Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Amen!
-
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!
Christian: Are Christians forgetting that Jesus IS God Himself?
- Thread starter Christy
- Start date
fromthe heart
Well-Known Member
I still must disagree ...In the new testament,in the gospels,there are references to them being seperate although I feel they are of one mind but I still feel they are seperate for this reason...Luke chapter 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended upon Him(Jesus) like a dove. and a voice from heaven said...Thou art my beloved Son;in whom I am well pleased. This to me says there 3. Also the Holy Ghost has to be different because in Matthew 12:32...says that if you speak against Jesus you will be forgiven but if you speak against the Holy Ghost you will NOT be forgiven,neither in this world or in the 'world' to come.
These are just 2 different sets of verses that tell me that the trinity IS. and the 3 are the Father(which Jesus calls Him)...thus GOD, the Son(Jesus), and the Holy Ghost.
Christy...you said you are a Bible study class...you have to be careful just what you teach to BE SURE you aren't teaching your view but that of the Bible. This is not said to be mean but to be a friend to you because we are judged by God for the things we do wrong and you need to be sure of what you teach for not only your sake but to not misinstruct the minds of the young as well. Search the scriptures sweetie and be sure for your own peace of mind. I find you to be a kind loving person who means good but take into account all the scriptures as well as the counsel of others and look at it ALL to be sure.
Smiles...I'm sure you are a wonderful teacher...perhaps like me you are still learning yourself...I think we all learn more and more as we search the scriptures. Have a wonderful day.
These are just 2 different sets of verses that tell me that the trinity IS. and the 3 are the Father(which Jesus calls Him)...thus GOD, the Son(Jesus), and the Holy Ghost.
Christy...you said you are a Bible study class...you have to be careful just what you teach to BE SURE you aren't teaching your view but that of the Bible. This is not said to be mean but to be a friend to you because we are judged by God for the things we do wrong and you need to be sure of what you teach for not only your sake but to not misinstruct the minds of the young as well. Search the scriptures sweetie and be sure for your own peace of mind. I find you to be a kind loving person who means good but take into account all the scriptures as well as the counsel of others and look at it ALL to be sure.
Smiles...I'm sure you are a wonderful teacher...perhaps like me you are still learning yourself...I think we all learn more and more as we search the scriptures. Have a wonderful day.
No*s
Captain Obvious
FTH,
The passage you quoted is actually one of the stronger passages for the Trinity. Here we have all three beings represented as beings, not as modes, and God affirming that Jesus is the Son of God. Unless we want a heirarchy of descending deities, we have the Trinity (and that heirarchy was created in the fourth century).
Remember, also, that Matthew also has Jesus with the authority to rewrite the Law (Mt. 5-7, where Jesus says things like "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you"), and the baptismal formula, which is tied to the incident you quoted, also has all three persons represented as equals.
EDIT:
It also isn't a problem for the Trinity. It breaks God down like this. We have one God, and He alone is God. He, though, is revealed in three persons. The Son, who is somehow begotten of the Father, and the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father. Don't ask me...I didn't create the terminology.
They are God, just as fire from fire is still fire. However, the Father is the core of the being.
With that definition, we can have three manifestations simultaneously and still have the One God.
The passage you quoted is actually one of the stronger passages for the Trinity. Here we have all three beings represented as beings, not as modes, and God affirming that Jesus is the Son of God. Unless we want a heirarchy of descending deities, we have the Trinity (and that heirarchy was created in the fourth century).
Remember, also, that Matthew also has Jesus with the authority to rewrite the Law (Mt. 5-7, where Jesus says things like "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you"), and the baptismal formula, which is tied to the incident you quoted, also has all three persons represented as equals.
EDIT:
It also isn't a problem for the Trinity. It breaks God down like this. We have one God, and He alone is God. He, though, is revealed in three persons. The Son, who is somehow begotten of the Father, and the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father. Don't ask me...I didn't create the terminology
.They are God, just as fire from fire is still fire. However, the Father is the core of the being.
With that definition, we can have three manifestations simultaneously and still have the One God.
fromthe heart
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with you. I,too, believe they are God (in three persons). The concept of us trying to understand God is a joke...we will never fully understand our creator or why He would need to be manifested in 3 persons...but as I stated prior...Matt.12:32. How if they weren't of 3 can you speak against one and not be forgiven if they are all the same?No*s said:FTH,
The passage you quoted is actually one of the stronger passages for the Trinity. Here we have all three beings represented as beings, not as modes, and God affirming that Jesus is the Son of God. Unless we want a heirarchy of descending deities, we have the Trinity (and that heirarchy was created in the fourth century).
Remember, also, that Matthew also has Jesus with the authority to rewrite the Law (Mt. 5-7, where Jesus says things like "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you"), and the baptismal formula, which is tied to the incident you quoted, also has all three persons represented as equals.
EDIT:
It also isn't a problem for the Trinity. It breaks God down like this. We have one God, and He alone is God. He, though, is revealed in three persons. The Son, who is somehow begotten of the Father, and the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father. Don't ask me...I didn't create the terminology
They are God, just as fire from fire is still fire. However, the Father is the core of the being.
With that definition, we can have three manifestations simultaneously and still have the One God.
No*s
Captain Obvious
fromthe heart said:I don't disagree with you. I,too, believe they are God (in three persons). The concept of us trying to understand God is a joke...we will never fully understand our creator or why He would need to be manifested in 3 persons...but as I stated prior...Matt.12:32. How if they weren't of 3 can you speak against one and not be forgiven if they are all the same?
Ah good
. I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.Because the Spirit is the One that brings us to God, remits sin, etc. However, if we resist Him, He cannot heal us, and thus, there is no remission of sin. So, if we attribute His work to the devil (as the Pharisees do in the context), then we are clearly resisting His work, and thus, no remission of sin. We, then, go into the afterlife unable to withstand the presence of God.
This speaking against the Spirit is also a continuous process, not a single event (if you need an explanation of why here, I'll give it, but it can get technical, so I'll omit it for now). So, it refers to our life.
Does that help?
fromthe heart
Well-Known Member
Yes...understood again and still agree with you completely. I do know speaking against the Spirit IS a life long thing...no explaination necessary but thanks for the offer.No*s said:Ah good
Because the Spirit is the One that brings us to God, remits sin, etc. However, if we resist Him, He cannot heal us, and thus, there is no remission of sin. So, if we attribute His work to the devil (as the Pharisees do in the context), then we are clearly resisting His work, and thus, no remission of sin. We, then, go into the afterlife unable to withstand the presence of God.
This speaking against the Spirit is also a continuous process, not a single event (if you need an explanation of why here, I'll give it, but it can get technical, so I'll omit it for now). So, it refers to our life.
Does that help?
Isn't it the Bible that puts the images in our mind of seeing the three figures sitting on their thrones?
ACTS 7:
Revelation 1:
Now I'm not saying that your view in the trinity is wrong, but I'm saying that there are reasons people have the views they do.
I'm personally a bit divided and think that both sides may be a bit askew.
PS. I only read the original post, and not the responses (short on time), so if I'm just repeating somebody else forgive me (and kudos for their insight! )
CHRIS
ACTS 7:
and
Revelation 1:
Now the imagery of both of those versus suggests two different entities. God & the Lamb (Jesus Christ). And I'm sure there are many more verses that would support this, but for now that's enough.
Now I'm not saying that your view in the trinity is wrong, but I'm saying that there are reasons people have the views they do.
I'm personally a bit divided and think that both sides may be a bit askew.
PS. I only read the original post, and not the responses (short on time), so if I'm just repeating somebody else forgive me (and kudos for their insight!
)CHRIS
No*s
Captain Obvious
fromthe heart said:Yes...understood again and still agree with you completely. I do know speaking against the Spirit IS a life long thing...no explaination necessary but thanks for the offer.
Good and welcome
. I only offer the exlanation in case it is desired, but it's a grammatical thing, so unless a person can read Greek, it really makes little difference.
No*s
Captain Obvious
chris9178 said:
This is true, but one has to ask a couple of questions. For instance, how could Stephen see the Son sitting at the right hand of the Father? The Father has no body. The statement, taken literally, makes no sense. However, if we take it as an idiom, then it makes perfect sense, and an idiom expressed in a vision. Thus, it is symbolic, not literal.
Revelation, likewise, is symbolic. The Lamb is on the throne of God. He has the authority of God, and the twenty-four elders are gathered round the throne worshipping Him. What we have here is a picture of the authority of Christ. We must remember, apocalyptic literature is written in a sort of code. Its contents are rarely plain and should just as rarely be understood literally, and even then, there are probably multiple meanings behind them.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Solid dude!
You could certainly argue that its symbolic, but that still avoids the point. The reason people see the three as seperate is because the Bible depicts it as such. Whether you believe it symbolic, or not, it still brings the image to mind.
There are certainly other arguements I would bring to the table to point out how the three aren't equal. The first chapter of Hebrews would be one thing. And one more thing to ponder is that Jesus prayed and worshipped God. Of course there is more, but I'd rather consentrate on a few at a time.
My personal belief is that the trinity is a creation of the church to counter the arguement the contradiction of worshipping multiple gods. They rationalized it in an irrational way basically, which is why it causes so many people to stumble.
t3gah
Well-Known Member
Stephen looks up into heaven and doesn't see the holy ghost. He's full of holy ghost. Does that mean stephen is possessed? Is the holy ghost indisposed for the photo op?
The holy ghost comes down as tongues of fire for the gathering of Pentecost 33 A.D. The disciples all full of holy ghost can now speak every language in the area.
The holy ghost comes down as a dove for Jesus baptism.
The people can pray for the holy ghost to strengthen their faith.
The holy ghost is god's power, not another entity. Speaking against the God's spirit is like speaking against his will. Note however that you can speak words of contempt against God himself and Jesus. Why the differences?
Note too that when Stephen dies he says to Jesus to receive his spirit. Did the holy ghost leave him? Did the holy ghost die when Stephen died? Why didn't Stephen say "please receive the holy ghost"?
Everyone of the apostles, Jesus and the disciples are all full of holy ghost. That means there's either more than one or it's God's will or his power, not an actual entity.
And the passage in the beginning of the bible when God says "let us make man in our image" is when God is talking to Jesus because Jesus even says he was in the beginning with God and was the number one favorite and number one worker with God.
There's only Jesus and God the Father. Jesus says many times that he was sent by His Father. Not His equal, His Father. Jesus also says to pray to the Father who is in the heavens and not Himself. Jesus said His Father is greater than He is. Jesus prayed before he was taken into custody to His Father in the heavens. IF Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are all equals, then why does Jesus need to pray at all?
The holy ghost comes down as tongues of fire for the gathering of Pentecost 33 A.D. The disciples all full of holy ghost can now speak every language in the area.
The holy ghost comes down as a dove for Jesus baptism.
The people can pray for the holy ghost to strengthen their faith.
The holy ghost is god's power, not another entity. Speaking against the God's spirit is like speaking against his will. Note however that you can speak words of contempt against God himself and Jesus. Why the differences?
Note too that when Stephen dies he says to Jesus to receive his spirit. Did the holy ghost leave him? Did the holy ghost die when Stephen died? Why didn't Stephen say "please receive the holy ghost"?
Acts 7:59 They stoned Stephen as he called out, saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!
And another important thing to remember. The bibles that have God's spirit spoken of as a ghost is from a period of time when the people believed in actual ghosts. Spirits of the dead cannot be or so it says in the bible in Ecclesiastes 9:5.
Everyone of the apostles, Jesus and the disciples are all full of holy ghost. That means there's either more than one or it's God's will or his power, not an actual entity.
And the passage in the beginning of the bible when God says "let us make man in our image" is when God is talking to Jesus because Jesus even says he was in the beginning with God and was the number one favorite and number one worker with God.
There's only Jesus and God the Father. Jesus says many times that he was sent by His Father. Not His equal, His Father. Jesus also says to pray to the Father who is in the heavens and not Himself. Jesus said His Father is greater than He is. Jesus prayed before he was taken into custody to His Father in the heavens. IF Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are all equals, then why does Jesus need to pray at all?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. KJV
No*s
Captain Obvious
chris9178 said:
Quite right that it doesn't address the broader points, only those passages where I jumped in.
I would further than to say they may be taken symbolically to say that these accounts must be taken symbolically. If we take the image Stephen saw as a literal vision of heaven, you have just relegated God, to a corporeal god contained within the universe without a good deal of explanation. That, however, isn't the main point, and I am digressing
.On the stoning of Stephen, I would agree, you may take that as an anti-trinitarian text, but it is not inherently so (for reasons I state in response to your second paragraph). I don't see how the second may be. The throne is the symbol of authority and power: the Son sits on it, and not the Father there. If taken symbolically, then the Son has all the power and authority of the Father, but if you concede that point, you have conceded to a strongly trinitarian interpretation.
chris9178 said:
Well, on the equality of the godhead, we have to remember the understanding of the Trinity as it has been handed down and developed in response to challenges: The Son is eternally begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, but all three are equally God. The Father is at the core of the Trinity, and they all share the same ousia (Greek for being).
Naturally, it isn't difficult to reveal this in a hierarchical manner. Any text you have to show inequality amongst the Godhead cannot be accounted for by that argument. Otherwise the argument has no force. Stephen's vision, for instance, fits right in with this. The Son sits at the right hand of the Father in power and glory. The Father is the core from which everything else comes, so naturally He sits on the throne in the vision. There can only be one throne.
chris9178 said:
OK. If you believe this about the Trinity, would you tell me when it was created and document it? That is quite the strong statement, after all, and we have quite a few documents in Christian history.
It is my belief that the original deposit was quite Trinitarian, and that the doctrine was formalized in response to peoples' errors. The result is today's Orthodox conception of the Trinity, and I have made arguments for it elsewhere on the board. I can reproduce them in this thread, but it would seem redundant to volunteer to do so since they currently exist on this board.
I have a thread related to this:
"Christian: Why is Jesus the way He is in John" http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7904
I set a deliberately high standard of proof in this thread, and it is specifically designed to question the interpretation of this text and with a historical eye. While I have had one member respond, I have had not a single one that has been willing to debate the issue of Jesus in John 1 under the strict standards of evidence I have laid down. You're more than welcome to step up to the plate if you can meet the standards for evidence.
I think you missunderstand me.
I have no desire at all to debate against this. I fervently believe that Jesus Christ was and is God. I am a believing Christian. But believing that Jesus is God, and believing in the trinity (the traditional view) are seperate issues.
But to address your Jesus is God debate anyways, I think that any person who claims to be a Christian (if they don't claim it, then there's no debate obviously), but denies Christs divinity, is fooling himself, and is illustrated by Jesus as "building his house upon the sand."
Either Christ was God, or Christ was a madman. You can't take the best of what something says and then leave out the parts you don't like. Your discourse on John is one of many examples of proof that Jesus is God.
Now, on to my problem with the trinity. You may think that I'm contradicting myself when I say that Christ is God, but distinct from God in his own entity. Well, to be honest (and if you're honest with yourself also), this isn't any more confusing than saying that the three are one.
To explane it simply, Christ is the "eternally begotten Son of God" as you have said (which of course, in human sense, is mystifying), and I, and others must use faith to acknowledge that. Now, when a human has a son, he will have a human son. Now that son shares many of the fathers qualities, and characteristics, but he still remains his own entity. The sons role is subserviant to the father, and in a "perfect relationship" that will never change. To avoid the problem of semantics (which everybody seems to jump on to defend their case.....) we'll define a "perfect relationship" as a the one defined in the New Testament - "Honor thy father and mother" etc. etc., and that will keep us in context.
So God, being God, his offspring would be God (as humans are humans). Now, we know that Jesus is God's offspring, we don't know how, but, once again, therein lies the faith issue. Because Jesus is the Son of God (and only Son, strangely enough .....why not have more? That's another discussion...) he therefore shares the attributes, and charactersitics, and even qualities of God. And if you haven't guessed where this going...... HE CAN STILL BE GOD, and yet be his own entity. Does this make him any less? Yes, but on a godhead level, not on a human level. Because I believe, and this isn't a far-fetched statement) that God made man to be like him (in his image and likeness according to Genisis), and thus we have his values (which are spread throughout the value) - and voila - the Father and the Son have the "perfect relationship", which means the Son HONORS the Father.
Now, on the human level what does this mean?
Not a thing.
Imagine a man and a son with a nice little Golden Retriever. The sons responsibilities are to love the dog, feed the dog, bathe the dog ... - to take care of it. The father loves the dog also, but his responsibilities aren't as direct. He earns the money that pays for the food, and water bills and also pets and nurtures the dog, because he loves it also. Does it matter to the dog whether the son is subserviant to the father? Not at all. If it's a good dog (comparatble to the Christian), then he will love both, and may never realise that the son honors the father. That's not what matters to the dog at all.
Though an interesting note would be that the dog would probably find a greater affinity to the son than the father (because of the more direct relationship), and we can see this in how Christians have a greater affinity to Christ.
Ok, I realise I used a lot of metaphor, and analogy to state my claims, but that's simply the rationale behind it all, and not why I believe this is the case. I have class in 10 minutes so I won't have time to address that. Just realize that I don't think it's important at all (in the grand scheme) that we believe in the belief of God being one, or seperate. Salvation isn't contingent on all of our theology.
BTW, I had to type this pretty quickly, so if anything doesn't make sense please pardon me, and leave a response, and I'll try and clarify. I don't have time to re-read this, and it's all off the fly, so I expect there are some things I said that are said incorrectly, or incoherently.
No*s
Captain Obvious
chris9178 said:
I apologize for that. I thought you were arguing something akin to Arianism...I'm not sure what to make of it yet.
chris9178 said:
Metaphor is the only way to talk about God
.As for salvation being contingent on issues, but that's another debate.
chris9178 said:
I understand. When I was in the university...one of my professors remarked, "It wouldn't be class, unless Kenneth came in huffing and puffing thirty seconds late."
I also don't really get where you're going. I curse the poverty of English when it comes to theology. Would that we could use the Greek terms the Fathers used
.Actually, I said that it "isn't contingent on all Theology". Of course it is contingent on some issues. Faith comes to mind.
Basically, Jesus and the Father (I'll just say God from here out, because it feels weird just calling Him the Father...) are not on equal footing in the Godhead. Christ would be subordinant to God. And I used the father/son explanation to show how that would be true, and how that Christ is still divine.I also don't really get where you're going. I curse the poverty of English when it comes to theology. Would that we could use the Greek terms the Fathers used
The family/dog illustration merely pointed out how it wouldn't matter to us whether Christ is equal or a step lower than God Himself, but that shouldn't affect the way we worship Him. In fact, it shows how we feel closer to Christ (which is certainly the case for Christians) than we do to God (the Father).
Now where does the Holy Spirit fit in here? Well, I can see him as being the same entity as God, or Christ, or maybe not. I've never looked into that. Trust me, it was a large step for me to take to believe just the part about Christ. I was taught the very traditional view of the Trinity my entire life. It's just in my own reading of the Bible I look at things and how it doesn't make sense, and this has been only recently. So I haven't even begun to theorize anything about the Holy Spirit. I don't pretend to know. But, I can say that I certainly don't see the similar things that caught my attention about Christ. So I won't argue for, or against the Holy Spirit being its own entity just yet.
Now this does leave holes in my Theology. The "One and only God" issue, which the Trinity idea was suppose to patch up (poorly I believe), is still out there. But, as I said, I'm still learning what I believe, and haven't moved on to conquer those issues. I'll work with what I have.
No*s
Captain Obvious
chris9178 said:
I'll mull on this some, but I do have to make one quick warning on the approach before I respond in depth -- but please don't take this wrong. The method you're using, that of rejecting the existing doctrine and patching one up yourself, is the very method almost every heresy in history was created under?
The Trinity was formed because the Fathers responded to teachers who came in with something different. For instance, Arius came in and taught his beliefs, and the Fathers responded, "No, that's not right...how do we clarify it?" It wasn't as gentle, though.
These were also the same men that God guided to produce the biblical canon (the very one you're puzzling over). The men they opposed used this method, but not only did the Fathers emerge victorious...but God further used them to establish the Bible.
That's simply a warning I can voice at first reading. A more careful response will have to wait till I've mulled over it more. Most likely, there is a Church Father who addressed it, and I've forgotten about.
To put it simply:
I can believe in the Trinity, but I don't believe that they are all on the same level. I believe the Father is greater than the Son. I don't know where the Holy Spirit lies. Now is this contradictory? Possibly. Still thinking about that. But I am convinced that the Father is greater.
Now is this heretical? No. I still believe Christ is God, and that the Father is God. It's Theology. It's my way of explaining what I don't think is explained adequately by other Theology - namely the theology behind the traditional view of the trinity, and isn't very much explained in the scripture.
Does it take three seperate entities for this to be true? Well, it seems like it, but I suppose that it doesn't necessarily need to be so. That's where it gets iffy.
I can believe in the Trinity, but I don't believe that they are all on the same level. I believe the Father is greater than the Son. I don't know where the Holy Spirit lies. Now is this contradictory? Possibly. Still thinking about that. But I am convinced that the Father is greater.
Now is this heretical? No. I still believe Christ is God, and that the Father is God. It's Theology. It's my way of explaining what I don't think is explained adequately by other Theology - namely the theology behind the traditional view of the trinity, and isn't very much explained in the scripture.
Does it take three seperate entities for this to be true? Well, it seems like it, but I suppose that it doesn't necessarily need to be so. That's where it gets iffy.