Trinity- True or False (page 19)

inquirer

If Satan, judges and bellies be gods, why can't Jesus? Why can't a "good character" in the Bible claim this such unique and powerful status?

http://www.notrinity.com

Inquirer,

Moses and the Kings of Israel were also God to the people they governed. The term God identifies no one in particular but it does identify the function they perform. Used in the context of the Supreme Being there is but One God. But used in the context of someone of something that rules over us it can be used of men such as Jesus the human being standing before Thomas. No scriptural rule is violated by such use. It is not the term God but the context in which it is used that determines if we have violated the one God rule. And as you pointed out this context was identified and brought out in the text.

But take a closer look at this rule. Some texts state it like this:

Ex 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

This is not simply God. It is the specific God called YHWH or LORD as it is translated here. This is the Supreme Being and while this YHWH can change such a rule later when it comes to His human Son this was not done for any Jews in the days of Moses.

Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Such angels would be resurrected humans brought into the Kingdom at some future time, and in this case it would specifically refer to the Jews or those messengers (angels) of old that served to propagate and preserve this message for us.

Even in such cases the word worship has many meanings of its own that would make such other use of the word worship difficult to discern. It would be difficult to understand why anyone so resurrected would not have deep respect and appreciation for such a firstbegotten and thus worship him for such reasons. This would be not as the God YHWH or some other God of similar authority but as His chosen representative much as Moses was in times past or as a Hebrew King according to this passage in Hebrews.

Joseph

LittleToe

Jo:If "God" is simply a title, and "YHWH" is merely a name, what relevance do they then have, if He lends them out right an left? Further, why does Thomas call Jesus "Lord AND God"? Further still, if the Father is "God" merely because of the ultimate supreme authority vested in Him, how is it that Jesus is called Lord of Lords and King of Kings?

Besides, where was Moses ever worshipped?

Inq:Disputing the Trinity, in your argument, just weakens your case, IMHO. Wh waste words, when you can consign them to the subject at hand? What did Thomas mean by calling him this? How did he differ materially from the Father?

Thomas uses a double title - "My Lord and my God". This surely conveys more meaning than just authority?

Cygnus

I'm just happy to believe that none of these conversations actually took place, so it's just a little fun to look at them and have a scholastic interchange of ideas.

I personally think Joe Malik's ideas make a lot of sense. St. Augustine and Athanasius would have course disagree but they were jerks and long dead.

JosephMalik

LT, I described this relevance and the real problem is with individuals that cannot grasp such facts. Some see words apart from their context and use. I see words and their use both contextually and historically. LT: Besides, where was Moses ever worshipped? Worship was used of humans in OT days without violating texts that seem to prevent such worship. You need it spelled out in some text but the way Moses was treated should be enough. Yet worship was spelled out in some OT texts and it is to these that I refer. LT: Disputing the Trinity, in your argument, just weakens your case,

In your dreams! I will let the readers determine such things for themselves.

LT: What did Thomas mean by calling him this? How did he differ materially from the Father?

Thomas uses a double title - "My Lord and my God". This surely conveys more meaning than just authority?

I will let you answer first and offer your interpretation and proofs for all this. This way you will be commited and a proper comparison of alternate views can be made.

Joseph

LittleToe

Jo:
Methinks you're mixing up some of the comments that I explicitly left for Inquirer, as being for yourself. But nonetheless...

Moses, rather than being worshipped, was grumbled about - that is the context in the OT. Even a great humongous pillar of fire and smoke didn't stop the people doing this. There's not one occasion of him being worshipped, even though allegedly he was to be a "god" to them. His "godship" would merely be a shadow of the reality that belonged to Christ, as with all the tabernacle ordinances.

I believe Thomas, as well as declaring Jesus Lordship over him, was also confessing his godship. He was worshipping him as the one who had done as he promised, and risen from the dead, the one who had all power and authority, etc.

This is the context and message of John, from start to finish - the deity of Christ as the very Son of God. Not merely a message-boy.

Above and beyond that, I'm not linking these comments with the Trinity, etc., but simply speaking of Christ. To infer otherwise is to distract, and as you can see, I'm not all that enamoured with games of sleight-of-hand....

Cygnus

LT, were Thomas' words in Jn 20:28 recorded in Greek in a vocative sense or an exclamatory sense?

JosephMalik

Moses, rather than being worshipped, was grumbled about - that is the context in the OT.

LT:

We see only what we want to see don’t we? For thousands of years Moses was held in high regard to the point where it was said of him:

Ac 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Ac 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

And even in the Revelation we have:

Re 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Somebody changed their minds somewhere along the line did they not?

LT: I believe Thomas, as well as declaring Jesus Lordship over him, was also confessing his godship. He was worshipping him as the one who had done as he promised, and risen from the dead, the one who had all power and authority, etc. Of course he was. But Thomas was not declaring that this Jesus was the Supreme Being or YHWH. John made this clear in John 1:1 discussed earlier. And this power, this authority was passed on to this Jesus by such YHWH. John knew where such authority came from for he said 5:26 “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” Thus Jesus is Lord (not LORD) and he is the Messiah or Christ our God as stated by John in fact and function.

LT: This is the context and message of John, from start to finish - the deity of Christ as the very Son of God. Not merely a message-boy.

But not God in the context of the Supreme Being. Christ’s deity is manifest in both his human and non-human nature. I call it the hypostasis of Christ using the word hypostasis in its generic form. This quality is unique to him being born also of man and will be exercised fully when he returns here to this earth to rule as King. The deity of God is another matter entirely as its use deals with graven images and imposters. Deity is not identity and its use is not confined to a Supreme Being. Christians however are called Son(s) as well so how is this distinction so meaningful or what verse does it alter or doctrine does it affect? 1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

This is our hope, and our message as such disciples to proclaim. The rest is up to history as we wait on its fulfillment.

Joseph

Kenneson

Joseph,

You seem to apply Col. 1:16 to everyone human. Do you, therefore, believe in non-human heavenly messengers called angels? If you do, were they created and by whom?

Was it human messengers that appear in the Gospels at Mt. 1:20; Mt. 2:13, 19? Who is the angel in Lk. 1:11 and Gabriel in verse 26? Who are the heavenly host with the angel at Luke 2:13? Did humans minister to Jesus after His temptation (Mt. 4:11; Mk. 1:1 and strengthen Him during His agony (Lk. 22:43.)?

Was it a human that released Peter and John from prison (Acts 5:19) Was it a human that struck Herod Agrippa with a disease (Acts 12:23)? Was it a human that revealed to Paul that he would appear before Caesar at Acts 27:23? Did Jesus send a human messenger to John at Rev. 1:1? The worship of whom is repudiated at Col. 2:18?

It seems to me that the belief in heavenly beings called angels runs through the entire Bible.

LittleToe

It appears unlikely, in the finally analysis, that we are contending over anything more substantial than words. Since we both accept that the Son is not the Father, and there is a clear relationship between the two, to continue would likely only be to restate the contents of the last half dozen pages.

That we both accept the deity of Christ is sufficient to my interest in this thread. The holding of other diverse opinions doesn't detract one iota from that fact that I'm pleased to call you "brother". Once more I've thoroughly enjoyed our exchange

Shalom.

Trinity- True or False

Share this