps to clarify.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
eik said:
To be pedantic, Jn 3:18 says "God's one and only Son." The inference is that the other "sons of God" were adopted, but Jesus was "begotten," which is by direct descent. Jesus was begotten at conception. He (the Word) came down from heaven, from the very throne of God, being subject to a "kenosis" (Phil 2:7).

This is the biblical understanding, but the Greeks could not grasp the Jewish simplicity, and insisted that he was begotten "before all ages," per the anicent Greek pagan trinity conception of gods begetting gods in heaven (the "trinity concept" predating Christianity by a long time and going back to Egypt). This in turn led to, or perhaps incorporated, the Arian and Sabellian "trinitarian heresies" which Athanasius spent his life immersed in and trying to extricate himself from.

Other constraints of philosophy taken from Greek paganism were that divinity and humanity could not be mixed, so that Christ was said to "assume" a human nature, rather than "be made a human," This in turn led to further heresies, cf. Apollinarism, being the idea that Christ did not have a human soul, but that the Word itself dwelled in Christ without a "kenosis," (i.e. an emptying) which tends to see Christ as "superhuman" rather than human, although this was repudiated by Athanasius.

Further restrictions on Christ's composition derived from the refusal to accept the idea that "God" could be subject to a kenosis at all (i.e. an emptying) so we end up with "God" being "united" with human nature, with human nature having a human soul, which is somehow "assumed" by Christ, which tends to suggest Christ is really two people, but which Trinitarians reduce to Christ having two natures.

Anyway the point is this: none of this had got anything to do with what Christ taught about himself, or about what the apostles taught about Christ, which is that he was a "man" who died and was resurrected to the right hand of God on God's throne, thence receiving from God "everything that belonged to the Father." This does suggest that Christ was subject to a "kenosis" on being conceived which the early church did not fully grasp the ramifications of.
Click to expand...
The more delving into these things the more interesting it can become. It seems very clear from the Bible that the person who came from heaven was killed. The ones setting him up for death were the religious leaders. And it was the overseeing governmental ruler (via Rome) that had him executed due to pressure from religious leaders and false testimony. He was resurrected and went back to heaven, no longer a baby or grown human but transformed as a spirit person.
 
Hockeycowboy

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
“Divinity” does not mean “God”.

The definition of divine is “of God” or “from God”.

So, this Planet Earth is divine....Adam & Eve, as created initially perfect children of God, were divine....the universe and the laws governing it, are divine.

Etc.
 
SLPCCC

SLPCCC

Active Member
Hockeycowboy said:
“Divinity” does not mean “God”.

The definition of divine is “of God” or “from God”.

So, this Planet Earth is divine....Adam & Eve, as created initially perfect children of God, were divine....the universe and the laws governing it, are divine.

Etc.
Click to expand...


You say it's divine but look who's ruling the earth.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Hockeycowboy said:
“Divinity” does not mean “God”.

The definition of divine is “of God” or “from God”.

So, this Planet Earth is divine....Adam & Eve, as created initially perfect children of God, were divine....the universe and the laws governing it, are divine.

Etc.
Click to expand...
So, significantly, Jesus quoted from Psalm 82 when he was being accused of claiming to BE GOD (he never did, continued saying he was the Son of God and not equal to his Father). Psalm 82 says that God Himself took his place in the DIVINE council. In the midst of the gods he holds judgment. And Jesus aptly applied the term gods to others:

"God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:" (Psalm 82:1)

God holds judgment in the midst of the gods.

Jesus later said at John 10:34,35: Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken.
 
SLPCCC

SLPCCC

Active Member
YoursTrue said:
Jesus later said at John 10:34,35: Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken.
Click to expand...

Those referred by Jesus were not real gods. They were flesh and blood people. Why do you think God said at Isaiah 44:6 apart from me there is no God. and at Isaiah 44:8 He says "Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

They were not real gods. They were human beings. Anyone called god was a false god, a fake god. not a real god; otherwise, the bible would be teaching polytheism.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
YoursTrue said:
Ok. May I ask what is the trinitarian view you are reiterating, because there is more than one view of the trinity that I am aware of. Hopefully you understand there is nothing that a trinity explanation one might produce that causes me to ascribe to it. Becauses the scriptures are clear. Jesus spoke of the only true God. That was not directed towards himself. It was directed to the one he called the only true God heaven. He was not in heaven when he said that. Never did he say he was God. There are various definitions of the word God. For Jesus to speak of the only true God demonstrates he knew there was more than one god but the others were not truly God, the One who sent him. Therefore the words must be taken in context. No scripture or set of scriptures shows three persons are God, each equal to the other, and yet one God. I hope this helps to clarify.
Click to expand...

That you could go to God directly without going through the son.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
firedragon said:
That you could go to God directly without going through the son.
Click to expand...
The Israelites had a high priest. Under the law of Moses, he represented the nation before God asking for forgiveness of sins, or atonement. Later it was Jesus. It is now only by faith in the value of Jesus' shed blood can we successfully go before the Father.
Matthew 1:21. "She will give birth to a Son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins."
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
YoursTrue said:
The Israelites had a high priest. Under the law of Moses, he represented the nation before God asking for forgiveness of sins, or atonement. Later it was Jesus. It is now only by faith in the value of Jesus' shed blood can we successfully go before the Father.
Matthew 1:21. "She will give birth to a Son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins."
Click to expand...

Not relevant to the Athanasian Trinity that I addressed so thanks for engaging, I am withdrawing from this discussion. Peace.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
firedragon said:
Not relevant to the Athanasian Trinity that I addressed so thanks for engaging, I am withdrawing from this discussion. Peace.
Click to expand...
I believe it is relevant since the Bible explains why Jesus is the door and the way and that it is essential to acknowledge Jesus if we are to approach God. I was going to suggest that you speak to a believer in the Trinity per the Athansian viewpoint (which I am not a believer in) with your questions. I'm sorry you are withdrawing, it has been a very interesting discussion.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
YoursTrue said:
I believe it is relevant since the Bible explains why Jesus is the door and the way and that it is essential to acknowledge Jesus if we are to approach God. I was going to suggest that you speak to a believer in the Trinity per the Athansian viewpoint (which I am not a believer in) with your questions. I'm sorry you are withdrawing, it has been a very interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

Peace.
 
eik

eik

Active Member
metis said:
And personally, I really don't get into this except for just discussion's sake.

My only real interest is what he taught about morals that I can possibly apply to my life in today's world and pass on to others. His "love one another as I have loved you" really resonates with me. As far as the Trinitarian concept is concerned, it is what it is. I haven't a clue as to how accurate or inaccurate it is, nor do I lose any sleep over it.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you there. However I have considered the word trinity and I really don't like it. I prefer tri-unity to trinity, because trinity suggests 3 hypostases (3 foundations or characters) but in Heb 1 God is said to have one hypostasis (singular) where the son is the exact imprint of God's hypostasis (i.e. identical).

A unity of hypostasis seems to me to be the biblical "essence" of God, as far as the Greek goes.

As for the common trinity notation of three "persons:" whilst one can see the point of using the word "person" for illustration and for convenience sake in respect of Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit, being all unquestionably uniquely bespoke divine actors, they are all spirit (God is "spirit" John 4:24) , whereas the "person" anthropomorphism ultimately does not accurately reflect the divine reality of God being spirit.

So God being denoted as "three persons" is to my mind of limited value in denoting spiritual reality, but technically allowable, rather than theologically wrong. For Christ himself, only the Father was "true God," who re-imparted his divine powers etc. to Christ on his ascension, although that is not to suggest Christ and the Holy Spirit are other than co-eternal with the Father. I think it is better to speak of the Father only as "God" per the usual apostolic notation, whilst admitting the full divinity of the risen Christ and the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
SLPCCC

SLPCCC

Active Member
eik said:
...I have considered the word trinity and I really don't like it. I prefer tri-unity to trinity, because trinity suggests 3 hypostases (3 foundations or characters) but in Heb 1 God is said to have one hypostasis (singular) where the son is the exact imprint of God's hypostasis (i.e. identical).

A unity of hypostasis seems to me to be the biblical "essence" of God, as far as the Greek goes.

As for the common trinity notation of three "persons:" whilst one can see the point of using the word "person" for illustration and for convenience sake in respect of Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit, being all unquestionably uniquely bespoke divine actors, they are all spirit (God is "spirit" John 4:24) , whereas the "person" anthropomorphism ultimately does not accurately reflect the divine reality of God being spirit...
Click to expand...

How are tri-unity and trinity different? Isn't it the noun form of triune - consisting of three in one (used especially with reference to the Trinity).

My understanding is that both suggest one hypostasis. In the Athanasian Creed it says, ..."Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person."

As far as the "'person" anthropomorphism", anthropomorphisms can be helpful in enabling us to at least partially comprehend the incomprehensible, know the unknowable. It's used all the time in the scriptures. However, I do agree that it can cause to unintentionally serve to diminish in our minds if we see them as sufficient to portray God in limited human traits. Christians are advised to read God’s Word with the realization that He offers a small glimpse of His glory through the only means we can absorb. As much as anthropomorphisms help us picture our loving God, He reminds us in Isaiah 55:8-9:
  • “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
 
eik

eik

Active Member
SLPCCC said:
How are tri-unity and trinity different? Isn't it the noun form of triune - consisting of three in one (used especially with reference to the Trinity).
Click to expand...
I tried to explain that trinity infers 3 x hypostates, one for each member of the "trinity," which receives no scriptural support, but was the formula adopted by Trinitarians, whereas tri-unity without trinity infers just one hypostatsis per the Heb 1:3 designation. I agree that triune is also used with trinity, but I prefer to use triune without trinity as the more biblical designation.

SLPCCC said:
My understanding is that both suggest one hypostasis. In the Athanasian Creed it says, ..."Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person."
Click to expand...
This is just talking about Christ, and christological formulations, which is a separate but related argument. I find the Trinitarian / Chalcedonian formulation of "unity in one person with two natures" deceitful, because logically the concept denoted two people, a divine person and a human person whom cannot be blended, which is an axiomatic principle for the philosophy engaged. If they cannot be blended they are two people, by definition. Unity of one person is just a philosophical fudge, an act of grand imposition to conceal a philosophy that is to my mind radically inadequate as based in Greek paganism.

What the formula you have quoted entails is a philosophical fudge to reduce two people in different jurisdictions to one person with two "natures." It's just wrong. In any case, 2 Pet 1:4 allows believers to be partakers of the divine nature, showing that Christ did not have to be a divine person to partake of the divine nature. In fact he was a human person, although he came from heaven.

SLPCCC said:
As far as the "'person" anthropomorphism", anthropomorphisms can be helpful in enabling us to at least partially comprehend the incomprehensible, know the unknowable. It's used all the time in the scriptures. However, I do agree that it can cause to unintentionally serve to diminish in our minds if we see them as sufficient to portray God in limited human traits. Christians are advised to read God’s Word with the realization that He offers a small glimpse of His glory through the only means we can absorb. As much as anthropomorphisms help us picture our loving God, He reminds us in Isaiah 55:8-9:
  • “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Click to expand...
I agree with that, although anthropomorphisms can be taken to extremes, which is why the trinity formulation of "God is three persons" is in fact redundant. It is an extremist position that makes out (a) the character of "God" to be distributed between persons, which is not found in scripture, or (b) there to be three Gods in their own right.

In the NT only the Father is acknowledged as "true God" whilst Christ the risen son is divine, or if you will "God by his unique relation to the Father" (cf. Dan 7:13.14 which discloses the fundamental distinction between the son and the Father in heaven, see also 1 Cor 15).
 
Last edited:
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
SLPCCC said:
Those referred by Jesus were not real gods. They were flesh and blood people. Why do you think God said at Isaiah 44:6 apart from me there is no God. and at Isaiah 44:8 He says "Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

They were not real gods. They were human beings. Anyone called god was a false god, a fake god. not a real god; otherwise, the bible would be teaching polytheism.
Click to expand...
Jesus quoted that scripture. He spoke of one only true God and these other gods died just like mortals. Including Jesus. He died. He prayed to the only true God. Jesus was human. Thoroughly. He used that scripture in Psalms to show that they were called gods on the inspired scriptures. He never ever used the word wrongly. He told the truth. He was the Son of God. Not God in a triune combination.
 
Last edited:
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
eik said:
I would agree with you there. However I have considered the word trinity and I really don't like it. I prefer tri-unity to trinity, because trinity suggests 3 hypostases (3 foundations or characters) but in Heb 1 God is said to have one hypostasis (singular) where the son is the exact imprint of God's hypostasis (i.e. identical).

A unity of hypostasis seems to me to be the biblical "essence" of God, as far as the Greek goes.

As for the common trinity notation of three "persons:" whilst one can see the point of using the word "person" for illustration and for convenience sake in respect of Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit, being all unquestionably uniquely bespoke divine actors, they are all spirit (God is "spirit" John 4:24) , whereas the "person" anthropomorphism ultimately does not accurately reflect the divine reality of God being spirit.

So God being denoted as "three persons" is to my mind o\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\f limited value in denoting spiritual reality, but technically allowable, rather than theologically wrong. For Christ himself, only the Father was "true God," who re-imparted his divine powers etc. to Christ on his ascension, although that is not to suggest Christ and the Holy Spirit are other than co-eternal with the Father. I think it is better to speak of the Father only as "God" per the usual apostolic notation, whilst admitting the full divinity of the risen Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
There is simply no way that Christ before or after his ascension was "eternally co-equal" to the Father. Or, for that matter, the holy spirit if you consider the holy spirit God, which we have not discussed.
Christ has the power, and will be giving everything over to the Father in time. Please notice the following scriptures showing that the were no co-equals.
1 Corinthians 15:25-27 (Berean Study Bible) "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him."
Christ has been GIVEN power. That he had been given power means he did not always have it. He and the Father are not co-equals because his Father GAVE him Matthew 28:18: "Jesus came to them and said: I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth!." He did not grab, or seize power, or lie, as Satan did. Then the Bible says he will turn everything over to the FATHER. (Nothing about holy spirit God there. It is the Son and the FATHER. They're not co-equals in a trinity formation.)
Have a good day, eik.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
John 10.
"At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him. 32But Jesus responded, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?”33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’d? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?"
He never said I am God. He also did not say the ones God called gods were false gods. There is only one True God. He let certain people like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob know who He was. In fact, the Bible is so clear on this point that it is absurd to think that the Almighty God is composed of 3 equal persons.
 
Hockeycowboy

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
YoursTrue said:
John 10.
"At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him. 32But Jesus responded, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?”33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’d? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?"
He never said I am God. He also did not say the ones God called gods were false gods. There is only one True God. He let certain people like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob know who He was. In fact, the Bible is so clear on this point that it is absurd to think that the Almighty God is composed of 3 equal persons.
Click to expand...

Exodus 20 2,3 'American Standard Version':

2" I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Amazing that trinitarians can't see the problem this creates for them! Maybe later...like we eventually did, like many Jehovah's Witnesses have done, before we humbly 'wiped the blindness away.' 2 Corinthians 4:4.

I mean, these sheep are also told by Christendom's leaders, it's ok to 'kill your brothers' during conflicts! If their sheep don't question it.... that's the pinnacle of spiritual blindness. IMO. No wonder the Devil temporarily rules the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top