The Trinity and the Incarnation

[Runningman]

You are going to put your grammar against the passages that show the divinity of Christ and his pre-existence with God? All you would have to do is take the passages about Christ's divinity and pre-existence and show they do not mean what they tend to convey. Of course that is impossible.

So it seems you're the problem, not the language. When someone is called a he, do you believe that if referring to one person or more than one person?

 

[Runningman]

I guess you demand God tell people in advance of something he has made very clear. Just because the word "Jesus" does not appear in the OT you deny that the his divine essence did not exist before. We have shown passages of the Two Powers in Heaven which you just gloss over with no real argument.

Well, if you had something before Abraham was with Jesus saying something in a pre-existent state, which you have claimed repeatedly, you would have taken the slam dunk. I literally set you up to succeed and was willing to take a loss just so you could have proved Jesus pre-existed.

So you have no real argument. Thanks for trying and being a good sport.

 

[Peterlag]

How trinitarians teach the Trinity...

I say...
If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it?

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[Rory Wilson]

We have the words of Jesus. "I and the Father are one" is found in the Bible in John 10:30. This statement by Jesus is a key declaration of his unity with God.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

How does one get around the fact that no one succeeds in stating the doctrine which they can explicitly defend without implicitly dissolving some essential element of the Trinity.

Simplest thing in the world!!! The word "Doctrine" is the key. A "Doctrine is nothing more than "Theological rhetoric" based on nothing more than the paradigmatic beliefs of the Denominational system formalizing it.

Humans know little or nothing about the totality of GOD, and He himself states that HIS WAYS are higher than our ways.

Theology / Doctrine is like noses. Everybody's got one.

 

[Peterlag]

We have the words of Jesus. "I and the Father are one" is found in the Bible in John 10:30. This statement by Jesus is a key declaration of his unity with God.

That would be number 3 you are using. See below...

John 10:30 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant... he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Christ uses the concept of "being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or "substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

 

[mikesw]

So it seems you're the problem, not the language. When someone is called a he, do you believe that if referring to one person or more than one person?

If that person is talking about you, I would say "he" is appropriate (based on my perception so far). If talking about God, we know that it can be perfectly fine speaking of "he" in recognition there is only one god who is distinguished from other gods. But it also becomes clear that God exists as a Trinity. This is quite different from the human experience and is strengthened within the New Testament writings. Your problem is that you cannot transition to the NT understanding of the god who is the same in the OT.

 

[mikesw]

Peter gave the right answer: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" Matthew 16:16

Exactly! Isn't that what everyone has recognized of me without me leading them to say that? (I hope people recognize sarcasm here.)

 

[Rory Wilson]

That would be number 3 you are using. See below...

John 10:30 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant... he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Christ uses the concept of "being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or "substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

I'm quoting the Bible not your 123

The verse John 10:30, where Jesus states, "I and the Father are one," signifies the profound unity between Jesus and God the Father. This statement emphasizes the divine nature of Jesus, asserting that He shares the same essence as the Father, which is a central tenet of Christian theology regarding the Trinity.

 

[Peterlag]

I'm quoting the Bible not your 123

The verse John 10:30, where Jesus states, "I and the Father are one," signifies the profound unity between Jesus and God the Father. This statement emphasizes the divine nature of Jesus, asserting that He shares the same essence as the Father, which is a central tenet of Christian theology regarding the Trinity.

You think you are quoting the Bible but you are not. You are not understanding how the words are used which is number 3 that I listed...

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

John 10:30 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant... he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Christ uses the concept of "being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or "substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

 

[Rory Wilson]

You think that I think that I'm quoting the Bible because I'm quoting the Bible.

Categorical Fallacies: Whenever you hear such questions as:

“If Jesus was God, who ran the universe the three days he was dead?”
“If God cannot be tempted, why was Jesus tempted?”
“If Jesus was God, then to whom did he pray?”
“Since Jesus did not know when he was coming back, how can he be God?”
“How can Jesus have faith in God if he was God?”
“Why would Jesus call the Father God if he himself was God?
“If Jesus was God, how could he die?

Such questions arise only if you fail to distinguish between the categories of the economical and ontological Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the three persons in the Trinity. They are called “nonsense questions” in logic.

 

[Peterlag]

You think that I think that I'm quoting the Bible because I'm quoting the Bible.

Categorical Fallacies: Whenever you hear such questions as:

“If Jesus was God, who ran the universe the three days he was dead?”
“If God cannot be tempted, why was Jesus tempted?”
“If Jesus was God, then to whom did he pray?”
“Since Jesus did not know when he was coming back, how can he be God?”
“How can Jesus have faith in God if he was God?”
“Why would Jesus call the Father God if he himself was God?
“If Jesus was God, how could he die?

Such questions arise only if you fail to distinguish between the categories of the economical and ontological Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the three persons in the Trinity. They are called “nonsense questions” in logic.

Two natures of Christ you say...

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.

 

[Begotten]

Any Unitarian taint can be easily be rebuked. Christ who is a perpetual presence, an ever-living Christ.’ God ‘has come into human life, and is gradually filling it with himself.’ Be that so: but it is the historic Jesus ‘the Son,’ the second Person of the Trinity, that is the coming of God into human life.

Without Trinitarian Christianity you will not have God in your life.

I believe we can present an eirenicon to Unitarians which should reconcile them to Trinitarian Christianity.
We can use this Forum as a vehicle for expressing the close communion between God and man; and therefore to wrest it away from Unitarians to express God. What Unitarians have conceived as absolute and unknowable will do the utmost violence to the primitive vocabulary of Jesus, in which vocabulary the living essence of his teaching, and therefore of original Christianity, is enshrined.

 

[Peterlag]

Any Unitarian taint can be easily be rebuked. Christ who is a perpetual presence, an ever-living Christ.’ God ‘has come into human life, and is gradually filling it with himself.’ Be that so: but it is the historic Jesus ‘the Son,’ the second Person of the Trinity, that is the coming of God into human life.

Without Trinitarian Christianity you will not have God in your life.

I believe we can present an eirenicon to Unitarians which should reconcile them to Trinitarian Christianity.
We can use this Forum as a vehicle for expressing the close communion between God and man; and therefore to wrest it away from Unitarians to express God. What Unitarians have conceived as absolute and unknowable will do the utmost violence to the primitive vocabulary of Jesus, in which vocabulary the living essence of his teaching, and therefore of original Christianity, is enshrined.

How trinitarians teach the Trinity...

I say...
If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it?

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[Runningman]

If that person is talking about you, I would say "he" is appropriate (based on my perception so far). If talking about God, we know that it can be perfectly fine speaking of "he" in recognition there is only one god who is distinguished from other gods. But it also becomes clear that God exists as a Trinity. This is quite different from the human experience and is strengthened within the New Testament writings. Your problem is that you cannot transition to the NT understanding of the god who is the same in the OT.

God being repeatedly called a He, Him, His, I, etc means they were doing their best to describe God as one person. If they wanted to suggest anything else, their next best option would be to say They or Them, which is not something they ever did. The language gives a glimpse into the beliefs and minds of the people who wrote the manuscripts we call the Bible. They perceived that God is just one person. They referred to Him as an individual. They are authoritative.

We actually have great, common sense, reasons why we believe what we do about God.

 

[Runningman]

Any Unitarian taint can be easily be rebuked. Christ who is a perpetual presence, an ever-living Christ.’ God ‘has come into human life, and is gradually filling it with himself.’ Be that so: but it is the historic Jesus ‘the Son,’ the second Person of the Trinity, that is the coming of God into human life.

Without Trinitarian Christianity you will not have God in your life.

I believe we can present an eirenicon to Unitarians which should reconcile them to Trinitarian Christianity.
We can use this Forum as a vehicle for expressing the close communion between God and man; and therefore to wrest it away from Unitarians to express God. What Unitarians have conceived as absolute and unknowable will do the utmost violence to the primitive vocabulary of Jesus, in which vocabulary the living essence of his teaching, and therefore of original Christianity, is enshrined.

You seem to be presenting a new argument that I haven't seen before, which is interesting, but you're going to have a lot of Scripture to tangle with. For one, we don't believe in philosophical arguments about who God is, therefore we perceive what you're talking about as your god, an idol. We can be engaged with Scripture and you can repeat what Scripture says if you've found where the trinity is mentioned, explained, or described. You would have a case to make and I would listen, but as I said, you would still have a lot of Scripture to tangle with.

The Bible explicitly describes the only true God as the Father repeatedly, like it, hate it, believe it or not, the Bible says what it says. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can make arguments and change what the Bible says like the others have. It will always come back full circle to what the Bible says, which is a higher authority than your opinions.

 

[Begotten]

With Unitarians we find a fine example of the method of controversy by sheer assertion, which after all is quite as effective in imposing orthodox belief on a large class of persons as such ingenious subtleties to come up with inexorable verdict of history found in most false teaching that deny the Trinity.

The Trinity found in our God is real.

All three persons in the Trinity are entirely and concurrently God. They are not parts of one God, three separate gods, or one God in three consecutive forms. God the Father did not create Jesus as a person nor the Holy Spirit as a force.

Each person possesses identical attributes and the same essence of deity. They have all existed for eternity and are coequal in power, authority, knowledge, and ability, among other things. We can pray to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

Each person in the Trinity is distinct from the others and has a separate function. The Father formulates plans, the Son activates them, and the Holy Spirit brings them to completion.

 

[Peterlag]

You seem to be presenting a new argument that I haven't seen before, which is interesting, but you're going to have a lot of Scripture to tangle with. For one, we don't believe in philosophical arguments about who God is, therefore we perceive what you're talking about as your god, an idol. We can be engaged with Scripture and you can repeat what Scripture says if you've found where the trinity is mentioned, explained, or described. You would have a case to make and I would listen, but as I said, you would still have a lot of Scripture to tangle with.

The Bible explicitly describes the only true God as the Father repeatedly, like it, hate it, believe it or not, the Bible says what it says. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can make arguments and change what the Bible says like the others have. It will always come back full circle to what the Bible says, which is a higher authority than your opinions.

I'm glad you wrote it so I did not have to.

 

[Peterlag]

With Unitarians we find a fine example of the method of controversy by sheer assertion, which after all is quite as effective in imposing orthodox belief on a large class of persons as such ingenious subtleties to come up with inexorable verdict of history found in most false teaching that deny the Trinity.

The Trinity found in our God is real.

All three persons in the Trinity are entirely and concurrently God. They are not parts of one God, three separate gods, or one God in three consecutive forms. God the Father did not create Jesus as a person nor the Holy Spirit as a force.

Each person possesses identical attributes and the same essence of deity. They have all existed for eternity and are coequal in power, authority, knowledge, and ability, among other things. We can pray to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

Each person in the Trinity is distinct from the others and has a separate function. The Father formulates plans, the Son activates them, and the Holy Spirit brings them to completion.

Do you have a verse to go along with any of your listed concepts?

 

[Bronson]

The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to the Christian faith. It is crucial for properly understanding what God is like, how He relates to us, and how we should relate to Him.

The Bible speaks of the Father as God Phil. 1:2

Jesus as God Titus 2:13

Holy Spirit as God Acts 5:3-4.

The Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world John 3:16 So He cannot be the same person as the Son.

Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father John 16:10

The Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world John 14:26 and Acts 2:33

So we see three persons in one God.