A3

Hi Agnos1 and all
Just barging in and presenting you folks with our approach to the Trinity (see profile).
The prophesies, the events of the New Testament and all the reasons why it had to happen, make this the cornerstone of any Christian believe system.
An ageless (and very personal) question. Is it enough to say "Jesus is in some sense Divine"? Even the atheist’s idea of God as a nonentity enters into all his thoughts and is the backdrop of his or her life. We are told to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. But who is He? We are supposed to shun evils for the sole reason that they are sins against the Lord. But, again, who is the Lord? Is it Jehovah of the Old Testament? Or Jesus of the New Testament? Or are they the same Divine Person? If we want to live the life of religion, we need a clear idea of God.

Since 325 A.D. the Christian idea of God has been that there are three Persons in God, each of whom is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one. In fact people are told to believe in three persons but to never actually say they believe in three gods because that would be preposterous. All sides admit that this is incomprehensible - a Divine mystery, and must remain so in this life. We will never understand everything about God, after all He is Infinite and we are finite.
But we can understand the Trinity from the literal statements of the Old and New Testaments - if we follow two common-sense rules.
(1) gather all the passages on a subject, or a representative sampling of them.
(2) use only explicit statements that can have only one meaning, as your basis and starting point. Group 1 seems to teach that God the Father (or Jehovah of the Old Testament) is one Person and Jesus, the Son of God, is another Person. Group 2 teaches that Jehovah of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New are the same Person. These groups have to be reconciled for the true doctrine to show.

Samples of group 1: Jesus said: “I am come from God” (John 8:42): “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do” (John 5: 19). As we have already seen, Simon Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" ( Matt. 16: 16). At the Lord’s baptism a voice from heaven was heard to say: "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3: 17). He also said: "My Father is greater than I” (John 14: 28) and "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). On the cross Jesus said: "Father, forgive them...” (Luke 23:34), and "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matt. 27: 46). Also, after the resurrection, the Lord said to the disciples, "Teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28: 19). In the last passage there is yet a third Divine Person, the Holy Spirit.

We might come to the conclusion that there are three Persons in God. This was never said but was assumed from 325 A.D. onwards and has been unthinkingly accepted as the orthodox Christian faith itself. You will never find a passage that says that he who has seen the Son has yet to see the Father.
Moreover, wat has been taken for granted in these passages is that the terms "Father" and "Son" always refer to people. Don’t we sometimes say, "The wish is father to the thought"? Or: "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8: 44).

For example, the prophecy of the Advent of the Lord: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given. And His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God the Mighty, the Father of Eternity, the Prince of Peace"? (Isa. 9:6) Here no one can for a moment doubt that He who is called "the Child" and "the Son" is also at the same time called "God the Mighty" and "the Father" - "the Father of Eternity."
There is only one Mighty God. "Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord [Jehovah]; and besides Me there is no Saviour" (Isa. 43:10, 11). "I am the First and I am the Last; and besides Me there is no God" (Isa. 44:6; compare Rev. 1:8). I am Jehovah; that is My name, and My glory will I not give to another” (Isa. 42:8. 48: 11). "Am not I Jehovah, and there is no other God besides Me; a just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me. Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else" (Isa. 45:21,22).

This defines another prophecy in Isaiah: "The Lord [Jehovah] Himself shall give you a sign; behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel" (7: 14). The name Immanuel can only be translated as "God-with-us," so it was the Lord God, Jehovah, the only God, who was to come into the world as the Saviour, and appear as the Son of a virgin. This, in fact, is the burden of all the Old Testament passages that treat of the Advent of the Messiah. "And it shall be said in that day. This is our God; we have waited for Him that He may deliver us; this is Jehovah. . . we will rejoice and be glad in His salvation" (Isa. 25:9). "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make plain in the solitude a highway for our God.... Behold. the Lord God shall come in strength" (Isa. 40: 3, 10; compare Matt. 3, et al). The Lord the Creator would also come as the Redeemer.

Again, in the Old Testament the Lord Jehovah says that He is the First and the Last, but in the New Testament, in the Book of Revelation, Jesus says He is the First and the Last. We cannot have TWO being the first and the last. Obviously, it must be the same Person. We recall also that the Lord of the Old Testament says He is the only Saviour, and that His glory He would not give to another. Yet in the New Testament JESUS is frequently called the Saviour. Does it not follow that Jesus must be Jehovah in the Human form, a thought that is reinforced by the knowledge that Jesus means "Jehovah saves"?

In full agreement with this, in the New Testament we find the Lord Jesus Christ saying to the multitude: "I and the Father are ONE" not two, but one. His audience understood, they wanted to stone Him; "Because that thou being a man, maketh thyself God" (John 10:33). Interesting, the Jewish Church which rejected Him understood what He was saying.
Also, in John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.... He was in the world, and the world was made by Him; and the world knew Him not.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:1,3, 10, 14). Here it is plainly stated that it was the Creator of the world who came on earth in the form of a man.

Again, the Lord said: "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). "I AM" can have but one meaning; it is Jehovah’s name (Exodus 3:14), and it means Being - the only Divine Being or Life Itself. The Jews again understood the Lord saying, "I am Jehovah," and thus wished to stone Him for blasphemy. It is manifest; Jehovah (or the Father) and Jesus (the Son of God) are actually the same Divine Person.
But in John it all come together; Jesus says His is going to His Father, and is misunderstood by both Thomas and Philip, who think that He is referring to some other Person. Philip: "Lord shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (John 14:8). The Lord: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath SEEN the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" (Verse 9). Could anything be more plain? What other Father can there be but the One whom Philip’s eyes were beholding?

Then the Lord went on to explain: "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself; but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works" (verse 10). Now, how are we to understand that? What is it that dwelleth within, causes words to he spoken, and also "doeth the works?” What else answers this description but the soul? It dwelleth within, it causes words to be spoken, it "doeth the works." What else but the Divine Soul? Is not the soul as a father to the body? Is not the body a kind of offspring from the soul?
When we see that the "Father" means the Divine in Itself or the Divine Soul, and that the "Son of God" means the Divine Body visible to man, then we can understand what the Holy Spirit is. In every person there is a trinity - not of persons - but a trinity of essentials, a trinity of soul, body, and that intangible influence that flows forth from the union of soul and body. This spirit or proceeding influence is approximately what is called in popular language, a man’s personality. It is the sphere that emanates from the combination of his soul and body, and this is what has an effect on other people.
We have this trinity of soul, body and spirit because we are made in the image of God, and in God there is a Divine Trinity - the Divine Soul, called the Father; the Divine Body, called the Son; and the Divine Spirit, called the Holy Spirit.

This throws light on the whole Word, both the Old Testament and the New. Like this:
"I am come from God" (John 8:42); the Body came forth from the Soul. "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do" (John 5: 19); the Body can do nothing of Itself, but what it is directed to do by the Soul. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16); the Messiah, the Body of the Divine Itself, which alone is Life-in-itself. "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17); the Divine Body in which it pleased the Lord to dwell while on earth. "My Father is greater than I" (.John 14:28); the Soul is greater than the Body, since it directs it. "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (John 14:6); just as we cannot know a man’s soul except insofar as his body reveals it, so also the only way we can have any idea of the Divine Soul is by means of the Divine Body, which was visible to man. Or, as it is said in another place, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only Begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him" (John l: 18). "My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:46). On the cross, the last of the Lord’s lifelong temptations, He was painfully aware of the Body to the exclusion of the Soul, as we also are during temptations. The Divine Soul seems to have forsaken it. "Father forgive them..." (Luke 23:34); forgiveness comes from the influence of the Soul, not the Body. We, also, have to be raised above the sphere of the body before we can forgive.

The idea of the Lord that the Apostles had is now restored, and filed with details. It is not new; it was there all the time, as Paul said: "In Jesus Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9). That is why at the end, Jesus could truly say to the disciples, “All power is given unto Me in heaven and on earth" ( Matt. 28: 18). Whoever has all power is surely the Almighty. So even doubting Thomas finally worshiped the Lord, saying: "My Lord and My God"

Regards
Adriaan

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: A3 ]</p>

Philosoft

Two things Adriaan:

1) Paragraphs.

2) You tell us we can understand the Trinity by using only unambiguous passages from the Bible and then proceed to tell us if we do things like change the meaning of the word "father," it will all make sense. What gives? Do we need to accept only your unambiguous interpretations?

A3

Hi Philosoft

1) Paragraphs.

That’s a great idea, that would make things much more readable I suppose. It would make it even longer though

2) You tell us we can understand the Trinity by using only unambiguous passages from the Bible and then proceed to tell us if we do things like change the meaning of the word "father," it will all make sense. What gives? Do we need to accept only your unambiguous interpretations?

I do not “change the meaning of the word "father," but am saying that in commom language this is often done (in the Bible too). Besides, how important is it what you call your soul as long as you see it as integral part of you and not as some other person? The basic result of the above is that it answers more questions than that it generates more mysteries.

And no! You don’t have to accept my or anyone else’s interpretation of anything. Only you can decide for yourselves what is closest to (or is) the truth. But you cannot do that with what you don’t know, so that’s why this post. To widen the choices.

Kind Regards
Adriaan

Philosoft

The point is, this makes a mess of your single-meaning passages. You are saying there are instances in which the word "father" does not mean "male parent," but some colloquial usage that is not clear from context, and has not been commonly considered. You are saying the meaning that has been derived from the passage may not be the correct meaning.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the passage I was talking about.

But isn't this at odds with your claim that you are "use[ing] only explicit statements that can have only one meaning, as your basis and starting point"?

A3

Hi Philosoft

Phil: 2) You tell us we can understand the Trinity by using only unambiguous passages from the Bible and then proceed to tell us if we do things like change the meaning of the word "father," it will all make sense. What gives? Do we need to accept only your unambiguous interpretations?

A: I do not “change the meaning of the word "father," but am saying that in commom language this is often done (in the Bible too).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil: The point is, this makes a mess of your single-meaning passages. You are saying there are instances in which the word "father" does not mean "male parent," but some colloquial usage that is not clear from context, and has not been commonly considered. You are saying the meaning that has been derived from the passage may not be the correct meaning.

A: By Christians, yes. As you know, the Jews understood what He claimed to be. I am also saying that nowhere is Jesus refering to His “male parent” whenever He says: Father. He is always refering to His Soul. How would you otherwise interpret “...the Father that dwelleth in me” “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father” “Father of Eternity” Personally I think it is very clear from context that not a “male parent” is meant. Please remember that Jesus was explaining a very difficult concept for the people at that time who didn’t (want to) know the first thing about spiritual life. And it is not that strange, they saw someone that got hungry, tired, cried and still claimed to be God. That He was in two states at different times, the son of Mary or the Son of God made it not any easier.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: And no! You don’t have to accept my or anyone else’s interpretation of anything. Only you can decide for yourselves what is closest to (or is) the truth. But you cannot do that with what you don’t know, so that’s why this post. To widen the choices.

Phil: But isn't this at odds with your claim that you are "use[ing] only explicit statements that can have only one meaning, as your basis and starting point"?

To me the statements have only one meaning. As you know the Christian Church thinks otherwise or has never looked at these passages this way. They also have ignored the fact that we have been created in His image and likeness and this peace of the puzzle now fits perfectly. At least I think so

Regards
Adriaan

Philosoft

Every time he says "father" in the entire Bible? This is absurd.

It's not clear at all what was meant. That's why we have silly things like Trinity apologetics.

If he was trying to explain a difficult concept to ignorant goatherders, he did a very poor job. Assuming the word he actually used was the word that meant "male parent," what information is conveyed by calling one's 'spirit' a "father"? I have the benefit of 2000 years of hindsight and it doesn't make sense to me.

<strong> I think the multitude of times I have heard someone claim that their interpretation of a particular Biblical passage is the correct boggles the mind.

A3

Hi Philosoft

Phil: The point is, this makes a mess of your single-meaning passages. You are saying there are instances in which the word "father" does not mean "male parent," but some colloquial usage that is not clear from context, and has not been commonly considered. You are saying the meaning that has been derived from the passage may not be the correct meaning.

A: By Christians, yes. As you know, the Jews understood what He claimed to be. I am also saying that nowhere is Jesus refering to His “male parent” whenever He says: Father. He is always refering to His Soul.
---------------------------------
Phil: Every time he says "father" in the entire Bible? This is absurd.
A: Every time He refers to God in the NT, yes. The commandment to honor your father and your mother means to honor our natural parents, but here also, on a higher level it means to honor the Lord and the Church.
Why would that be absurd?? My guess is that you don’t believe you have a soul or are a spirit. If you are happy with that, fine. No one can deliver physical proof that you do. That keeps you in freedom to (not) believe whatever you want (even in the next life).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil: Assuming the word he actually used was the word that meant "male parent," what information is conveyed by calling one's 'spirit' a "father"?.....

A: Calling our soul “father” denotes an internal relationship. Our soul is as it were the cause of our mind and body. It is where life flows in and is dispersed through our mind and body. Science approaches this relationship upside down and says the body is the cause of everything else.
The Lord’s Soul caused Mary to conceive. This process was exactly the same as with every other birth that ever took place because life is not sexually transmitted but is caused by the Lord with a woman. Looking at just this process and forgetting everything else, we could say that technically God was the father of Jesus because no earthly man was involved. Of course if you don’t believe in a God, all this will be absurd too.

Phil: ........I have the benefit of 2000 years of hindsight and it doesn't make sense to me.
A: The literal text in the Bible is tough to understand because one can justify/fabricate anything and everything with it. By way of this freedom of interpretation, people have done just that. Is there a specific part or the whole Bible that doesn’t make sense to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil: But isn't this at odds with your claim that you are "use[ing] only explicit statements that can have only one meaning, as your basis and starting point"?
A: To me the statements have only one meaning. As you know the Christian Church thinks otherwise or has never looked at these passages this way. They also have ignored the fact that we have been created in His image and likeness and this peace of the puzzle now fits perfectly. At least I think so.

Phil: I think the multitude of times I have heard someone claim that their interpretation of a particular Biblical passage is the correct boggles the mind.
A: Surprised? Every human being interprets everything at all times. We all try to make the most sense of whatever comes our way. Whether a biblical or scientific scholar, whatever we adhere to we think is right or we would not subscribe to it. If I thought for a moment that the Roman Catholic or Jewish etc. interpretation was more correct I would be a catholic or a jew. We can only believe what we think is true. What is wrong with that?
If, however, you are hearing me say that my truth should be your truth and that if you don’t believe what I believe you are in hell, then I am not making myself clear. One person cannot and should not try to dictate or impose his truth on anybody else. This is implicit in the commandment that we should not judge. From the start I have maintained that whatever I see personally as the truth should help and widen the discussion, not end it.

Regards
Adriaan

SRB

Tercel:
The Trinity does not say that one equals three, but that there are "three persons in one essence"...There are 3 powers in the world to whom it is right to give the title God, which we label "Father", "Son" and "Spirit".

SRB
One problem here is that even if "God" is a title (presumably meaning something like "a member of the Holy triumvirate,") rather than a proper name, much talk about the Trinity is still unintelligible. For example, consider the sentence "God is three persons." If "God" were equivalent to the title suggested or anything similar, then that would mean, "a member of the Holy triumvirate is three persons," which is surely unacceptable to you. Consider also the sentence "There is only one God." What does "God" function as there? I don’t see that you have shown how sense can be made out of standard talk about God and the Trinity.

SRB