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

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

Post #61

Post by Pierac »

Again tell me... For_The_Kingdom... How many God's are in scripture???

From the start of Judaism and later Christianity, the most famous aspect and unique characteristic of the two religions is the fact that they were, and still are monotheistic. Christianity is really the continuation of Judaism. Both religions believe in one, and only one unbegotten God, creator of the universe. There are no other gods in these two faiths.

Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus says the LORD... there is no God but me."

Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD and there is no other, there is no God besides me."

Isaiah 45:6 - "Men may know that there is none besides me. I am the LORD, there is no other."

No one will contest that to a Jew or a Christian, there is only one God. Anything else would simply be considered polytheism. The majority of Christianity believes in one God, but a God that is plural in makeup. There are three persons that constitute this one God. They are three, but yet, they are still all the one God. They believe... There is: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

In this post we will be concerned primarily with Trinitarian Christianity’s view of God. Specifically, God the Son. We all know that God the Son has a Father (God the Father). But the question that must be asked and answered is: can God the Son have a God? Every pastor that I have ever asked this question to has always said "Of course not!" But is that the answer given in Scripture? No, on the contrary. As you will see, the prophesied Messiah in the Old Testament is said to have a God. Then you will see that Jesus the Messiah fulfills those prophesies because he most definitely has a God. If you come to the conclusion that Jesus has a God, then it might be time to rethink and research the Doctrine of the Trinity. Because if God the Son has a God, then there are TWO GODS!

To make this as simple as possible, I am not going to list the huge amount of Scriptures which have God (not "Father") and Jesus in the same sentence, or Scriptures that have God speaking to Jesus, or Jesus speaking to God. We will only be concerned with Scriptures that prove that Jesus has a God.

OLD TESTAMENT MESSIANIC PROPHESIES
Psalm 89:26-28 - "He (the Messiah) shall say of me. "You are my father, my God, my rock, my savior". And I will make him the firstborn."

Micah 5:3-4 - "He (the Messiah) shall stand firm and shepherd his flock by the strength of the LORD, in the Majestic name of the LORD, his God."

Psalm 22:10-11 - "To you I was committed at birth. From my mother’s womb you are my God."

NEW TESTAMENT
Jesus Speaking:

John 20:17 - "I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Matthew 27:46 - "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Revelation 3:12 - "Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God."

Revelation 3:2 - "for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God."

Paul:
Ephesians 1:3 - "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Ephesians 1:17 - "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father..."

2 Corinthians 1:3 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Corinthians 11:31 - "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ knows, He who is blessed forever, that I do not lie."

Romans 15:6 - "that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Peter:

1 Peter 1:3 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

John:

Revelation 1:6 - "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."

When one reads the preceding verses, there is one thing that is a fact. That Jesus Christ has a God. Jesus speaks of his God, Peter Paul and John mention the God of Jesus Christ. Are they all mistaken? Are we to believe that all these verses are misprints? Are we to suppose that theologians several centuries after Christ knew more about Jesus than Jesus and his Apostles? There is no way around it.

The New American Bible (a Roman Catholic Bible) in a section discussing biblical revelation says,
"It is the very same God who reveals Himself in so many richly divergent ways on every page of the Scriptures. The God of Abraham and Moses and David is the God of Jesus of Nazareth."

Everyone in Jesus’ day knew that Jesus had a God. Why don't you???

Study...
:study:
Paul

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

Re: When was the Trinity concept introduced?

Post #62

Post by Pierac »

polonius.advice wrote:
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
polonius.advice wrote:
RESPONSE: I am not a member of the JW. But I am interested in history, and I become uncomfortable when some historical claim is made which is not supported by the facts.
Word.
polonius.advice wrote: Therefore, would you precisely identify your references to an" earlier extra-Biblical source of Jesus' perceived divinity, which predates all Christian sources on the subject."
That is kinda what I was doing when I said..

"Yet, in Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated around 117AD), he is writing to the Emperor about how to deal with Christians who are open about their Christianity (which was apparently illegal). A small excerpt of the letter is..

"They (Christians) asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god.

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

So, to paraphrase, Pliny is saying that when under question, the Christians are saying that "the only thing we do is meet together on a fixed day before dawn and sing hymns to Christ as to a god".

Now, this is either Pliny stating that Christians admit to singing hymns to Christ as to a god, or it means that this is Pliny's PERCEPTION of the Christians...as "they are singing hymns to this Christ fellow as if he is a god".

Either way, the implication seems to be that Christ is/was looked upon as a god. If that is the case, then Christ' alleged divinity was recognized over 2 centuries before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea."
RESPONSE: Christ was only looked on a God starting in about 85 AD which resulted as the Christian sect of Judaism being rejected and the Christians labeled as apostates and rejected from Jewish synagogues. (see the Gospel of John which admits this).
Pierac wrote: Again tell me... polonius.advice... How many God's are in scripture???

From the start of Judaism and later Christianity, the most famous aspect and unique characteristic of the two religions is the fact that they were, and still are monotheistic. Christianity is really the continuation of Judaism. Both religions believe in one, and only one unbegotten God, creator of the universe. There are no other gods in these two faiths.

Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus says the LORD... there is no God but me."

Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD and there is no other, there is no God besides me."

Isaiah 45:6 - "Men may know that there is none besides me. I am the LORD, there is no other."

No one will contest that to a Jew or a Christian, there is only one God. Anything else would simply be considered polytheism. The majority of Christianity believes in one God, but a God that is plural in makeup. There are three persons that constitute this one God. They are three, but yet, they are still all the one God. They believe... There is: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

In this post we will be concerned primarily with Trinitarian Christianity’s view of God. Specifically, God the Son. We all know that God the Son has a Father (God the Father). But the question that must be asked and answered is: can God the Son have a God? Every pastor that I have ever asked this question to has always said "Of course not!" But is that the answer given in Scripture? No, on the contrary. As you will see, the prophesied Messiah in the Old Testament is said to have a God. Then you will see that Jesus the Messiah fulfills those prophesies because he most definitely has a God. If you come to the conclusion that Jesus has a God, then it might be time to rethink and research the Doctrine of the Trinity. Because if God the Son has a God, then there are TWO GODS!

To make this as simple as possible, I am not going to list the huge amount of Scriptures which have God (not "Father") and Jesus in the same sentence, or Scriptures that have God speaking to Jesus, or Jesus speaking to God. We will only be concerned with Scriptures that prove that Jesus has a God.

OLD TESTAMENT MESSIANIC PROPHESIES
Psalm 89:26-28 - "He (the Messiah) shall say of me. "You are my father, my God, my rock, my savior". And I will make him the firstborn."

Micah 5:3-4 - "He (the Messiah) shall stand firm and shepherd his flock by the strength of the LORD, in the Majestic name of the LORD, his God."

Psalm 22:10-11 - "To you I was committed at birth. From my mother’s womb you are my God."

NEW TESTAMENT
Jesus Speaking:

John 20:17 - "I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Matthew 27:46 - "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Revelation 3:12 - "Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God."

Revelation 3:2 - "for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God."

Paul:
Ephesians 1:3 - "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Ephesians 1:17 - "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father..."

2 Corinthians 1:3 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Corinthians 11:31 - "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ knows, He who is blessed forever, that I do not lie."

Romans 15:6 - "that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Peter:

1 Peter 1:3 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

John:

Revelation 1:6 - "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."

When one reads the preceding verses, there is one thing that is a fact. That Jesus Christ has a God. Jesus speaks of his God, Peter Paul and John mention the God of Jesus Christ. Are they all mistaken? Are we to believe that all these verses are misprints? Are we to suppose that theologians several centuries after Christ knew more about Jesus than Jesus and his Apostles? There is no way around it.

The New American Bible (a Roman Catholic Bible) in a section discussing biblical revelation says,
"It is the very same God who reveals Himself in so many richly divergent ways on every page of the Scriptures. The God of Abraham and Moses and David is the God of Jesus of Nazareth."

Everyone in Jesus’ day knew that Jesus had a God. Why don't you??? :-k

Study...
:study:
Paul
So polonius.advice ... what happened to you arm chair theologians??? Can any one explain how Jesus is GOD... Yet clearly says and teaches to His followers that He has a God!!!

I think not!!!

Will YOU be SO CLUELESS FOR A REPLY like so many others??? :-k
Study harder...
:study:
Paul

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 9012
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1227 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Post #63

Post by onewithhim »

It is imperative that we understand who God is and accept the Bible's explanation of who He is. It is clear that Jehovah is the Most High (Psalm 83:18, KJV), and He is the Source of life and of everything. How is it that He becomes diminished in peoples' minds when we get to the New Testament? Jehovah is not diminished in the mind of Jesus or of his disciples. He is referred to throughout the New Testament, but this reference is confused by the elimination of the Divine Name in the Greek Scriptures by men, and thus everyone thinks that any reference to the "Lord" or to "God" is a reference to Jesus. This is not so, and a person can understand this by carefully reading the Scriptures.

Jehovah and Jesus are two distinct persons throughout the Bible. Jehovah anointed Jesus and sent Jesus to Earth (Isaiah 61:1,2). Jehovah spoke to Jesus at Psalm 110:1,2. Jehovah has never been a plural God. When referred to as "Elohim," it is not referring to a plural God but the multiplicity of magnificence. Non-plural gods are also referred to as "elohim." (See "Dagon.")

Jesus prayed to Jehovah, and with such emotion that he sweated blood on one occasion. It is no act. Jehovah is the one Almighty God, and Jesus said clearly that Jehovah is his God, as shown in the post above by pierac.

When we know this, we can better understand what the Good News of the Kingdom is. (Matt.24:14)


.

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #64

Post by postroad »

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.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 9012
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1227 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Post #65

Post by onewithhim »

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.
I see you just skipped over my post #60, but oh well.

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere.....the attributes that the O.T. explicitly say belong to God alone but then are given to Christ are given to him because the Father says so. If the Father, Jehovah, did not give Jesus certain authority and abilities, Jesus could do nothing. He says so himself.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (John 5:19, NASB)

"All authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven and on earth." (Matt.28:18)


So when something is said of Jesus that was already said about his Father, it is because Jesus took on a role that the Father assigned for him to do, and he is representing the Father in what he is doing. Jesus is also the CONDUIT through which the Father accomplishes many things. The Father, Jehovah, is always the Source of all power and authority and creation.


.

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #66

Post by postroad »

[Replying to post 62 by onewithhim]
No problem except for one thing. God was either lying in one text or the other.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 9012
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1227 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Post #67

Post by onewithhim »

postroad wrote: [Replying to post 62 by onewithhim]
No problem except for one thing. God was either lying in one text or the other.
No he wasn't. Present a scripture that shows God must be lying.


.

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

Post #68

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

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.

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

Post #69

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

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.
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..

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #70

Post by postroad »

[Replying to post 64 by onewithhim] Sorry I posted this reply accidentally to another thread. These texts are incompatible with the concept that God gave Jesus his divine authority to act in creation.
Isaiah 43:25
“I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.

Isaiah 45:21-22New International Version (NIV)

21 Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the Lord?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.
22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
Isaiah 44:24
[ Jerusalem to Be Inhabited ] “This is what the Lord says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself
Isaiah 42:8
“I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
Isaiah 42:8

Post Reply