The Trinity made easy

[synergy]

I'm still on the issue of power. The relationships I highlighted are relationships of power and authority.

It is not like if Our Father and Jesus played roles that were just "different". The roles they played revealed a clear asymmetry in power.
The asymmetry continued even when Jesus had been resurrected, and even when He had been exalted in heaven. That is why in the Book of Revelation Jesus continues to call His Father not just "God" but "My God".
The asymmetry will continue even after the end of salvation plan, when Jesus delivers everything to God, so that God becomes "everything in everyone".

Certainly, that asymmetry is also present between the believers and Christ. We can be one with Christ, and get his power to work marvels, but we are not Christ. That shouldn't worry us, of course. And we shouldn't worry that Christ is not God. What is important is the kind of unity that Christ keeps with God is the kind of unity we can achieve, through his grace, among ourselves and with Him.




The rider of the white horse is the Word of God, manifested in this concrete, historical context, in Jesus Christ.
The author of the Book of Revelation understood that this exalted being, Jesus Christ, had a God, and that such a God was his Father, as attested since the opening verses of the book (v. 5,6):

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. ​

But to leave things even more explicit, Jesus mentions four times in the Book of Revelation that God is not just God, but His God.

Look, I am coming quickly. Hold firmly what you have, so that no one may take your crown. He who overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My own new name. (3:11,12)​

If a person refers to a god as his god, it means that person worships that god. Otherwise it would not be his.
So, if Jesus Christ, who has already been exalted, crowned, and placed above anyone else, says He has his god, it is because Jesus worships him.
God cannot worship anyone else, or otherwise God would not be God.
Therefore, Jesus Christ is not God.

Jesus also referred to God the Father as "our Father". So there are inconsistencies there between "my" and "our" that cannot be fully explained by what you just wrote.

Nevertheless, you have in front of you an explicit statement in that "the Word was God" in John 1:1.

(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, how does your statement "Jesus Christ is not God" align with the fact that "the Word was God"?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The fact remains that only God saves and Jesus did just that when He descended into Hades and crippled it by His sheer presence as God.

By His sheer presence as God?
Whatever our interpretation of Hades, the Scripture tell us that Jesus preached to spirits in prison. So, it was his presence as Messenger of God.

Besides, Paul presents Jesus as a conqueror accomplishing a mission given by God bringing the enemies (including death) to God and delivering up the kingdom to His Father, who is called God. Paul then says that Jesus Himself will be subject to God.
So, even in the summit of his victory and exaltation, Jesus is again presented as a subject, a commissioner from God.

Let's read

But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came by man, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward, those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end when He will deliver up the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He will reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For He “has put all things under His feet.”[a] But when He says, “all things are put under Him,” it is revealed that He, who has put all things under Him, is the exception. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:20-28)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus also referred to God the Father as "our Father". So there are inconsistencies there between "my" and "our" that cannot be fully explained by what you just wrote.

I may be not understanding your point here, synergy.
Jesus explained that His God is our God and His Father is our Father (John 20:17) . So I don't detect the inconsistency.

Nevertheless, you have in front of you an explicit statement in that "the Word was God" in John 1:1.

(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, how does your statement "Jesus Christ is not God" align with the fact that "the Word was God"?

By asking myself these two questions:

1. Why did this evangelist write that, when in the rest of his gospel he constantly presents Jesus as claiming having been Sent by his Father, who He calls "the Only and True God"?
2. Why only this evangelist does that, and not the other three who wrote their gospels long before him?

So, let's see what the evangelist had in mind and what the evangelist tell us Jesus proclaimed:

• “Truly, truly I say to you, whoever hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death into life. (John 5:24)
• The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life. (John 6:63)
• Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6:68)
• He who is of God hears God’s words. Therefore, you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8:47)
• Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone keeps My word, he shall never see death. (John 8:51)

John was talking to an audience of Greek-Roman culture, acquainted with the concept of Logos. His gospel is highly theological, in contrast with the older synoptics. John wants to emphasize that Jesus represents the eternal Word of God, and the fact that we are saved if we follow that word, because following the Word is following God Himself.

Such Word is called God in John 1:1, because God has always spoken. God is a talking God. There is no point in "time" in which God didn't have a Word to say. Word is inherent to God.
Such Word of God abides in Jesus, manifests in Jesus, with such salvific power, that it is as if it had "incarnated" in the flesh of Jesus.
In fact, the evangelist used a similar metaphor, as the Word abiding within us: You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe the One He has sent. (John 5:38)

There is a beautiful analogy about the sun and his rays that explain this relationship, but since it pertains to the Baha'i Scriptures, I will not mention them in this thread.

 

[mikesw]

By His sheer presence as God?
Whatever our interpretation of Hades, the Scripture tell us that Jesus preached to spirits in prison. So, it was his presence as Messenger of God.

Besides, Paul presents Jesus as a conqueror accomplishing a mission given by God bringing the enemies (including death) to God and delivering up the kingdom to His Father, who is called God. Paul then says that Jesus Himself will be subject to God.
So, even in the summit of his victory and exaltation, Jesus is again presented as a subject, a commissioner from God.

Let's read

But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came by man, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward, those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end when He will deliver up the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He will reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For He “has put all things under His feet.”[a] But when He says, “all things are put under Him,” it is revealed that He, who has put all things under Him, is the exception. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:20-28)

So you are trying to tell the Godhead how the Godhead should function in himself? That is kind of a weak way to reject the testimony of Christ's deity in the Godhead. Maybe there are other ways you should tell God to operate. You maybe also missed where Jesus is both God and Christ as found per the Granville Sharp Rule. (I've not checked if there is any rejection of his rule though.)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

So you are trying to tell the Godhead how the Godhead should function in himself?

No, my friend.
I'm trying to tell you and our readers what I think the Bible says about the operation of God.

 

[mikesw]

I may be not understanding your point here, synergy.
Jesus explained that His God is our God and His Father is our Father (John 20:17) . So I don't detect the inconsistency.



By asking myself these two questions:

1. Why did this evangelist write that, when in the rest of his gospel he constantly presents Jesus as claiming having been Sent by his Father, who He calls "the Only and True God"?
2. Why only this evangelist does that, and not the other three who wrote their gospels long before him?

So, let's see what the evangelist had in mind and what the evangelist tell us Jesus proclaimed:

“Truly, truly I say to you, whoever hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death into life. (John 5:24)

The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life. (John 6:63)

Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6:68)

John was talking to an audience of Greek-Roman culture, acquainted with the concept of Logos. His gospel is highly theological, in contrast with the older synoptics. John wants to emphasize that Jesus represents the eternal Word of God.
Such Word is God, because God has always spoken. God is a talking God. There is no point in "time" in which God didn't have a Word to say.
Such Word of God inhabits Jesus, manifests in Jesus, with such power, that it is as if it had "incarnated" in the flesh of Jesus.
In fact, the evangelist used a similar metaphor, as the Word abiding within us: You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe the One He has sent. (John 5:38)

There is a beautiful analogy about the sun and his rays that explain this relationship, but since it pertains to the Baha'i Scriptures, I will not mention them in this thread.

Ouch. You are inspired by your Baha'i scriptures to interpret John 1? Christ is the Word. He is the message of God to man. He is God. He does not "represent" what he is. He simple is the Logos. You distort the meaning by trying to misinterpret John, who is not writing about some off-topic vague concept. John is writing about Christ Jesus. If you take John 1 out of context, then you just add whatever crazy ideas that you might like.

An analogy of Christ not representing the word but being it can be found with a person in court. If you go to court without a lawyer, the judge might ask "are you representing yourself?" That is a ridiculous question. When you are there as yourself, you have nothing representing you. You are you.

 

[mikesw]

No, my friend.
I'm trying to tell you and our readers what I think the Bible says about the operation of God.

It is still of representing the idea to a narrow sense of options without realizing God's existence is not defined as simply as you suggest. This is hardly a verse that is useful for denying the deity of Christ in the Godhead.

 

[charismaticlady]

With your permission, @Peterlag Let me advance an answer from my side

Because I don't have three minds: one in my spirit, one in my soul, and one in my body. I don't have three wills. I'm not three persons in one.

So, for this reason, the analogy is irrelevant for the discussion of the Trinity, unless your theology is not Nicean but, say, modalist.
For a modalist, there is only One Mind, One Will, that manifests through the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That kind of belief in the Trinity is compatible with the concept of One God and could be represented by your analogy of body, soul and spirit.

You said: "Because I don't have three minds: one in my spirit, one in my soul, and one in my body. I don't have three wills. I'm not three persons in one."

I don't believe the Trinity is three "persons," anymore than I believe I have two natures as taught by many Christians. But that doesn't make me less of a Trinitarian. Many Triitarians find it hard to explain. I just look to the Word of God that tells of our own creation - spirit, soul and body.

Take for instance my mind. That is my spirit, not my soul or my body. The Word has labeled the spirit and mind as the same thing, so that would by default make the soul our heart or conscience. The soul is also our emotions, and where we get "soul music." (Someone was being led and listening!) The two verses are Romans 7:25 and Galatians 5:17. Unfortunately many Bible translators have capitalized spirit to Spirit. The human spirit/mind is what fights with our knowledge of right and wrong and is too weak. It cannot be the Spirit because of His power, not weakness.

Jesus said we MUST be born again. Why? Because we were all born with a sin nature because our ancestor, Adam, sinned against God. Jesus came because of sin and the devil. His death gave the devil a death blow he wasn't expecting. His idea that he was getting rid of Christ by getting God's people to kill him didn't work. What happened is that Christ's resurrection destroyed the works of Satan and cleansed our nature from lawless sin.

1 John 3:4-9
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Pancho, when we are born again of the Spirit (do you know about this?) we receive the mind of Christ, 1 Corinthians 2:16, "" For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ."" Our mind is encased in our body, so they are one. Jesus, who represents God the Body (my name for Him) has the mind of the Father, so they also are One. And both Jesus and us who have been born again of the Holy Spirit have the power of the Spirit, and again we all are one.

 

[synergy]

By asking myself these two questions:

1. Why did this evangelist write that, when in the rest of his gospel he constantly presents Jesus as claiming having been Sent by his Father, who He calls "the Only and True God"?

Jesus is attacking Polytheism here. Trinitarianism is not Polytheism.

1. Why only this evangelist does that, and not the other three who wrote their gospels long before him?

Thomas exclaimed it when he said "My Lord and my God!" Jesus proclaimed it when he declared he existed before Abraham as the "I Am" God of the OT.

So, let's see what the evangelist had in mind and what the evangelist tell us Jesus proclaimed:

• “Truly, truly I say to you, whoever hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death into life. (John 5:24)
• The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life. (John 6:63)
• Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6:68)
• He who is of God hears God’s words. Therefore, you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8:47)
• Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone keeps My word, he shall never see death. (John 8:51)

John was talking to an audience of Greek-Roman culture, acquainted with the concept of Logos. His gospel is highly theological, in contrast with the older synoptics. John wants to emphasize that Jesus represents the eternal Word of God, and the fact that we are saved if we follow that word, because following the Word is following God Himself.

Such Word is called God in John 1:1, because God has always spoken. God is a talking God. There is no point in "time" in which God didn't have a Word to say. Word is inherent to God.
Such Word of God abides in Jesus, manifests in Jesus, with such salvific power, that it is as if it had "incarnated" in the flesh of Jesus.

You have spent alot of ink describing the Word of God without getting to the point that the Word was God.

In fact, the evangelist used a similar metaphor, as the Word abiding within us: You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe the One He has sent. (John 5:38)

There is a beautiful analogy about the sun and his rays that explain this relationship, but since it pertains to the Baha'i Scriptures, I will not mention them in this thread.

On which side are the Baha'i scriptures on when it comes to the Cross? On the side of the Christian Cross or on the side of the Qur'an that denies that the Cross ever happened?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

God's existence is not defined as simply as you suggest.

God's existence cannot be defined. Not in simple terms, not in complex terms.
However, at the moment of an earthquake when your life is in peril, you will pray to a single Mind, a single Agent, a single Will, to preserve your life or to receive your spirit. At that moment all Theology will be useless. It is only the Spirit of Christ that will make you cry "Abba, Father".
Christ wants you to approach the Father.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus is attacking Polytheism here. Trinitarianism is not Polytheism.

I know you worship One God, my friend.
If someone accused you of polytheism, I would fiercely defend your position. Trinitarians are not polytheist.

What I'm saying is that Jesus recognized Only One Person (His Father, with whom He was praying to) as the Only and True God. Remember: it was a person-to-person conversation.

You have spent alot of ink describing the Word of God without getting to the point that the Word was God.

Yes, I spent a lot of ink. It is a highly metaphysical passage, but the evangelists spent much more ink getting to the point that Jesus was a Being sent by God. So we have one verse ( John 1:1) against dozens.
If you would like me to write with less ink, I would only say: "This is a metaphor".

On which side are the Baha'i scriptures on when it comes to the Cross? On the side of the Christian Cross or on the side of the Qur'an that denies that the Cross ever happened?

I would not discuss that in this thread, but perhaps we can find a place in another. Let me know and we can talk there.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Thomas exclaimed it when he said "My Lord and my God!"

The New Testament is full of sentences where Jesus and the Father are placed together in the same sentence, and the title "God" goes always to the Father, not to Jesus. We can see that later on.
In this passage, the evangelist makes Thomas praise Jesus, as Lord, and also praised God, YHWH, who had risen Him from the dead.
This interpretation is compatible with two robust evidences:

1. Jesus had just said that His God was the same God of his apostles.
2. The apostles preached that God the God of Israel (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) had raised Jesus from dead.

Jesus proclaimed it when he declared he existed before Abraham as the "I Am" God of the OT.

That verse is important for the topic of preexistence, not for the topic of Jesus deity. Preexistence is not deity.
The expression "I Am" pronounced by Jesus cannot be taken from the context of everything Jesus had said about who he was. He was the One sent by his Father, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Door, the Way, the Good Shepherd, etc .

In addition, even if Jesus was referring to the burning bush, Stephan says that it was an angel, a Messenger from God, who talked to Moses from the burning bush (Acts 7:30). So, even if Jesus was referring to be part of that particular event, he was reminding everyone his role as a Messenger from God.

 

[Peterlag]

i have no idea what you are saying. The scripture stands in connection with Christ in the Godhead. Scripture can talk about Christ as a man. That is called the Son in his incarnation. Maybe you do not yet understand that.

Sounds Catholic this incarnation. Is the word in the Bible?

 

[charismaticlady]

Sounds Catholic this incarnation. Is the word in the Bible?

The meaning is in John 1 where the Word became flesh.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus took bread, broke it, gave it to the disciples and said: "This is my body" (Mt 26:26)
However, few people, including Catholic, would interpret this literally. Jesus did not become a loaf of bread.

The Word became flesh. Why should we take this literally?

 

[mikesw]

Sounds Catholic this incarnation. Is the word in the Bible?

You keep on uttering incoherent ideas. I thought you studied this stuff. Maybe you heard "the Word/Logos became flesh." But you like to make it seem that John 1 is about Greek philosophy or something in a way unrelated to Christ. So far your view is a mystery not yet worth solving.

 

[charismaticlady]

Jesus took bread, broke it, gave it to the disciples and said: "This is my body" (Mt 26:26)
However, few people, including Catholic, would interpret this literally. Jesus did not become a loaf of bread.

The Word became flesh. Why should we take this literally?

Why did you write to me if you are not going to respond?

 

[synergy]

I know you worship One God, my friend.
If someone accused you of polytheism, I would fiercely defend your position. Trinitarians are not polytheist.

What I'm saying is that Jesus recognized Only One Person (His Father, with whom He was praying to) as the Only and True God. Remember: it was a person-to-person conversation.

The subject of the verse is God, not Person. Jesus is explicitly declaring that there is one God as an affront against all the polytheists who believe otherwise. To make the verse say anything beyond what it explicitly says is to force your views into the passage.

Yes, I spent a lot of ink. It is a highly metaphysical passage, but the evangelists spent much more ink getting to the point that Jesus was a Being sent by God. So we have one verse ( John 1:1) against dozens.
If you would like me to write with less ink, I would only say: "This is a metaphor".

You are entitled to your interpretation. I, on the other hand, believe the verse as declared by Apostle John.

I would not discuss that in this thread, but perhaps we can find a place in another. Let me know and we can talk there.

You're correct in that this is not the proper thread for that. I got my answer from the internet. All I can say is that the Baha'i faith has an enormous task in showing any progression (or any commonality for that matter) between Christianity and Islam.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Why did you write to me if you are not going to respond?

Oh, I wasn’t writing specifically to you, sister. Otherwise I would’ve quoted your post or tagged you. I was just jolting down a thought.
Please accept my apologies for any confusion,

 

[charismaticlady]

Oh, I wasn’t writing specifically to you, sister. Otherwise I would’ve quoted your post or tagged you. I was just jolting down a thought.
Please accept my apologies for any confusion,

Well that's disappointing.