20 Reasons Why the Trinity Is Unbiblical (20)
December 2nd, 2010 by Guest Author
by Chuck LaMattina of Grace Ministry International.
20. Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.
The title and position of being a son implies the title and position of a father. A father and son are never the same person or the same being; they are not one in essence and being. Jesus Christ is never identified in Scripture as God, nor is he ever called “God the Son.†He is always called the “Son of God.†When Peter was asked who he believed Jesus to be, he replied,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.†(Matthew 16:16)
The testimony of John the Baptist concerning Jesus Christ was, “I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.†(John 1:34)
Mark began his gospel with the words, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.â€
The Centurion at the cross said, “Truly this Man was the Son of God!†(Mark 15:39)
Demons declared, “You are the Son of God.†(Mark 3:11)
Indeed, Yahweh, the one, true, living God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.†(Matthew 17:5)
Let us once and for all put away the pagan, platonic notion that there is one God who consists of three persons. And let us accept the written Word of God that states there is only one who is God. He is Yahweh, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. And let us believe Scripture that Jesus is truly a man, the Son of God by divine conception, whom God has made both Lord and Christ.
Hi all,
About a year ago I was discussing the Trinity with a handful of people on this sight.
I’ve returned because I think I have a couple new insights that I believe support the Trinity.
I am interested in what your reply is.
I’ll start with the first one:
Can the blood of a mere man sufficiently satisfy the debt of humanity’s sins?
I think this is an important point in this debate. Consider the following logical progression:
1.) God is an eternal, perfect God.
2.) The severity of an offense is equal to the status of the one offended.
E.G.: If I punched my brother, my punishment might be a punch back. However, if I punched the president, I’d probably spend a few years in jail because the president has a greater social status than my brother.
3.) Our sin against God demands a payment equal to the status of God – an eternal, perfect payment.
4.) Therefore, in order to satisfy that payment, a sacrifice needed to be eternal and perfect.
Nobody’s blood was perfect enough.
“For the Law..can never by the same sacrifices .. make perfect those who draw near.” (Heb. 10:1)
“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (vs. 4)
Yet Jesus’ blood was capable and worthy.
“We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb. 10:10)
Now, if God was somehow able to anoint the blood payment of someone to make it perfectly good and equal to the offense against God – then surely He could have done it with the blood of sinless bulls – but He couldn’t.
God needed a sacrifice whose blood payment was inherently equal to the offense – payment that was inherently equal to the one offended. Without it, the price wouldn’t be fully paid.
In God’s law it was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Whatever the offense was, the payment must equal it.
Our offense against an eternal, perfect God demands an eternal, perfect payment. Jesus sacrifice was sufficient only because it was equal to the offense.
Even if Jesus lived a perfect life as a mere man, the value of his life would only equal the life of one other man. In order to cover the value of millions of sinners, Jesus’ value must have been at least equal to the whole of them.
Peace to you all.
Aaron,
You start off with the assumption that Jesus is a “mere man” which is not what we believe. He is the only begotten Son of God, the Promised Messiah, as well as the prophesied Suffering Servant and the Lamb of God, the perfect sacrifice for mankind.
Besides, as we have pointed out on many occasions, how could Jesus be sacrificed if he were God, since God cannot die? He offered himself TO God as a perfect sacrifice for man. He was able to do this because he was a man, but a uniquely begotten and highly exalted man, not a “mere” man.
Alex Hall does a good job explaining this question in detail, in the following article:
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Alex Hall– The Sacrifice of the Son of God.pdf
Mark C.
Further to this, here’s a good article from our “friends” over at Biblicalunitarian.com:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=56
For my fellow unitarian brothers and sisters, one issue that still troubles me – why has God allowed the trinity to play so dominant a role in the church all these years?
Antioch,
I know that some people will disagree with me but the reason God has allowed the trinity such a dominant role is that in the end it has nothing to do with whether we attain salvation or not. The nature of God is important, but it is not as important as following the teachings of Y’shua who God has sent to be our Messiah and teacher.
The fact is most people don’t know that Constantine’s son was an Arian (He did not believe Y’shua was of the same essence as God the Father). All the early missionaries that were sent out, during this time frame, were Arian. That’s how the Barbarians (as the Romans called them) ended up becoming Arian.
Constanine’s grandson son was not a Christian and instead worshiped the “Old Gods” of the Roman Empire. He took away the status of the Roman Catholic Church as the official State religion of the Roman Empire. Paganism thrived under him. The next emperor returned the Roman Catholic Church to it’s original status as the official State religion.
Not only that, because he was a Trinitarian, he passed a law stating that anyone who spoke against the Trinity was to receive the death sentence. (The death sentence against anyone who spoke against the Trinity stayed in placed throughout most of the church’s history. Even after the reformation). Officially the Arians were supposedly wiped out within a generation or so, but they really weren’t. The Eastern church argued with the Western church for centuries about the exact nature of the Godhead. They almost split up on 3 different occasions because of it.
Against all the odds, throughout the entire history of the church, Arianism kept returning again and again. They could never eliminate it. As a matter of fact when Rome fell and the so called Barbarians took over, Arianism became the most popular belief again. It took centuries for the Trinintarian leadership to eventually ban Arianism again.
I am not an Arian, but the point is that the Trinitarians haven’t had such a total and complete dominant role over the common people as you and most others seem to think…
Xavier,
I really liked the link to the article from our “friends†over at Biblicalunitarian.com entitled, “Logical Fallacies Employed in Trinitarian Theology”.
I especially liked the part where it said, “Luke 23:43 (NASB) says, “And he said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise,’†indicating that Jesus will be with the malefactor in Paradise later that same day. But if the comma is moved to the other side of “today,†an entirely different emphasis results: “Truly I say to you today, you shall (in the future) be with me in Paradise.†This is, in fact the correct rendering.”
I’ve never been able to explain away this passage to people before. This is not only the best pro Unitarian article I have seen, it also explains in detail how to reason logically. I loved it. It was “Absolutely Fantastic”…
DT
Ditto. 😉
Aaron,
You asked, “Can the blood of a mere man sufficiently satisfy the debt of humanity’s sins?”
No other person has ever existed that lived an entirely sinless life in the eyes of our Father except Y’shua. Not Adam, not David, not Moses, not John the baptist, not no-one. If the blood of the perfect lamb without blemish (our Savior and Messiah) is not sufficient to satisfy the debt of our sins.
– Then nothing is and we have no hope!!!
In return I’d like to ask you a question. How can God (the Father) pay the debt on the behalf of humanity (his children)???
If humanity owes God a debt, then God cannot pay that debt. Only another human could pay the debt on behalf of his brothers and sisters that have sinned. Of course (like Mark pointed out above) not just any human could do this.
If the prayers of a righteous man our powerful??? How much more powerful is the blood of the most righteous man that has ever lived???
Correction to above. “If the prayers of a righteous man ‘are’ powerful???”
Mark,
I understand that you believe that Jesus was not “mere” in that he was not like any other man. When I use the word “mere” it is not in comparing him to other men, but in comparing him to God – so there is no straw man or logical error.
My point was that the payment must equal the value of the offended party. Even under your understanding of Jesus nature, Jesus does not have value equal to God – which is why I can say that he is “mere.”
Doubting Thomas,
I completely agree. That’s my point exactly – which I think fits perfectly with the message of the gospel. Mankind could not achieve restitution – so God became man to do what man could not do.
This also fits perfectly with the way we see God operate in the Bible. God chose the Israelites and blessed them by His own accord so that they could not boast about being special enough to be chosen.
God subdued the people before Israel so that they could not boast of having achieved “salvation” by their own hand.
If Jesus was only a perfect man, mankind would have reason to boast of playing a central role in our salvation.
If that’s the only possible way a perfect payment could be made, God would find a way. The real issue is that of a perfect payment – not the physics of how God could or couldn’t make it happen.
Of course that’s what we call the hypostatic union. Jesus carried the value of God in a human body – which is why his death carried a sufficient price tag.
I tried following Mark’s link, but got an error message.
After hearing your responses on my initial points, I let you know my other thoughts.
I fixed the link in my previous post. It should work now.
Aaron,
Romans 5:19 – For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
The symmetry here is striking. If Jesus is a God/man, then the symmetry is gone. It also means that man has yet to show the capacity to be obedient to God because only a God/man could actually do that. That puts our eternal life with God in jeopardy since we are not and never will be God/man. Did God really make us to be incapable of ever obeying Him?
But if Jesus was a man (like Adam, the pattern of the one to come), then it does show that man can be obedient to God.
Aaron,
Thanks for your gentle responses. This shows me you have a good understanding of Y’shua’s basic teachings (Especially – [ The Golden Rule ] – “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”).
You said you believed, “Mankind could not achieve restitution – so God became man to do what man could not do.” We all understand that this is the standard Trinity rhetoric, but is it true??? Whenever we discuss our beliefs with Trinitarians they usually respond with, “Only God could have died for our sins!!!”
This is a completely illogical argument. Firstly God cannot die! (He certainly can’t die from just sticking a spear in his side.) Only someone who is mortal can die. Which means Y’shua must have been mortal. Secondly Moses and the prophets and all the Jewish people were expecting a human Messiah that would bring them salvation so they could enter the Kingdom of God.
As Antioch pointed out, “They were not expecting the Messiah to be God.” They were expecting a human being that was capable of achieving this. So this idea that “Only God could have died for our sins” is illogical and without any biblical basis. There is nothing in the bible that says this (or even hints at this).
Like I pointed out above, “If humanity owes God a debt, then God cannot pay that debt. Only another human being could pay the debt on behalf of his brothers and sisters that have sinned.”
For example if I had many children and they were all disrespectful toward me except my first born son who was extraordinarily respectful toward me and pleased me. My children would owe me a debt for not showing the proper respect (even though I did not deserve this and was always respectful and honest towards them).
I could then say to my children, “If you recognize your older brother, my favorite first born child, and what it was he has done for me (on behalf of you), then I will forgive you your debt that you owe me. If I am owed respect by my children, this debt can only be paid by me receiving respect from one of my children. I can’t give the respect to myself.
So it is with us and God. God can’t just do it without our participation. Y’shua was the perfect Adam. He is what mankind was intended to be. We are to strive to do our best to be like Him. We are to respect and honor his sacrifice that he “CHOSE” to do on our behalf. He didn’t have to drink from the cup. He could have ran away from the garden, into the night and avoided all the pain and suffering.
This is the way I see it anywaze. I’m looking forward to hearing your other thoughts that you mentioned above…
Aaron,
Welcome back to discussing these theological issues with us here at KR. And yes I do remember your from last year. I seem to recall you and Xaiver and Mark and others going back & forth for quite awhile on this subject. 🙂
I would like to chime in on something, although DT in his post above beat me to the punch (so to speak) a little.
In your original post in this thread (#1) your numbered points 2-4 are flawed (#1 I think everyone is in agreement on). DT rightly points out that God is incapable of being his own sacrifice to himself. And more importantly why would he even need that? God can choose to accept whatever or whoever he wants. He is God after all.
I think what most Trinitarians (and even Oneness & JWS believers) miss or fail to grasp is that a real human man (Adam) got us into this mess of sin because of his failure. Whatever Adam was, then it should take someone equal to him in order to succeed & rectify the situation.
And that’s exactly what happened. Adam was a perfectly created (by God out of the dust of the earth) man that was without sin – but with the capacity TO sin. Adam failed to abide by God’s rules, gave dominion of the earth over the the Devil, and brought sin and death upon the entire human race. Jesus – the LAST Adam was a perfectly created (by God in the womb of Mary – in the bloodline of David, Abraham, & Eve) man that was also without sin – but with the capacity TO sin. But where Adam failed because he chose to grasp equality with God (eating from the tree of knowledge of good & evil – with help from Satan’s lie), Jesus never grasped at such equality and submitted to his God all the way even to an undeserved death. And that success/obedience is what earned him to be the first man resurrected to eternal life (first fruits) and then seated at the right hand of God Himself as our Lord & Messiah.
Do you see what I’m saying? Just look at the parallels. Death & sin came in through one MAN – the first Adam. One MAN – the LAST Adam conquered sin and freed humanity from that eternal death sentence. A man originally screwed things up. So a man (with the same qualifications as the first) is what it took to make things right. Like in Romans 5:12-19
Also notice the parallels that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 15:
It took a man on the same level as the first man to rectify things. If it took a God-man to do that, then Adam must have been God as well. Of course then that makes a “quadrinity” and we’re into even more problems! 😉
Ron,
Alright, that’s a good place to start. Some of the counter posts try to address why #3 and #4 are incorrect, but lets start with #2 first.
Why don’t you agree that the punishment for a crime must be on par with the value of the offended party?
Do you think this sounds good for our social system, but that it doesn’t apply to God?
I think it applies all the more.
Consider this example.
In the old testament, a father could not kill his son for any small act of disobedience. That would be murder.
However, someone could be killed for disobeying God’s command.
The action might be the same, but the difference is in the one who the sin is against.
I hear unbelievers question how God could destroy somebody just for committing a simple sin like lying. They think the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. That may be true in human courts.
However, the severity of the punishment isn’t dependent on the size of the sin, but dependent on the size of the person sinned against. When you lie against God you offend the greatest being in the universe.
Now we get to the issue of what sort of price is high enough to pay for such a debt.
In jail terms, how long should I go to jail for punching my neighbor? Two days.
How long should I go to jail for punching the Governor? Two months.
How long should I go to jail for punching the President? Two years.
How long should I go to jail for punching God? Any guess? He is worth infinitely more than the President. Perhaps an infinity in jail.
In short, the price we must pay for offending God is an infinite price because God is infinitely worthy. If you don’t agree with that statement, please tell me why.
The price for killing someone in the OT was to be killed yourself. You are exchanging the value of your life for the value of the one you took. There is an equal exchange. Do you really think there is an equal exchange when someone dies as punishment for offending God? If a person’s own death is sufficient for murdering another person – do you think the same price is sufficient for offending God?
I’d submit that there is no price that we can pay that can equal the cost of offending God.
You folks seem to suggest that God could accept any price if He wanted to. That he could accept the value of a single man’s life in exchange for the debt incurred by billions of people.
That’s not the picture I get of God’s dealing from the Bible. God operates in a cause and effect way – in a judicial way. Just as a human judge wouldn’t be considered just for taking a $10 fine for the murder of 10 people – God wouldn’t be considered just for taking the value of a single man as payment for billions of people. Consider further, as I previously laid out, that the price of billions of sinners is not billions of lives, but billions of lives multiplied by infinite debt to the Infinite One.
The concept of God’s justice is captured in Romans 3:25,26. It basically says that God overlooked the sins of people in the past – not fully giving them what they deserved. However, God could not be considered just and good if he forever overlooked those sins. Eventually, the price had to be paid so that God could justly dispense justification.
This is just an example that God CANT legally do something (like grant free righteousness) without proper legal grounds.
God keeps very detailed balance sheets. The offense against him was costing humanity more than the value of every person alive.
The death of a single man wouldn’t have legally satisfied the legal debt.
Ron,
I agree with you. I think scripture is clear about what it would take for the sacrifice to sufficiently affect mankind.
I won’t argue with any of that. The sacrifice must be in the same legal position as the people who screwed it up.
In order for the benefits of what Jesus did to be applicable to mankind, he must have been a man. I won’t argue against his complete humanity.
However, I still assert Jesus needed both. He needed value equal to the value of God and he needed true humanity so the benefits of his value could spread to all mankind.
But that’s not the full picture. It’s not like Jesus only job was to pick up the baton where Adam dropped it in order to complete humanity’s race towards unity with God.
If that was the full extent of it, than I agree that Jesus could have done this as an ordinary man
But, when Adam dropped the baton, a gazillion dollar fine was placed on him and he was kicked out of the race completely. Jesus had to pay the fine and finish the race.
DT,
Thanks for the discourse.
I don’t want to appear like I’m coming to this sight to “teach you all a lesson.” I know you’ve heard much of trinitarian position before.
I’ve been studying through these things for awhile and when I had these recent thoughts, I decided to come back to this site because I know that you guys are sharp folks and you would look at my arguments critically.
I don’t know about you, but I like to hear the latest critiques of any position I hold – whether it is theological or political. When you hear the best attacks of your position, it helps you get a better understanding of where you are standing.
Why can’t God pay the debt? Where do you find that in the Bible? You seem to be insinuating a philosophical reason beyond your physical reason that “God can’t die.”
Over and over I see God doing what mankind can’t do.
As far as OT expectations of the messiah. Right or wrong, that’s not really a strong case against God being the messiah. Israel could have gotten it wrong for thousands of years. Is that so hard to believe?
Just listen to Jesus when he taught the people. He points out something they thought was the truth and then goes on to say “But I tell you…” Jesus had to correct a lot of misconceptions.
I think there are at least strong “hints” that the messiah would be God.
In Zechariah 12:10, God says “I will pour out on the house of David…the Spirit of grace…so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced…”
There is a strong correlation here to Psalm 22 and the messiah who is pierced.
I know you have a different take on what it means for Isaiah to call the messiah the “mighty God” in 9:7. However, I also consider that a strong hint.
Psalm 45 is a messianic prophecy about the king who is blessed by God and anointed by God – yet is also called God. You may have a different interpretation of what it means for this king to be called God – but I think that’s also more than a little hint.
But, I don’t necessarily want to rehash dialogue about all the disputable verses concerning trinitarianism. I mostly want to focus on my 4 premises.
And of course, I still have a separate line of reasoning I will soon lay out.
Aaron, The problem is there is no biblical support for your argument. God has always acted “through” or put his spirit “upon” humans. The only event God accomplished by himself was the creation. After that, the bible is full of events that God needed a human to choose to do his will.
Noah, Abraham, David, all the prophets, Jesus….
all men who chose to obey and because of their faithfullness, God was able to do miraculous things.
Frank D.
Too true. You know whenever we are dealing with these “straw man arguments” and trini reasons for Jesus being God because he did miraculous things etc., I am always reminded of this scripture which is not often mentioned in relation to this line of reasoning…
If Israel had “gotten it wrong for thousands of years” they did so because the Hebrew Scriptures “got it wrong.” It is those Scriptures that pictured the Messiah as a human being who served and/or represented God. Nowhere is there any hint of God coming to earth or becoming a man. Do you really want to propose that the Old Testament was wrong? Yes, that would be hard to believe.
Aaron,
You asked, “Why can’t God pay the debt? Where do you find that in the Bible?'”
I just don’t understand how God can make a sacrifice to himself???
The whole idea seems totally illogical to me. Especially when it is such a small (insignificant) sacrifice. Let’s look at it logically. God comes to earth and pretends to be his own son. Telling his disciples and everyone else about his Father in heaven, and about how he is His Son. Then he pretends to die as a sacrifice for our sins, but really doesn’t die at all (since God can’t die). From my point of view this would seem to have been a meaningless sacrifice.
Why would God even want to make a sacrifice to himself of himself???
Nothing about the Trinitarian premise makes any sense to me. Now a fully human (non-deity), who is perfect, sinless, and without blemish, who through faith that his loving Father would resurrect him, who lays his life down as a payment for other people’s sins (that he doesn’t even know) is a tremendous sacrifice. Much more valuable than the scenario where God is his own sacrifice to himself (like I mentioned above).
I think it is obvious that a human sacrifice (who really dies) is much more of a valuable sacrifice than a Deity pretending to sacrifice to himself, pretending to die, and pretending to be resurrected again. All these false pretenses that were bestowed upon the followers of Y’shua sounds like something that Satan (the king of deception) would do, not our loving Father (who cannot by His nature be deceitful).
You also said, “You seem to be insinuating a philosophical reason beyond your physical reason that ‘God can’t die.'”
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean. I think it is clear that God cannot die. The Trinitarians I have talked to say that part of him (God the Father) was always alive and never died. The way I see it, if part of a person is alive, then it logically follows that they are not only not truly dead, but they are actually not dead at all.
I apologize, ahead of time, if I am misrepresenting your views in any way…
Aaron,
Just want to thank you for taking the time to post here. It is so much more interesting to discuss ideas with people coming from an opposing point of view – as long as it doesn’t spiral into a heated argument.
I do have trouble with your #2. Biblical support for your idea of greater punishment would help to clarify. As it is, I don’t think you can confuse ‘status’ with ‘office’. In my country, founded on ‘all men are created equal’, it cuts across the grain to think punishment is disparate depending on the one offended. Instead, the act of punching the governor versus punching my neighbor are really not the same crime. One steps on the rights of one person, the other steps on the rights of the one but also all of the governed who elected the person to run their state. That is a greater crime. Another example, if I light a match and burn down my neighbors house, that is one crime. But if I light a match and half the State of Colorado burns, that is a much more severe crime. Same act, but different scales.
I come back to DT’s point because I too don’t understand why God would setup a system where only when he punishes himself will he let us be with Him. That seems to me to be self-flagellation.
And one other question for you, Aaron, which I posted on another thread. When did the apostles realize that Jesus was God?
Frank and Xavier,
I’ll simply say that I’m not arguing that Jesus needed to be God to perform miracles.
Antioch,
As far as the earthly examples go, I’m fine with either ‘status’ or ‘office’. Its all about some standard of value.
You gave some good examples that still fit the point I’m making in #2. The punishment for an act is more severe as more people are offended – because the overall value goes up.
Another simple example that makes my point is the murder of a dog verses the murder of a human. You might get 5 years jail for murdering a dog – but a lifetime for murdering a human. The more value placed on the offended party, the more extreme the punishment.
I don’t think you can argue with that simple logic.
Certainly you will admit that God resides in an ‘office’ and ‘status’ far above any person.
Acts 5:4 highlights the difference between violating a person and violating God. Ananias and Sapphira lied about money they received from selling their property. Peter says “Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.”
And bam – they were laid out dead. The punishment for sin is death. Even if you don’t want to say that each sin cost us a fine equal to the value of God – you at least have to admit that each sin cost the value of the sinner’s life.
Even at this price tag, the debt humanity owed to God was equal to every sinning person that ever lived.
The bottom line is that if you reject the conclusions I propose, you are agreeing with one of the following:
1.) The price-tag for our cumulative offenses to God is no greater than the price-tag for one person being murdered. I.E.: one human life is sufficient to pay the price.
or
2.) God was willing to accept a price that was less than our cumulative offenses.
I think the first demeans the value of God and the second demeans the justice of God.
As I stated before, God can’t act in a way that violates his justice. He can’t legally grant something without the proper grounds to do so. If the price tag of our sins is indeed greater than the value of one single person’s life, than God can’t legally accept one life as the payment and still be considered just.
You might suggest that he could accept the death of one man as sufficient because he is merciful. I say again that no he can’t. The looming price tag hasn’t fully been met – so he has no legal grounds to dispense such mercy. His mercy would violate his justice – which he can’t do.
Ah, and how amazing is that grace when you see it from that perspective. God knew that even as a good creation, Adam couldn’t experience full intimacy with himself unless Adam possessed God’s level of righteousness. Living sinless wouldn’t have put Adam at the level of God’s perfect righteousness. Sacrifice and substitution was the only way God could legally dispense this type of righteousness. It was all part of the plan – Christ was crucified from the foundations of the world.
The gospel’s aren’t explicit on the day or time. Sometime between when he called them and when they wrote their gospels. But that’s a bit of a rabbit trail.
DT,
It’s not like God was looking for something fun to do. It’s a matter of necessity. If becoming man was the only way for a sacrifice to have sufficient value – then its a matter of what God must do, even if we are left wondering how he did it.
You seem to be attributing the value of a sacrifice to the manner in which the sacrifice is offered. You are saying that God’s “death” in human form wouldn’t have been very valuable because God is invincible and it wouldn’t have really “hurt” him or be a struggle for him.
On the other hand you are saying that Jesus’ sacrifice was valuable because it was voluntary, he didn’t deserve to die, and that it took strong faith for him to believe it would all be ok in the end.
In a judges mind, he doesn’t care if a fine has to be squeezed out of somebody over 10 years of forced payments, or if somebody mercifully pays the accused person’s fine in full. The issue is the amount of money owed, not the character of the person paying the fine.
The question you have to ask is what the cost of all of our cumulative sins against God is – and if Jesus’ single life was sufficient to pay the fine of billions of lives.
It is difficult even for a trinitarian to fully grasp how Jesus could be God and what it meant for him to die – but there are reasonable answers. I’ll summarize by saying that Jesus really did die. Even if you say that only his flesh “part” died – the fact that his God “part” and human “part” were tied up in one flesh means that his body carried the full value of the both “parts.” Therefore, his fleshly death was equivalent in value to God dying – even if nothing happened to his God “part.”
Aaron
Good. So what do you base it on?
Aaron,
Again I’d like to thank you for the civilized discourse. I’m so use to Trinitarians doing drive by shootings, where they insult our beliefs or insult us, and then we never hear from them again. I can see you are interested in having a serious (respectful) dialogue. I appreciate that!!!
You said, “If becoming man was the only way for a sacrifice to have sufficient value – then its a matter of what God must do, even if we are left wondering how he did it.”
Like I said above, I do not see a Deity pretending to die, and then pretending to be resurrected, as any sort of a valuable sacrifice at all. It would all have been just a charade, since God the Son knew he couldn’t really die, then he would have required ‘no faith’ in God the Father to resurrect him again. What kind of sacrifice is that???
You also said, “The question you have to ask is what the cost of all of our cumulative sins against God is – and if Jesus’ single life was sufficient to pay the fine of billions of lives.”
I think only our loving Father, the creator of heaven and earth, can decide what is sufficient to pay the fine of billions of lives. An actual vulnerable human being (afraid of suffering and dying), who voluntarily sacrificed himself to pay for the sins of others, he didn’t even know, seems to me to be a much more valuable sacrifice then a Deity who cannot die going through the motions of dying but not really dying.
You also said, “Even if you say that only his flesh “part†died – the fact that his God “part†and human “part†were tied up in one flesh means that his body carried the full value of the both “parts.†Therefore, his fleshly death was equivalent in value to God dying – even if nothing happened to his God “part.†”
I’m sorry but that makes no sense to me. If nothing happened to his God “part”, then his God part didn’t die. There are also several reasons why I don’t believe that his God “part” and human “part” were tied up in one flesh together. If Y’shua was totally and completely God (but the Son “part”) he would still retain all the knowledge and authority of his God “part”.
When the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, Y’shua responded to her request with the following statement –
Matthew 20:23 (English Standard Version)
“He said to them, ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.'”
If Y’shua was actually God (the son “part”) then he would have had the authority to grant the request that was asked of him. The fact that he said only ‘his’ Father had that authority, shows that Y’shua was not God or even equal to God. It is also seems clear (to me anywaze) that God knows the day and the hour that he is going to have Y’shua return in power and glory to establish God’s kingdom. Yet Y’shua said this in the following statement –
Matthew 24:36 (English Standard Version)
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
If Y’shua were actually God (but the Son “part”) then it is obvious that he would have all the knowledge of God (the Father “part”), but it is clear that he doesn’t. That’s why I cannot believe that his God “part†and human “part†were tied up in one flesh. This simply doesn’t seem to fit with what the scriptures say.
At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…
Aaron,
I echo DTs sentiment. I appreciate your willingness to discuss and your approach is a new one for me, so this is a good challenge.
You did change your #2 point during the course of your response. At first it was:
– The severity of an offense is equal to the status of the one offended.
Then in your latest response, it became:
– The punishment for an act is more severe as more people are offended
I agree with the second statement, I disagree with the first.
But getting to the meat of things, you offer two conclusions:
1.) The price-tag for our cumulative offenses to God is no greater than the price-tag for one person being murdered. I.E.: one human life is sufficient to pay the price.
or
2.) God was willing to accept a price that was less than our cumulative offenses.
It seems the issue to you is that the penalty that had to be paid had to be equal to the ‘value’ of all the sins that have been committed by man. Right? If that is the case, I absolutely see your point that Jesus’ life, as just a man, was not sufficient to pay the price. But help me find scripture that states that this is how Gods scale of justice works?
To me, and I am still thinking this through, the price that had to be paid was not about the value of all the sin (whatever that adds up to). It is about obedience. Again I point to Romans 5:19 as that summarizes it so clearly. From that perspective, what Jesus did more than made up for what Adam did. It is still a personal matter to attach ourselves to Jesus in order to cross the bridge that he built back to God. But if Jesus had to be God in order to be obedient, then where does that leave us? Mankind has yet to show it can be obedient and if it is about obedience (and not sin value), how can we ever be reconciled to God?
Lastly, as to my question about when the apostles realized that Jesus was God, isn’t it odd that that would not be spelled out explicitly in the NT? It is very clear he was messiah, but not clear that he was God? Isn’t that ‘burying the lead’?
Antioch,
I totally agree with your statement, “But if Jesus had to be God in order to be obedient, then where does that leave us? Mankind has yet to show it can be obedient and if it is about obedience (and not sin value), how can we ever be reconciled to God?”
I believe that because of Y’shua’s sinless/perfect life, even though he had all the same temptations to sin as us, plus more (being personally tempted by Satan), that God loved him more than anything else that he had created. Y’shua was his perfect creation, his beloved son. As such the obedience that he showed even to the point of being beaten, whipped/scourged, crucified and dying in the most horrific way imaginable is more than enough of a sacrifice for God to accept.
How could our loving father have asked any more of his beloved son then what was asked of him??? At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…
DT,
You said:
Let’s at least agree that there is some price tag to pay for the sins of billions. Whatever it is, God knows it.
I think it is reasonable to assume as well that the price never changed. God did not all of a sudden drop the price tag when Jesus died. Sin didn’t become less pricey all of a sudden.
If God raised and lowered the price at his own whim, He would not be acting according to his just character – which is impossible for him to do. Justice is all about extracting a proper penalty for a crime. Justice is not served if the proper price is not extracted.
Again, I think you are judging the value of a sacrificial payment by the motives and methods of the payment – instead of by the worth of the payment.
What Jesus humbly did is awesome. But, humility alone can’t pay the price. I may humbly offer a judge all that I have to pay a fine, but if my gift is less than what the judge deems just, then my payment is not good enough.
Its not about the way Jesus died – its whether or not his death was valuable enough. I affirm again that the price for billions of sins was more than the life of one single man. I’ll get to a scripture in a minute.
Jesus’ God “part” didn’t have to die in order for the price to be paid – because God is spirit and spirit cannot bleed. The flesh of Jesus died – but that flesh carried the full worth of God. It is difficult to comprehend how this works. I am not interested in trying to dissect Jesus and explain how all his parts functioned. What is most important is that this fusion of “parts” was the only way one single person would hold the value necessary to pay the price of billions. That remains the most important issue at hand.
We have no reference point or examples to help us understand what a God-Man would look like and act. So any attempt to try and make black and white statements about how we think such a person would be is futile. You can’t say that he would retain all knowledge and authority – because you have nothing to compare Jesus to. Certainly our brains could not fully comprehend how this worked.
It is not obvious that Jesus would know all things or be able to do everything that he could while he was a spirit being. You bring up some good verses that need to be reckoned with. We can go back to all those NT verses and try to figure them out later after we have finished discussing the issue of price tag and the other major point I will soon lay out.
My general belief is that Jesus was limited while in a human body to everything that we are limited to in a human body. Jesus could not be everywhere while in a human body. Likewise, there were other God-like abilities that Jesus could not access while confined to a human body.
Antioch,
You said:
That is my core point.
Firstly, I think I can make a good argument from logic and conscience. While scripture trumps logic and conscience, they are not mutually exclusive. When tuned properly, logic and conscience are a reflection of God’s ultimate truth.
Our conscience tells us plainly that if two people conspire to murder someone, both people must be fully punished. There is a price to be paid. One of those murderers can’t pay the price for both of them.
The OT law uses the standard of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” If you steal and apple, you must return an apple. If you take a life, you must give your life.
This makes sense in human relationships. It is logical that when God is involved, the scales increase dramatically.
Consider this scripture:
Deuteronomy 5:9 “for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me…”
Is God behaving unjustly when he says he will punish every child for 4 generations because their great-great grandfather hated Him?
That’s way beyond our human justice system – and beyond the Laws that God gave to govern us. If my father kills someone, you have no right to put me and my sons to death.
That awful punishment that God promises MUST be justified – for God does not act in injustice. He doesn’t punish people out of some sadistic desire. Why can God demand such a steep price for the sin of hate? Because God is so infinitely worthy – and when you cross him, you are trampling on the most worthy being in the universe. Its like stepping on a flower that is worth $99 gazillion dollars. The fine is high because the offense is high.
This verse gives us a good idea of what the price for our sins is.
If the death of 4 generations of your descendants isn’t a proper fine – God has no business extracting it.
Now, take that sin of hating God and multiply it by billions of sinners. Obviously, we’re talking about a monumental pricetag which is intrinsically pricier than the value of one single being. Otherwise, God wouldn’t have to extract more value from the sinner’s children. He would be satisfied by extracting it directly from the sinner.
Does that make sense?
Yes, Romans 5:19 is about obedience. But, its not some generic obedience – it is obedience in offering up a price. Its only because Jesus life was valuable enough that his obedience could have the affect it did.
Aaron,
I understand your points. They flow logically from your premise. Where we disagree is you view God’s justice as someone has to pay for all the sins. Jesus ‘paid’ for the sins, therefore he had to be God cause only God’s life is big enough to pay for all those sins. I get that. I just don’t think that is the way it works.
I view God’s justice as being about obedience. To me, the whole of the Bible can be summed up with that one word. Jesus was obedient and managed to reconcile the relationship with God. We share in that reconciliation by aligning ourselves with Jesus (and I wholeheartedly agree that as sinners we cannot do it ourselves).
One other question for you, if Gods justice is all about ‘sin value’, does it not seem out of whack that all of humanity suffered because Adam ate a fruit he wasn’t supposed to? Is that ‘simple little sin’ worthy of all the pain and suffering that ensued?
Whereas, if it is about obedience, then it makes sense to me. We lost our fellowship with God because of disobedience. It didn’t matter if it was a ‘big sin’ or a ‘little sin’.
Everything that has happened since, I believe, is meant to be an eternal reminder of what it was like to be separated from God so that we never go down that road again.
Peace
Aaron,
“The flesh of Jesus died – but that flesh carried the full worth of God.”
Do you understand that this statement is not in God’s word, anywhere!
You conceded that Jesus’ flesh died and since God is spirit, he cannot die. So, did God really experience death to pay for the sins of mankind? By your own definitions, the answer is no. Some non-God flesh shell died. This is a very Platonic (not in the Bible) way of thinking about the nature of man. God is immortal, he cannot die. Jesus was mortal. He died therefore he is not God.
Please see Sean’s article on the same subject:
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/God_is_Immortal_-_Jesus_Died_issue_63.pdf
Aaron,
You said, “Let’s at least agree that there is some price tag to pay for the sins of billions. Whatever it is, God knows it.”
I’m not so sure that God is trying to extract some sort of punishment (or price) out of us. I actually look at it the same way that Antioch does. God takes no pleasure in punishing anyone. HE takes pleasure when his children (that he gave the gift of free will to) are obedient to him.
But, I can see that you see it differently then us. So for argument’s sake let’s say that a tremendous ‘sin value’ has to be payed and lets continue on that thread for discussion purposes.
You also said, “What is most important is that this fusion of “parts†was the only way one single person would hold the value necessary to pay the price of billions. That remains the most important issue at hand.”
I’ve tried to point out to you why I think a Deity going through the motions of dying is not as valuable as a fully human (non-Deity) dying. You said above that Y’shua was a God man. From what I understand of the Trinity doctrine it states that because Y’shua was fully God, he was fully capable of raising himself from the dead.
In other words it didn’t matter if Y’shua/Jesus died dozens of times, he would have been able to resurrect himself each and every time. It reminds me of a video game in which you can repeatedly die and in the end it doesn’t really make any difference. No sane person would say that you could compare dying in a video game to actually dying in real life (as a human being). One is insignificant and the other is extremely significant.
You also said, “Obviously, we’re talking about a monumental pricetag which is intrinsically pricier than the value of one single being.”
Think of the story of Cain and Able. God was pleased with Able’s offering and wasn’t pleased with Cain’s offering. I’m sure Cain thought his offering was just as good as Able’s, but in the end it is God that get’s to decide which offering is the more valuable. So we have to try to look at it from God’s point of view, when we talk about the value of an offering.
Like I said in an earlier message. I believe God loved Y’shua more than anything else, because he led a perfect, sinless, obedient, unselfish life. Y’shua/Jesus was the ‘crowning glory’ of all his creation. There would be nothing more valuable (from God’s point of view) then his beloved son giving himself up to suffer and die. The fact that it was the most gruesome and painful death imaginable added even more to the value of the offering.
Think of the person that ‘YOU’ love the most. Imagine that person giving up their life in the most gruesome and painful manor in order to save other people that they don’t even know. From your point of view would this be the greatest sacrifice possible (since it is happening to the person ‘YOU’ loved the most). I believe it would be the same way with God.
You can say that Y’shua/Jesus dying was just ‘one’ human life and not very valuable. But try to look at it from God’s point of view, and I think you will realize what I was saying about how a fully human (non-Deity) Y’shua dying is much more valuable (from God’s point of view) than a God Man going through the motions of dying but never actually really dying. I mean, If the God part of the God Man doesn’t die (because it is spirit) then the God Man really didn’t die.
You also said, “At least consider what I’ve said – ponder it to see if it makes sense and pray about it.”
I try my best to keep an open mind on things. Of course as a human I am limited by my preconceptions, like everybody else.
You also said, “Unless there are some points of mine that you don’t understand, I’m going to move on to my other argument in the next post.”
I was going to say the same thing. We do seem to be talking in circles at this point. Maybe it would be better if we just agree to disagree about which sacrifice (a human non-Deity or a God Man) is more valuable. I’m looking forward to hearing your other argument anywaze.
Peace be with you, and thank you again for the peaceful and civilized discourse. It is refreshing…
Antioch,
You said, “I view God’s justice as being about obedience. To me, the whole of the Bible can be summed up with that one word. Jesus was obedient and managed to reconcile the relationship with God. We share in that reconciliation by aligning ourselves with Jesus (and I wholeheartedly agree that as sinners we cannot do it ourselves).”
I completely agree with that. I don’t believe in orthodoxy, where we attain salvation by holding the correct/proper doctrines. I believe in orthopraxy, where we attain salvation by our behavior (being obedient to the will of our Father in heaven).
You also said, “Everything that has happened since, I believe, is meant to be an eternal reminder of what it was like to be separated from God so that we never go down that road again.”
I would like to say a huge “AMEN” to that.
May the peace and love of God be with you, and with all of us…
Frank D,
You said:
There are many statements we use to describe biblical truth that are not contained in the Bible.
It doesn’t matter if this view of a God-man resembles some other philosophical idea – what really matters, if you have been reading my main points – is whether or not Jesus’ death was adequate to pay the price.
Even if I agree with the sub-point of Sean’s article that death is a cessation of all existence – that assumes that if God were to take on a human body, that He would experience death in the same way that you and I do. Why would we make this assumption?
Sean says a God-man would be immortal. Does that mean he would not get older? That once he got to say – 65 – his body would stop decaying? Sean is making assumptions of what it would look like for God to inhabit a human body. He can’t make any assumptions about something that has never happened (according to him).
We all know that God experiences existence outside of a body. It seems unfounded to assume that all of that existence would be eliminated if God inhabited a human body. Certainly, if any body could exist in a platonic way with different “parts” it would be a God-man.
Jesus didn’t have to sacrifice his God “part” to pay the price. Sean gave a scripture that says what the necessary part was – that reconciliation came through the death of Jesus’ fleshly body.
So, to answer Doubting T’s point that:
Antioch,
I think I covered your question earlier. The pain and punishment that ensued wasn’t because of the size of Adam’s sin – it was because of the “size” of the One Adam sinned against.
Eating the fruit was rebelling against the most worthy being ever to exist – therefore the punishment must match the worth of God – which at the very least is equivalent to all of Adam’s descendants.
Are you suggesting that we each lose our fellowship with God individually by our disobedience – and that Adam’s sin didn’t have consequences for us all?
If there is any consequence we feel for Adam’s sin – wouldn’t you say that we’re are paying the penalty for Adam’s sin?
If it was just about being obedient and living a sinless life – why did Jesus have to die? Clearly there a payment of death that needed to be made.
What is the penalty of sin? “The wages of sin is death.”
The idea of payment is all throughout the Bible.
Jesus said:
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
To pay a ransom is to pay a set price on behalf of someone else.
The whole concept of propitiation in Romans 3:25 is one of satisfying a debt.
Galatians 1:4 says Jesus “gave himself for our sins..” Clearly, Jesus was taking the punishment that we deserved for our sins. He was paying our debt.
DT,
I totally agree.
Which is why God overlooked our sins for so long and didn’t give us the full measure of what we deserved.
However, God couldn’t do this indefinitely. In order to be considered a just judge, someone would have to pay the debt that was mounting up unpaid. Again I refer to Romans 3:25,26.
Alright. I’m going to move on to my next set of points.
This revolves around John 1:1-2
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.”
I’m sure you’ve heard this quoted as proof of Jesus’ divinity.
The verse pictures something or someone called the Word who was both with God, yet was God. There is a picture of a oneness yet a distinctness.
In John 1:14 we learn that the “Word became flesh” – and that flesh is Jesus.
To me, the implication is clear that Jesus existed in the beginning, that he was both with God and that he was God.
I want to tackle the objections I’ve heard from unitarians about this interpretation. If your personal interpretation differs, feel free to share it.
It goes something like this: In the beginning God had the Word – or a plan. The Word is a metaphor for God’s plan of salvation for the world – the Word encapsulates all of God’s goodness and character.
This plan became realized, or “became flesh” when Jesus was born.
My point here is to break down that imagery and see if it makes sense.
If the Word becoming flesh is the same thing as God’s plan going from being in God’s mind to being put in action – why can’t I say that Adam was the Word made flesh?
Wasn’t Adam a part of God’s plan for mankind? If the Word, or the Plan was for God to have a people consecrated to Himself – with Jesus’ sacrifice being the final key to make it possible – isn’t the creation of Adam the first step in that ultimate plan?
Without Adam, there would be nobody to have fellowship with? Why don’t we call him the Word?
Or you might say that the Word, or Plan, in John 1:1 is only the specific plan that had to do with redeeming people from sin.
Well, why isn’t John the baptist called the Word? He baptized Jesus in order for Jesus to fulfill all righteousness. He played a critical role in God’s plan of salvation.
Furthermore, the disciples played a critical role in God’s plan of salvation. They needed to spread the good news to the surrounding regions. Without their role, the gift of Jesus’ death would never be realized and would have been lost.
Are the disciples God’ Word become flesh?
If you answer no to anyone of these – why? If you have established that the Word is equivalent to God’s plan of salvation – and it’s becoming flesh is the same as this plan being played out in visible form – why aren’t more people called the Word?
That makes sense to me according to that definition of the Word. But I’ll give you a good reason why it doesn’t make sense in context – because John 1:14 describes the Word becoming flesh as a one time ultra-special event – not just one of many occasions of the Word becoming flesh.
Certainly all of God’s actions in this universe can be described as God’s plan being made visible.
Under that definition, the Word became rock when God made the earth. The Word became water when God made the oceans. The Word became flesh when God made me.
When you give “Word became flesh” such a broad definition as “God’s plan becoming fleshly reality” – you can fit just about anything into that definition. It becomes so broad that it becomes meaningless.
One final question on this topic. I was told by a unitarian that the Word possessed all the traits of God. Which makes sense, since it says the “Word was God.” It seems like whatever you can say about God, you can say about the Word.
Do you believe that the Word possessed all the traits of God? If not, how do you explain the phrase “the Word was God”?
If you do believe that, do you think that God’s plan was self-aware? Self-sufficient? Was God’s plan able to speak? to see?
If you answer no to any of those, then how could you say that God’s plan possessed all the traits of God?
I never got a response to the unitarian I asked these questions to.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
Thanks.
A
I believe Jesus is called God, and may be called God for many reasons.
In the song “Michael Row The Boat Ashore”, who is Michael? I’ve wondered about this at times.
It seems to me that in worship Jesus can be called Michael at times.
Why is it that to some Trinitarians, Jesus can’t be Michael, but he can be God, while to some Christians, he can be Michael, but not God?
Are they both playing the same game?
Aaron,
One of the reasons I go by the blogging name of ‘Doubting Thomas’ is that I have my doubts as to whether certain writings should have been included in the New Testament cannon. I personally don’t believe that John was written by the Apostle John, or that John’s writings should have been included in with the other Christian writings of our bible.
So at this point I think I should bow out of this discussion and leave it up to the other Unitarians, who do believe that the writings of John are the authentic inspired word of God, to discuss their views with you. It has been a pleasure sharing my views with you though. Like I have said, I really respect your peaceful and Christian-like demeanor.
May the peace and love of God be with and with us all…
Aaron,
John 1:1 – there is much more to the unitarian counter than what you mention, though I give you kudos for attempting to understand the unitarian perspective of John 1:1. Some other tidbits I’ve gleaned:
– ‘Word’ was referred to as ‘it’ and not ‘he’ until the King James translation.
– John 1:1c is heavily debated as to the accurate translation. If you look at the greek, you can see why. Where ‘theos’ sits in the phrase changes from 1:1b to 1:1c, yet our English translations don’t recognize that.
– Do a search on ‘ho logos’ elsewhere in the NT and you will see many, many passages that use that same phrase that are clearly not speaking about Jesus. John 14:24 for example – same writer so isn’t it odd that he would confuse his grand equation (Word = Jesus) by using that phrase in a different sense elsewhere?
As for why Adam is not ‘Word’, well, it seems clear to me. The central character in all the Bible – what the OT pointed to and what the NT was all about – is Jesus. He is the Christ. The messiah. God’s only begotten son. It was Jesus alone that reconciled mankind to God. To put anyone else on his level would mean they too are seated at the right hand of the Father, but we know that is solely Jesus’ position.
DT
It always baffles why some people pick the NT apart like this instead of trying to harmonize the whole of scripture yet…still go around calling themselves “Christ followers”.
Xavier,
The way I see it the bible might have been inspired by God, but it was written, transcribed, translated, edited, and compiled by humans. Anything done by humans, because of our nature, cannot be infallible. Only things (teachings etc…) that come directly from God can be infallible.
I think that people that idolize the bible, claiming it is more than just a collection of early Christian writings, but that each and every syllable is God breathed, or that God himself handpicked the books and letters we have in our current edition of the bible (ignoring the fact that there have been several dozen collection of books or bibles throughout history), are dangerously close to violating the 2nd. Commandment.
You said, “yet…still go around calling themselves ‘Christ followers’.”
I don’t see how me recognizing the fact that the bible is a collection of early Christian writings, no more, no less, that are not infallible (like the inerrency doctrine states), has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that I have dedicated my life to following the teachings of my teacher/Messiah/King, Y’shua, the Son of the Lord of heaven and earth.
It amazes me how people think that because other people see things differently then they do, that they then cannot be ‘Christ followers’, or Christians. That kind of attitude is no different then the Trinitarians who say that we (Unitarians) are not actually ‘Christ followers’, or Christians, because we don’t recognize the ‘true nature’ of Y’shua/Jesus. And a false Y’shua can’t save anyone…
DT
Let me get this straight…you doubt whether the Bible [as a whole?] is “God-breathed” YET…believe in its commandments as being FROM God and that Jesus was the Son of God?
Is it just me or are these statements self-contradictory?
Xavier,
I don’t think DT’s position is a contradiction. Personally, I accept the OT as scripture because Jesus often quoted from it as such. But the NT? Who is the authority that made the NT equivalent to scripture? A council of men! Were they ‘inspired’? If so, why so much debate about what books to include in the NT canon? Particularly for unitarians, we also should be very skeptical that the very same process gave us the Trinity.
Now, do I think the NT should be poured over, read and re-read and combed for wisdom and guidance? Absolutely. While I don’t necessarily agree that every chapter and verse is from God, the writers walked with Jesus (but for Paul who had special revelation) and for that reason alone, their writings are worthy of intense study.
I try to be spirit-led on this, praying about it often. What I keep coming back to is that God’s core message for our life (love Him and love our neighbor) is so simple and so oft repeated that you cannot ignore it. That God has a plan and that Jesus is the central character in that plan – the messiah who reconciled mankind with God – that is clear. I suggest that the NT doesn’t have to be God breathed for that message to come across. On the contrary, I think we have so fractured the church here on earth into so many different denominations over what amount to trivial doctrinal arguments because each reads into the NT their own interpretation of the truth and are puffed up because they view themselves as standing up for ‘Gods word’. It seems to me to be a trap that evokes the legalistic mind.
Antioch
More contradictions! How can you even believe in the Jesus of the NT if you believe the whole thing is questionable!?
What you guys seem NOT TO understand is that if you throw doubt on parts of the NT, the whole thing is made unauthoritative.
Aaron,
The fact Jesus had to be man in order to be the perfect sacrifice for sins isn’t in contradiction to to the Trinitarian faith. The only difference between the Jesus of Trinitarianism and the Jesus of Unitarianism is that Trinitarians acknowledge that not only did Jesus have to be man to be our sacrifice. Additionally, he had to be God to be our redeemer and savior by his sacrifice (Isa 43:11, Jn 20:28-29, etc.). Basically, I see your post as an attempt as taking one part of the equation as a rebuttal against Trinitarianism when Trinitarians will actually agree Jesus had to be man to be the equal atonement for Adam’s sin.
Xavier,
You said, “What you guys seem NOT TO understand is that if you throw doubt on parts of the NT, the whole thing is made unauthoritative.”
I’ve had this discussion with ‘many’ people before, and it always ends with them saying, If you question one iota of the bible then we have no choice but to throw the whole bible out the window, and then where would we be???
This is nothing but an emotional/illogical argument made by someone who is trying to evoke strong emotions from the person he is talking to. If one or two books and/or letters that occur in our present modern bible turn out to be in error, or not authentic, it has no relation whatsoever to the rest of the books or letters in the bible. Each book and letter are individual writings that have no magical connection between them.
In the year 1000 A.D. the Roman Catholic Church had just reached it’s highest pinnacle of power since the fall of the Roman Empire. The pope at the time put together this particular collection of books and letters (which are almost identical to a collection put together in the late 4th. century, but slightly different), and then declared them the only authentic books and letters, and ordered all other early Christian writings (not included in this new bible) destroyed. That is why recently (over the last 50-100 years) ancient Christian writings are being discovered, that we never had access to before.
(By the way – This same pope led Christian Europe into something called the Dark Ages. Where the church claimed that there was nothing new for us to learn, because the church knew everything there was to know. They consequently eliminated all schools of higher learning, Universities etc..) They should never have destroyed these early writings in the first place.
This pope was not the first political leader to do this either. Constantine ordered the destruction of all the early Jewish Christian writings, and all the writings of the Arians. We only know what Arius believed by reading what his critics have written. No one know the exact nature of what Arius and his followers, or the details of what the early Jewish Christians and their followers actually believed.
You also said, “More contradictions! How can you even believe in the Jesus of the NT if you believe the whole thing is questionable!?”
We are not contradicting anything. I don’t see how anyone can say that some of the early church fathers were infallible in their decisions as to which early Christian writings should be included together in our bible, and then turn around and say, but they were mistaken in their beliefs on the Trinity. That seems to me to be the real contradiction.
At least from my point of view anywaze…
Seriously?? I don’t believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul etc… were writing lies. I believe they did their best to tell what happened and to relay what Jesus taught and did. It doesn’t have to be scripture in order to understand what Jesus did, what he said, and who he was. That the gospels and epistles so closely align is evidence of its truth. I just don’t accept that the NT is necessarily the same level of scripture as, for example, Isaiah, when he is telling people what God wants him to say. Never did any of the NT writers say they were writing scripture (with the possible exception of Revelation). Only once, 2 Peter 3:16, are any of Paul’s letters referred to as scripture, but the authenticity of 2 Peter is highly suspect. Paul never said he was writing scripture, in fact in, in 1 Cor 7, he explicitly states that he is giving an opinion and not relaying a command from God.
I think a far more important component is the indwelling of the spirit and being spirit led. The early church had no NT, and yet it thrived. Even after the apostles were all dead, the church expanded. How so if there wasn’t the authority of the NT?
It is a very important work – I’m not going to stop reading it or going to Bible study, but I am more and more convinced of this the more I read about how the NT came about. Seems it is the same issue for you as the Trinity is for me – is tradition more important or truth?
DT
Wrong. Its not about questioning “one iota” or “one word” here or there, etc. As far as I remember you questioned the WHOLE of the Pauline letters and Antioch seems to question the WHOLE of the Johannine corpus. See the difference?
If you read the early “Church Fathers” like Ignatius, Tertullian, etc., they are not even trinitarians in the classic, orthodox sense of the doctrine. If anything they were either Arians or Binitarians. Anyway, my point is that if you cannot believe in the NT canon as it has been handed down to us, what’s the point?
Antioch
Are you even aware of the textual attestation of the NT letters? For example, most scholars date the Pauline corpus to 20-40 years after Jesus’ crucifixion!
How can we even claim any type of biblical truth if you start picking apart the NT canon!?
Xavier,
You said, “As far as I remember you questioned the WHOLE of the Pauline letters and Antioch seems to question the WHOLE of the Johannine corpus.”
Actually it’s me that questions whether the writings of John should have been included in the New Testament cannon. From what I understand Antioch doesn’t share the same doubts that I do. You are correct though that it is me that questions whether the writings of Paul should have been included in the New Testament cannon as well. Ever since I was young man, I have doubted authority figures, and questioned things that most other people would not even think of questioning. Like I have tried to explain to you before, this is my nature.
From my understanding there were at least 7 writers of the N.T. (Mathew, Mark, Luke, Peter, James, Paul and John). There are some letters that we cannot be sure of the authors. So the exact number is not known. Out of all these writers I just only have my doubts about 2 of them. Paul and John. I have no problems with the writings of Mathew, Mark, Luke, Peter and James.
You say that I’m not a true follower of Christ, because I don’t recognize some of Y’shua’s teachings in the book of John as being authentic. I don’t see it that way at all. The way I see it. I can’t just lie to myself and pretend to have no doubts about writings that I find questionable. I’m sorry if this offends you. But, it seems to me that you seem to get upset whenever someone sees things differently than you do.
I must admit that you are more educated and knowledgeable than I am. But, the way I see it, I am still entitled to have my own opinion, even if I am an uneducated layman. I do try my best to keep an open mind. But, I think it is important for me to be honest and true to my heart. I can’t help it if it offends you, or anyone else.
I really don’t think it’s worth having a big argument over it. From my point of view it is just a minor disagreement, and does not affect anyone’s salvation. I was just explaining to Aaron why I was bowing out of the conversation. I didn’t mean for this to take over the entire thread…
Xavier
Good point. We would have certainly seen the church splintered into all kinds of denominations and suffer all kinds of political maneuvering if we hadn’t all agreed on the canon and the biblical truth therein. Wait a minute…
Antioch,
That’s because ‘it’ and ‘he’ are the same Greek word. What’s important is context, and the Word seems to be described as a personal figure.
That’s nonsense to think that John was looking to change the meaning of the word “Word” to always mean “Jesus.” It has a normal meaning in normal contextual situations. Just as every time John says ‘vine’ or ‘door’ he isn’t always referring to Jesus. Again, context is key, and he is using Word in John 1 in a deeper metaphorical sense than the normal usage.
Do a search on the term ‘memra.’ It is an Aramaic philosophical concept dating before the writing of the NT. It was used to describe an aspect of God that was almost seen as a separate entity. It has deep philosophical meanings that John and his audience would have been familiar with. Its what the word “Word” would have been translated as in John 1 in Aramaic.
I didn’t really talk too much about why Jesus had to be a man.
If you think I was trying to rebut the Trinitarian position, I don’t think you read my posts very thoroughly.
DT
No I didn’t. I ASKED how is it that you can continue to see yourself as one if the NT holds no authenticity in its present, canonized form.
Sure, no one is prohibiting you not to express what you really believe, actually I commend you for it. But, I do question the way your going about it. I just cannot understand it.
Have you heard of the saying in Mat 4.4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but BY EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God”?
Think about it.
Antioch
People will always disagree on the smallest things. It does not make the bible any less true.
Xavier,
You said, “No I didn’t. I ASKED how is it that you can continue to see yourself as one if the NT holds no authenticity in its present, canonized form.”
I am a follower of Christ because I try my best to follow his teachings. From what I understand Constantine instructed one of his bishops to put together a collection of Christian books and letters that would fit ‘his beliefs’ that Y’shua was the Sun God himself walking around on the earth. Hence his instance that the clause “of the same essence” be inserted into the Nicene Creed in 325 A.D.
He liked the fact that Paul repeatedly said over and over again in his writings that Y’shua was returning to heaven (implying that this is where he came from). He also liked the fact that John repeatedly said over and over again in his writings that Y’shua came from heaven. The writings of Paul and John were easy to manipulate to fit the beliefs of Constantine.
The problem the bishop had was that in the more than a dozen collections of books (or bibles), from the 1st. century, there was not one that had the Synoptics and the writings of Paul in the same collection. Almost all of them had at least 2 of the 3 Synoptics in them, but only a small number or collections had the writings of Paul in them. From what I understand the gospel of John was always included in the same collections with the writings of Paul.
So the bishop took books and letters from different 1st. century collections and put them together to create a bible (or collection of books) that is almost identical to the one we have today. From what I understand this all happened in the mid 4th. century. Prior to this time this particular collection of books and letters had never been put together before.
You are free to believe that this bishop (I forget his name now) was infallible in putting this all together if you want to. Personally I prefer to look at each book and letter on an individual basis. If we are not for sure who wrote a letter, for instance, I don’t consider it worthy for me to study.
I think I told you before that I don’t believe that everything that Paul and John said is wrong. I just believe they contain errors that don’t necessarily reflect what Peter and the Apostles taught. Since I can’t tell which part of their writings is true and which parts aren’t, I’ve decided it would probably be better to just not spend too much time studying their writings.
Since Paul was taught by Barnabas, it only stands to reason that some of what he wrote and taught did come from Peter and the Apostles. Like I said, I just have my doubts about his writings as a whole. Like for instance if Y’shua did come from heaven or return to heaven, then why is this not found outside the writings of Paul and John. It seems to me to be a pretty important thing that the other writers should have mentioned (at least once).
Paul wrote some things about love for instance that I think probably represented the view of Peter and the Apostles. Another thing that Paul wrote that I do think probably did come from Peter and the Apostles is, 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22, “Do not despise prophecies, (21) but ‘TEST EVERYTHING’; hold fast what is good. (22) Abstain from every form of evil.” (ESV – emphasis mine.)
It doesn’t say test everything ‘accept’ a collection of books that is going to be put together in a few hundred years from now by one of Constantine’s bishops. Like I told you before, I think we should test everything and retain what it good. This I think is very good advice (for any Christian). Of course I have no problem with people that believe differently then me. After all, I am just a layman, trying to learn and understand as much as I can.
I do not make any claim to being a teacher or a prophet…
DT
But how do you know what “teachings” are authentic or not? If the whole canonization process is dubious to you why on earth would you still hold the NT as somehow representative of your “spiritual life” and not just look at them as historical works on par with Homer or Plato, etc.
I do not think that is a good way to go about it. Anyways, to each their own.
Aaron,
I see Jesus as the central part of ‘Word’ but he is not equivalent to ‘Word’. The star in a movie is not the movie itself.
Thanks for the reference to ‘memra’. I did look that up. It doesn’t change my opinion that Word does not mean Jesus (in 1:1). It reinforces my opinion that ‘Word/logos/memra’ is an attribute (for lack of a better word) of God and not referring to a second member of a triune Godhead. If it were the latter, if John was revealing an idea that is not in the OT (at least hidden such that his Jewish audience was not aware of it), that God is three-in-one and that messiah is God, wouldn’t he state that clearly elsewhere and repeatedly? Instead, his thesis is that Jesus is messiah (20:31).
I do not claim to know for certain that the trinity is wrong, but I have a hard time making sense of the notion that accepting the Nicean creed is essential for salvation when it is not explicitly stated in the Bible. You have to be a theologian to even try to piece it together.
God knows I pray about this topic frequently. It has caused a rift between me and my wife and keeps me from becoming a member of my trinitarian church. But truth is truth, not that I have a lock on that, but that I hope I always pursue it regardless of any tradition or pressure to not to.
Lastly – I have one other response pending to your question about ‘why did Jesus have to die?’. That has taken me into new areas of thinking and I haven’t quite landed yet, but will respond when I do.
Peace and God bless
Xavier,
Why do you accept the Bible as true? (want to make sure my meaning comes across, this is not a sarcastic remark like my former one, I’m really interested in understanding your reasoning for accepting it as God’s word)
Woody,
You said, “The only difference between the Jesus of Trinitarianism and the Jesus of Unitarianism is that Trinitarians acknowledge that not only did Jesus have to be man to be our sacrifice. Additionally, he had to be God to be our redeemer and savior by his sacrifice (Isa 43:11, Jn 20:28-29, etc.).”
I refer you to Numbers 23:19 (English Standard Version)
(19) God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind…”
It is clear that Y’shua, in the garden, did not want to drink from the cup. If he were God, then that would mean that he later changed his mind and decided to drink from the cup (enduring the pain and suffering of the crucifixition). The above verse is very clear about this.
1st. – God is not man.
2nd. – God couldn’t have lied and said he didn’t want to drink from the cup, when in fact he really wanted to.
3rd. – God is not the son of man (even though Y’shua constantly referred to himself as ‘the son of man’).
4th. – God would not change his mind and decide that in reality he wanted to drink from the cup after all.
Besides if Y’shua was actually God. How could God have wanted him to drink from this cup (of pain and suffering) while Y’shua didn’t want to drink from this cup, and passionately asked 3 different times to have the cup taken away from him???
If Y’shua was actually God, Wouldn’t their wills (what they wanted) be the same???
This idea that someone can be 100% God and 100% human is just utter nonsense. That makes 200% which equals 200/100 which equals 2/1 which equals “2”. This is just simple math. Even a child knows that 3 separate people cannot be one “Thing”. Whatever you want to call that one “Thing”…
Xavier,
You asked, “But how do you know what “teachings†are authentic or not?”
From my understanding out of the more than a dozen collection of books that existed in the 1st. century, almost all of them included at least 2 of the 3 Synoptics in them. This demonstrates (to me anywaze) that they were widely accepted by most of the early Christians. I consider the Synoptics to be the cornerstone of the bible. Something I can fully trust and have confidence in.
I just believe some books are more accurate (or reliable) then others, but I don’t consider myself to be a teacher. So I don’t try to force my views on anybody. However if someone asks me, I’m happy to share my beliefs with them…
DT,
Come on man, you’re using WAY too much logic and common sense here. Trinitarians must avoid those at all costs! 😉
Antioch,
If anybody says they have the complete handle on truth, they are lying.
Thanks for your honesty and your inquisitive nature.
Although I believe the Trinity is the truth, I don’t think a series of blog posts is going to change someone’s mind. If I made you think about it some more, than I’m happy about that.
If you have any specific questions about Scriptures or issues, feel free to email me at Aaron@gmx.com. I’m not a hebrew or Greek scholar and I don’t have all the answers, but I’ve tried to look at all the proof texts from a logical standpoint.
DT,
Regarding your Numbers quotation:
What do you do with Scriptures like Exodus 32:14?
“Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened. ”
Here, God seemed to change his mind about bringing judgment.
Concerning Jesus in the Garden, it is not evident that at one point Jesus had decided he would not go through with crucifixion. That is the only logical way you could say that Jesus changed his mind.
You’d have to say that he decided not to go to the cross and then after praying he changed his mind and decided to go to the cross.
It’s quite the opposite, Jesus always talked about having to die – which means he always intended to do so – so there was no change in mind and no division of will with the Father.
If their was a division in will, you’re on the boarder of saying that Jesus was in rebellion to the Father – which would keep him from being a sinless sacrifice.
Instead, Jesus’ agony over the cross simply highlights that it was a difficult decision that would be painful.
You can say the same thing about God. God says its not his will that any should perish. Yet, some will perish at God’s hand. He will be forced to do something that He doesn’t really want to do – because it is a necessary expression of His justice.
This anguish in making a difficult but necessary decision is in no way what the Numbers passage is saying about man who is up and down and back and forth in his will and decisions.
Aaron,
You asked, “What do you do with Scriptures like Exodus 32:14?
“Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened. â€
The way I see it, God repeatedly throughout the bible would change his mind “WHEN” conditions changed. Example – The people would repent in sack cloths and pray ferociously for forgiveness. If God did not change his mind when conditions changed, then that would mean that prayers are useless, and a complete waste of time. We know from Y’shua’s teachings that the opposite is true.
1 Peter 3:12 (English Standard Version)
(12) For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”
You also said, “Although I believe the Trinity is the truth, I don’t think a series of blog posts is going to change someone’s mind.”
You could very well be correct. I want to thank you again for your pleasant and peaceful dialogue. It has been a pleasure sharing my beliefs with you…
Antioch
Apart from being the best attested book collection from antiquity, I find it hard to believe that all those people made up such a story. People who suffered and died in many horrible ways to preach a message of a righteous coming Kingdom of God on earth.
Until someone can come up with a reasonable answer as to why all those personal testimonies might have, in anyway, been false and proof them otherwise, I do not see why we should deny their validity. As this article on “Apostles†by Alfred Plummer, MA, DD [Hastings Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 83] succinctly puts it:
Aaron,
I have one more thing for you to think about, if you are still around. You said, “Concerning Jesus in the Garden, it is not evident that at one point Jesus had decided he would not go through with the crucifixion. That is the only logical way you could say that Jesus changed his mind.”
I’m not saying that at any point that Y’shua ‘DECIDED’ he would not go through with the crucifixion. I’m saying that it is clear that he strongly and repeatedly asked that ‘this cup be taken from him’. This could only mean one thing. Being fully human he was ‘afraid’ of being beaten, scourged/whipped and crucified, and was hoping that there was some possible way he could avoid it. At no time did he ‘DECIDE’ not to do it. As a matter of fact he said three separate times in Matthew Chapter 26;
“(39) And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as YOU WILL…”
(42) Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, YOUR WILL be done…”
(44) So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again.” (ESV – emphasis mine).
The point I was trying to make was that what Y’shua obviously wanted, and what “his/our” Father wanted, were two different (opposite) things. I think that this proves conclusively that Y’shua and his father were not one and the same being, but separate individuals (beings).
Of course (as always) this is just my own humble opinion. I wish you luck in all your future studies/endevours, and pray that the peace and love of God (‘OUR’ Father) will be with you, and with us all…
Xavier,
I mis-stated my question. I’m not doubting the motives of those who wrote the NT books or that they did their best to relay their stories. I’m questioning why the NT should be considered the word of God on the same level as the OT?
The one exception I see, probably, is Revelation because it was specifically given to John by Jesus to write down.
I heard a man whom I consider to be a Trinitarian tell of how the word Easter in Acts 12:4 is without a doubt illegitmate and that the word should be Passover instead.
I suggest looking up the word Easter in a dictionary to see how it may be used.
So I have a question. If a man believes the word Easter in Acts 12:4 is illegit and he is a Trinitarian, must he also believe the word Trinity is illegit by using the same standard?
I remember how Jesus said that with the measure we mete, it will be measured unto us again. (Matthew 7:2)
Here’s another question. Is God like a power-train on an automobile which has an engine, transmission, and a differential (otherwise sometimes known as a 3rd member)?
It seems to me that a man might be a Trinitarian, but that not all men must become Trinitarians.
I looked up the word drivetrain in my dictionary and found it defined as the system that transmits an engine’s turning power to the wheels….etc.
Isn’t the Trinitarian doctrine a belief system? I believe it to be a belief system, one that not everyone must absolutely use to promote the gospel.
It also seems to me that men will find certain truths in the scriptures and will see how they work together and give some things a name and define things in their own terms. I believe they have the liberty to do so but also believe that what they do will not be the way that everyone else will do, or must do.
It seems to me that many will define certain truths of scripture and describe them in their own terms and that the terms they use will not be a requirement for everyone. If they are making some way of communicating truth a requirement for everyone in their community could they be wrong for so doing? It seems to me that they could.
They might not be acting as a legitimate power in the church should act.
DT,
I get the point you are trying to make – but I don’t think you can make the case that Jesus’ will was any different than God’s will.
Just because Jesus wasn’t looking forward to suffering, doesn’t mean he wanted anything contrary to what God wanted.
“Not as I will, but as Thou wilt” was the theme of his entire life.
He didn’t every operate out of a self-will.
That doesn’t mean it was always easy. The garden is a good example of having to fight through emotions in order to follow God.
The fact that Jesus felt strong emotions regarding the upcoming decision doesn’t mean that he was wavering in his decision – it just meant it was a difficult one.
Jesus and the Father always wanted the same thing (the salvation of the world). The fact that Jesus says “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me” indicates that he was willing to do all that was “possible” in line with God’s plan. As I mentioned, even though I think Jesus was God, I think he was limited by being a man – so he didn’t know all possible scenarios. If there was a scenario where Jesus didn’t have to endure as much pain – his flesh would appreciate it – but he always made it clear that his flesh was in submission to God.
It’s been a nice conversation. I don’t like it when these things turn personal – and people attack instead of discuss.
Aaron,
You said, “I get the point you are trying to make – but I don’t think you can make the case that Jesus’ will was any different than God’s will. Just because Jesus wasn’t looking forward to suffering, doesn’t mean he wanted anything contrary to what God wanted.”
What Y’shua wanted was to have the cup pass from him, so that he wouldn’t have to drink from it. If he wanted something different then what his/our Father wanted then, the way I see it, his will must have been different then God’s will.
You also said, ““Not as I will, but as Thou wilt†was the theme of his entire life. He didn’t ever operate out of a self-will.”
Exactly. That very statement “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt” demonstrates, to my anywaze, that there are 2 different wills at play here. If Y’shua was actually God, then what they wanted (their wills) would have been the same. It should have been impossible for them to want different things to happen.
You also said, “As I mentioned, even though I think Jesus was God, I think he was limited by being a man – so he didn’t know all possible scenarios. If there was a scenario where Jesus didn’t have to endure as much pain – his flesh would appreciate it – but he always made it clear that his flesh was in submission to God.”
You are of course, like everybody else, entitled to your own opinion. I just wanted to explain to you why I don’t see it that way.
You also said, “It’s been a nice conversation. I don’t like it when these things turn personal – and people attack instead of discuss.”
I have also really enjoyed sharing my views with you. I also don’t like it when things turn personal. I’d much rather discuss then attack any day of the week. The way I see it. This is not a salvation issue and as fellow Christians we should not be attacking each other. Satan likes to divide and conquer. I’m sure he loves the fact that we have split up into more than 10,000 denominations.
I believe that together we are strong. Like always, I pray that the peace and love of God (“OUR” Father) is with you, and with us all…
I was asked if I believe God is triune recently.
I believe God is true, that he is love, and that he is a Spirit.
Those are three qualities that are a part of him and they agree in him together. Truth, love, and his spirit are never in conflict with him.
I believe I can say therefore that God is triune. He’s also a lot more than just triune.
I wonder if God will be known as the triune God, and if he will be known by all of his children as the Trinity.
Will God require it of all his children, or is that something he will leave optional as a matter of liberty?
Ray,
It’s great to here from you!!! I had given up on hoping that you would ever come back to K.R. again. You said, “I believe God is true, that he is love, and that he is a Spirit.”
I’d like to think that ‘ALL’ Christians can agree with that.
You also said, “I believe I can say therefore that God is triune. He’s also a lot more than just triune…I wonder if God will be known as the triune God, and if he will be known by all of his children as the Trinity.”
Well you know that I don’t believe in the Trinity. Not only does the word Trinity not appear in the bible, it also doesn’t appear in any early Christian writings until it first appears near the end of the 2nd. century. If God wanted to be called Triune or if he wanted to be known by his children as the Trinity, then I think he would have instructed his Son (our Messiah and King) to let his disciples know that.
I personally don’t think his disciples ever heard of the word Trinity. They certainly wouldn’t have understood this complex and confusing Triune theory that has developed over the centuries that states that the Father is God, Y’shua is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
The whole thing sounds like a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, and smothered with confusion… 🙂
The word “triune” consists of “tri” meaning “three” and “une” meaning “one.” The word specifically means the belief that God is three persons in one God. Saying that God has three qualities is not the same as saying he is “triune.” That is not the meaning of the word. I would avoid using such words when most Christians understand them differently from what you mean.
DT,
Were you talking about the trinity here or about Ray? 😉
Sorry Ray. I couldn’t resist teasing you a little. Welcome back. You’re just as abstruse as ever!
It is a bit hard to figgure out, even a power train, though it has an engine, transmission, and a differential is not one engine in three, though it could be said that it’s one powertrain in three parts.
I’m not sure if God would have me to know that he has three parts or not.
I think there’s a lot of things that men do that God allows us to do whether they be according to his highest will or not.
Our brothers will never be the way we will like them to be, so we forebear one another.
At times we will see Christ in them shine through in wonderful ways
and at other times we will need to forebear.
Ray,
You said, “Our brothers will never be the way we will like them to be, so we forebear one another.”
Even Y’shua experienced this very human emotion.
Matthew 17:17 (English Standard Version)
“And Jesus answered, ‘O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.’…”
You also said, “At times we will see Christ in them shine through in wonderful ways and at other times we will need to forebear.”
I love it when I see Christ shining through in someone. I especially notice him in a laugh or the smile of a child (or someone who is child-like). We all need to learn to forebear each other. I believe this is one of the ways that God tests our perseverance…
Aaron and everyone else,
Robert sent me a link to a great site. It demonstrates verse by verse through the bible that Y’shua cannot be God. The author makes several mentions of his belief that the Trinitarian belief of God the Son is actually the Anti-Christ (or false Messiah) that was mentioned in scriptures. Although I do understand his reasoning, I think that this kind of language will be offensive to Trinitarians like Aaron and others.
It really is a great site though. Bruce obviously put a lot of research into this website. I will post the link below for anyone that is interested. Once you get to the site just type in the box “Mt. 3:16-17” and a page will appear with all the verses from Mathew, beginning at Mt. 3:16-17, that prove that Y’shua is not God.
http://www.torahofmessiah.com/nofmatt.html
May the peace and love of God (“OUR” Father) be with you and with us all…
I often go the last part of a book or article as it is often there that the writer will sum up what he’s written and / or make his point. I like to look for the point at the end as that is often where it is found.
The article Thomas has shown us seems to (though I didn’t read much of it) show as many places in scripture where distinction between Jesus and God are found, as necessary, or can be found.
But there’s also another side of this as there are two sides of a coin.
There are also similarites, same qualities, same characteristics, same words and the same spirit, to be considered.
I’m sure there are many Trinitarians who will agree that there are distinctions between the persons of the Trinity. (to use their lingo, sorry ’bout that)
The trinity doctrine is many a person’s way of perceiving God in theological terms, something I’m not certain is a requirement of heaven.
I’m thinking that it might not even be found there.
Ray,
You said, “The trinity doctrine is many a person’s way of perceiving God in theological terms, something I’m not certain is a requirement of heaven.”
I am quite certain that it is “not” a requirement for entering the kingdom of heaven.
You also said, “I’m thinking that it might not even be found there.”
I’m thinking you are right… 🙂
DT,
I checked out the link. I didn’t read everything yet.
Of course I don’t agree with all of his reasoning.
For example, he says:
“Our Father … in heaven – yet Yahshua was on earth; therefore, common sense demands one understand that Yahshua is NOT God.”
No, that verse demands one understand that Yashua is NOT the Father. Fits perfectly with trinity theology.
He also says:
“The One giving and the one to whom it is given cannot be the same if common sense is used.”
He has a lot of examples like this where Jesus and the Father are described as unique individuals. That’s perfectly acceptable trinitarian theology. Modalism says that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one entity in three forms. Trinitarianism says there is oneness AND distinction within the Godhead.
I agree, that doesn’t match common sense – but common sense isn’t our primary method of discerning truth.
I Cor. 2:14 says:
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Some spiritual things (or most of them) can’t be understood strictly through logic and reason. They don’t make sense to our human brains. They require spiritual discernment.
Instead of discussing Bruce’s entire site, are there any particular examples of his that you want to discuss?
Aaron,
I’m sorry I didn’t respond to you sooner, but I’ve had a very busy night. You said, “Of course I don’t agree with all of his reasoning.”
I also disagree with some of his reasoning. God made all of his children different from one another (like snowflakes). I believe that this is so he could love each and everyone of us as an individual son or daughter. I love the fact that my 2 boys are not exactly the same as one another. This is what makes us unique and human!!!
You also said, “No, that verse demands one understand that Yashua is NOT the Father. Fits perfectly with trinity theology.”
From my point of view it only fits perfectly with one part of the trinity theology. That Y’shua is not the Father. It doesn’t seem to fit with the other part that says Y’shua is God. Twice in the N.T. we have God (the Father) speaking from heaven saying, “This is my beloved son.” If Y’shua was God, then I don’t understand how he could be speaking to himself from heaven, and why he would be calling himself “my beloved son”. It doesn’t seem logical that God could be speaking from heaven and at the same time be on earth listening to himself speak. And, Why would he call himself “my beloved son”???
You also said, “Trinitarianism says there is oneness AND distinction within the Godhead.”
Oneness is the opposite of distinction. Something cannot be distinct from itself and yet at the same time still be one. In order to do this you would have to change the meaning of the words. Of course changing the ‘natural’ meaning of words is something that theologians seem to be experts at doing.
You also said, “I agree, that doesn’t match common sense – but common sense isn’t our primary method of discerning truth.”
I would disagree. Paul said “test everything and retain what is good”. Without common sense we would be unable to test anything. We would be forced to believe anything that people in positions of authority told us. Throughout the O.T. the message of God was simple and straightforward. You didn’t have to throw your common sense out the window to understand it. Y’shua’s teachings were simple and straightforward and you didn’t have to throw your common sense out the window to understand it either.
The word Trinity doesn’t appear in the bible. It doesn’t appear in any writings until the end of the second century. This appears to be when the first Trinitarian theologians arrived on the scene. In order to believe this “new” trinity theology common sense had to be replaced with blind faith. It was eventually taught that if you possessed the Holy Spirit of God you could discern the truth of the trinity by using the spirit. Common sense was no longer needed. You just needed blind faith that the leaders were properly using the spirit to discern the truth. Testing it (with common sense) and retaining what was good, was of course out of the question.
You also asked, “Instead of discussing Bruce’s entire site, are there any particular examples of his that you want to discuss?”
I just liked the way that he went through the bible and tried to explain how he interpreted the different verses. I did the same thing myself once with the book of Mark. If you’d like I will paste it below, and we can have a discussion about my own personal interpretations of various verses. I would be interested in seeing what you think of my interpretations.
Mark 9:36
” He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.’ ”
I think this obviously indicates that Jesus is a separate person from God.
Mark 10:40
” but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared. ”
It would appear that Jesus isn’t the one who will decide who will be sitting at his right and left side. I believe he is implying that this decision rests with his Father in heaven.
Mark 14:62
” And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. ”
How can Jesus sit at the right hand of God if they are one?
Mark 13:32
” No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ”
It would appear that even Jesus doesn’t know the day or the hour of the end times.
Feel free to pick any of the above quotes that you feel like commenting on. As always, may the love and peace of God (‘OUR’ father) be with you and with us all…
DT,
I’ve got 2 boys myself – both under 4. They keep me pretty busy. That and I’ve been doing a lot of studying and debating about evolution lately.
You said:
“Paul said “test everything and retain what is goodâ€. Without common sense we would be unable to test anything. We would be forced to believe anything that people in positions of authority told us.”
That’s is why we need the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth – because the truth is not always perceivable by our 5 senses (else we wouldn’t need the Spirit’s help)
That “common sense” isn’t sufficient should be abundantly clear from Scripture. God was always giving instructions that didn’t make common sense.
Paul says “the world through its wisdom did not come to know God.” The things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned – not arrived at by logical meditation.
You said: “Y’shua’s teachings were simple and straightforward ”
What do you make of the parables? Jesus uses them at times to veil his message – only giving the interpretation to a select few. It seems that God isn’t always interested in “laying it all out” for us to see. Sometimes he gives nuggets of truth and veils others – possibly to attract those who are really serious about discovering Him.
But on to your verses…
Mark 9:36
“I think this obviously indicates that Jesus is a separate person from God.”
I agree. I don’t think heaven was empty when Jesus was walking around on the earth. Jesus and the Father are distinct individuals. Yet this verse notes how close they are linked.
Mark 10:40
“It would appear that Jesus isn’t the one who will decide who will be sitting at his right and left side. I believe he is implying that this decision rests with his Father in heaven.”
If God is a Trinity – it’s not unreasonable to expect that each member might have a unique role in the Godhead. I’m not saying I could explain how it works – but I don’t expect that we’ll ever have perfect insight into God.
Mark 14:62
“How can Jesus sit at the right hand of God if they are one?”
Again, the Trinity involves uniqueness in the members. How can God sit at all? Does he have legs? What throne can hold him?
I think the references to God sitting on a throne is metaphorical for a spiritual reality we can’t comprehend.
Do a study to find out what it meant for someone to sit at the right hand of God. The right hand of God was seen by the Jews as the origination of his might and power. They conceived that it was possible for God to invite someone to sit by his side for a moment of honor – but that no one was able to take a permanent seat at his side. God’s right hand would not be seen as an inferior place – but a place where honor is shared with God.
That’s why the Pharisees got so bent out of shape when Jesus said he was going to be seated at God’s right hand in Mark 14:62. It was taken as blasphemy. They perceived Jesus was saying he was worthy enough to sit at God’s right hand – which was beyond the ability of any man.
Mark 13:32
“It would appear that even Jesus doesn’t know the day or the hour of the end times.”
Jesus wasn’t operating out of divine ability when he was on earth. He was limited to the body and mind of a man.
I wonder how you interpret Matthew 12:4-8.
In verse 6 he says “I say to you, that one who is greater than the temple is here.”
That’s a pretty mind blowing statement. The temple contained the most holy place – the area that Yahweh inhabited. Every item within it was consecrated. The LORD called it his dwelling place. The temple carried the weight of God’s own name (2 Chronicles 7:16)
Yet, Jesus says he is greater than the temple. That’s a monstrous claim for any man to make – no matter how anointed he may be.
Jesus goes on to say “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Again, a mammoth claim. The Sabbath is described as the LORD’s holy day. Yet Jesus says he is Lord over the Sabbath.
Maybe God isn’t a Trinity.
Maybe the interaction between Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit simply
looks like a Trinity to some people.
Aaron,
You said, “That “common sense†isn’t sufficient should be abundantly clear from Scripture. God was always giving instructions that didn’t make common sense.”
I agree that God’s ways are not the ways of the world. After all man’s wisdom is foolishness to God. But there was nothing that God said that required us to throw our ‘common sense’ out the window in order to believe it. Give and ye shall receive seems illogical at first glance. But, anyone who is willing to give it a try, will soon find out that it is true. It is therefore provable. To the person who has faith enough to try it.
The Trinity on the other hand defies logic, and is not provable. It just requires blind faith that the religious leaders are properly using the spirit to discern the truth on this matter. I don’t see anything in the bible that says we should have blind faith in any (human) person, other than Y’shua and his teachings. Which of course come directly from God.
Mathew 23:8-9, ” But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. (9) And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.”
You also asked, “What do you make of the parables?”
In Acts 13:11-13, Y’shua says, “…To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. (12) For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. (13) This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”
And in Matthew 11:25-26, Y’shua says, “…I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; (26) yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.”
And in Matthew 18:3-4, Y’shua says, “…Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (4) Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
People that consider themselves to be wise are usually puffed up with pride. Of course “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” So the meaning of the parables are hidden from the people who think of themselves as being wise (in the ways of the world), but is revealed to those who are humble of heart.
But, again you don’t have to throw your common sense out the window to believe the parables of Y’shua. They are just difficult for some people (the proud and arrogant) to understand. I personally believe that a parable is like a word picture. Like the old saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” I believe a parable is worth a thousand words. It can be applied to all different kind of life situations, but only for those that can humble themselves and ask God to open their hearts so that they can understand them.
You also said, “If God is a Trinity – it’s not unreasonable to expect that each member might have a unique role in the Godhead. I’m not saying I could explain how it works – but I don’t expect that we’ll ever have perfect insight into God.”
I agree that we will probably never have a perfect insight into God. But, I don’t understand how a reasonable person could think that Y’shua was God yet at the same time be inferior to God in any way. If Y’shua was “actually” God than he should be able to decide who will or will not sit at his right and left side.
As the word cloud in the other thread shows the word “one” is the third most common word in the bible and appears 2,485 times. If God is one, as the bible clearly states, then why would God be sitting at his own side??? Again, this defies logic. I just don’t see anything in the bible that says that I need to throw my common sense out the window in order to believe the word of God.
You also said, “Jesus wasn’t operating out of divine ability when he was on earth. He was limited to the body and mind of a man.”
I don’t understand how someone can say that Y’shua was God, but at the same time didn’t have the knowledge of God, knowing when he was going to return, and also didn’t have the authority of God, able to decide who was going to sit on his right and left side. In what way was he God then???
You asked, “I wonder how you interpret Matthew 12:4-8.”
Tabernacle – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tabernacle (Hebrew: משכן‎, mishkan, “residence” or “dwelling place”).
The temple was just a dwelling place where God’s holy presence could be found. Y’shua was also a dwelling place where God’s holy presence could be found. But, Y’shua was more than that. He was also God’s beloved son. I believe God loved Y’shua more than anything else that he had created. God certainly loved Y’shua more than he loved the Tabernacle or Temple.
You also mentioned that the “Son of Man was lord of the Sabbath.” Just before that in Mark 2:27, Y’shua says, “”The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
To me this means we are to keep the Sabbath holy, because it was made for us to grow closer to God on this special day. So we all, as sons of men, are lords over the Sabbath. As long as we keep it as a holy day to try to grow closer to our Father in heaven.
Of course like always this is just my own humble opinion. As always, I don’t claim to be an expert, and like I said I don’t believe that your beliefs regarding the Trinity will effect your salvation. To me this is not a salvation issue. But, I do believe that your beliefs about the Trinity are man made inventions that do not come from God, or his holy word…
I looked up the word Trinity in my dictionary to see if I could gain a clearer understanding of that word and found the definition to be rather short.
It seems the word means “Three in one.”
I began to wonder today, that if a husband and wife, a married couple,
being one flesh, and together in God by Christ Jesus, if they could be called a Trinity, or Triune.
I’ve never heard of a married couple being called three in one, or triune, nor have I ever heard of one being called a trinity.
I suppose it could be argued that such a couple would really be four in one because of Christ, or even 5 in one because of the holy spirit.
But could they be properly called “triune”?
I suppose they could.
Can the husband be called triune because he, his wife, and God are one when they are abiding in Christ Jesus?
I suppose it could be said that the husband is one in three persons, for without his wife the man could feel that a part of him is missing, that without his wife he is not complete, for when he and she are together in Christ Jesus, there is a whole and complete unity that they share.
There are so many Christian husbands and wives, so many married couples in Christ Jesus in the world today, and I’ve never heard of one of them being called Triune, though I suppose they could be called that.
Some Christians call God Triune, they even teach others that he is Triune, but what’s the point?
Why do they do that?
I suppose they want to describe to others the unity of the one true God in Christ Jesus, and to do so, though it isn’t necessary to use the term Triune, or Trinity, they choose to do so, but why?
Is it because it’s a good descriptive word to use for such a condition that they perceive?
Is that the only reason they use such terms?
I still am left with this one major question and that is this:
What’s the point of doing so?
Also, Is it necessary, and if so, how so?
I consider it to be optional, a thing that some people do as if by permission.
I don’t see it commanded by anything I’ve read from the Bible.
DT,
Sorry it took so long to respond.
You said:
“I agree that God’s ways are not the ways of the world. After all man’s wisdom is foolishness to God. But there was nothing that God said that required us to throw our ‘common sense’ out the window in order to believe it…
The Trinity on the other hand defies logic, and is not provable.”
Let me step back for a moment and ask you this: do you think you should be able to read the Bible and completely understand all the terminology and phrases without any prior understanding of Jewish thoughts, customs, or language?
I’m not saying that you haven’t studied – but I’ve heard people say that the Bible should just make basic sense – that you should be able to read the words on the page and know what it is saying.
This is true of much of the content – but it must be noted that our common sense understanding of concepts is going to be different from the common sense understanding of the Bible’s original audience.
You wouldn’t expect to read any piece of ancient literature – or especially a work of Shakespeare – and be able to fully understand it without some insight into the culture or the meaning of words at the time – which does change. Our understanding of the meaning of a word can be different from the understanding during Jesus’ days.
So, not only is it helpful to get an understanding of the culture – but it is very helpful when the Bible offers us a direct glimpse and understanding of what certain words meant during that day.
For instance, in John 5:17 Jesus says “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working…”
John then offers this commentary: “the Jews were seeking to kill him because…he was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.”
John offers the contemporary understanding of what it meant if you said God was your own Father (in an exclusive and unique way) – it was essentially claiming to be equal with God. This refers to the Jewish understanding of the son being thought of as equal standing with his father as the future heir of the estate.
Similarly in John 10:30-33 Jesus calls God his Father and says they are one. The Jews regard this as blasphemy – saying he is making himself out to be God. Jesus never said “I am God” – but the words he DID say were the cultural equivalent of saying “I am God.”
Even if you don’t believe that John is accurate and allowable in Scripture, you’d be hard pressed to deny that John was painting an accurate picture of what those phrases and words meant to the Jewish people. The author was writing with an understanding of the terminology of the day – and his audience would have understood that. If he tried to slip in his own private definition of what a word meant, his audience would not accept it. The rest of the gospels share the same ideas that Jesus expresses in those John passages.
This is the answer to your question: “In what way was he God then???”
Even if Jesus was limited in his abilities while living as a man – his worth was equal to God’s (which is why I first made the argument that only Jesus could pay a God-sized debt) which could only mean that he was God. A crude analogy would be if you were forced to put on a mouse costume with a giant head and play basketball. Your abilities would be diminished, but your value as a person would still be the same.
One note about Mark 2:27. Jesus said he was the Lord of the Sabbath. You can’t logically claim from this that we are all “lord” of the Sabbath. Seems like Jesus would have made that point, saying “you all are also lords of the Sabbath.” No, it seems very clear that Jesus is making an exclusive claim to a title that previously Yahweh had claimed. Jesus does this again and again – using titles for himself that were previously only assigned to Yahweh.
On the whole, I think you’d be very right in your assessment of Jesus if all that we had were accounts of him talking about things he couldn’t do or talking about being submissive to the Father. But there are other verses that talk about Jesus as being on the same level as God. For this reason the trinity doctrine came about to harmonize both aspects of Jesus that were depicted in the Bible.
Aaron,
Maybe some of the other Unitarians, that don’t have doubts about the writings of John, can discuss their views with you about some of the things you have brought up. I have spent very little time reading and studying John’s writings. All I know is that all the Trinitarian “proof texts” seem to come from the writings of Paul and John.
This in itself makes me wonder why there are no “proof texts” from the rest of the N.T. cannon. If the Trinity were true it should be consistently revealed throughout “all” of the writings of the N.T., but it’s not.
You said, “Jesus never said ‘I am God’ – but the words he DID say were the cultural equivalent of saying ‘I am God’.â€
You can claim that you believe that Y’shua said ‘he was God’ without actually saying ‘he was God’ if you want to. But, if ‘he was God’, this would have been a very important thing that he would have wanted to “clearly” tell his followers. Also if the early Christians did indeed believe this, they would have “clearly” explained it in the N.T. cannon and not just “indirectly hinted” at it in certain writings.
You also keep ignoring the question of “When in the N.T. did Y’shua tell his followers that ‘he was God’???”
You also said, “This is the answer to your question: ‘In what way was he God then???’ Even if Jesus was limited in his abilities while living as a man – his worth was equal to God’s (which is why I first made the argument that only Jesus could pay a God-sized debt) which could only mean that he was God.”
I agree that Y’shua worth was greater than anything else in creation, but I disagree that ‘his worth’ was equal to God’s. The bible nowhere says that. This is just an assumption that Trinitarians make because they believe that Y’shua is actually God. Therefore they conclude he must be equal in worth to God. This idea is simply not biblical.
The first commandment says, “You shall have no other Gods before me.” Y’shua himself said this about the greatest commandment, Mark 12:29, “Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
Y’shua didn’t say, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one, or sometimes three, depending on the situation.”
You also said, “For this reason the trinity doctrine came about to harmonize both aspects of Jesus that were depicted in the Bible.”
The way you describe the trinity doctrine as coming about, it is almost like you can see that it wasn’t something that the original Christians believed in or wrote about, but something that came along much later (a man made invention) to try to harmonize different ideas.
BTW – Thanks for the discussion and God Bless…
Aaron,
Thanks for sticking around. I have a question for you.
I’ve seen some explanations of this elsewhere, but wanted to get your take. In John 1:18 (and 1 John 4:12) John says that ‘no one has ever seen God’. If Jesus was God and John knew it, why would he not clarify and say instead ‘no one has ever seen the Father’?
I’m still around, but a little busy at the moment.
I’ll get back with you soon.
Aaron,
It’s nice to hear you’re still hanging around. I really enjoy discussing my faith with you, and exchanging points of view. I especially like the fact that you don’t seem to get angry just because we see things a little differently then you do.
Looking forward to hearing from you…
DT,
OK – realize that 18 of the 27 books in the NT were written by Paul or John. It’s bold of you to put any such requirements as “must be revealed in all the writings” order to believe a biblical doctrine. Not all of the books in the NT deal with doctrine.
My point was that even if you don’t accept John – he was still writing to the Jews in a language and context that they would understand. You might not agree with what he says, but I don’t think you can argue that he was correctly presenting an understanding of what it meant to call oneself the Son of God in the context that Jesus did. This obviously wasn’t a simple statement as the Pharisees wanted to kill him over it – they saw it as Jesus claiming to be equal with God. If that’s how they saw it in John’s gospel, it should be clear that they were expressing the Jewish understanding of the day.
So, when we see similar language in the other 3 gospels where Jesus is called the Son of God – the meaning is still the same.
I don’t have to make up a wild interpretation of the weight of Jesus’ words – the text gives us the significance of his words. Again, while Jesus’ words may not be clear to you – they were clear to Jesus’ followers. It’s like if you think Jesus should have used parables that you could relate to more as a 21st century believer. Jesus was speaking to a specific cultural context – and the message was clear to them.
Perhaps one reason Jesus didn’t use the exact phrase “I am God” was so to make it clear that Jesus walking the earth wasn’t the “whole package” so to speak. There was more to God than a single man walking the earth. But, by using terminology that showed that he was equal with God, people would start to get the idea that God was more than just the Father.
I thought I touched on that. They probably didn’t know who he was when they started following him – but they knew later – such as in Matthew 16 when Jesus asked the disciples who he was. Peter answered “the Son of the living God.” Either way, the gospels obviously don’t record everything Jesus told them.
One question about that verse: What purpose do you think God had in saying “the Lord is one”? back in Deuteronomy.
Was this a preemptive strike against anyone who might start thinking God was a trinity? (could you even point to an ancient pagan nation around Israel that believed in a Trinity?)
If God was trying to say He was different from the polytheistic pagan nations, wouldn’t He have rather said “There is only one God” instead of “the Lord is one”?
Whether or not the Christians had a formal statement of all their doctrinal beliefs says nothing about what they actually believed. They may have believed it despite not having a full on written explanation. Creeds and doctrinal theses didn’t start being written until sects arose and there was disagreement on the official church doctrines.
Antioch,
Great question. I haven’t read much on this – so here’s my understanding:
First, is it true that no one had ever “seen” God? God appeared as a pillar of smoke to the Israelietes. Isaiah describes seeing the Lord in Isaiah 6 in all His glory on His throne.
So, I don’t think John is talking about visually encountering God. I think the “seeing” John is talking about is intimate spiritual understanding. This metaphor is used over and over in the Bible.
1.) Mark 8:18 – seeing is linked to understanding
2.) Luke 24:31 – “opened eyes” is a metaphor for spiritual understanding of Jesus
3.) Romans 11:8 “not seeing” is a metaphor to being spiritually blind.
I think John is saying that nobody has truly and fully understood God up to this point. This seems clear as it then says that Jesus “has explained Him.” The parallel is very clear – seeing equals understanding.
Jesus also says “nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son…”
Also “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” Obviously he isn’t saying that if you see him, then you know what the Father physically looks like. The point is intimate understanding.
The fact that Jesus can say his nature is a perfect representation of the Father’s nature is pretty mindblowing for any person to say.
Couple that with the fact that Jesus answers one skeptic by saying “no one is good but God.” If Jesus wasn’t good in the same way that God is good, he couldn’t say that he was a perfect representation of the Father.
And if Jesus was trying to say that he isn’t “good” – how can you say that he was the perfect/unblemished sacrifice?
Aaron,
You said, “You might not agree with what he says, but I don’t think you can argue that he was correctly presenting an understanding of what it meant to call oneself the Son of God in the context that Jesus did. This obviously wasn’t a simple statement as the Pharisees wanted to kill him over it – they saw it as Jesus claiming to be equal with God.”
Actually I find it rather strange that Y’shua repeatedly referred to himself as the Son of Man throughout the synoptics and never once referred to himself as the Son of God. This is only found in the writings of John. In the synoptics he was accused of calling himself the Son of God, but when he was being interrogated by the high Priest he said the following.
Matthew 26:62-64 (English Standard Version)
“And the high priest stood up and said, ‘Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?’ (63) But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” (64) Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
I’m not sure about the other various versions of the bible, but in the ESV (which is what I study) Y’shua doesn’t actually say that he is the Son of God (even though I believe he is). I believe it’s because he was trying to emphasize his humanity. You will notice he goes on to say “you will see the ‘Son of Man’ seated at the right hand of Power etc..”
He doesn’t say you will see the ‘Son of God’ seated at the right hand etc… I’m not a biblical expert, but like I said it seems odd that only John seems to have him refer to himself as the Son of God. But, I still don’t understand how anyone could say that the Son of God means he was equal to God. A son is usually not equal to his Father, but rather subordinate to his Father.
Especially considering the Jewish laws regarding the penalties for being disrespectful or insubordinate toward your parents. The 5th. commandment states, “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” Notice how this law is listed as even being more important than the 6th. commandment, “”You shall not murder” or the 7th. commandment, “”You shall not commit adultery.”
If the Son of God must honor his Father, then how can they be equal???
You also said, “I don’t have to make up a wild interpretation of the weight of Jesus’ words – the text gives us the significance of his words. Again, while Jesus’ words may not be clear to you – they were clear to Jesus’ followers.”
How do you know what his followers thought he meant when he continually referred to himself as the Son of Man??? There is no evidence in the synoptics that he ever referred to himself as the Son of God (even once) in front of his followers. The demons referred to him as the Son of God, and Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And those in the boat worshiped him and said, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
The Devil even said to him, “”If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” Even though throughout the synoptics he is repeatedly referred to as the Son of God by other people, and everyone seems to recognize that he is the Son of God, Y’shua himself never once refers to himself as anything but the “Son of Man”.
I think it is clear from the synoptics that Y’shua was trying very hard to emphasize his humanity. There is no indication from anything in the synoptics that Y’shua considered himself to be equal to God in any way whatsoever. Like I said, I find it strange that all your Trinitarian “proof texts” seem to come from the writings of just 2 of the many N.T. writers, Paul and John.
Of course you would have to have a doubting disposition like myself to understand how I find this rather extraordinary, like I do. 🙂
You also said, “They probably didn’t know who he was when they started following him – but they knew later – such as in Matthew 16 when Jesus asked the disciples who he was. Peter answered “the Son of the living God.â€
The Jews, including the disciples, were expecting a human Messiah. If Y’shua would have told them that he was actually God walking around in the flesh, then this certainly would have been a complete and total shock. Something worthy of taking note of. You just can’t say, “Either way, the gospels obviously don’t record everything Jesus told them.”
The gospels recorded everything that was important! Don’t you think that it would be important to know if Y’shua was God walking around in the flesh or not???
You also asked, “If God was trying to say He was different from the polytheistic pagan nations, wouldn’t He have rather said ‘There is only one God’ instead of ‘the Lord is one’?”
To me these two statement mean exactly the same thing. The Lord is one means there is only one God. What else could it mean???
You also said, “They may have believed it despite not having a full on written explanation.”
In other words they might have believed in the Trinity even though they didn’t think it was important enough to record this fact in any of the N.T. writings. From my point of view this seems highly unlikely. If they had believed in the Trinity, I’m sure they would have said so. I mean, Why wouldn’t they??? What would stop them???
Did you think they thought this important fact was something that was better left for future generations to deduce from vague and indirect verses of scripture???
BTW – I don’t mean to offend you with any my above comments. I’m just trying to let you understand why I personally can’t accept the doctrine of the Trinity…
DT,
I don’t take any offense. I’ve heard just about every argument on this subject.
I’ve listened to every audio debate on this subject that I could find.
I’ll get back to you on some of your points.
It seems to me that everyone knows (though some may deny this truth) that there is but one God who is over all, who created all, and will forever rule over all that is, and over all that ever will be.
That’s a given. There is but one supreme being.
God has chosen to put all things under his Son, Jesus, who is the head of all of the things of God, to us, the Church which is the body of Christ.
It seems to me that the subject of one God above all is something of great importance that runs throughout the entire Bible.
It seems to me that when men speak of all that is called God,
they may develop a theology and put into some type of format,
their belief system.
But, what’s the point? Why do they do that? What purpose does it serve?
Is it that they love formulas? If so, why? Should men love a formula more than God? If so, why?
We shouldn’t love a formula more than God should we?
If others notice that we as “Christitans” love a formula more than God, will we be bringing them to Christ or not? Will we be found to be good witnesses unto Christ?
Suppose we repel others away from God by our belief system or formulas, what then?
What if others see how we are and decide they do not want to be like us and therefore decide they don’t want to commune with us because we hold our formula, theology, or belief system above all that is of God?
What about idolatry? Should we have any idols? Should there be any in the house of God? Is there any idols with God in heaven?
Did Jesus have any when he ministered on this earth in the days of his flesh?
Ray,
I think you expressed the truth here, in all it’s simplicity. God Bless…
Aaron,
First of all, I just found this site and have to admit I haven’t read all the 90+ responses so this point may have already been made:
I am NOT a Unitarian and am very unfamiliar with their beliefs; however, I grew up Catholic and the trinity doctrine is a large part of the faith. I accepted it as a child without question but as a teenager I had all sorts of questions about it. The answers usually went along the lines of “it’a mystery” or “you shouldn’t question God.” I was so discourage by the lack of reasonable answers that I quit attending church. It was in my late teens that I gained an understanding of scripture and came to believe that the trinity doctrine is, in fact, not a bible teaching. But I digress, allow me to give response to your comments:
Following along in the idea that equal was to be paid for equal (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth etc.) consider, was Adam God? After all, it was Adam that sinned originally and brought forth sin and death upon us. If Adam was God then yes, his sin could only be paid back by God dying. Then we would all be in serious trouble as, which one of us could possibly go on living if God died? It’s silly to even think of it. Adam was MADE by God, not God himself, Adam was inferior to God; a creation, not the Creator. However, Adam was a perfect man. Until he became disobedient, he was without sin. Therefore, another perfect man was needed to pay the ransom. Enter Jesus. Though born as a man and through Mary, Jesus was not conceived through human contact. The bible tells us he was born of holy spirit from a virgin. Yes, he was placed inside of Mary by God through holy spirit. He was not of Joseph or Mary’s imperfect blood. Therefore, at his birth, he was a perfect man, equal to Adam and the only man that could pay for what Adam lost. If Jesus had been God; the very rule you mentioned, would have been violated, for Adam was NOT God. It would be like you getting several years in prison for punching your brother, rather than simply getting punched back. Does this make sense to you?
Mateo,
Very good and honest reply.
When as a child, I attended church I never was really paying attention and never got caught up with the trinity.
Seems that the majority of mainstream protestants denominations believe in the trinity as there doctrine.
When I started reading this blog, the unbiblical ness of the trinity became my belief also.
Here are some of my favorite verses:
1 Corinthians `15: (kjv)
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, 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 firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
I certainly do not believe that Jesus Christ is GOD and we are to be like him, a man, as we, as men, receive and operate holy spirit and we are not GOD.
1 Timothy 2: (kjv)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
God Bless you Timoteo,
Great Scriptures you posted !!
Lets Make America Great again !!!
SWR aka Scotty
1 Corinthians `15: (kjv)
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, 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 firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
I certainly do not believe that Jesus Christ is GOD and we are to be like him, a man, as we, as men, receive and operate holy spirit and we are not GOD.
1 Timothy 2: (kjv)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;