The Father the Being.
The Son the Knowing.
The Holy Spirit the Willing.
Being.
Intellect.
Will.
Interesting Thomistic consideration...
BTS
Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine
by UnDisfellowshipped 123 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
quietlyleaving
Hi, quietlyleaving.
I am hard to have to edit this forum within 30 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Murphy_(author)
http://josephmurphy.wwwhubs.com/This thread is discussing the topic about the Trinity, and since this is not a place which states my belief, I do not explain it any more.
But if someone asks me for the comment to the Scriptures, I surely have to describe my own belief.
possiblethanks for the links possible san, it is very interesting
-
Narkissos
Welcome androb,
The fact that ideas and beliefs have a history is worth pondering imo. Thinking historically (that is, integrating the historical dimension in thinking) is a difficult discipline.
Each time we (individually or collectively) come up with a new idea or belief we naturally tend to apply it retroactively. Once the idea of "God" (in the monotheistic sense) came up (let's say around the 6th century BC) "God" had to be there before the idea of "God" came up. Same with the idea of the "Son of God" in the 1st century. Same with the "Trinity" idea in the 4th.
So when we read older texts, especially those which have contributed to the emergence of new ideas through reinterpretation, we tend to read the new ideas into them, but that doesn't work smoothly. Because the texts were not historically produced in the same idea- or belief-context. Whence the ubiquitous problem of anachronism. Every reading is anachronistic in a sense; we are not the addressees of any Bible text, we are reading over many people's shoulders. The discipline of exegesis implies becoming aware of the distance (to an extent). Even if the whole Bible (among other things) was taken into account optimally by the builders of the Trinity doctrine, that doesn't work backwards. Using trinitarian lenses to read the NT, or Christian lenses to read the Hebrew Bible, is bound to impose a severe distortion of the texts. That seriously limits the value of "scriptural prooftexts" in a doctrinal discussion imo.
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Possible-San said:
"I beg to deffer... In the Trinity doctrine, Jesus is not Jehovah. I explained it repeatedly until now. [...] "Jehovah" is the name of the father of Jesus."
It is the Witnesses who make the claim that only The Father is Jehovah. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that The Son is indeed called Jehovah (along with The Father and The Spirit).
Romans 10:9-13 (World English Bible): that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [...] for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on him. For, “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Paul there quoted from Joel 2:32, which, in the Hebrew, says this: "It will happen that whoever will call on the name of YAHWEH shall be saved."
So, Paul is teaching that Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah) -- Paul said that, in order to be saved, a person must confess that Jesus is LORD, then he applies Joel 2:32 to Jesus Christ to show that He is YAHWEH!
Psalm 102:1, 12, 15, 21, 22, 25-27 (WEB): A Prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed and pours out his complaint before Yahweh. Hear my prayer, Yahweh! [...] But you, Yahweh, will remain forever; your renown endures to all generations. [...] So the nations will fear the name of Yahweh; all the kings of the earth your glory. [...] that men may declare the name of Yahweh in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem; when the peoples are gathered together, the kingdoms, to serve Yahweh. [...] Of old, you laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will endure. Yes, all of them will wear out like a garment. You will change them like a cloak, and they will be changed. But you are the same. Your years will have no end.
Hebrews chapter 1 quotes that passage, which is all about Yahweh, and explains emphatically that Psalm 102 was referring to THE SON!:
Hebrews 1:8, 10-12 (WEB): But of the Son he says, [...] “You, Lord, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. They all will grow old like a garment does. As a mantle, you will roll them up, and they will be changed; but you are the same. Your years will not fail.”
So, once again, the Bible says that Jesus is the Yahweh of the Old Testament.
Isaiah prophesied that John the Baptist would prepare the way for Yahweh, but the New Testament says that he prepared the way for Jesus the LORD!
At Exodus 3:14 (and throughout Isaiah chapters 40-50), Yahweh identifies Himself as "I AM" or "I AM HE." He told Moses that this was His Name, and that Moses should tell this Name to the Israelites.
At John 8:24, 58, Jesus identifies Himself as "I AM," and that He existed before Abraham came into existence.
Jesus taught that The Father had given The Son His Name:
John 17:11-12 (ESV): ...Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me... While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me.
Philippians 2:9 (ESV): Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name
-
Satanus
It's interesting that the centuries long trinity arguement is one based on theory, a mental rugby game. That i am aware of, no christian mystics have taken the trip to visit the divine trinity in their abode. It's pure theology. This compares interestingly w hindu meditational practice on the divine. The hindu mystics actually make the pilgrimage of the spirit to explore the divine. Generally, their writings compliment each each other, continually enlarging the body writings describing the divine. Most terms to do w the divine have existed in the sanskrit for millenia. What i am trying to say, is that the western theologian uses his mind to understand the spiritual, whereas, the hindu adept is likely to use his spirit to explore the spiritual.
S
-
BurnTheShips
That i am aware of, no christian mystics have taken the trip to visit the divine trinity in their abode.
Are you sure? There have been many mystics that have experienced the divine and (attempted) to communicate the experience to others.
By the way, thumbs up over Western intellectualism, it has its place, certainly, but it can stifle when it is not put in its place. However, to the seeker, there are deeply rooted Western traditions that allow these quests beyond the intellect.
We are all one people.
BTS
-
Satanus
Thing is, christian mystics should be able to lay this issue to rest. From what i read about it, christian mystics tended to slide into the panthiest pit.
S
-
BurnTheShips
Are you familiar with Meister Ekhart? I have only learned a little bit from him myself.
BTS
-
Satanus
I briefly skimmed a bit of his stuff, yrs ago. But, not enough to say that i'm familiar.
S
-
UnDisfellowshipped
yknot said:
"I just don't get it. Why does God need functional subordination?"
The closest that the Bible comes to giving an explanation for the relationship between The Father and Son (besides the terms "Father" and "Son") is this:
1 Corinthians 11:3 (ESV): But I want you to understand that [...] the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
But why would One Person of the Trinity willingly subject Himself to another Person, and serve that other Person? The answer is, that it is all because of love (agape love), as Ephesians chapter 5 explains:
Ephesians 5:23-33 (ESV): For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Now, why would One Person have a greater rank or position than another Person within the Trinity? That is a great question.
A husband and wife are both equally human in nature. But, according to the Bible, the husband has the "head" position. Why does a wife do things for her husband? Why does a husband do things for his wife? The answer is: Love.
The Father and The Son and The Spirit are equally God in Nature. But, according to the Bible, The Father has the "head" position. The Son loves The Father, willingly subjects Himself to Him, serves Him in love, and obeys His commands, follows His directions, and does His will. The Spirit does the same thing to both The Father and The Son.
But, just as a human wife is not inferior or lesser in nature than her husband, The Son and Spirit are not inferior or lesser than The Father in Nature.
yknot said:
"How is Jesus a 'son'? If he wasn't created did God-Father split and divide into seperate cells? While a man can be a father, a son, and an uncle at the same time......he can't be those to himself."
Hebrews 1:3 compares The Father to our sun, and The Son to the light rays that are constantly always beaming forth from the sun. In other words (as the Pre-Nicene Church Fathers taught), The Son has, for all eternity, been proceeding out ("being begotten") from The Father's Being or Essence. Based on Hebrews 1:3 and other verses, the early Church Fathers taught that the Son was and is "eternally begotten." That is one explanation for why there is a "Father" and a "Son" within the Trinity. Beyond that, I don't think the Bible explains much about how the inner relationship of The Trinity works, or why each Person has the role that He has. Some things are revealed to us, and some things are for God alone to know.
Deuteronomy 29:29 (ESV): "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us"
yknot said:
"I am not trying to argue or deride your POV, I just don't get the appeal or rationality. Arianism is a face value interpretation, it simplicity isn't burdensome nor mysterious (okay I will allow for the whole beget thing without a wifey)....but still a lot less problematic."
And I won't try to deride your point of view either. I do think we should keep in mind that the important thing is arriving at the truth, not arriving at what may be the "simplest" or "easiest" explanation. The truth is not always simple without any complexities. How many things about nature, science, math, or life in general, are simple, easy to explain?
For example, just because a JW can make his teaching sound good and simple, does not mean it is true just for that reason.
The way I see it, if you accept Arianism, Unitarianism, or JW teaching, you are left with the following problem:
1:) Worship of any creature, man, or angel is idolatry in the Bible.
2:) God commands all people and angels to worship Jesus.
3:) If Jesus is a creature (angel, human, or something else), it would be idolatry to worship Him.
But if you believe that Jesus should NOT be worshiped, how do you explain the passages of Scripture that clearly teach that Jesus must be worshiped? (See Hebrews 1:6, Philippians 2:9-11, Revelation Chapter 5, John 5:23)
So, with Arianism, the way I see it, you are either worshiping a creature, or you are ignoring God's command to worship Jesus.
yknot said:
"What was the point of the temptation of Jesus? If he had chosen to bow down to Satan what would have happened to this triune equation? If he wasn't able to fail, again what was the point of the event?"
I will reply to this very good question tomorrow (or the next day). I don't have time at this moment to prepare, write it out, and explain it the best way that it should be explained. (it takes some deep thinking, and I'm tired tonight, :-) LOL)
yknot said:
"Does salvation really hinge on this interpretational understanding over acceptance of Christ?"
Well, if you really think about it, wouldn't the two teachings have to go hand-in-hand?
I mean, if you don't know who Jesus was, or what He did for you, and you just blindly put your trust in someone or something called "Jesus," is that true faith? Is that going to save you? Is that the kind of faith God wants us to have?
If I put my trust in a Jesus who is Almighty God, and you put your trust in an angel you call "Jesus," are we both putting our trust in the same Person?
If Jesus is truly Almighty God, how do you think He feels about people who say He is just an angel or a man? By the same token, if Jesus is not Almighty God, how do you think The Father feels about those who commit idolatry by worshiping Jesus?
How can you have a relationship with someone if you don't know who he is?
Bottom line, here is what Jesus said:
"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins. ... I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:24, 58, NIV)