Historical development of the Trinity

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Pierac
Under Probation
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:38 am

Historical development of the Trinity

Post #1

Post by Pierac »

It seems this forum has many debates upon on the doctrine of the trinity... Perhaps one must start from the beginning to understand the issues/debate!

Most people who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity claim that at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, all the church did was to officially declare a doctrine that had always been the teaching of the church. But if this is true, ask yourself why? Why would the church have to make any kind of official declaration about a doctrine that was supposed to be established from the beginning? There is no doctrine on whether Jesus resurrected or not. It was an established teaching. The idea that Jesus was God, was not. This is why the church required an official declaration to formally establish this as orthodox. It was a developing idea. It was not a teaching of the early church that had been established by the apostles. An important thing to note in support of this fact is that even at Nicaea when with Emperor Constantine’s help, they rammed this doctrine through as orthodox, they did not include the Holy Spirit as part of the formula. Again, why not? How could they forget that the trinity included the Holy Spirit? Because it was a developing idea, and at this point in time (Nicaea), all the church was willing to concede to was a binity. It would have to wait until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit in their formula and thus complete the trinity.

An excellent proof that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching of the early Christians is in a letter by one of the trinity’s greatest exponents, Tertullian of Carthage. Even though his understanding of it was that the Son was subordinate to the Father, which is contrary to today’s Doctrine of the Trinity, his writings were unfortunately, very influential in the development of this doctrine. He wrote about it profusely.

The fact that he believed the Son to be inferior to the Father can be easily seen in his letter Against Praxeas. In it, he states:

Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son."
Chap. VII. "And while I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father."
Again, ask yourself why was his view of the trinity different from today’s view if it has always been taught by the church? The reason is because it was a developing idea.

Tertullian himself gives us the greatest proof of the fact that it was a developing idea in the same letter. He states: Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles. If it had been taught by them, the majority of believers would have known about the Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself out and trying to gain popularity, especially with Hellenized Christians. But it was not in the majority. In fact, it was very much in the minority.

Now back to the subject of Nicaea. For those that think that Nicaea just formalized an already established teaching, think again. Let us now look to the events that followed after the Council of Nicaea. It will shed some light on the matter.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AFTER NICAEA
325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:
"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement." At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.
328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.
335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.
337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.
341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.
343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.
351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.
353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.
355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.
356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.
359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.
361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.
380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.
381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any more conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on which emperor is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.
In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declared Christianity to be the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. What is plainly obvious is that the emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now being was that there was not going to be any more changing of sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Yet, Conflicts and debates continued for centuries.

In 529 AD Emperor Justinian revamped the Roman Civil Law and heresy was big on his list of crimes. The two heresies that were now punishable by death were not accepting the Nicene Creed and rebaptism. It is quite interesting.


I have given historical dates and documents that are recorded in time... not opinion! As taken from the works of J Baixeras
:study:
Paul

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #71

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 65 by For_The_Kingdom]

The essential problem is metaphysical. The question is: How can we reconcile the Deity of Christ with his humanness? Is the Divine that rules in heaven identical with the Divine that makes its presence felt on earth? Since the Bible is not a book in systematic theology or metaphysics, the early church freely incorporated Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection. The truly divine, the "really real," was wholly simple, immaterial, immutable, passionless. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. Consequently, the anti-Trinitarians argued that Jesus cannot be God. Jesus changed and Jesus suffered. God does not change or suffer. Therefore, Christ cannot not God. The Trinitarians also accepted the same Hellenic model of perfection and therefore argued for two separate natures in Christ, which itself had led to problems, as God still remains aloof, passionless.

I believe a more workable solution is to rethink our whole concept of divine perfection, as is the case in neo-classical theism, which I embrace. Accordingly, contingent, dynamic aspects also denote perfection and therefore should be included in our definition of God. It is definitely a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others, sharing in their sorrows as well as joys. I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know of any other model that does justice to God's great sensitivity and intimacy with all things. Whenever a child is smacked, yes, God is smacked, feels that blow. That child is ontologically part of God's won being, just as is every being.

When the Bible equates Christ with God, it means that God is more fully present, more fully actualized in Christ, than in any other being. When the Bible speaks of God as somehow more than Christ, it means the whole reality of God transcends any one particular actualization.

The Holy Spirit has generally been the least-elaborated member of the trinity. The problem is that the church had so much difficulty seeing how God could be present in Christ, in just one particular occasion, that it had no time to address a more ubitiquous presence of God. The church eventually included the Spirit, as God is both spirit and holy. God's Spirit is obviously God, after all. And God's Spirit testifies to the omnipresence of God, in the Bible, as per Gen. 1.

Pierac
Under Probation
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:38 am

Post #72

Post by Pierac »

postroad wrote:
So what to do with the texts that attribute to Jesus attributes of God that the OT explicitly confirm belong to God alone? Two choices are available. Rejection as the Jews did or incorporation into the godhead.


Totally wrong premise, first the Jews did not reject Jesus being their God.... it was never even an issue. They rejected Jesus being the Messiah/Christ. The chosen and anointed one of God. If you claim to be the Messiah/Christ which Jesus actually did.... Mean anointed one of God... Not God... Your in effect are saying God anointed God with God! Jesus came to show us his God and Father, not to anoint Himself with Himself.

:study:
Paul

Pierac
Under Probation
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:38 am

Post #73

Post by Pierac »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Pierac wrote: First the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD does not include the Holy Spirit.... thus was added much later... Can't you read! Sorry... but that means there was a change in belief!!!
First off, just because there was a "change in belief" does not mean that the belief is wrong. Maybe it was a change for the better...ever consider that? Second, in my very first response to you, I stated..

"..admittedly, the divinity of the Holy Spirit doesn't exactly scream out at you as you are reading the New Testament. However, that doesn't mean that we (Trinitarians) don't have good reasons for accepting the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

I think the focus should be on why we (Trinitarians) accept the divinity of the Holy Spirit in the first place.
Pierac wrote: Second... Your the one who claim Jesus emptied himself of his deity ... as you did quoting Philippians 2... Your to ignorant of your own beliefs to see you have already rejected the DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD) the concept of the Trinity set forth by your leaders/ elders! Your the one who follows this belief... If not!

Exactly what concept of the Trinity do you follow...?

Please explain the Trinity as you see it and all others reject???

Study harder..
:study:
PAul
Well, fortunately for me, there is no Church or "counsil" that has the authority to guide or tell me the exact 100% correct interpretation of the Bible. I will rise and fall on/by my own God given understanding and common sense, and should I ever become "stuck" in my understanding, I pray that God will guide me in the right direction, rather that be through divine revelation or human wisdom.
Biblical truth does not change... God is one! Jesus and his apostles clearly teach He has a GOD! You cannot be God and then claim to have one! God is Holy... separate and above all His creation... your failure to see this truth is why you are "stuck" in your traditions of men!

:study:
Paul

Pierac
Under Probation
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:38 am

Post #74

Post by Pierac »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Pierac wrote:
Tell me For_The_Kingdom...

JESUS IS ONMISCIENT?


The Doctrine of the Trinity claims that Jesus is God, and it is for this reason the doctrine claims that Jesus is thus omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, equal in all ways to the Father. In this short post we will be discussing the latter, is Jesus omniscient? God is definitely omniscient, thus in order for the Doctrine of the Trinity to hold true, Jesus must also be omniscient.


First off, on the surface..I've heard conflicting views coming from Jehovah's Witnesses about the omniscience ...with some saying that the Father isn't omniscience, and some saying he is.

Depending on which one you talk to. Just sayin'.

Pierac wrote:
If he is not, then there must be something wrong with this doctrine. At the same time, if we find Jesus not to be omniscient then we also arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is not equal to the Father. If Jesus does not know one thing that the Father knows, then obviously he is not omniscient, and if he is not omniscient like the Father, then he is not equal to the Father either.


No problem for the Trinitarian at all. It is called the "hypostatic union", which is the doctrine/concept of Jesus having both divine AND human natures. Jesus was both God and man, and in his human nature, he was subjected to the limitation of being human...he got sleepy, tired, hungry, and his knowledge also appeared to be limited. But as God, obviously, those limitations are negated.

Basically, in a nut shell...Jesus, as a man, he simply "played the game".

Pierac wrote:
Yes Jesus did know somethings that show us he is way above the average man, this is because he is anointed (Messiah), not because he is God. The Prophets all received revelations from God, information that only God and that prophet knew, but this did not mean that the prophets were God. Jesus as we shall see also receives revelations from God, this is why he knows things that other men do not.


That's funny, because apparently, Peter felt differently than you...John 21:15-17

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?�

“Yes, Lord,� he said, “you know that I love you.�

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.�

16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?�

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.�

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.�

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?�

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?� He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.�

So if Peter can ascribe omniscience to Jesus without Jesus rebuking him by saying "Hold on Peter, I don't know all things, only the Father does", then why can't we?

Pierac wrote:
(Webster’s Dictionary) Omniscient - knowing all things-the Omniscient God-.

Mark 13:32: "No one knows the day or hour, not even the angels in Heaven nor the Son, but ONLY the Father."

This is a very conclusive statement. Jesus admits that he does not know the day or hour, and that ONLY the Father knows. This alone is enough to show us that Jesus is not omniscient.


Not so fast. Back to the hypostatic union. Jesus, the man, did not know the day or the hour...Jesus as Jesus the man got tired and hungry. But Jesus the God most certainly knows all things, as Peter explicitly stated and what Jesus DIDN'T correct him on such a statement.

And not only that, but if we just take statements at face value without critically thinking about it, then apparently, there are some things that even God the Father doesn't know...

Revelations 19:12 "I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse.+ And the one seated on it is called Faithful+ and True,+ and he judges and carries on war in righteousness.+ 12 His eyes are a fiery flame,+ and on his head are many diadems.* He has a name written that no one knows but he himself"

So I guess at face value, since no one knows the name written on Jesus' head but Jesus himself...I guess that would mean that not even the God (the Father) knows...thus, there is something that the Father doesn't know, making him NOT omniscient. But you wouldn't dare say that, would you? No, you wouldn't.

Pierac wrote:
Luke 8:45: "Jesus then asked, ‘Who touched me?"

This episode is about a woman who needs healing who touches Jesus in a crowd. Jesus responds by saying, "Who touched me?" It is obvious that he does not know who touched him. We cannot say that he knew but was just asking for whatever reason. This would be to speculate on a grand scale. It would be adding to what the Bible says. Just read the Bible. He did not know. He is not all knowing.


Again, hypostatic union. If Jesus asking the question of "who touched me" in any way suggests that he wasn't omniscient, then by that same token I guess God asking Adam "Where are you" in the garden (after they hid) would suggest that God isn't omniscient, either. But again, you wouldn't go that far, would you?

Ask any parent did they ever asked their child(ren) a question that they already knew the answer to. Doesn't mean that they don't know the answer, it may mean that they are trying to either teach or open up dialogue.

Pierac wrote:
Revelation 1:1: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon."

Who received a revelation? Jesus Christ. Who gave it to him? GOD! God gave Jesus a revelation to show his servants what must happen soon. Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines revelation as:

Revelation – The communication of the knowledge of God.

(Webster’s Dictionary) Revelation – God’s disclosure to humanity of Himself.

Jesus received a communication, a disclosure FROM GOD. God knew something that Jesus did not know. Again, Jesus is not omniscient.


Now this one is a tough one, indeed. Either we have to believe that Peter contradicts John in this case, or some serious harmonization is needed here.

Pierac wrote:
John 12:49: "For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it."

In this verse the Father is showing Jesus how to say something.


Or, as the NIV puts it; For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken".

Depending on which translation/version you read, that will determine the implication of what is being said. Either way, again, all of that happened after the events of Phil 2:5-9, when Jesus "emptied" himself of his divinity.

Pierac wrote:
Why does Jesus need to be shown how to do or say anything if he is already all knowing.


Hypostatic union.

Pierac wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the Father is commanding the Son. This is not equality.


Based on the events in Phil 2:5-9, there was a change of power/rank...with the Son being equal to the Father at first, and then lowering himself and becoming second in rank to the Father.

No problems there.
Big Problem Here!

Pierac wrote:
Luke 2:52: "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and favor before God and man."

He advanced in what? Wisdom. He was advancing in the knowledge of God.


Someone who is all knowing does not need to advance in anything, especially wisdom.


He was "playing the game" as a human child, going through the natural growing and development stages of a child. The idea was to be as close to natural human being as a divine entity could possibly be.

Pierac wrote:
Matthew 4:1: "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert."

Why does Jesus need to be led? He is supposed to be equal with the Holy Spirit. He should know everything that the Spirit knows, although it is obvious that he does not. He needed to be led.


The same way he was "lead" to Pilate and his execution by the Romans, which is neither here nor there in terms of his divinity.

Pierac wrote:
Matthew 26:39: "He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, ‘My Father if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will".

I will not go in depth into the fact that Jesus’ will is not the same as the Father’s will, but do notice it.


Hmm, so think about that; why wouldn't the Father and the Son share the same will? Hmm. It is obvious that Jesus the "man" didn't want to go through all of the pain and torment that he was about to receive at the hands of man. But obviously, it was the will of Jesus the "God".

In the same way the "flesh" part of me want to go out and "sow my royal oats" with many different women..but the "spirit" side of me wants nothing more than my wife whom I love with all of my heart and soul.

Same thing with Jesus. It was not his "human" will to undergo what was to come, but the "God" side of him would do it all over again if he had to, out of his love for us.

Pierac wrote:
Jesus knew that the cross awaited him and he wanted to see if there was any other way while still remaining in the will of God.


Or, what I said.

Pierac wrote:
Jesus is asking the Father a question that he does not know the answer to. What does Jesus want to know? IF IT IS POSSIBLE? He does not know if it is. Someone who is asking another a question for which he does not have the answer to is not all knowing.


He was a human being who was mentally tormented by what awaited him and he may have gave up his divine omniscience to undergo the suffering of what was to come.

Pierac wrote:
Conclusion – From the Scriptures above I do not see any way in which someone can conclude that Jesus is omniscient. Jesus knew many things, but he also did not know many things. This is not what being omniscient means. It means knowing EVERYTHING.


Which Peter stated to his face (see above) that he (Jesus) did in fact know "everything"...and Thomas also called Jesus "God" to his face (John 20:28). So you have Jesus close followers calling him God and ascribing omniscience to him, and not on any of those occasions did Jesus correct them or set them straight on the real deal.

Speaks volumes to me.

Pierac wrote:
Jesus is not omniscient and thus he is not equal to God. Who is Jesus then? Jesus is The Messiah, The Anointed one of God. This is what Messiah means, Anointed. The Messiah was never supposed to be God, he is supposed to be a man anointed by God’s Spirit. In order to understand who Jesus is we must first come to a good understanding of what Jesus’ most important title of Messiah means in depth. After all, he is Jesus the Christ (Messiah).

Again... explain in your version how it is... That... Jesus is clueless about the will of His God and Father!

:study:
Paul


Hmmm, another thread is in order...see you there..


Welcome anti-Trinitarian... you just destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity in your post.. allow me to show you why...

This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!

DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)


Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


You just rejected the Trinity with out even knowing what you believe... you claim... "the Son being equal to the Father at first, and then lowering himself and becoming second in rank to the Father." then suggest... He was a human being who was mentally tormented by what awaited him and he may have gave up his divine omniscience to undergo the suffering of what was to come.

The doctrine of the trinity clearly defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

Again, you in your own post when you claimed Jesus gave up his divine omniscience.. You accepted the Kenotic Doctrine and rejected the doctrine of the Trinity!

Think about it :-k

Do you even know what you believe? Or are you just following the traditions of men?

:study:
Paul

Pierac
Under Probation
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:38 am

Post #75

Post by Pierac »

Let's review... your understanding of John 20:28

My Lord and my God.
There you go, an Apostle refers to Jesus as God. When you look at some verses in the Old and New Testament you have to remember to look at them with a Hebrew or Greek mind of that period, and not a 20th century mind. Some language can mean something to us that it did not mean back then. For example, if an Englishman says, "I am mad about my flat" he means that he is exited about his apartment. To an American, that same phrase means that he is angry about his flat tire. The word "God" for example, means to us in the 20th century "The Almighty God." To a Jew it did not necessarily mean "Almighty God." In Psalms 82: 1 & 6 God refers to earthly rulers as gods. This is the same passage that Jesus quotes to the Jews when they accuse him of saying that he is God. Paraphrasing Jesus, he says to them; "If it is okay to call men gods, why is it blasphemous for me to say that I am the Son of God"(John 10: 33 - 38). Notice how when Jesus is accused of being God, he quickly corrects them that he is not God, but the Son of God. In 2 Corinthians 4: 4 Satan is also called the "god of this age." Does that mean that he is God Almighty? Of course not!

John even tells us just 3 verses later why he wrote about Thomas story… In John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. If Thomas was really calling Jesus GOD almighty then John just contradicted why he wrote his writings.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church points out what an early Christian father, Origen (185-254 AD) says about the word "God." "The Son is theos (God), but only the Father is autotheos" (absolute God, God in himself).

This is the reason there is an Almighty God or a Most High God, in order to differentiate the only true God from the others. Another fact to consider when approaching this verse is to understand whom John believes God and Jesus to be.
John wrote his gospel to testify that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son. Let us take a look again at what John believes in order to not take one verse and unjustly imply a certain belief on John.

John 17:3
"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Revelation 1:6
"Who (Jesus) has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father"

John 20:17
"But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’"

Remember that John’s whole purpose for writing his Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not God.

"But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (John 20: 31).

We must keep John's reason for writing his gospel fresh in our minds as we try to understand this verse. In his gospel, John distinguishes completely between the only true God and Jesus Christ To imply that John believed in a three in one God would be to do a terrible injustice to John.

So what does Thomas mean? To us in the modern world it might at first seem odd, but when you put yourself in Thomas’s place as a Jew in Jesus’ day, it will make all the sense in the world.

The Catholic New American Bible defines this usage of the word god:

"The king, in courtly language is called god, representing God to the people."

Aspects of Monotheism states: "god" is an allegorical equivalent for "king."


This is the definition of the Messiah. The Messiah is the king of Israel who represents God to the people (John 1:49). Thomas was just stating that fact. When he saw Jesus resurrected, it proved to him that He was indeed the Messiah. Thomas’ statement is the equivalent of saying, My Lord and my king. This is not just my opinion; it is easily verified in the Old Testament. Remember, God = king = Messiah.

This kind of language was common in those days. Let’s look at a similar verse.
1 Samuel 24:9 states:
"David also stepped out of the cave, calling to Saul, "My lord and my king."

My lord and my God = My lord and my king.

This verse mean the same thing. Thomas is addressing the king of Israel in exactly the same way that David did. You just have to speak like a first century Jew.

Luke 2:11 states:
"A savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord."
Acts 2:36 states:
"God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Lord and Messiah = Lord and king = Lord and God.

There is one great proof that Thomas did not mean Jesus is Almighty God when he called Jesus God. When Thomas called Jesus "My lord and my God " all the Apostles were in the room. If this statement is true, then it is logical to assume that from now on, all the Apostles know that Jesus is really God. So from that point onward Jesus should be addressed as God. But as you can see in all the writings of the New Testament, none of the Apostles ever refer to Jesus as Almighty God or YHWH . Not once in the entire New Testament do they ever pray to Jesus. They make clear distinctions between the two.

They in fact write about the God of Jesus Christ (John 20:17). Remember, "No one has ever seen God" (1 John 4: 12). Same author.

:study:
Paul

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Can divinity be turned off?

Post #76

Post by polonius »

Not so fast. Back to the hypostatic union. Jesus, the man, did not know the day or the hour...Jesus as Jesus the man got tired and hungry. But Jesus the God most certainly knows all things, as Peter explicitly stated and what Jesus DIDN'T correct him on such a statement.
RESPONSE: This raises an interesting question. Could Jesus turn his divinity "on" or "off"?

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Post #77

Post by Checkpoint »

[Replying to post 66 by For_The_Kingdom]
So I guess at face value, since no one knows the name written on Jesus' head but Jesus himself...I guess that would mean that not even the God (the Father) knows...thus, there is something that the Father doesn't know, making him NOT omniscient. But you wouldn't dare say that, would you? No, you wouldn't.
No one in their right mind would say that, draw that conclusion, unless they were looking to question God, or the integrity of the writer of Revelation, or Revelation itself.

To take such statements "at face value" is not sound hermeneutics, as you probably well know.

dio9
Under Probation
Posts: 2275
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:01 pm

Post #78

Post by dio9 »

I wish Christianity had developed under a Taoist philosophy of intuition rather than the Greek philosophy of reason. Which is more spiritual , reason or intuition ? Actually a Taoist trinity makes much more sense anyway, Yang and Yin father and mother , father mother and child is more in accord with what we observe in nature than the Greek version of an all male Godhead.
Anyway that's Christianity. I don't know if Jesus would recognize it but that's what it is.
Seems to be a Greek creation. With all this Greek Christology talk about who was Jesus, God or man , the church fathers had driven the Jews away . By the time the Creeds were decided there were no Jews involved in the discussion.

Pierac
Under Probation
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:38 am

Post #79

Post by Pierac »

dio9 wrote: I wish Christianity had developed under a Taoist philosophy of intuition rather than the Greek philosophy of reason. Which is more spiritual , reason or intuition ? Actually a Taoist trinity makes much more sense anyway, Yang and Yin father and mother , father mother and child is more in accord with what we observe in nature than the Greek version of an all male Godhead.
Anyway that's Christianity. I don't know if Jesus would recognize it but that's what it is.

Seems to be a Greek creation. With all this Greek Christology talk about who was Jesus, God or man , the church fathers had driven the Jews away . By the time the Creeds were decided there were no Jews involved in the discussion.

Thank you for supporting my view/ understanding!

:study:
Paul

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #80

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Pierac wrote: Biblical truth does not change


Unless God says so.

Pierac wrote:
... God is one!


Sure is...one God, three persons.

Pierac wrote:
Jesus and his apostles clearly teach He has a GOD!


Sure, after the events as described in Phil 2:5-9. Not a moment sooner.

Pierac wrote:
You cannot be God and then claim to have one!


"You cannot be a Father, and have a Father". When Jesus subjected himself to the Father (Phil 2:5-9), the Father became his "God"...and again, not a moment sooner.

Pierac wrote:
God is Holy... separate and above all His creation


A creation that Jesus was not apart of...

Pierac wrote:
... your failure to see this truth is why you are "stuck" in your traditions of men!

:study:
Paul
Not a all. John 1:3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."...verse 14 "He (the Word) became flesh".

That ain't the traditions of men, that is John 1-3, followed by verse 14.

Post Reply