180 Continued… The Trinity, part two
As expected, the comments section has been very busy! We have a lone anti-Trinitarian and we have others with different views about the Trinity. I will wait until I write what I planned to write before attempting to go back into all the comments and digging out challenges, questions, etc. for answering. This is an incredibly busy weekend (wedding, Spanish Ministers Conference, Worship, and more) so I will write this quickly!
Yes, you can find people who say that “Elohim” is a singular term for “Deity” but they represent less than 1% of all linguists. I will trace their heritage at the end of this series. They also claim the word “cross” really means “torture stake” and that the original Greek called Jesus “god” with a little “g.” They are wrong on all counts. Even their manufactured mess of a translation — The New World Translation — is an inconsistent hash of broken rules in an attempt to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
This is typical among anti-Trinitarians. They like to pick and choose and only adopt rules when they want them, abandoning them quickly when they don’t. In this, they are like the Mormons who assure you that they believe that “the King James Version is the Word of God in so far as it is correctly translated.” Talk about giving yourself an “out”! Thomas Jefferson has been quoted in the comments to add weight to the anti-Trinitarian view, but he was rabidly opposed to any supernaturalism in or out of religion. He was barely even a Deist — believing that a god of some sort set the universe loose as if wound up by a clock, but then he released it, never interacting with it again. When Jefferson talked about the pure religion of Jesus and following God, he meant a social religion of agreed behavior and an accord with the laws of nature. The Bible was interesting to him, but, as said in the comments section, he took scissors to it — literally — cutting out what he didn’t like. It is hard to take the word of someone like that seriously when they venture into theology.
John begins his gospel by saying that Jesus was present and “God” at the very beginning. (John 1:1-4). Nothing was created except by Jesus. The JWs say that Jesus himself was created but that is impossible if we believe John. The JWs settled this by changing the words in their Bibles to read “…the Word was a god.” Up until at least 1974 they told people that the best manuscripts read that way, including using a little “g” for the word “god.” Sadly, in their own Bibles were photos of ancient texts… all in capital letters. Small letters were not invented for hundreds of years after scripture was written… and there was no article “a” in John, either. The solution? They removed the photos and kept the translation.
Jesus told his apostles to baptize in THE name of… and then he named three individuals. Once again, the Bible — and modern science — has no problem with a plurality within a singularity. (Matthew 28:19).
In Philippians 2, Paul says that Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself and made himself like a man. The phrase “something to be grasped” was an idiomatic expression of the day. It meant that equality with God was something Jesus already had, but he was willing to let go of it. It is just that simple. We see that phrase in other writing of the time when a statesman or military leader stepped away from currently held power to serve in a lower position. That is why Jesus can say, in John 14:28, that the Father is greater than he is. That was temporarily true. Yanking that verse out of context and using it in isolation makes a mockery of Jesus’ sacrifice.
Jesus claimed the name of Jehovah in John 8:58 when he said “Before Abraham was, I AM.” It was so blatantly a naming of himself as God that people picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy. The JWs change the verb tense in their version to read “before Abraham was, I have been.” That reading does not exist in ANY of the tens of thousands of manuscripts and fragments extant today. But, like Jefferson with the scissors, that won’t stop them.
Thomas refers to Jesus as Lord and God (John 20:28) and Jesus doesn’t correct him. Of course, the JWs have a lot of trouble with this, too, as they deny the physical resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps we should just sigh and move on…
Acts 5:3,4 has Peter saying that Ananias and Sapphira lied. He says it twice, first saying they lied to the Holy Spirit and, second, saying they lied to God. If God is Triune, this makes perfect sense. If He isn’t, this is an absurdity. Shall we get the scissors?
If we go to 1 Corinthians 8:6 we will see the scripture say that there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by Him. The JWs run to this and say “See! Only one God!” But they won’t attach that same reasoning to the second part of that verse. If that verse means that only the Father is God, then only Jesus is Lord… and God has a lot of explaining to do since He accepted the title “Lord” throughout the Old and New Testaments and, in fact, demanded it. The fact is that the Bible uses the terms Lord and God interchangeably. (a study of the various names of God is quite interesting. Perhaps we will have to do it here one day)
It is in Jesus that the fullness of Deity dwells (Colossians 2:9). The JWs removed all references to worshiping Christ in their Bible except for one they missed — Hebrews 1:6. After the 1971 revision, they removed that one and substitute “obeisance” for “worship.”
Compare Revelation 1:7,8 and 22:12-13. The One who is coming is called “Jehovah” and then is defined as Jesus Christ.
Now, just for fun, enjoy this five minute video on one of the basics of subatomic reality. Remember, 99.99% of the universe is empty space. It obeys the rules of quantum mechanics. Two in one, one in every place, and other forms of plurality within singularity are established facts… and that shows up in scripture!
May 21st, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I rarely see this passage mentioned in such discussions, but I think Romans 8:9-11 tells us a lot. Paul uses the Father, the Son and the Spirit almost interchangeably in those verses.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
May 21st, 2009 at 7:50 pm
The holy spirit is not an entity of its own, but is rather a possession of God which He gives to his son and through his son to man. Since some have said I was pouncing on Luke we will let him speak here.
Lk: 11:13: If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Next let’s consider who or what is the “comforter” mentioned only in John’s gospel account.
Jn: 14:16: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Remember that Jesus said “I am the truth” How then can this “comforter” be coming from both His Father and Himself? Is this possible? Once we understand just what this “spirit of truth,” “spirit of God,” “holy spirit,” “holy ghost,” “comforter” really is, we will see that it certainly does come from both the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
Notice verse 26 of John 14:
26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Lets see how this is done.
23: Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
This is done through the consoler, the comforter, the spirit of truth, THE HOLY SPIRIT of God! Jesus said He would not leave them “comfortless” (Ver. 18), so for sure Jesus must return to His followers to “comfort” them. This He did by the “spirit of God” which God gave to His son Jesus and which the Father then turns around and gives from that very same spirit in Christ to his followers, The following Scripture make this plain:
16:15: All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
All things include the Holy Spirit. This convinced me that “The holy Ghost” and the Spirit of your Father, are one and the same spirit. Not a third person, within a trinity.
Tim, almost don’t “cut the mustard” when talking about scripture.
With all due respect, you have forfeited the right to tell others how to handle scripture when you are so loose and dismissive of it yourself.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I made this short 12-second video a few years ago to illustrate a Three-in-One perspective. Maybe someone here will find it useful in this discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnJDaBeJx9w
May 21st, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Patrick, I am not stating my belief, I am repeating what John said.. The question (I believe) which Tim brought up was the question of how could one receives both the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ, without God and Jesus being one and the same. I believe John explains it fully.
Rom :8:9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Jn: 1:33: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
(This tells me that Jesus received the Holy Spirit at baptism.)( what is the Father’s belongs to the son)
Jn: 7 :39: (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
(This tells me no one could receive it from Jesus until he had died and risen)
Jn: 20:22: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
(this tells me the apostles received the same Holy Ghost that Jesus received at baptism)
You are absolutely right, I do not have the right to tell anyone how to approach the scripture, I can only tell it as I see it. and I want to apologize to my good friend Tim, for the snide remark.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
And …. I am now a fan of Dr. Quantum. That is wild!
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
1 Cor 8:6 is Paul’s Christological reshaping of Deut 6:5 — the Shema that devout Jews recite daily — the frontal assault on polytheism into which Paul places Jesus.
The Holy Spirit is not part of all things, any more than the Father is part of all things.
But Jesus says, “WE will make our abode with him.” Now how can Jesus say WE will make our abode (referring to himself and the Father) about the *Spirit of God* making his abode, unless they are one?
If my wife and I give you my most prized and powerful tool or weapon or hunting dog to live with you, WE haven’t made our abode with you, have we?
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:42 am
So … if I could observe this conversation in a quantum way, could I change the outcome of it?
Or is that what lurkers do?
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I enjoyed the clip, not the first time I have seen it but I enjoy science almost as much as searching the bible.
Although I don’t understand the reason for bringing it up in this conversation, it was fun.
Patrick, an old scientist such as yourself should know that when you change a property of an experiment you change the results. (constant is the key to a good experiment) The Planck constant is the proportionality constant between energy of a proton and the frequency of its electromagnetic wave. I don’t know what was placed into the experiment to record it, but is it a possibility that the electromagnetic wave was altered in any way? Maybe the light wave was bent in some way, who knows.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Nick ask the question; “But Jesus says, “WE will make our abode with him.” Now how can Jesus say WE will make our abode (referring to himself and the Father) about the *Spirit of God* making his abode, unless they are one?”
Kami and I are a “we” and yet we can dwell with Duncan without having to be the same. We are both “Mead” and we are “one” and we are two. This really isn’t hard to understand.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Laymond,
“And the two shall become one flesh.” My wife and I are two, and yet we are one. We are not “one and the same” — but we ARE one.
Likewise, no one in this discussion has said that the Father and the Son are the same. Clearly, they are not. One is the Father; the other is the Son. Yet they *are* one.
You still don’t explain how the Father and Son abide in man through an item which they possess. Things don’t dwell. Living persons dwell.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
For those who are interested:
Serendipitously, John Mark Hicks posted a pithy (under 2k words) offering entitled – The Holy Spirit: The Presence of the Coming Age. Some material there is relevant to our discussion here.
http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/the-holy-spirit-the-presence-of-the-coming-age/
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Nick, sorry for taking you for granted. but usually one who claims the “Trinity doctrine,” also claims the “Oneness doctrine” which claims that God is Jehovah, and Jesus is also Jehovah. But I see you do not adhere to that doctrine, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Oh by the way we sprinkle serendipity on our stakes here in Texas, as we cook them
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
laymond, I think I’ve pointed out at least one of these to you before: “‘You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’” ~ John 8:20a
“Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” ~ John 14:9
“I and the Father are one.” ~ John 10:30.
Okay, now I’ve said it for sure. (Actually, Jesus said it.) So much of your argument is based on explaining away things you don’t wish to believe, or asking questions that seek to discredit a different belief.
How do you explain that “I and the Father are one” if they are not the same, if they can only be Father and Son – two separate Persons – as you have maintained?
Jesus also called the Holy Spirit “Him” (John 16:7ff). How can a possessed thing be “Him” if He is not a Person?
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Laymond, in my part of Texas we cook steaks. We use stakes to help hold up our tomato plants. But to each his own.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Danny, some people have more money than others, and some are tougher than others, some of us are glad to get something that sounds like steaks.
yep you caught me.If you look back through my writings and run word check you will probably find many more. have fun.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Oh by the way Danny,I believe I deserve some credit for using all six letters and only misplacing one.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Keith I do believe you have pointed out those scriptures and more, It seems I am the only one who is held to the strict proof facts here,
Mk:10:8: And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Jn:17:22: And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Keith explain these scriptures to me and I believe I can better explain your to you.
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Sorry Keith for not addressing the scripture Jn.8:20—Jn. 14:9
I believe the answer is contained in the scripture below.
Col:1:13: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Nick said;
“Likewise, no one in this discussion has said that the Father and the Son are the same. Clearly, they are not. One is the Father; the other is the Son. Yet they *are* one.”
Keith said; How do you explain that “I and the Father are one” if they are not the same, if they can only be Father and Son – two separate Persons – as you have maintained?
OK Nick, you have heard it now.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
laymond, “divide and conquer” is a method of deflecting attention from the fact that you’re not answering the question.
As I think I’ve explained on my blog before, I can accept the dichotomy that Three can be One and can be different yet the same because we’re talking about God.
Your position seems to hinge on what God CAN’T be, and I see that as a logical absurdity. What underpins our faith is that “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
I won’t avoid your questions: Mark 10:8 is talking about “flesh,” physical marriage; it implies sexual union. It is not talking about God, who is spirit (John 4:24. Your citing of it has no relevance.
John 17:22 is part of a longer prayer, which also includes “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world” in v. 24 – Jesus’ own testimony that He was pre-existent, a concept which I believe you have disputed on my blog during a discussion of John 1. God the Father gave the Son a gift of glory which He has passed on to His followers that they may be one. I interpret this to mean that in accepting this gift, we should wear the image of Christ as He wears the image of the Father, reflecting their unity.
I strongly object to your use of scripture citation ONLY as an answer to my questions, when you require me to explain my understanding of scripture citations you provide in answer to your questions. I may (and probably do) read the same scriptures and see something different from what you do because I’m trying to be open to different, wider concept of God’s nature than yours. So simply citing scripture doesn’t help me understand your viewpoint any more than it would help you if I simply cited scripture. Okay?
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Keith the reason I suggested that you explain Mark 10:8 was I wanted you to see, that “becoming one” simply means forming a union. It is right that when a man and a woman get married, they form a physical union, and it takes two to form a union. The Father and the Son formed a spiritual union, they became as one, but it still took two to form a union. That is how Jesus became as one with the apostles, they formed a union, although there were more than two, a union was still formed. So if The father and the Son formed a union/ became one, it follows that they were not one and the same being, nor did they become the same being. Keith we, you and I have discussed this many times, I have used up all the explanations I can muster, if I believed anything I could say would change your mind, I would say it, and as I have said before “I love you like a brother” but I just can’t agree with you on something so important. I believe Paul meant what he said when he said
1Cor:8:6: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
I have been ask here, Why did Jesus not set the people straight when he was accused of being God, unless he was God? (I don’t know)
I can only respond in kind, why did he not set this fellow straight?
Mk:12:32: And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Because (sigh) the man was right. There is one God. Ignore the fact of plurality in singularity in scripture and nature all you want but I have to agree with Keith and Nick… you avoid confronting the facts and, instead, rely on JW teaching that has zero academic weight. You don’t want to believe certain things. Just say so.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Patrick:
Nick said: “Likewise, no one in this discussion has said that the Father and the Son are the same. Clearly, they are not. One is the Father; the other is the Son. Yet they *are* one.”
Keith said: How do you explain that “I and the Father are one” if they are not the same, if they can only be Father and Son – two separate Persons – as you have maintained?
Patrick said: ”I have to agree with Keith and Nick. “
(If they don’t agree with each other, how can you agree with both?)
Because they agree with each other. Laymond, we love you but I have never seen anyone wrestle with English like you do.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
By the way, this is the first discussion on this subject where scripture was off limits.
I have been accused of both hiding behind scripture, and Jw teaching, and all this time I thought Christian writers wrote the New Testament.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:05 am
I didn’t ask you not to use scripture, bro; I just asked you to explain what it means to you!
May 24th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Keith, in every discussion we have had about this subject and all others I don’t believe I have left you hanging,sometimes it takes me a while to get around to it, but there are times that it takes some explaining to say just how one comes about a belief, and why they were convinced.
Patrick said if you don’t want to believe certain things, just say so.
In my opinion “wanting” to believe has nothing to do with it, being convinced has everything to do with what you believe. and I don’t know of many who have been convinced by belligerent, remarks. You all have a good life.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Patrick, If you read Nick’s statement, which plainly states, the Father and the Son are CLEARLY not the SAME.
and compare it to Keith’s question, which asks (how can this be true, if they are not the SAME) and say they agree. well understanding American English, might not be your strong suit.
If you understand Kieth’s question to say (Yeah I know they are not the same, but how did they form a union) well Patrick, you don’t know Keith as well as I do, this is far from the first time Keith and I have discussed this subject.
Nick’s statement does not compliment Keith’s question. or vise versa.
May 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I hope Danny Gill doesn’t see my last comment, I misspelled Keith’s name, but once again I did use all the letters.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:07 am
“As I think I explained on my blog before, I can believe the dichotomy that Three can be One and can be different yet thesame because we’re talking about God.”
I don’t disagree with Nick. What I disagree with is the idea that God can only be One or only be Three or only be different Persons or only be the same Person.
Such a god would be too small to be God.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:39 am
Patrick, you are right I don’t understand what Keith just wrote, if that is English? I don’t understand it.
God is unlimited as to what he can do, but I am not.
He could be a Ford, a Toyota, and a GMC pickup at once, if he wanted to,I suppose, but that don’t explain why he would want to.
There is no doubt in my mind, God could have forgiven the sins of his creation, without sacrificing his Son, but he chose not to. what he can do has nothing to do with what he chooses to do. He could step in and settle this misunderstanding, but he chooses to let us struggle with it on just our understanding of scripture. I believe he could reset the clock and start over, but his choice is not to do so.
So his abilities has nothing to do with this conversation. in my opinion.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Patrick allow me to say something about one of your readers, Keith Brenton , Keith is one of the GOOD GUYS.
Although I have never met Brother Keith, through reading his writings I have formed an opinion of him, and I am saying it is a good one, very good.
In my opinion Keith is a peace maker, that in my opinion is maybe the only way in which Jesus and Keith differ. Jesus came to start an argument, Keith came to solve it.
Keith said ; “In the meantime, perhaps it would be best if we all saw “trinity” less as doctrine and more as metaphor; an attempt to describe the indescribable. As a metaphor, it has value. As a doctrine, it simply creates arguments.
5/11/2009”
Just wanted people to know how I see Brother Brenton , and not get the wrong idea by some of my comments. Actually Patrick, you and I are more like Jesus, we love to start an argument.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I’ve been lurking, following this discussion for awhile now. I’ve seen it here. I’ve also seen it between Keith and Laymond over on Keith’s blog.
I’ve chosen to abstain from the discussion. However, I’d just like to add a hearty ‘AMEN’ to Laymond’s comment above.
Keith is a “good guy.” I’ve heard it from everyone I know that has anything to say of him. (Even heard it, that exact phrase, just this past weekend from a friend of mine who was an acquaintance of Keith’s back in the day!)
I actually HAVE had the privilege of meeting Keith cause he and I go to the same churh, and although I don’t know him as well as I’d like, I worship with him nearly every Sunday. My opinion of him is just about as high of an opinion as I have for anyone! I can say that it’s been an incredible blessing time and again to read his writings, as he works to share his ideas about Who God Is and Who Jesus Is and what all of that means for us as Christians.
Indeed, Patrick, it was from Keith’s blog that I found a link to your own! That was an incredible blessing as well!
May 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I just love y’all like crazy and am grateful to God for every one of you. I don’t say that enough.
Patrick, thanks again for hosting these questions and for helping put our minds at rest or get us riled up orchallenge us spiritually and intellectually.
Your blog is a great place to exercise and experience the Shema and the golden rule.
Blessings.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I agree with Laymond that God could forgive humanity’s sins without sacrificing his son. I think that has serious implications for how we read Scripture.
If we understand forgiveness of sin, propitiation, penal substitutionary atonement, as the goal of God’s mission, the death of Jesus becomes something inexplicable. It becomes the incomprehensible way God chose to do it.
I do not accept that. I do not believe Scripture teaches that God *chose* to sacrifice his son when something else would have accomplished his mission.
So, where does that leave us? I believe Scripture teaches that my personal guiltiness, and even the guiltiness of humanity, is a SYMPTOM of the disease, not the disease itself — and Jesus died to cure the disease.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Trinitarily speaking, we must be careful with our language, because we aren’t talking about what God can do or be.
We’re talking about learning who YHWH is.
Also, I think we have a bad tendency to work backwards. We start with our sometimes weak and incomplete images of God, and try to fit what we know about Jesus into that.
That isn’t how the NT works, and it shouldn’t be how we work.
The New Testament writers start with Jesus of Nazareth, God’s own self-exegesis or self-revelation, the one they actually saw and actually heard and actually walked with and touched and knew; they allow HIM to reshape their image of YHWH.
NT Wright and others have shown from the OT and Jewish commentaries that the ancient Jews had what we might call a QUINTatarian understanding of YHWH.
Spirit – Word – Law – Glory – Wisdom
None of these were seen as appendages of God, or independent servants, but rather they were ways in which YHWH interacted with his creation. Some of them – Spirit and Wisdom, primarily, were seen almost as differentiated personalities, but not until the Incarnation in Jesus Christ did He reveal himself that clearly. Then, His people began to see Father – Son – Spirit.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_JIG.htm
Not a long essay, but meaty, and it will challenge anyone’s view of God.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Nick,
Why, say there are three spirits of God, shown through three individuals, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. .
Why would we say god is represented by three spirits or even the five you mention, when God said, there are seven spirits of God and they are named in Isaiah 11:2 . And Jesus received all of them, to be able to represent his Father on earth.
Mt: 3:16: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Isa. 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Rv :4:5: And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God
May 26th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
To whom it may concern; If we believe the following scripture, (which I do) and the Spirit of the LORD refers to the Holy Spirit which I believe it does.
Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
and this refers to Jesus, (which I believe it does)
Isa. 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
and if all these spirits of God come to rest with this one man.
Where do these Three equal Gods come in, and what for?
May 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I don’t see how anyone could say “God could have saved man without Jesus dying on the cross”, if there was another way that didn’t require Jesus dying on the cross the Father would have done it.
What father would send his son to die for a bunch of ungratful sinners when he could have sent somebody else???
I really think saying such a think misses the whole point about Jesus or who Jesus is.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Patrick said “I had originally planned to answer a bunch of questions from the two blogs on 180, but there were so many “call and respond” comments that I think we’ve covered it… for now.”
Since Patrick seems to think he or someone else answered all the questions on the trinity.
and left before I could ask all the questions, I and many others have about this subject,and as I was expecting at least one more post from Patrick, somewhere I thought I was lead to think that. I will just ask one more question then move on myself, To any and all “Trinity ” believers. Do you believe The Father Jehovah God could exist independent of Jesus, and the comforter/Holy Ghost.?
Then ask yourself, could Jesus or the Holy Ghost exist independent of God the Father?
Now that, is not equality my friends. Unless you believe they could.
Laymond, I think most of us see your questions — which you think as powerful and zingers — and think “whaa?” For example, this one. To ask this question is the same as saying “Can God make a log so big he can’t lift it?” You are positing a square circle here, my friend. God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are all God and they are, individually, God. While this makes you get all upset, we see no contradiction in this whatsoever. So… can God exist separate from himself? Whaa?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
They are all one Laymond IMO, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. Your question to me is anyway does God exist?…If there’s no Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit then there’s no God.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Lamond asked, “Do you believe The Father Jehovah God could exist independent of Jesus, and the comforter/Holy Ghost?”
Personally, I do not think God could exist without His Word and His Spirit. What kind of existence would that be?
May 29th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Pat,
Since I addressed your question earlier, I’ll try to take a quick stab at it again.
Please re-read my earlier response to Laymond on the question of the necessity of the death of Jesus.
I am quite certain that the death of Jesus was necessary to save creation. God could have completely started over without Jesus dying, but he couldn’t save THIS creation without the death of Jesus. As you say, “What father would send his son to die…???” if it wasn’t necessary.
I simply believe there is FAR more at stake than sin. Sin could have been forgiven without the death of Jesus. God can simply say, “I forgive you.” Or he can THINK, “I forgive you.” His will be done. If SIN is the primary enemy to be defeated, God could have done that with a simple wipe of his hand.
Therefore, human sin alone cannot have been the problem, or even the primary problem. Here’s what I think the real dilemma(s) might be:
1) Angelic rebellion;
2) Free will; and
3) God’s love
God created in order to share his love with creatures that could return it, that could live in real relationship with Him. He will not allow that purpose to be defeated. He chose from the outset of Genesis that humanity would be his instrument of guarding and saving creation, and reflecting his divine glory throughout the cosmos.
In Genesis 15, he makes a promise to Abraham — a promise that we miss because we don’t understand the culture. Read the sacrificial account and picture it in your head — animals cut in half with a path between them filling up with blood. In Semitic culture, from then to now (the Bedouin still practice the bloodpath style of covenant affirmation), the blood of the animal stood for your own blood. First the greater party in the covenant passes through the blood, signifying that if they fail to keep their word of the covenant, the other party may tread on their blood (ie, kill them). Then the lesser party passes through, signifying the same thing.
Ask yourself this: if God is making a covenant with Abram, a covenant sealed by the bloodpath, *why doesn’t Abram walk the path*? Why does God walk the path twice?
Jesus died because God promised — promised because deep self-sacrifice and truth are how God is defeating evil — NOT because sin required it. Sin has no power over GOD. God didn’t HAVE TO do anything — that’s the heart of grace.
God promised to defeat evil, God is defeating evil, God will defeat evil. Now, we must fight. One day, like Moses to the Israelites at the Red Sea, Jesus will say, “Be still and watch. The enemies you see today, you will NEVER see again. Your God will fight for you; all you need to do is shut up and watch.” (Exodus 14:13-14, Nick Gill paraphrase)
May 29th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Nick, I’m not much of a bible student so forgive me of my ignorance but it seems you’re separating evil and sin which I don’t think can be separated. I understand what you’re saying about Jesus’ larger mission (conquering evil defeating the devil) by dying on the cross and redeeming creation, but I’m not getting how our sins could be forgiven without Jesus dying?
I do believe that evil and sin go hand in hand (you can’t have one without the other), and I do believe that Jesus was doing more than forgiving our sins on Calvary (defeating evil) but even if God wanted to start over with a new creation that day sin would still be a problem if Jesus didn’t die on the cross.
I’m just not getting how God could forgive us without Jesus dying on the cross? With my limited understand of scripture I don’t see how we could dwell with God forever without the perfect sacrifice of His Son and sin being conquered. I believe many things happened those 3 days when Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, sin, the devil, evil, etc. were all conquered but we all still must choose to be forgiven if we want too.
Maybe I’m missing something?
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Pat,
You’re absolutely right. I was unclear. Sin and evil do go hand in hand, and are unseparable. But forgiveness doesn’t deal with the sin/evil problem, but with the guilt problem.
No matter how forgiven I am today, no matter how guiltless, if Jesus’ death does not defeat sin/evil, I am still under the power of sin/evil. Real forgiveness occurred with the blood of bulls and goats. But sin was still there! “For the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins.” The blood was offered to remind God of his promise to, one day, take them away once and for all.
Simply put, Pat, God can put away guilt by saying, “I forgive you.” In fact, he doesn’t even have to say it. He can just DO it.
Forgiving the sins of every human being who ever lived doesn’t defeat sin — it only removes guilt. Unless sin is defeated, we would just sin again. You are absolutely right when you say, “sin would still be a problem if Jesus didn’t die on the cross.”
What I am saying is that even if God forgave every sin of every person who ever lived, “sin would still be a problem if Jesus didn’t die on the cross.” He did not need the blood of Jesus to forgive the guilt that comes from sinning, but to defeat the power that drives sin and evil and death.
For sin to be defeated, God had to either destroy it along with everyone who was under its power, or destroy it after releasing as many people as possible from its power. And that release, from the power (not the guilt, but the power) of sin, was accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Heb 2:14-15 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.