Hey, it's me!moved to debates. I guess I'll bite as long as it stays civil.
Certainly a reasonable way to look at it, and I can't say I disagree, but I'm not sure how that addresses the question of why Jesus seems to differentiate between Himself and God the Father. Would you mind expanding on that a little?So in Matthew 19:16-17 a rich man asks Jesus how to get to heaven after perceiving that He was a good teacher. Ephesians 1:18 says that our hearts must be opened to accept God into them. So even though this man knew Jesus was different from the other teachers, he wasn't open to putting Him in the driver's seat of his life. Alternatively, it could be argued that the man used the term good to gain favor or give Jesus a title of respect.
Long list... I don't want to Wall of Text a reply so I'll address those separately if that's ok? (Staring with my next post, I have to be quick at the moment.)There are many Bible passages that declare God as one: (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 42:8; 43:10,11; 44:6-8; 45:5,6; 46:5,9; Mark 12:32; John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 86; Galatians 3:20; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 6:13; 1 John 5:7).
Good question, and I'll answer that in my next reply tooThe Isaiah 42:8 verse is interesting since it declares that the LORD will not share His glory with another. If Jesus was not in perfect in communion with Him, how could that be? Isaiah 43:10 states that no other God have been created or will be created after Him, yet if I am not mistaken, Mormons believe that Jesus is a created being. How is that reconciled to that verse?
NO!Then Isaiah 45:5-6 says that there is no other God. It doesn't say there is no other God besides "us"
That's all I have for now, dinner will be ready soon. Still pals right?
Oh, sure, drag me into this.Good question, and I'll answer that in my next reply tooThe Isaiah 42:8 verse is interesting since it declares that the LORD will not share His glory with another. If Jesus was not in perfect in communion with Him, how could that be? Isaiah 43:10 states that no other God have been created or will be created after Him, yet if I am not mistaken, Mormons believe that Jesus is a created being. How is that reconciled to that verse?
(Or Sstavix, if you get to this before I do, feel free.)
This verse in Isaiah 42:8 is specifically talking about false gods and idols. He says "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." I don't see a contradiction here, to be honest, although I can see where you're coming from. I see 43:10 in the same way. Even though Jesus Christ is divine, the scriptures seldom refer to Him as a God as such, reserving that term for Heavenly Father in most cases.The Isaiah 42:8 verse is interesting since it declares that the LORD will not share His glory with another. If Jesus was not in perfect in communion with Him, how could that be? Isaiah 43:10 states that no other God have been created or will be created after Him, yet if I am not mistaken, Mormons believe that Jesus is a created being. How is that reconciled to that verse?
That's true it doesn't, but there again this is the Old Testament perspective, where people had not yet had the understanding of the 3 parts of the Godhead.Then Isaiah 45:5-6 says that there is no other God. It doesn't say there is no other God besides "us"
Certainly, with the note that there was the concept of "thy will and not mine" in the verse I mentioned above. In all other cases I agree completely.So we should be able to agree that they share the same will and work in unison correct?
Sure, I can see where you're coming from there. That isn't the way I see it, of course, but I appreciate your elaborating on it. You are literally the first person I've discussed this with who actually had an answer to that question. Thanks!Now to have this prayer recorded there must have been a witness right? Why not show that witness (who will write about and share this with many) how to hand over control of our lives and circumstances to our heavenly father? This is a perfect prayer of how to open up our lives and heart to God without treating him live a heavenly vending machine. That's my 0.02
Ah, but my riposte is there are no mentions of the Trinity in the Bible eitherThe baptism is an interesting example. I consider that moment a validation that this was not just any average man that got dunked under water. God is telling the witnesses there that they should heed Jesus and that he's got his seal of approval (since they are carrying out the same plan after all). The same goes for the transfiguration. Jesus had the ability to call upon heavenly resources at any given moment, cavalry included. We believe that even though Jesus resurrected into heaven, the Holy Spirit is still on earth empowering believers with spiritual gifts to glorify God. Again their abilities and will are unified but they don't have to be in the same area/room/etc. it's a weird concept to wrap one's head around. To imagine three entities so perfectly united in marriage and parenting we're unified but we still have slight disagreements and arguments while there are no recorded instances in the Bible for the Godhead.
Hmmm I don't think I see that the same way. In verse 17: "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."So back to the Matt 19 verse, although Jesus was the creator of the universe, he still submitted to His father's will and plan to be the perfect sacrifice to redeem us. People in that time knew of God. They didn't necessarily know that he was the Creator of the universe, but he did make references later (Matt 22:32). In that verse Jesus is saying that he is indeed God. If God/One is good than so is He, They're one in the same.
No worries! It was clear enough and thanks for elaborating on the Matthew 19 quote.Sorry if this is a bit jumbled I kept getting phone calls from my grandma regarding trouble with her webmail as I was writing this
Always, and welcome to the discussion!Anyone want to continue? I saw this awhile ago but it's such a big topic....
I've heard of the Wesleyan denomination but I don't really know anything about it. Would you mind going into a little more detail? I'm just curiousI'll give a somewhat off the cuff Nazarene view. We believe God is "Triune in essential being, revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." We are a Wesleyan denomination and therefore when talking theology (our understanding of God), we use the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral". That is, our understanding of God comes from Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Scripture is primary, interpreted through the other three.
Are you by any chance familiar with the historical origin of the Trinity doctrine?The word "trinity" is never used in the Bible, but the oneness of God and the three persons are important, so the doctrine of the Trinity was born (using reason in addition to Scripture). So there are verses that indicate One and verses that indicate Three. Of course, there are also verses that lean toward Three as opposed to One, but I'm not able to address all of those now.
I think that makes a lot of sense. I think we all agree that Jesus was divine, so I don't think I see any problem with this way of looking at those verses.As to the first Scripture mentioned:
Matthew 19:17, The man was not a disciple, and he was not referring to Jesus as God, he was referring to Jesus as a man because he did not know that Jesus is God. So I'd say, Jesus' point was that only God is good, not man. Jesus was not saying that we should never call anyone good. Are we disobeying Jesus every time we refer to someone (or something as good)? No. The main point in this passage is not the trinity or the divinity of Jesus. Jesus' point here is found in verse 26, “For men this is impossible. But for God all things are possible.”. At this time, Jesus decided this lesson was more important than a lesson on His own divinity.
Check out the Creed of Athanasius, and the Nicene Creed which came from the Council of Nice in A.D. 325, the first formal declaration of Trinitarian doctrine. 3 Centuries after the Ministry of Christ on Earth.Historical Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity I asked my hubby if he wants to join in, he has a better memory than I. We did learn about it, but I can't remember much more than I already said. I'll poke around a bit and see what I can find.
Thanks, but I'd say the difference between what I said and traditional Trinitarian thought is that I regard the 3 Beings as distinct, separate personages. The way the Trinity is taught, that is not the case.For someone who doesn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, you've done a fabulous job of describing it. As long you are not openly professing some brand of polytheism, your definition sidesteps "modalism" (one God, different masks worn) and "subordinationism" (emphasizing a strong hierarchy within the Trinity).
I would venture to say that perfect unity is rather disrupted by some events in the New Testament, such as Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane ("Not My will, but THY will be done") and Jesus' suffering on the cross ("Why has thou forsaken me?') which is easily reconciled by the separate Beings view, but not so much by Trinitarian doctrine.There's a term I picked up for talking about the trinity... perichoresis. I found it in the first chapter of "Being as Communion" by John D Zizioulas (a very interesting chapter devoted to the Trinity). It's a Greek word that literally means "rotation", but there is more to it then that (there usually is with Greek words). Perichoresis is used by theologians in the Eastern Orthodox faith tradition to describe a "dance" that is always occurring in the very personhood of God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are intertwined in a great dance. Three distinct persons so united with one another... that it becomes nearly impossible to think of one, and not think of the other two as well.
I see what you mean with the analogy. What I like about it is that it implicitly acknowledges that Jack and Jill are, in fact, separate individuals even if they generally act in concert. That's how I view the Godhead. Again though, the traditional definition of the Trinity doesn't fit that analogy, in that it does not define the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as separate Beings. It would be as if Jack and Jill were different aspects of one person.The nature of this "dance" can be illustrated by some married couples. I'm sure you can think of one. A couple so close, so inseparable, so committed to one another... that no one ever refers to them in isolation. It's never simply Jack. Or Jill. It's always Jack and Jill.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests