The Trinity — question 181
This question didn’t come into tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com or via private email. One version of it came in some weeks back, but not in this form. I am addressing it because it often comes up in the comment section of Tentpegs and, far more rarely, in the questions asked me by students at local public high schools when I am there to answer their queries about Christianity. I fully expect this answer to be the first of two or three blogs so I can keep the length down a bit.
Is the doctrine of the Trinity true? How can there be three which are also one? Isn’t that a logical contradiction? How are we expected to believe in an absurdity?
In the Hebrew, the first verse of the Bible is, literally, “in the beginning, Gods created the heavens and the earth.” The word for God — Elohim — is plural. We run across its singular form often in the ancient world — El. In fact, it is often appended to other words such as “Bethel” for “house of God.” After this bombshell in chapter one, verse one, we find God saying “let us make man in our image and after our likeness” in verse 26. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and some others say that God was using the “royal we” in verse 26 but they don’t have a lot they can say about 1:1.
The Shema, the prayer all observant Jews pray daily, says in the literal Hebrew “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our Gods, they are one.” Plurality within singularity was, therefore, not only a part of the first chapter of the Bible, it was — and remains — part of the daily prayers heard from every synagogue in the world. (a prayer given to them by God Himself)
On the Newtonian level, this sounds odd, but on the quantum level it makes perfect sense. Go to youtube.com and look up Dr. Quantum videos, especially the one with the famous double slit experiment. It is five minutes that might make you go “wha..?” but it is very true and provable on the quantum level: something can be in two places at one time and in several forms at different places at the same time. Not only is this proven, we rely on it every time we fire up supercolliders, use nuclear medicine, or a hundred other practical applications. (oh, and while you’re looking for quantum stuff, ignore and avoid the movie “what the bleep do we know?” It is tripe and eastern philosophy trying to don the disguise of science and quantum physics)
The Bible is full of this stuff. Take the visit to Abraham by three men in Genesis 18. They are defined as “angels” but that word just means “messengers.” When the men speak to Abraham, the speaking is variously described as “they” speaking (v.9) or “Jehovah” speaking (v.13). When two of the men leave and go to Sodom, Abraham continues to call the remaining one “Jehovah.” Yet… the other two, when they arrive at Sodom, are addressed by Lot as “Jehovah.” (Gen.18:22,30; 19:1,18) Once again, a three in one, a plurality in a singularity.
A word about “Jehovah.” The word is a made up word, compiled by using the vowel sounds from Adonai with the four consonant, unpronounceable Name of God. Those who say His proper name is Yahweh are missing the point: no one knows how those four consonants were pronounced because the Jews refused to pronounce it or draw diacritical markings around the word to describe its pronunciation. I will use “Jehovah” for clarity but I have no preference for that name versus any other from any other language.
When the Bible says that the Father and the Son are “one” it uses (in the Old Testament) a specific word every single time.. echad (sometimes spelled achad). It also uses that word to describe the relationship of Adam and Eve when they became “one” flesh. So, even those of you stuck in the Platonic view of the universe and Newton’s view of physics have a way of understanding a plurality that is also a singularity! Two persons can be “one” by a mutual commitment and compatibility that goes deep and remains true.
Those who go to Mark 12:29 to “prove” there is one God and He is singular need to remember my second paragraph above. Jesus was quoting the Shema and, therefore, the single and plural forms of the name of God are both found there. And this singular God is able to do many things at once, be many places at once, and understand and decide many things at once (which is at least as bizarre as being three in one!). If someone demands that “one means one” (which is, frankly, a shocking display of ignorance of language and physics) then God cannot be in many places or listen to more than one person at a time. I have asked JWs “How many ears does God have? How many eyes does He have? How many places can He be in at the same time and still be singular? Can God be in heaven and control the universe while visiting a part of the universe?” They nearly blow a gasket trying to answer and, without exception, change the subject very quickly. That’s what you get when you try to put our understanding and worldview out there and bind it on One who does not live with those restrictions.
The whole point is that “three”, “one”, “place”, and “person” are all false constructs on the level in which God dwells. Us Flatlanders have issues with it, though (look up the book and read it if you want a real challenge).
But didn’t Jesus say that the Father was greater than he was (John 14:28)? Yes, but there is a lot more to that story. In Philippians chapter 2 we see that Jesus laid aside a lot of his power and person so that he could walk with us. The misuse of John 14:28 to prove what it doesn’t say is common among those who want to rank the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or even demote the Spirit to some impersonal force without a personality at all). They will also trot over to John 17:3 and say “See, Jesus says there is only one true God and that that God sent him forth. Therefore, he is not God!” Really? You’re going with that? Sigh… okay, let’s go. First of all, as we have seen as far back as Genesis, God can travel in plurality while He is a singularity. Second, if you really want to say “only true God” excludes Jesus, then go to Jude 4 and see that the same language is used of Jesus as “only Lord and Master (or “owner”).” Does that mean that the Father is not our Lord or Master? He doesn’t own us? Of course not. Does that mean that Paul lied in 2 Corinthians 3:17 when he said the Holy Spirit is our Lord? We are entering the realm of the silly…
And here we come upon a wonderful rule of linguistics, scripture, and conversation: you don’t always have to say everything you might possibly mean every time you say anything at all. That is why Paul could talk about “salvation by faith” without having to also mention faithfulness, baptism, stewardship, morality, etc ad nauseum. All of that would be mentioned in time and in the right place, but it didn’t have to be mentioned right then. To demand otherwise is to ask God to take our Bibles away and send us, instead, a ten thousand page legal document that reads like the US tax code.
Did Jesus believe he was equal with Jehovah? Yes… but I’ll save that until next time.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Patrick, in my opinion this is one of the most important subjects you could have written on, I believe it is a matter of one’s salvation. I know you are as set in your belief as I am and I will not be able to change your perspective on this subject, because it has been ingrained in your belief. But please allow a person who has many doubts about this a few questions about this portion of your study.
Not knowing Hebrew, nor Greek of that time, I have to depend on those who do , now without calling any names, I have a friend who I trust, tell me the word “Elohim” and others used as “God” actually translated into the words “Diety or Divine” which has no plural or single meaning.
Patrick said: “If someone demands that “one means one” (which is, frankly, a shocking display of ignorance of language and physics) then God cannot be in many places or listen to more than one person at a time.”
Question; would it not be equally ignorant to expect that “Three” could do the job?
Patrick said: “The Shema, the prayer all observant Jews pray daily, says in the literal Hebrew “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our Gods, they are one.” Plurality within singularity was, therefore, not only a part of the first chapter of the Bible, it was — and remains — part of the daily prayers heard from every synagogue in the world. (a prayer given to them by God Himself)
Deu. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord/Jehovah, our God / elohiym / the divine is one Lord / Jehovah
Question;
Patrick did I hear wrong again when someone told me the Jews don’t speak or fully spell the word “God”
How could they pray the above prayer and avoid saying the word representative of the word God? (they use the word divine)
I have many more questions but they will keep.
With your permission, I’ll answer each of your questions in the next column so all can see them.
May 19th, 2009 at 3:55 am
I look forward to the other installments of this question / answer. In light of the first response, what I want to write is best left unwritten!
May 19th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Patrick, if you wish I can supply many questions now, or can wait until later, your choice.
There will be no name calling from this side, hoping that others will be as obliging. there are things best left unsaid.
but Christian things are always best not kept to one’s self.
May 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Thanks for this, Patrick. The Trinity is a difficult concept. Which is hardly surprising. We’re talking about God here. We shouldn’t expect to fully understand him. Or them. Or, as I’ve heard that the word for the Holy Spirit is feminine in the Hebrew, him, him, and her. Now THAT’S going to get me into trouble!
May 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Patrick, you asked the question on your post, Did Jesus claim equality with God, I say no, you say yes, and we will probably use the same scripture to prove out point.
Patrick answers to questions on this topic require lengthy answers in order to fully reply. so please bare with me.
NIV.
Phl. 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers [fn] and deacons:
Phl. 2:1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion,
2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.
3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature / form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature/ form of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Those who try to explain the “theory of the trinity” , (yes it is a theory even those who claim this belief admit it is not backed by biblical facts.) use vs 6 to say Jesus claimed equality with God, I say vs. 6 says Jesus saw equality with God as a thing not to be stolen.
I remember one such character in the bible who tried just that thing, claim/steal/grasp equality with God.
Paul is telling these Christians to be like Jesus a servant, not like Satan who did claim equality with God/Jehovah.
Satan claimed equality with God and received his reward for doing so.
Jesus did not claim equality with God, see his reward below for not doing so.
Phl 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
(what does therefore mean, for this reason)
May 19th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Laymond, my impression of verse 6 is ‘man’ becoming equal to God wasn’t something to grasp. Jesus “being very nature God” tells me he’s apart of God and that lowering Himself to human form makes equality with God difficult because of the nature of the flesh.
In other words, Jesus being God lowered himself to our level in order to save us in God’s divine plan.
I’m just taking a stab at it! I’m just a regular schlep so take it easy on me
.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
John 8:54-59 (NIV)
Jesus replied, “If I glorify Myself, My glory means nothing. My Father, Whom you claim as your God, is the One Who glorifies Me. Though you do not know Him, I know Him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing My day; he saw it and was glad.” “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to Him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone Him, but Jesus hid Himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
Ok, if Jesus did not claim to be God then why did the Jews pickup the rocks to stone Him?
And even more clearly…
John 10:30-33 (NIV)
I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone Him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?” “We are not stoning You for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, a mere man, claim to be God.”
John reveals to us plainly that Jesus claimed to be on an equal footing with God – to be God.
Whether our God is a trinity or an infinite potentiality Jesus is not merely in the mix but as Paul says…
“Colossians 2:9-10 (NIV)
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,”
Jesus is God and was the fullness of deity but even more shocking is the next bit…
“and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.”
and again…
Ephesians 3:17-19 (NIV)
“so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge–that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.”
Christ was the fullness of God in human form and Paul expects that we – as disciples – should be filled with this same fullness.
Scary huh?
May 19th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of scripture, not in a single verse. It is the doctrine that there is only one God, not three, and that the one God exists in three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An analogy would be time. Time is past, present, and future. But, there are not three times, only one. I must confess, or admit or both, that I don’t understand why this is so hard for one to accept.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Todd, you will get no disagreement from me that The Spirit later to be known as “Jesus “ existed with God before he was chosen to bring the word to God’s people.. But that said the bible clearly tells us when the man Jesus came into existence. At birth he was called Jesus.
Matt. 12: 17: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18: Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
This plainly stated the spirit to become Jesus, was loved and preferred by God/Jehovah to do this great work.
Nor will I disagree that the Jews misunderstood his message. In my opinion John did not reveal that Jesus was God, John revealed that the Jews thought he claimed to be God, which he did not.
Col: 2:9: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Lets see when and why this happened : Jn: 1:32: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Lets see why. Matt. 12: 17: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet.
Does this mean Jesus was Jehovah not to me it doesn’t.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I have always viewed Philippians 2:6 in the same context as Pat presented in the response above.
I have always thought the book of John describes this concept best (focusing upon chapter 1 verse 1, but in context with the remaining scriptures). Who else could this be describing?
John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] He was in the beginning with God;
[3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
[4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
[5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
[6]
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
[7] He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.
[8] He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
[9]
The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
[10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.
[11] He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.
[12] But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
[13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
[14]
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
If I pointed to a chair, and asked you what is this. You relpied, a chair. Then I pointed again to the same chair, and asked you again what is this. and you replied again, a chair. If i pointed again to the same chair and asked you what is this. And you in your frustration thought what is this that he is getting at, and you said, A “CHAIR”! But what I did was, I pointed to the leg first, then the back, and thirdly the seat. Three main and different components to the chair, but the chair just the same.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Spartan, if you were to pick up a chair leg, and tell an audience, this is a chair don’t you think you might get a few funny looks?
Now if you wish to tell me that Jesus is the “right hand” of God I would certainly be persuaded to go along with that. as a matter of fact that seems to be what you are saying, but that is not what the trinity doctrine says, far from it.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:07 am
truth in the form of simple math; 1+1+1=3, but 1×1x1=ONE!! Well God did say “Be fruitful and Multiply” Ha, we’ll never figure this out. If we believe the Bible, let’s just accept what it says about the Godhead without trying to describe the Infinite One(hmmmm)in finite terms that cannot help but to fall far short of His Glory, Peace to ya’ll.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:00 am
While this seems like a conversation pitched to JW doctrine, I’d like to inject one Muslim’s question on the matter.
Recently, in a Muslim-Christian dialogue, a Muslim asked a Christian to explain how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “coequal”.
For the sake of full disclosure,I believe that God is Triune, but I’ve not completely formulated what I specifically believe, which is why I’m finding the Muslim’s question a bit of a challenge. How would you (all) explain the coequality that exists within the Trinity?
May 20th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Daniel,
In my own simple way I consider “coequal” the same as “unified” or “unity”. Paul describes this same goal for the body of the church in 1 Cor 12. I apply similar thinking toward God, Jesus and Holy Spirit. Many parts yet one body. If you read all of chapter 12 note that all are equally important, but at the same time different.
1Cor.12
[3] Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.
[4] Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;
[5] and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
[6] and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one.
[7] To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
[8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
[9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
[10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
[11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
[12] For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Mike since I am the only one here questioning this doctrine, I will reply to those who seem to be questioning me, Patrick can tell me to “shut up” any time and I will do so.
You said, “If we believe the Bible,let’s just accept what it says” I could not agree more. The bible as far as I know was left by the writers for the common people, so they could learn about God through the message brought by Jesus God’s messenger. It doesn’t have all those hidden messages in it, that some see.
Danial, I am not a member of the Jehovah’s witnesses, but I have studied the bible with them, and the trinity is one place where we agree. Others where we don’t. What I found about the “Witnesses” is many come out of the Church of Christ.
As you have said the reason for and, the how it occurs in the trinity is baffling. The use of common sense will tell us there are not three persons within a panel that have equal status, and always agree on all things, if this were so would this not make two of them irrelevant? it seems everything ran as expected while Jesus was on earth for 33 years, and continues to operate while the Holy Ghost remains here today.
” how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “coequal”. very good question, I have been trying to answer that question for many years. I still have no answer, and never have I found one who did.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Laymond, your agument misses something.
It can be infered from your comments that the spirit that inhabits me and the flesh that houses me are not co-equal parts of me? Sounds vaguely gnostic. Also Jesus did not claim that He was an “old soul.” He flatly and plainly claimed to be God. Not a part of God, not a portion of God, but God. At the same time that He was claiming to be God He also made it plain that He was not the Father. Jesus presents at least the duality of God’s nature. Scripture is quite clear on the deity of Jesus.
But what else does scripture say?
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 (NIV)
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Here the Spirit is called Lord. Jesus is Lord, the Spirit is Lord. So the Spirit is equal in value to Christ? And if Christ is equal with God is not the Spirit also equal with God?
May 20th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
“God is love” is the simplest expression of the co-equality of the Triune God.
God existed before creation, as a perfect Father-son-Spirit community of self-giving love. I think this (along with Php 2) helps to explain why Jesus is so reticent to boldly proclaim his divineness. The Spirit points to Jesus. The Father points to Jesus. Jesus points to the Father. Each submits to the other in love. That seems to me to be the nature of their co-equality.
I’d hate to belong to the family where three people being in total agreement means that two of them are irrelevant.
I don’t think Trinitarian theology is all that complex (of course, I’m looking from this side of the Cross and Resurrection and Ascension, and standing on the shoulders of giants).
– Jesus of Nazareth did what the OT prophets were told that YHWH Himself would do.
– He did it on purpose, not by accident.
– He accepted worship.
– He ascended to the right hand of the Father, sharing his glory like Daniel said the ‘one like a son of man’ would.
How someone can quote Php 2:6b to deny the divinity of Jesus, while plainly ignoring Php 2:6a *in the face of people pointing it out* is difficult to understand. Of course, Paul might have embellished a little, right?
May 20th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Nick, I know I have no standing in your view, maybe the man who wrote the following letter does, though doubt does come into my mind.
—– To Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822
Dear Sir,- I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.
These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.
3 That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in it
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.
Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.
But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect.
The man who wrote this letter was none other than Thomas Jefferson.—-Third president of the United States.
Jefferson not only did not believe that Jesus was divine, he also disbelieved in miracles — period. He famously took scissors and cut out the passages in the Bible that he didn’t like. This is all making sense now, Laymond, especially after you said Luke embellished things often in his gospel. You believe the bits you like and the rest can just drop on the cutting room floor. Good to know.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:00 am
I think the best way(to me at least)to explain the co-equality concept occurs within the context of family. From the opening bars of the Bible with the plural words used for God, the choosing of Abram, then his family, then that family morphing into the nation of Israel through the New Testament Church,the Body of Christ, the household of God! It sounds like we’re talking family my friends. In my family we have 3 equals; me, my wife& my daughter. We have different roles, father,mother,daughter but we are equals. We are all made of the same stuff, we are human. We are all Salimbene but we are not all Mike. I am not better than either my wife or daughter, just different(in gender and role) In like manner, Father, Jesus, Spirit; all made from the same stuff(God stuff). They are all God but they are not all Father; all equal in nature, but different in role. This is how family,or true community functions. This always made the most sense to me since God is the author of life and family and marriage. They are all His ideas that He has shared with us in His Great Grace and Goodness. I am sure it is much more complex than this, but I am not sure I(or anyone else)needs anything beyond this. I mean it could be that I am just a simpleton. I’m just not sure how anything beyond this family concept would be helpful but if any of you guys got something just throw it down and we’ll see how it goes! Peace my esteemed brethren. Let the joy of His Love fill our hearts to overflowing through the Spirit of Jesus. Amen.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:51 am
Mike, unless you, your wife and daughter, are all the same age, you are not equal in the way the trinity is said to be equal. because it is said they have been together from the beginning.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:00 am
Patrick, you might want to talk to brother Al Maxey, about the total accuracy of the bible. He has studied it much more than I and in the original language. I have picked his brain a few times, and he was glad to oblige.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:45 am
Can I assume that the bolded and italicized paragraph above indicates that this is Patrick’s response to what Laymond wrote? It seems like it doesn’t fit with Laymond’s comment.
As for accepting bits and rejecting others…we’re all guilty of that at some point along the way. Perhaps it’s a coping mechanism for when we encounter things that are not compatible with our current assumptions. We may or may not grow out of it before the end.
Either way, I think that lobbing that comment at folks can come across as dismissive (if not uncharitable). I hope that’s not how it was intended or received.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:59 am
I for one am appreciative to hear open discussion about topics such as the one selected in this blog. I don’t believe anyone here has attempted to be dismissive or uncharitable, but has simply presented their best understanding using supported evidence. It has helped me to become more firm in my own understanding. It would be a mistake to consider the action of refuting evidence as being dismissive or uncharitable. I believe it is an important argument to point out that the entire Bible must be considered inspired by God, if using that resource as our supporting evidence, not just select verses. If one, such as Thomas Jefferson, does not agree with that conclusion, then the result will always be a difference of opinion. If Thomas Jefferson does not accurately reflect what you believe, then I suggest not using a selection of his writings to support a position. For myself, I don’t see Thomas Jefferson’s letter as relevant to this discussion since he is unable to be present with us today to provide scriptural evidence backing up an obvious personal opinion. I hope this does not end this discussion, but admit I would rather see more scriptural support of positions that are taken.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Daniel, you are right it is not a continuation, of my comment, it is a way to dismiss what others have said by calling them ignorant of the facts. but that is the Christian way today. If you have no way of winning the argument, beat and bruise the opponent so badly he will quit in frustration. I can only think Patrick is the only one who has access to adding to a comment, therefore I deduce Patrick wrote it. That is how it was intended and received. but I am getting used to the “New Christian” way of doing things and I bare the brunt of it. Jesus bore the burden of being called a blasphemer, for saying he was God, when he did not say any such thing. that is the way it is today, people wrongly interpret what you say, then beat you up for saying it. Thanks for the concern.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Laymond,
Why didn’t Jesus clear up the dilemma then?
If he wasn’t saying he was God, and the Jews thought he *was* saying he was God, why didn’t he just clear it up? Why isn’t there one word of him doing so? Or do your Lukan-embellishment and Jeffersonian-non-miraculous theories extend to suggest that the Trinitarian heretics weeded out the parts where Jesus said, “Don’t stone me! You’ve got it all wrong! I don’t mean God and I are ONE, I just mean I’m really on God’s side!”
And please drop the martyr tone. I’ve borne the rough edge of your keyboard more than once, brother.
And Daniel, it isn’t that Patrick lobbed nothing at Laymond except Laymond’s own words.
Laymond picks and chooses what Pauline literature is inspired. He wrote a couple of days ago that Luke embellishes and falsifies things. And now he quotes Jefferson, whose scissored Bible is world-famous? I don’t know how we can have a profitable discussion when the ground of the discussion (Scripture) keeps getting pulled out from under us.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
And Laymond, you have far greater standing in my view than the writer of that letter. For while you deny the divinity of Jesus, yet you trust in Him for your salvation. That makes us brothers. Squabbling brothers from time to time, but still brothers.
Jefferson trusted in that great goddess Reason, and put a cloak on her that had Christianity stenciled on the back. He neither respected nor trusted the Jesus of Scripture.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Wayne, I never intended to say I agree fully with President Jefferson’s beliefs, I was only pointing out to Nick that people of great standing disagrees with his belief.
I believe this excerpt from another letter tells us just where Mr. Jefferson was coming from.
—– To John Adams, 1813
It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe.
I believe Mr Jefferson was saying ( don’t try to teach a thing which you do not understand,)
May 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Nick, you have said, and rightly so that I pick and choose parts of what Paul writes as spoken by God.
I believe Paul does the same. Read ch 11 of first Cor. And then tell me God said all this to Paul , to pass on to those folks.
The “I” used in Paul’s writings does not refer to God it refers to Paul himself in nearly all instances.
Just one instance where what Paul said I don’t believe God told him to say.
1 Cor: 7:25: Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1 Cor: 11:13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
note:
This is not the time nor place to discuss whether the totality of Paul’s writing was breathed out by God, but if some one wants to start a discussion on the subject I will be glad to participate.
I am not the one who got off track here I believe my understanding of scripture was questioned , by two , Patrick and Nick in order to negate (place a stumbling block) anything I might say about the subject we are supposed to be talking about.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Nick, I believe you accuse Mr. Jefferson without cause, maybe “False witness” did you not read or understand what The president said in the letter I presented to you?
Nick said: “Jefferson trusted in that great goddess Reason, and put a cloak on her that had Christianity stenciled on the back. He neither respected nor trusted the Jesus of Scripture.”
Mr. Jefferson said: “Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.”
and he gave his view of Jesus’ doctrine, “The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.”
Nick I don’t know how you came up with your opinion of Mr. Jefferson, but from my reading of what he wrote, I must disagree.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Patrick: Wayne said “I hope this does not end this discussion,”
I hope so too. If we talk to each other and not about one another we might actually. accomplish something. I am waiting on your next post, before I comment further.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Laymond,
I don’t understand why you felt it was necessary to use a statement that I wrote to specifically target Patrick.
My intent from my statement was to request more discussion on the subject in future blogs.
I don’t see what Patrick stated as “talked about you”, but I do feel he successfully refuted your presented evidence with historical fact.
At this point, for me, I wish to simply state that I am saddened, but satisfied to simply say let’s agree to disagree. My belief is best stated in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Have a blessed day.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
If this were the only religious material Pres. Jefferson ever wrote, I might agree with you. Since it isn’t, I can’t.
Further, to whittle down the teachings of Jesus to 3 points that please the writer is the height of reductionism.
Finally, consider who Jefferson upholds as the group in which all men should choose to belong: the Unitarians? That’s where his understanding of Jesus Christ leads him? To the Unitarian faith? When you understand a man’s goal, his means become clearer as well.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Laymond, my friend, analogies aren’t perfect. they are only meant to give us a starting point in understanding. Your point doesn’t apply because you crossed categories; humans cannot be expected to do things only God can. No human family so constituted could be the same EXACT age, but God family can.