Trinity
So, I was talking with a good friend who I consider to be fairly advanced in the faith. She is attending a small group in which she feels very connected and edified, and considers her groupmates (better word?) to be solid Christians as well. Anyway, she came to find out a few days ago (well, weeks at this point...I'm a little slow) that many of the people in the group do not believe in the Trinity. In particular, Jesus was not God. Rather, the term Son of God somehow denotes son in a non-begotten sense.
Which got me to thinking--how does one translate certain passages to make this an intellectually plausible view? For instance, Isaiah 9:6 refers to the Messiah as "Mighty God." In particular, the same Hebrew word is used here as in Isaiah 10:21, which is refering to God Himself (thank you Jews for Jesus pamphlet). In Genesis 1:26, it talks about God making man in "our" image, not "His" or "my" image. In John 1:1, it talks about the Word being with God and actually being God. These are just a few that came to mind...
So seriously, I want audience participation here. I realize the concept of the Trinity is very difficult to understand, and on face may even be distasteful, but I feel like you sacrifice too much in terms of Scripture to make that view acceptable. Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't make it false. In one sense, Christianity isn't "easy." Understanding God isn't "easy."
How would someone holding this view deal with passages like what I mentioned?
Which got me to thinking--how does one translate certain passages to make this an intellectually plausible view? For instance, Isaiah 9:6 refers to the Messiah as "Mighty God." In particular, the same Hebrew word is used here as in Isaiah 10:21, which is refering to God Himself (thank you Jews for Jesus pamphlet). In Genesis 1:26, it talks about God making man in "our" image, not "His" or "my" image. In John 1:1, it talks about the Word being with God and actually being God. These are just a few that came to mind...
So seriously, I want audience participation here. I realize the concept of the Trinity is very difficult to understand, and on face may even be distasteful, but I feel like you sacrifice too much in terms of Scripture to make that view acceptable. Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't make it false. In one sense, Christianity isn't "easy." Understanding God isn't "easy."
How would someone holding this view deal with passages like what I mentioned?
posted by spocktongue at 10:34 PM
9 Comments:
Hey, did you know this site actually shows up in French when you're in France?
Seriously, best sermon the pastor at home ever preached (though that doesn't say much) was about the Trinity. She used the analogy of an apple: skin, flesh, core. Each part can stand alone and still be something, but no part by itself is a whole apple.
Of course, you could also argue that God only used the we stuff to appeal to the pagan population who were used to multiple deities...but I don't really have anything to back that up (cuz I don't beleive it), but I like to argue.
:-D
I didn't really ever think too much about it... It never was an issue for me, and I think idea of a King in heaven who sent a Son to earth (and that Son knowing the ways of the "father" without any desiare to disobey)and the Son who with the Father sends the Holy Spirit to give guidance because the Son was meant to return to the right hand of the King to advocate for us just makes sense. :) Maybe it is just one of those interpretation things that the Holy Spirit has done for me, but I see them working so intrinsically together, that one part doesn't make sense without the other.
Pete thinks about these things... I will ask him what he thinks and get back to you. Michelle, I love the "Apple Analogy" as it will be forever thought of in my brain!
The apple analogy kinda works. It's actually a pretty good one.
I'd like to add that while God is all 3 parts and those "parts" have different jobs and funtions, they aren't exactly separable, either. I mean, you can't completely separte Jesus from God the Father b/c they are the same, they exist in each other b/c they are literally one. Sorry, don't know how to explain that any better right now. Kinda tired.
While this is an "issue" that is hard to wrap our tiny human brains around, so is the immutability of God (y'know, the fact that He does not change) and the infiniteness of God.
There are so many mysteries about God that we probably will never understand, but that's where faith comes in. So to me, it's ultimately a matter of faith. Do I choose to believe what the God has revealed about Himself?
I guess I'm not a huge fan of the apple analogy (or an egg, as I originally heard it) because of exactly the point Christine was making (at least, I think it's what she's making): you can't separate the Son from the Godhead. You can remove the skin of an apple, and it's somehow a distinct thing. In some way, Jesus isn't.
With that being said, can anyone actually be an apologist for the "other" side? Maybe a resident seminary student?
I belive that the trinity is a mystery, and God the Father, the son, and the holy spirit work together in different forms. I don't think you can "separate" them from one anther because they are one in the same.
Wow, you've got a big discussion on your hands, bum.
The first thing I want to say is historical in nature. The idea that Jesus was not God - in particular, that Jesus was created by God (as a father "creates" a son) - is part of the Arian heresy of the fourth century AD. It was historically done away with by the Council of Nicea (325 AD) - hence the Nicene Creed's statement "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." So this question is not new, and it has already been answered.
The Trinity isn't a specifically biblical doctrine. It kind of grew out of the life and thought of the early church as believers made connections among various biblical passages. (There are a few places in the NT where all three are mentioned - for instance, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20.) But this doesn't mean that it's a false doctrine that was created by the early church; instead, it's more like the early church gradually realized the truth about the nature of God.
How would someone holding an opposing view deal with these kinds of passages? Good question. I don't really know where they're coming from, except what you said in your post. If Jesus is not God, then the crucifixion and resurrection don't make much sense, among other things. I guess I'm having a hard time trying to defend their perspective because I believe it's not defendable.
Said more succinctly: If you consider yourself a follower of Christ, then you must believe that Jesus is God and that the Trinity is what the Trinity is. It's part of the package deal.
I'm up for discussing this until the second coming. :) What do you think?
(Maybe my two papers on the Trinity could be helpful? I don't know.)
First what a I came here for: Merry Christmas and now if that html works, about this Trinity talk.....
Props for just having it!
Also, I'm not too sure I'm diggin that apple thing either man. I dunno. hmmm... Always liked the phrase: "One what and three who's" though. Hey do you know what "church"-thing (better word?) :) your friend's friends might associate themselves with? At first it reminded me of Oneness-pentecostal "strict-monotheism" but that's not right. That might help me in finding their case for their conclusion. Given their cultic theology, though, perhaps they just play scrip-twist-ure games (like JW's and Mormons)rather than having any sensable case.
Someone hit the buzword for me. Mystery. As it's no doubt been said before, I'd find it easier to believe in a God I don't easily understand given just the wonders I've crossed in his universe.
God bless.
Thanks, Dave, for that info. I do think that, as you've mentioned, Jesus never said the word "Trinity", he did allude to it and discuss characteristics of it. Thanks for saying what my lack of study cannot. Oh, and I can't help but agree that other doctrines are not and cannot be trustworthy without the trinity.
And thanks, Shawn, for clarifying my words into those that were actually comprehensible. :)
Ben, is "demonination" the word you're looking for?? (not sure) I, too, would like to know the answer to that question.
Don't know if you all would care to look at this or not, but speaking of seminary students, here's the blog of a friend of mine (student at Southern) and his brother and friend. They make you think!!
Hey man it's 4am so if am dreamin while I write this forgive me if it goes astray.... :) I was thinking... why are they studying the Bible if they don't believe
it regarding Jesus's divinity (www.dougbeaumont.org/SoulDevice/christian_doctrine_christ.htm)? and then why is your mature friend going there? Perhaps to witness? well they are her friends.... I understand that part.
I know "denomination" is sometimes used more broafly, but (and dictionary dot come agreed with me) ;) I use that phrase in referencing them protestant Christian subgroups. So, I wouldn't use it to refer to a group that teaches (www.net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Galatians%201:8-9) another gospel, with another Jesus (www.net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Galatians%201:8-9) as denominational since they're more dAvinci code than Christian on that point.
Still hoping to know her church background. Oh and Thanks for the link, petite américaine.
I'm so tired. I'm out for now. peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home