"My mentor Joe Riley coined the phase the Twinity. I think that pretty much sums up my theology"
"Binitarian" is a term that exists within the broad spectrum of mainstream Christianity.
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
KalebOutWest
Praotes1914
My mentor Joe Riley coined the phase the Twinity.
From my Jewish point of view, that's just another Christian making up another dogma, but as I like to say: You do you. I like that word "Twinity."
However, I can give the Trinitarians this. The term "Son" doesn't mean "child" or "male offspring" as the Gospel wasn't written in English. You are just reading it in English. It was composed by Jews in a Roman world.
The term "son of god" in the Roman world meant "incarnation of a deity" such a when Caesar claimed he was divine.
Also in Hebrew, as in Psalm 2:7, when God tells the anointed king that he begets him as a "son," it doesn't mean that God is making the earthly king into another male child or turning him into a new male offspring of God. It means that the person is anointed as a divine representative of God, almost like an "image" or a "logo" such as a trademark for a corporation, becoming like God to the people. Of interest the Greek word logos is translated "Word" in John 1:1 and literally means "representative" or "image."
The expression "son of man" doesn't mean "child of man" but merely "a man" or even "me, myself and I." It is a Hebrewism. The expression "son of David" doesn't mean "child of David" but the Messiah. A blind beggar uses this to his advantage and gets rebuked by a crowd when trying to get Jesus' attention, but Jesus calls it an act of faith and heals him for it.--Luke 18:35-43.
Thus the expression "Son of God" has implications in my culture not created by Christianity. It is one of the main reasons Jesus of Nazareth is rejected by the Jewish people because this is a direct title and claim of divinity in Hebrew culture.
-
aqwsed12345
@KalebOutWest
The problem is that although JWs use biblical terminology, they wish to derive non-biblical thoughts from it. From the expression 'Son of God,' they want to deduce that the Son is not God, although it does not mean that. It is a silly play on words by the JWs that "Jesus is not God but his Son." One should just understand the expression "Son of God." When we say 'Son of God' referring to Jesus, it answers the question of who he is, and the statement that he is 'God' answers the question of what he is. It is entirely clear that a person whose father is God will himself be God. Just as the son of man is man, and the foal of a horse is a horse.
There are three senses in which someone can be "Son of God." In the broadest sense, every human is a child of God, that is, a creation of God's providential care. In a more narrow sense, sonship to God means being the possessor of supernatural grace, of supernatural rebirth in God, which comes about when God no longer regards us as servants, but as adopted sons. In the narrowest sense, "Son of God" refers to the second divine person, who in some way beyond our comprehension has been "begotten" by the Father from eternity, proceeds, emanates from Him; but in such a way that they are one in being, essence, one God. That Jesus was the Son of God in this last sense has been shown above. This sonship is expressed in Scripture as talking about the "only begotten Son," while we humans can only be God's adopted sons, metaphorically speaking, his children. Jesus himself feels a different relationship with the Father than we do; he never says, for example, "our Father," but rather "my Father and your Father." He is the "only begotten Son," who is "in the bosom of the Father." (John 1:18).
In Jewish tradition, a son inherited his father's name, title, and social position. If Jesus inherited the Father's power, rights, and especially His name, then this means that Jesus is the Almighty God. Jesus confirmed this himself.
The Bible calls angels "sons of God" (Hebrew b'né Elohim) (Job 38:7, Psalm 36:9) and collectively refers to Judaism, the whole nation, as God's "son" (Hos 11:1). At the same time, no Jew could personally call God his own father, as if he were directly descended from God Himself, because this would have made him God as well (cf. Jn 10:33).
Jesus referred to himself with two specific expressions: he is the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." The "son of ...." structure, like in other languages, mostly expresses a genealogical relationship in Hebrew (e.g., Jonah's son, Simon), but it is also a unique grammatical phenomenon in Hebrew that does not relate but qualifies, for example, the "sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2) are those who are disobedient, as the "son of death" is dead.
Firstly, therefore, when Jesus declared himself to be "the Son of Man" (Mt 16:13), it primarily means: "who is Man." Secondly, this expression is a figure from an Old Testament apocalyptic vision, one who "sits at the right hand of the Mighty One," and who, returning to earth, will be the king of the nations (Dan 7:13-14 cf. Mt 26:63-66, 25:31). From the reactions, it is clear that Jesus' contemporaries understood precisely the kind of authority Jesus claimed for himself with the title Son of Man.
On the other hand, Jesus also declared himself to be "the Son of God," which means: "who is God." In terms of his relationship with the Father, he is God's only Son (Jn 3:16; "only begotten" = unique), therefore he is the Son (1Jn 1:3, 2:22-24, 3:17, 4:9,14, 5:12, etc.), to whom God personally is His own Father (Mt 11:27, Lk 10:22, Jn 10:32-38), through whom the Father teaches and acts (Jn 14:10-11). As he said: "all that the Father has is mine" (Jn 16:15), since "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). Jews understood Jesus' self-proclamations as making himself "God, being a man" (Jn 10:33), because his words could not be understood differently with an Old Testament and Hebrew ear.
It is noteworthy that, according to the New Testament, believers are also "sons of God" (Gal 3:27), but while the Son is inherently, eternally God by his own nature, believers become partakers of His divine nature – in character, immortality, glory – through God's grace (2Pt 1:4, 2Cor 3:18, 1Jn 3:2, 1Cor 15:53-54).
From the idea of "sonship" here, we naturally must distance ourselves from any notion derived from human life according to which the father exists first, and only after some time does the son come into being, which means the father is greater, stronger, wiser, and in comparison, the son is for a long time entirely subordinate. Instead, we should consider what "sonship" meant in the context of ancient Eastern patriarchal conditions, where in the son, the entire household could see the father's alter ego, the heir to all his possessions, a sharer in all his authority. And we can think of the often-occurring phenomenon where the adult son often indeed appears as a carbon copy of the father. The same facial features, the same movements, the same way of speaking and thinking, as if the father lives a second life through the son. When the Father is God, not at a certain point in time, but from eternity to eternity, He pours out the life of the Son of God from Himself, in that He can contemplate a mirror image of His own being, and He projects His true likeness before us so that we may know Him from it. The Son is the same God but in a different manner: in the form of God revealing Himself. The Bible expresses this clearly and aptly when it refers to the Son with a different designation as the "Word," which – or rather who – was "with God" from eternity, and "was God." The Son of God is thus the living God in His articulation, the eternal Word, in which God expresses Himself.
-
BoogerMan
@ andr - You said, "The Trinity there is as Father Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned in several biblical verses."
Can you cite any of these several scriptures?
From what I've researched/studied, Biblical & external evidence shows that Matthew 28:19 was almost certainly "altered" pre/post-Nicene creed. (1 John 5:7 needs no comment)
I've found only one Bible verse which actually mentions Jesus Christ, God, & the Holy Spirit in the same breath, while not even hinting at a co-equal, co-eternal "trinity."
-
aqwsed12345
Colossians 1:15
Let's delve into the "partitive" issue. Scripture frequently states in the New Testament that the Son is begotten (eɡénnese) or born (eteke) of the Father. However, nowhere in the New Testament do we read that He was "created" (ektise), "made" (epoise), or "came into being" (egeneto).
First, consider why, if it is such a fundamental teaching that the Son is a creature, this isn't explicitly stated anywhere? If you took the principle of 'sola Scriptura' seriously, which according to the standard Protestant interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6 means “do not go beyond what is written,” then the fact that Scripture uses the terminology of begotten/born should suffice, and you should simply state that the Son is begotten/born ofthe Father, period.
But no, you insist that He was created/made, and since such a statement does not exist, you cling to three verses whose context isn't even about this. Of these, Proverbs 8:22 and Colossians 1:15 were already cited by the 4th-century Arians, but not Revelation 3:14, as no ancient Koine Greek speaker interpreted it that way, even though they had the Book of Revelation.
Now, let's focus on Colossians 1:15 and its alleged "partitive" nature.
The genitive structure (“something of something”) inherently expresses a relationship, and what kind of relationship depends on the narrower or broader context and the meanings of the words. Moreover, Greek allows for nuances to be fine-tuned with word order, which you can't reverse in English. "The house of the dog" is different from "the dog of the house," etc.
The standard interpretation of Colossians 1:15 is that the Son holds the position of "preeminent one," "distinguished heir," "supreme one" concerning "all creation." According to Matthew 28:18, this is trivial. The relationship is therefore one of supremacy. Whether He is a creature or not, the statement does not determine this positively or negatively—it does not declare Him a creature nor declare that He isn't. You claim that besides confessing His supremacy, this statement also declares that the Son is part of the created order.
On what basis do you claim this? You assert that since the Scripture generally portrays firstborns as members of the category to which their "firstbornness" is related, it follows that the "firstborn of X" inherently and automatically means partitive—it is impossible to declare someone the firstborn of a category without simultaneously acknowledging their inclusion in that category. What a bold claim! But let's see!
This kind of “rule”-setting is a foolish method. There are no strict "rules," at most tendencies. Interestingly, in Luke 23:43, the comma is after "to you," as in all other introductory phrases (even in the NWT, 73 out of 74 times!). Still, they do not follow the logic that it should always be the same.
Indeed, there are inherently partitive expressions. For example, if someone is "the best student of the university," it not only means that they are the best but also that they are a student of that university. This follows because conceptually, one cannot be the "best student" without being a student.
But can one be the "firstborn" of something without being part of that category? It depends on the meaning of "firstborn" in the given expression. If we take the standard, everyday literal meaning, i.e., "the person who was born first," then no, because one cannot be the firstborn of a family or a person without being born from them, thus conceptually belonging to that category. But here, it is not the "firstborn of X" formula that establishes inclusion in the category but the applied meaning of "firstborn."
The situation is different if "firstborn" refers not to "being born first" but to the biblical concept of birthright, which has conceptually diverged from being born into something and declares supremacy. In Colossians 1:15, "firstborn" clearly means preeminent status, possession of the birthright, and then we only need to ask: Can someone hold a preeminent status concerning a category without being part of that category? If the answer is yes, as it evidently is, then it is not true that the expression used there is inherently partitive. The key is the required conceptual necessity.
You can interpret it this way, but a "maybe" is not evidence, just as a prosecutor cannot cite something as "evidence" that only shows "it may prove the defendant's guilt."
-
Blotty
" absurd and even ridiculous to have a tantrum of the alleged "later development" - this later development isn't a myth - its true, most encyclopaedia's can tell you this...
and you mentioning something that developed 2000 years later (apparently) just shows your own insecurity as Wonderment has pointed out...
Why do you need to point this out? this is self evident.. no one claimed "Jehovahs Witnesses" existed 2000 years ago...
Just like no Witness claims "Jehovah" appeared in the OT - This is entirely self evident because the writers of the OT didn't know English and Jehovah is an English word.
If you hate Witnesses and their doctrines so much, get off this forum and go annoy other catholics (quite frankly you put me off Catholicism in general with the way you act - not a good look)
You aren't going to convince anyone here who is not already trinitarian with the way you talk... you have double standards.
argument from silence really? Witnesses could argue the same thing in the opposite direction and have more success thanks to people like Philo..
your "human nature" doctrine doesn't really work either... as the context about Philippians 2 is about humility.. and acts 2:36 says he was made "lord" and has no limiting statement to any "nature" in fact one commentary states its related to the psalm cited..
"The word "Lord" is used with special reference to the prophetic utterance of the Psalm thus cited. There is a rhetorical force in the very order of the words which the English can scarcely give" (Google for source)
and inheriting fathers names... does that make any son equal to their Father?
Does Jesus calling God "My God" 4 times in Rev (as a resurrected being) not constitute him not being God because he also isn't "on" the throne (God is on the throne) but "in the midst" of it
-
andr
when the father and the son and the spirit are mentioned in the scriptures this makes you have three people then the fact of considering them in one way or another does not take away that you have an organization OF 3 hence a trinity another thing is to integrate all this into a more or less classical form of Trinitarian idea I don't know if I'm making myself clear, the most stupid things arise through details if you isolate them they return to being stupid details cordially -
Sea Breeze
The Trinity doctrine says God is three persons in one being.
Your premise is wrong. That's why your scriptures don't fit.
God is three persons in one God. (The same as you are three persons in one man - soul, body & spirit))
Now the scriptures you cited in your OP make sense:
Gal 3.20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. NIV
Gal 3.20 Now a mediator is not for just one person, but God is one. Holman Christian Standard Bible
-
aqwsed12345
Those who do not accept the Trinity often argue that it was introduced into Christianity through the influence of Greek philosophy and pagan deities, during long theological debates. This argument seems to fall apart, as the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity can be demonstrated solely from Scripture. The Old Testament indicates that there is a certain plurality in the Godhead, and the New Testament details this plurality, establishing the theory of Trinitarian monotheism. There is no need to consider the councils and theological debates of the early centuries to prove the Trinity, as the Bible alone (sola Scriptura) is sufficient. We are not influenced by Greek philosophers or early church fathers who debated the Trinity, if we turn solely to the Bible and pray for the Spirit of God to lead us into all truth and teach us the truth (John 16:13; 1 John 2:27).
Nonetheless, important events occurred in the first centuries concerning the doctrine. Christians have always been warned to "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). As early as the 1st century, there were movements that questioned the clear declarations of the Bible. Some denied that Jesus lived among us in a real body, questioning his incarnation. In response, John wrote, "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John 7). Believers had to defend their faith against false ideas and fight for the truth from early on, and this only intensified in later centuries. Christians in apostolic times believed in one God, and within that one God, they worshiped the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was no need to explicitly formulate the doctrine of the Trinity until it was challenged. It was natural for everyone to believe that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Without explicitly stating it, Christians implicitly believed in it. However, when criticisms of the doctrine emerged, it became necessary for the church to officially define what it meant by the Trinity.
The aim of defining the doctrine was not to explain God's existence and confine it to human categories. The early believers were simply motivated by apologetic reasons: they wanted to avoid what the Bible did not teach. The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated against theories like modalism, Arianism, and tritheism. These either denied the personhood of the Holy Spirit or/and the fully human and fully divine nature of Jesus. Modalism did not consider that within the single divine essence, there are three distinct persons, asserting instead that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three manifestations of the same person. This view was soon rejected because it was clear that all three persons exist and manifest themselves distinctively within the Godhead simultaneously. The theory thus emphasized the oneness of God. In contrast, tritheism overly highlighted the distinctiveness of the three persons, falling into the opposite extreme by speaking of three separate, independent gods. These views were not tenable within the church because they contradicted the testimony of the Bible. It was necessary to distance themselves from these and precisely define what orthodox, Scripture-faithful Christians could accept regarding the nature of God and what they could not.
In this atmosphere lived and worked Athanasius, who fought vigorously against the spread of Arianism. He was often exiled from his episcopal office but steadfastly held to his faith and refused to compromise. Although many bishops and church dignitaries in his time inclined towards accepting Arianism (which taught that only the Father is God, and the Son is a created being), many Christians clung to what they saw in the Bible. During the prolonged struggle, Emperor Constantine sought to unify Christianity. As a Roman emperor, he saw the unity of the empire in the unity of Christianity. Therefore, he wanted to settle the issue and convened an ecumenical council in Nicaea (325) for the bishops to agree on the truth. There, they adopted a Trinitarian creed. However, the debate continued, and the Arians temporarily prevailed, as an emperor who accepted Arius's teachings, Constantius, ascended the throne. He was followed by Theodosius I, who convened another council in Constantinople, where they reaffirmed the Nicene Creed:
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."Of course, the history of the doctrine is much more complex. The most important thing to see is that the doctrine was not invented at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381); it was merely universally formulated as the truth recognized from the Bible and believed in the preceding centuries. It did not develop under the influence of pagan deities and triads, nor Greek philosophical thinking. The foundation of the Trinity is the Scripture. It was formulated to defend the information found in the Bible and to prevent heretical teachings.
What is the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity? Firstly, the doctrine is inseparable from one of God's fundamental attributes. If God existed as only one person, He could not be who He is. God is love (1 John 4:8), but love is a relational concept, and if God had been a solitary being before the creation of the world, He could not be love without His creatures; He would need others to be who He is. However, God is the Almighty, self-sufficient, needing nothing from anyone else. Within the Godhead, there have always been three persons who shared perfect love even before the creation of the world. Yet, it was only with the New Testament, with the distinct appearance of the Son and the Spirit as divine persons, that it could be said, "God is love" (1 John 4:16).
Secondly, the doctrine is inseparable from the doctrine of redemption. We are sinners, and God is just. Our sins must either be accounted for us (justly punished), or God must bear the cost Himself and provide satisfaction (He offers atonement) and forgive (cancels the debt). If God were to forgive "just like that" without atonement, He would not be just. Since we sinned against Him, we must receive forgiveness from Him, but no one can compel Him to forgive, and no creature (human, animal, angel) can offer atonement to the Creator for themselves or another creature. Animal sacrifices were only temporary and could not cleanse the conscience (Hebrews 10:2-4). If God arbitrarily chose an innocent creature (e.g., an angel) to suffer in place of humans, it would demonstrate that He is unjust, unable to resolve the situation on His own, and we would be grateful to the angel for forgiveness, not to God. If an angel volunteered to be a scapegoat, it would still mean God was unjust, unable to solve the situation on His own, and furthermore, indebted to one of His creatures, who would receive more gratitude than God. However, God became man in Jesus, and on the cross, "God obtained His church with His own blood" (Hebrews 9:12, Acts 20:28 cf. Revelation 1:17-18). God is just, but He loved us so much that He did not want to punish us: when the Son became man in Jesus, He made atonement to the Father on the cross; all this happened "within God." If God were not a Trinity, we could not be redeemed in a way that preserves God's omnipotence, upholds justice, makes His love real, and directs all gratitude to Him alone.
Thirdly, the doctrine is inseparable from Christian ethics. The perfect relationship within the Godhead serves as an example for us. As the Father loved the Son, so the Son loved us, and we must love one another with this same love (John 15:9-12). This love is made real, experienceable, and transmittable through the divine and personal nature of the persons and the work of the Holy Spirit.
A brief theological perspective: As you probably know, Islam professes strict monotheism, meaning it does not tolerate any plurality in God, Allah. He is only one person and has existed alone for all time. However, there is a problem. According to traditional interpretation, the text of the Quran is not created in time but has existed eternally. This is logical because if something is revealed truth, it must also be timeless. And again, we arrive at the same issue: there necessarily must be at least two entities in eternity: one originating and one originated. This, however, violates the strict monotheism of Islam, and Islamic theology struggles to address this. This problem was recognized by the theological school of the Mutazilites, originating from Sunni Islam but utilizing principles of Hellenistic philosophy. They realized that the idea that the Quran is not created but eternal challenges the oneness of Allah (more precisely, His unique eternality) because it implies that alongside Allah, there is something else that has existed eternally. This dualistic viewpoint is incompatible with Allah's teachings found within the Quran itself. Thus, they argue similarly to Arianism: the Quran, as the World of God, is the first but most excellent creation (not speaking of a person, but of a revealed entity), yet this again leads to a contradiction as mentioned above. :-) Doesn't this brief perspective remind you of the Christian doctrine of the Logos (λόγος)? :-)