User talk:Ungtss/Trinity

The Trinity

Please excuse me for jumping in here. I have been hesitant to have a debate with you (Ungtss) because we are basically working on the same "side" in a number of creationary articles, because I'm not sure that these pages are the appropriate place to have such a debate, because the issues raised are not ones that I've studied at great length, and because I haven't had time. But as the issue has now been raised and I've caught up a little on other matters, I feel like responding.

I believe that the Trinity, particularly the deity of Christ, is clear from the Bible.

• John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.". I don't know of anybody that disputes that "the Word" is a reference to Jesus, and on that basis we have here a clear statement that Jesus is God.
• Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Colossians 1:16-17: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Genesis tells us that God was the Creator, and Colossians tells us that Jesus was the Creator. Both can only be true if Jesus is God.
• John 1:3: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John also tells us that Jesus was the Creator. And he emphasises the point by saying that "without him nothing was made that has been made". Contrast this with your statement, "When i think of Jesus, I think of a Man that was specially created by God". If Jesus was a created being, yet nothing was made that Jesus didn't make, then Jesus must have made himself!

I think that these passages, unless rejected as being wrong, leave no doubt that Jesus is the Creator God.
Philip J. Rayment 10:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

great:)! i'm here to learn just like everybody else, and i appreciate the discussion:). you've definitely brought up excellent points, and i wouldn't claim to be an expert -- you may well be right and if you are i hope God forgives me for my ignorance:). but the first thing i'd point out is that none of those passages use the word "trinity." in fact, the word "trinity" is completely absent from scripture.

as to john and colossians, without deciding whether they are true or not (which certainly is none of my business), i note that both of those books are very difficult to understand. with regard to paul, peter noted in 2 Peter 3:15, "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

not to say that the trinity is one of those twisted doctrines, but only that paul's writings are very abstract and difficult to understand -- so i think it's very dangerous to take them literally. In the same way i think it's dangerous to take John literally (or we'll all be going to hell because we haven't eaten Jesus's body or drank his blood).

These books CONTRAST from the synoptic gospels, Acts, Peter, and James, which are much more concrete and amendable to a literal interpretation. i think that it's very important to approach john and paul's writings with a great deal of humility, because they are full of complex imagery (revelation being the height of this abstraction -- how many hundreds of interpretations have been derived from the "true meaning" of revelation?).

so what exactly do the passages mean? i don't know. but i know that verse 15 calls him the "firstborn of every creature" and verse 18 calls him the "firstborn of the dead." i've heard it said that this could mean he was the firstborn of the NEW creation -- the first to be raised from the dead for the new jerusalem -- that's a watchtower view, tho, and is strongly criticized by the protestants.

so in sum, i'd respond by saying, "i really don't know what those passages mean, but i don't think they strongly support a trinitarian interpretation over others -- on the contrary, i think they're very abstract and could be interpretted a dozen ways. what do you think? Ungtss 14:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<but the first thing i'd point out is that none of those passages use the word "trinity.">>
First, they are not talking about the Trinity, but who Jesus was. Second, so what? Darwin's "Origin of Species" didn't mention the word "evolution" either.

lemme just clarify by saying i don't think the bible PRECLUDES belief in a trinity -- there may well be one -- but i don't think the bible gives a BASIS for one. by trinity i mean "one god in three parts." the fact that the word trinity is never used and God is never described as "three in one" is therefore very pertinent -- there is no explicit basis for a trinity in scripture -- the trinity is INFERRED from verses like the one you cited.

this differentiates the doctrine of the trinity fundamentally from things like the genesis creation for me. genesis says, "God made." there is no "Jesus is the second person in the trinity" in the bible, anywhere.

and as far as the inference, it seems to me that those verses may also be interpretted to provide no such basis. john 1 provides that "The Logos" was with God and was God -- the Order -- the Tao -- and that the order BECAME FLESH in Jesus -- meaning that Jesus was the living reflection of God on Earth. However, a reflection is not necessarily the original -- and i am not aware of any reference in which Jesus claimed to be GOD -- on the contrary, he claimed to be the son of MAN, and said "Why do you call me good?" and begged that the Father allow the cup to pass from him, and asked why the father had forsaken him? further, the fact that he is described as the "firstborn of creation" implies (to me) that He was CREATED. Coexistent with the father? not if he is "firstborn of creation." I can't get by that.

<<i think it's very dangerous to take them literally. In the same way i think it's dangerous to take John literally (or we'll all be going to hell because we haven't eaten Jesus's body or drank his blood).>>
You can tell what is metaphor and what is to be taken literally from the context. Sure, the Bible includes metaphor and parables, and therefore it is not all meant to be taken literally, but neither is it legitimate to dismiss something as possibly non-literal just because it doesn't agree with preconceived ideas. That is the refuge of theistic evolutionists in Genesis, but it is not a valid argument.

you can definitely tell when it's meant to be a metaphor ... but you can't always tell what it's a metaphor FOR. the beast with 10 heads and 10 horns ... God's "First-born." firstborn in what sense? not procreative ... so what? i don't know and don't claim to know.

<<verse 15 calls him the "firstborn of every creature" and verse 18 calls him the "firstborn of the dead.">>
Another factor in understanding Scripture is to attempt to understand it as someone living at the time it was written would understand it. "Firstborn" was, literally, the first-born, but it had the derived meaning of the one who had the rights of inheritance. See Jesus Christ our Creator which also gives other rationales for the Trinity.
Philip J. Rayment 00:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

right -- maybe THAT'S what is meant by firstborn -- but does that mean he was the "firstborn" in some metaphysical sense ... or that he was the first man to be resurrected and earn a place in heaven? questions ... Ungtss 01:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I say that "it's raining cats and dogs", I am using a metaphor. Does that mean that you don't know what I mean? No, not if you belong to a culture that understands that metaphor. Use of a metaphor does not necessarily mean that the meaning is indeterminable. "firstborn" is a known metaphor from the Ancient Near East (ANE). Therefore we do know what it means. The only question is, is the term being used literally or metaphorically? That is determinable from the context, and Jesus is described as being the Creator of everything, He cannot be created, and therefore the literal meaning of "firstborn" is excluded.

<<firstborn in what sense? not procreative ... so what? i don't know and don't claim to know.>>
You are claiming that actually. If you are using that as a reason to question other clear statements of Jesus being the Creator, and therefore being God. So effectively you are saying, "I don't know what it means, but it undermines the 'Jesus is Creator God' argument". How can you say that it undermines it if you don't know what it means?

Your dismissal of John and Paul basically amounted to (in my words) "They use a lot of metaphor so we really can't be sure what any of the respective books mean". I am rejecting this. They may use metaphor, but that doesn't mean that we are unable to determine the meaning. (Sometimes it may be difficult, as in Revelation, but it is not necessarily so.) I would argue that the meaning of texts that I quoted are clear.

I also mentioned that we should understand the Bible the way that readers of the time it was written would understand it. In the same manner, one point I didn't mention is in the article I linked to: "Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries understood that He was claiming to be God, which is why they wanted to kill him for blasphemy (John 19:7)." They thought he was claiming to be God, so it is a stretch for us 2000 years later and speaking a different language, to argue that He didn't claim that.
Philip J. Rayment 03:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Therefore we do know what it means. The only question is, is the term being used literally or metaphorically? That is determinable from the context, and Jesus is described as being the Creator of everything, He cannot be created, and therefore the literal meaning of "firstborn" is excluded.>>

given your premise, that's an excellent deduction, sir:). but i still fail to see how this verse supports "One God in Three Persons." Do you see what I mean? Even given that Jesus created everything, what basis do i have to believe in a Trinity -- i.e. One God in Three PErsons.

That verse (I take it you are talking about Colossians 1:15) doesn't, or at least the bit about the "firstborn" doesn't. See my subsequent answers for the rest. Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<How can you say that it undermines it if you don't know what it means?>>

that's just it -- i'm not saying it undermines it -- i'm saying it provides no solid basis for belief in a trinity. i don't think it's solid evidence either way, because i don't think we have yet figured out what it means. there could be a trinity and there could not be a trinity, but i can find no basis in scripture to believe in one.

I didn't use the "firstborn" as evidence for the Trinity. You brought it up in responding to my points.If you don't think it undermines it, why did you bring it into the discussion? Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

because, even given that jesus was God, what basis do i have to believe that he was a separate PART of God, rather than either the incarnation of ALL of God, a separate person entirely (as the Mormons believe), or simply the embodiment of the Logos which God the father used to create the world? and what basis do i have to believe that the holy spirit is another "person" of the "Godhead?" these are all inferences from passages which, to me, could be interpretted a dozen ways perfectly coherently -- but i don't think they support a trinitarian understanding any more strongly than any other interpretation.

The Bible teaches us that there is only one God, so if Jesus is God, he cannot be a separate person entirely. He talked to God the Father, and said that he was going to the Father, which to me indicates that He was not "the incarnation of ALL of God". The linked article covered the Holy Spirit, but I wasn't going into that so much, which is why I started off by indicating that I was concentrating on Jesus' God-hood. Demonstrating that Jesus is God is only half way to demonstrating the Trinity, but if it can be demonstrated that Jesus is God, it should only be a further small step to accepting that the Holy Spirit is God also. Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Your dismissal of John and Paul basically amounted to (in my words) "They use a lot of metaphor so we really can't be sure what any of the respective books mean". I am rejecting this. They may use metaphor, but that doesn't mean that we are unable to determine the meaning. (Sometimes it may be difficult, as in Revelation, but it is not necessarily so.) I would argue that the meaning of texts that I quoted are clear.>>

I'm sorry if i came across as dismissing them. i'm not. i wouldn't dare say we can never understand them -- i'm simply saying that i don't think we understand them yet -- or at least not nearly as well as we think we do:). so i agree with all of what you wrote above with the exception of the last sentence. i don't think the meaning is clear by a longshot -- i think it's an enigma of which we haven't even scratched the surface.

<<They thought he was claiming to be God, so it is a stretch for us 2000 years later and speaking a different language, to argue that He didn't claim that>>

another excellent deduction:). however, he wasn't accused of calling himself God -- he was accused of calling himself the Son of God. this is confirmed by john 5:18 -- "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." i wonder if they were concerned that he was calling himself GOD, or that he was calling himself the SON of God, which (to them) implied that he was EQUAL with God. as you said, the metaphor is most reasonably interpretted as meaning he was entitled to his "BIRTHRIGHT from God" -- meaning that he was to inherit the Earth -- but how does "Son of God" imply "I AM God?" dense as i am, i still can't see it:).

We are all "sons of God". Calling yourself (especially if you are a Jew) a son of God is not something that would upset the Jews, unless it was meaning that you are God. And I would take "equal with God" to be same thing anyway. Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that's an interesting point ... but it still doesn't follow for me. if they were angry at him for calling himself God, why didn't they say, "This man says he is God!?" Instead, they said, "This man says he is the SON of God." who knows why they were upset? seems to me most likely it was just the pharisees riling people up to try and run him out of town:(.Ungtss 14:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

once again, just to reiterate -- i'm not saying the doctrine of the trinity is FALSE -- i'm merely saying that i can't get a solid basis for it in scripture -- the references used to justify it are very complex and abstract, and it takes a LONG train of tenuous deduction through very abstract passages before we get to any semblence of a Trinity.

Thank you very much for educating me on the traditional view of the "Son" and "Firstborn" analogies -- i'd never thought of it that way before, and it brings a LOT of things into focus for me.

That's good.  :-) Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

to summarize my view here, i'm not saying there is a trinity or there isn't a trinity - i'm saying that in my view, scripture doesn't directly provide for one, and one can only be inferred through a lot of very abstract and complex verses through a long and tenuous chain of deduction. my conclusion is that "we don't KNOW what God is made of," in the spirit of Job, particularly Job 38. You'll note that Job's friends had a lot of theology based on a lot of scripture ... but Job wasn't satisfied with their theology -- he cried out to God, "what is GOING ON!?!?!" In reponse, God humbled all of them, saying, "you don't KNOW who i am. how dare you THINK you do!?" that's how i look at the issue -- I take my agnosticism of God's characteristics at God's direct command:).

what do you think? Ungtss 14:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did Job's friends really have "a lot of theology based on a lot of scripture"? More like they had their own misguided ideas on why Job had brought this on himself. God basically ignores them, and ignores Job's questions too for that matter, and talks instead about the grandeur of Himself. Although our finite minds can never fully understand an infinite God, we are told that if we have seen Jesus, we have seen God. That is, we can and do have some idea on what God is like. Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

now i CAN follow you there:). i agree that by looking at Jesus, we can have some idea of what God is like. however ... from there i drift off into heresy land again:), because WE are created in the image of God, TOO -- so we can ALSO get some idea of what God is like by looking at OURSELVES -- not a COMPLETE picture by a longshot, but a beginning. the way i see it, Jesus was the "New Adam" -- the first man of the "new creation" -- because he reflected God's will PERFECTLY in human form.

but to actually BE God? i can't do that yet:). John said the LOGOS was with God and was God and the LOGOS embodied itself in Jesus ... but it doesn't follow for me that JESUS was God. Jesus REFLECTED the Logos (and through it, God), just as WE reflect the Logos and God (having been created in God's image) -- he just reflected it PERFECTLY. How come Jesus never calls himself God? I can't get past that gap in the evidence. Son of God, Son of Man, firstborn of creation, firstborn of the dead, only-begotten son ... those are analogies that could go many places and mean many things ... not that least of which is "well, i was conceived of Mary and the Spirit, so i'm descended of both, or 'of both worlds.' But without Jesus saying he was actually God, or saying there was such thing as a trinity, i'm going to have to plead ignorance on the trinity, i'm afraid -- theologians have come up with too many crazy ideas for me to take them at their word -- i gotta wait 'til i hear it from Jesus's own mouth:). Ungtss 14:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

who can forgive sin?

i was also against the trinity belief years ago. i've had discussions being on the no trinity side and know about many of the arguments for both sides. still not exactly sure, because of the not being able to fully comprehend thing (Job). i'm leaning more towards the trinity these days. also in the trinity side there's more separation on the different views of the trinity. for instance, some say the three are separate and one, and some say they're the same and can only be in one form.

i think when it's said God is one, they mean one in unity like when a man and woman become one flesh. The word trinity isn't there, but Godhead is mentioned three times.

• 1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
• 1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

something to think about, if Christ is the Word made flesh, and the Word was from God, does that make the Christ God? Are the things you say/speak/write you? do you think of your words as you or just sounds coming out of you or vibrations of air molecules? if words come out of you, the words probably came from in you (some where in your brain maybe?), which is part of you like the body parts attached to you. an extreme view: if someone were cut symetrically in half which one is that someone?

some similar characteristics that have me leaning...

• 1Ki 8:39 Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, [even] thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;)
• 2Ch 6:30 Then hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and render unto every man according unto all his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men:)
• Psa 44:21 Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.

• Luke 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
• Luk 5:22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?
• Luk 9:47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
• Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
• Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

• Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
• Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
• Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

recommended links on this subject i'd be interested in what you think about the following :)

• Comprehending God Part 1
• Comprehending God Part 2
• Radio questions/answers about trinity

--Yqbd 02:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)