Some Questions for Christians (and others)

Originally posted by miriam0566


what you are saying is that jesus distinguishes himself from the father, but you are claiming they are the same god. it means in the end they are different aspects of the same person. they CANT be 2 different witnesses.

No, they are not two aspects of the same person. The doctrine is much more subtle than that.
From a Trinitarian point of view, it is
a) Wrong to say that the Trinity are three different individuals. This is the Tritheistic heresy.
b) and also wrong to say that the Trinity are three different aspects of one individuals. That is the Sabellian heresy. I am not a Sabellian.
The nearest the human mind can get to an accurate statement is that the truth is half-way between the two.
As the Athanasian Creed says, one must avoid either "confounding the persons" (which is what you think I'm saying) or "denying the unity" (which would be your own teaching).

Anyway, the relevance of this to your argument is that they are sufficiently distinct to amount to two witnesses.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by miriam0566


I am about to vanish off to a Bible study, so I can't stay for more than a brief riposte.

Just- yes, of course this is unusual grammar, but the point is that ex hypothesi it is an unusual situation. I would not speak like that, but then I've never been in the position of claiming to be God. Surely the jar between the description of Abraham- "came to be" and the tense Jesus uses for himself points to the fact that soemthing unusual is being said.
The comment is bad grammar ONLY if Jesus is saying what you think he is saying. If he actually wanted to quote Exodus, how else do you think he would have said it?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God in the same way that the spirit of a man knows a man's thoughts. Would you say that Miriam and the mind of Miriam are two different things? Or are they one and the same? In the same way, I would say that the Spirit of God is God.

again, context shows there is more to this scripture that whats being said.

you are right, miriam and the mind of miriam are not 2 different people, so how can the holy spirit be the 3rd person of the trinity?

would you consider for example, my hand, to be me? no, it is a part of me. it follows my will and allows me to work.

is the holy spirit a part of god. yes, we agree on that. but it is not a person. it is however more than a hand.

if god gave jesus authority over the congregation, why wouldnt he said holy spirit to help jesus and his followers?

how does showing jesus the same respect shown to God make him God?

Because if you are not regarding him as God, you are NOT giving him the same respect as that shown to God.

Honouring God, honouring the Father, necessarily includes saying "You are God".
If the honour you are giving to Christ falls short of that, you are not giving him the same honour. You are not giving him equal honour. The only way that you can honour the Son EVEN AS you honour the Father is to say to the Son exactly what you would say to the Father- "You are God".

i dont agree.

"honor your father and your mother" - does that statement mean that because they are separate people they deserve different amounts of honor?

how do you show honor? isnt it by being obedient?

can you be less obedient to jesus than to god?

you putting words in the bible's mouth. "The only way that you can honour the Son EVEN AS you honour the Father is to say to the Son exactly what you would say to the Father- "You are God". - is not supported scripturally

Originally posted by DISRAELI
No, they are not two aspects of the same person. The doctrine is much more subtle than that.
From a Trinitarian point of view, it is
a) Wrong to say that the Trinity are three different individuals. This is the Tritheistic heresy.
b) and also wrong to say that the Trinity are three different aspects of one individuals. That is the Sabellian heresy. I am not a Sabellian.
The nearest the human mind can get to an accurate statement is that the truth is half-way between the two.
As the Athanasian Creed says, one must avoid either "confounding the persons" (which is what you think I'm saying) or "denying the unity" (which would be your own teaching).

Anyway, the relevance of this to your argument is that they are sufficiently distinct to amount to two witnesses.

what it sounds like your saying is that they are NOT one AND they are NOT three....

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Just- yes, of course this is unusual grammar, but the point is that ex hypothesi it is an unusual situation. I would not speak like that, but then I've never been in the position of claiming to be God. Surely the jar between the description of Abraham- "came to be" and the tense Jesus uses for himself points to the fact that soemthing unusual is being said.
The comment is bad grammar ONLY if Jesus is saying what you think he is saying. If he actually wanted to quote Exodus, how else do you think he would have said it?

ok, your not fully understanding what im saying.

the is a difference between transliteration and translation.

- transliteration is where you translate word for word in a literal way.
- translation is where you translate the meaning of the phrase

for example.

in spanish i would say "lo siento mucho"

now the transliteration would be "it i feel much". this means nothing in english. but based on the context of usage, the translation would be "i'm so sorry"

in koine. the statement "I am" is grammatically correct. but if you transliterate it (as the KJV translators did) it doesn't make sense. the english translation would HAVE to be "i have been"

in other words, there is an agenda. this passage was intentionally mistranslated to suggest a quotation that isnt there in the original languages.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
On the translation of "Harpagmon";
"Thing to be grasped" or "Thing to be retained"?
Much disputed, I admit. I do think I've got Dr Lightfoot with me on this one.
Also, I think. it makes more sense in terms of the context.

On my interpretation, the antithesis in vv6-7 is;
"He did not keep hold of X
But he let go of X".
On your interpretation, it comes out as;
"He did not grasp hold of X
But he let go of Y".

lets examine the context.

phillipians 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

first clue. paul is compairing our attitude with jesus'. if jesus is god, then how is this situation even remotely comparible?

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

this entire passage is a lesson in humility for us by using jesus as an example. if jesus is God, then why would he need to be humble? there is no reason and infact it makes things more confusing.

however, jesus is not God. Jesus is God's son and servant. he submits to his fathers will (luke 22:42). of all the people in the universe, you would think that jesus would have the most right to gloat alittle. and that is the point that paul is getting at.

jesus is the most important person in God's eyes. and yet even jesus does not strive to challenge God.

"He existed in the form of God" - verse 7 and 8 offer a contrast to him "being made in the likeness of men". from the context, we can see that form here means that jesus was a spirit creature.

"did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" - the word here "αρπαγμον" which is translated "grasped" literally means robbery or sieze. whether the correct translation is "Thing to be grasped" or "Thing to be retained" doesnt matter. both refer to something that does NOT belong to jesus. in other words, it is not jesus' place to be equal to god.

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

to understand the humility of this, jesus says

matt 11:[11] Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

jesus, by becoming a man accepted a lower position than he had before. (hebrews 2:9)

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

1 - obedient to who? If Jesus is in fact God, then he has no need fo obedience. but instead he is a servent submitting to his fathers will. (1 cor 11:3; 1 cor 15:28)

2 - "to the point of death" - simply put, God cannot die (Psalm 90:2)

the context of the passage itself shows that jesus is not God nor is he equal to God. this is why jesus can say "my Father is greater than I." (john 14:28)

Whereas in the translation which you support, there is no genuine antithesis. If he doesn't already have equality with God in the first half of the statement, then he must be giving up something completely different in the second half of the statement, where it is said that he "emptied himself".

you are assuming that the meaning is "to retain" but you are forgetting the root of the word which is "to rob" or "to sieze"

either way, the scripture, according to your meaning, jesus was stealing or had already stolen equality with god. this makes no sense in either (trinitarian or nontrinitarian) doctrine.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by miriam0566]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by miriam0566]

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by miriam0566
john 1:[18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

if GOD WITH US so clearly shows that jesus is God, then why is John lying to us?

Miriam are you telling me that you cannot make a distinction between person and nature according to the Bible when it comes to Jesus.Doesn't the elders at your kingdom hall teach this?

i fail to see how your statment has anything to do with mine.

if jesus is God, how is it that no man has seen him?

Originally posted by oliveoil
if this person uses their brain correctly they would see the obvious conclusion. The son of a goat is a goat. The son of a horse is a horse. the son of a dog is a dog. The son of a man is a man. And the son of God is... well they can fill in the blank. There is no distinction. This person needs to learn the distinction between person and nature then the whole bible will "open" up. Everything will make sense.

LOL, I probably only make sense to myself....

Oh and yes yes Miriam I have heard your argument many times before. The son of God is just that.. the son. Not God himself. This is where you get confused between person and nature.Jesus has all the attributes of God therefore he is God. Get it?

im sorry oliveoil, but i not entirely convinced that you are aware of what exactly the church teaches.

www.ccel.org...

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God."

its like me saying "you have a mother who is a person, and a father who is a person, and a son who is a person, but they are not 3 people but one person."

that is nothing like you are saying in your above post

Originally posted by miriam0566


what it sounds like your saying is that they are NOT one AND they are NOT three....

Yes, that's exactly right, I'm afraid. This is encouraging, because it means we're communicating. You get what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with it.

Originally posted by miriam0566

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God."

its like me saying "you have a mother who is a person, and a father who is a person, and a son who is a person, but they are not 3 people but one person."

You're correctly quoting the Athanasian Creed, and you're very close to understanding the teaching, but there's one further clarification which needs to be made.
You're going to hate this;

The word "Person" as used in the Athanasian Creed and other statements about the Trinity, does not mean "person". Let me explain. The English word "person" means a distinct human individual. But this is really a modern development. The word "Person" as used in teaching about the Trinity has been taken from the Latin "Persona", which Latin theologians used as a translation of the Greek "Hypostasis". This word, as used in theology, does not really mean "person" in the sense of a human individual. It means... well, it means whatever the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each are. Not quite individuals, nor quite parts of an individual. Something the human mind cannot fully imagine or pin down in human words. The best we have been able to do is to try to define what it is NOT.

Then critics come along and criticise the teaching of the Trinity on the assumption that it means "three people". It doesn't, but I can't define it any closer than that.

Originally posted by miriam0566

- transliteration is where you translate word for word in a literal way.
- translation is where you translate the meaning of the phrase

I'll come back to this discussion later, but just let me point out something else which was causing misunderstanding.

The above is not my understanding of the word "transliteration".
What you're describing is what I would call "literal transliteration".
"Transliteration" means changing the characters of a word from one script to another. For example, you may write a word from the NT in the Greek characters; if I write them in Roman characters, as MORPHE, that is transliteration. So I was puzzled when you said in a previous post that what you were doing was not transliteration; I wondered why you were bothering to say it.

Originally posted by miriam0566
[
would you consider for example, my hand, to be me? no, it is a part of me. it follows my will and allows me to work.

is the holy spirit a part of god. yes, we agree on that. but it is not a person. it is however more than a hand.

if god gave jesus authority over the congregation, why wouldnt he said holy spirit to help jesus and his followers?

Yes, God can send the Holy Spirit. But I was specifically quoting a passage where Jesus said "I" will send the Holy Spirit. You have conceded that the Holy Sprit is part of God. To that I now, again, add the point that no-one who was less than God could claim the authority to"send" any part of God.
Since Christ is claiming to "send" God, he cannot be less than God himself.

you putting words in the bible's mouth. "The only way that you can honour the Son EVEN AS you honour the Father is to say to the Son exactly what you would say to the Father- "You are God". - is not supported scripturally

It is supported by the meaning of "even as"- ie.KATHOS.
It means "in the same way, to the same extent".
If you regard one man as inferior to or subordinate to another man, you are not giving them the same honour.
If you regard The Son as inferior to or subordinate to the Father, then you are not giving them the same honour.
"Even as" has to mean in everything. So if you honour one as God, you must honour the other as God. That is "even as".

[edit on 22-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by miriam0566

its like me saying "you have a mother who is a person, and a father who is a person, and a son who is a person, but they are not 3 people but one person."

No not quite.Its true that they would all be three individual people However, The same attribute they would share is that they are all human beings.On the other hand Jesus, God the father, and the Holy Ghost are all three individual persons who All share the same attributes as the one true God. Just as what you stated as your mother who is a person and your father who is a person and son who is a person make up a human being. Jesus, God the father, and the Holy Ghost make up GOD the ultimate Spiritual being. Is this to hard to contemplate for you?

Originally posted by DISRAELI


Just- yes, of course this is unusual grammar, but the point is that ex hypothesi it is an unusual situation.

Let me try to expand on what I mean by "unusual situation"
The conventional understanding takes this as a quotation, and a grammatical clash between the quoted words and the main sentence would not necessarily be out of place (it might be even be done consciously to draw attention to the significance of what he was saying).

Practical examples of the way this might work;
A comment that might be made at work; "We didn't have a lot of staff in yesterday- we had 'we few, we happy few, we band of brothers'". Strictly speaking, that "we" is ungrammatical- it ought to be "us", the accusative case following "had". The speaker would have left it as "we few etc" because he was deliberately quoting a set of original words. It would be a way of identifying himself with Henry V at Agincourt, as described by Shakespeare.
Or if you were to compliment me on reaching a conclusion by deductive reasoning, I might reply "Elementary, my dear Watson, you know my methods". You might wonder why I was illogically calling you "Watson" when that is not your name; the reason would be that this is a traditionally facetious way of self-identification with Sherlock Holmes.

The argument for the tradtional understanding of "I Am", is that this is a similar case of quotation for the sake of self-identification.

I should point out that my understanding of this line is not personal to me. Many generations of very learned Greek scholars have been there before me. Let me quote from a work by Canon Liddon (Bampton Lectures 1866, Lecture 4, p187), in his description of this phrase;

"Here is simple existence, with no note of beginning or end... He claims pre-existence indeed, but he does not merely claim pre-existence; he unveils a consciousness of eternal being. he speaks as one on whom time has no effect, and for whom it has no meaning. he is the I AM of ancient Israel; he knows no past, as he knows no future; he is unbeginning, unending Being; he is the eternal Now. That is the plain sense of his language, and perhaps the most instructive commentary on its force is to be found in the violent expedients to which Humanitarian writers have been driven in order to evade it."
I can look up, if you like, the details of Canon Liddon's claim to be an accomplished Greek scholar.

Apart from that, what about the Greeks themselves? We must not forget that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was originally taught and developed by theologians who spoke and wrote in koine Greek. Surely we must grant them the ability to understand their own language? If i can track down an explanation from a contemporary Greek theologian such as Irenaeus or Athanasius, which interprets the passage in the same way, will you be willing then to accept that Christ is divine?





[edit on 23-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by oliveoil
Is this to hard to contemplate for you?

is it hard to contemplate that what you are saying is not the trinity that is being taught in the church?

the church asserts that they are not three but one.

im in like 3 threads, and i have to go out. ill be back to add something

Originally posted by DISRAELI


- transliteration is where you translate word for word in a literal way.
- translation is where you translate the meaning of the phrase

I'll come back to this discussion later, but just let me point out something else which was causing misunderstanding.

The above is not my understanding of the word "transliteration".
What you're describing is what I would call "literal transliteration".

Drat. Sorry, hasty typing adding to the confusion there. That last line is supposed to be "literal translation".

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
Is this to hard to contemplate for you?

is it hard to contemplate that what you are saying is not the trinity that is being taught in the church?

the church asserts that they are not three but one.

God is one because he possesses a single,divine nature,the nature of God.Nature is what makes something what it is.When we speak of human nature we indicate what makes a man a man,with all his essential components and properties.When appling this distinction to God, we recognize the unity of nature, the unity of divinity,which belongs in an absolute and exclusive way to him who exists as God.
The one God exists as three persons who are distinct but undivided,sinse each person fully possesses the same divine nature,the nature of God. A human person is he or she who exists as a concreate human being, as an individual possessing humanity,that is human nature.

The Father generates or begets the son, the son is begotten of the father, and the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son.The father is the origin and source, the son is incarnate, and the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son as the greatest gift given to man, resulting from and carrying forward the works of the Son in his incarnation.

This is what the Church teaches as the Bible backs this up.

Miriam, Just who do You think Jesus is?And is their any scripture to support your view?

Originally posted by oliveoil
God is one because he possesses a single,divine nature,the nature of God.
Nature is what makes something what it is.When we speak of human nature we indicate what makes a man a man,with all his essential components and properties.When appling this distinction to God, we recognize the unity of nature, the unity of divinity,which belongs in an absolute and exclusive way to him who exists as God.
The one God exists as three persons who are distinct but undivided,sinse each person fully possesses the same divine nature,the nature of God. A human person is he or she who exists as a concreate human being, as an individual possessing humanity,that is human nature.

The Father generates or begets the son, the son is begotten of the father, and the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son.The father is the origin and source, the son is incarnate, and the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son as the greatest gift given to man, resulting from and carrying forward the works of the Son in his incarnation.

This is what the Church teaches as the Bible backs this up.

ok, show the scriptures then.