What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[klutedavid]

6 “Thu says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
‘I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.

LORD is - YHWH

And yet - ONE God.

Hello BobRyan.

You stated the following.

6 “Thu says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Jesus is the first and the last.

Revelations 1
17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying,
“Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am
alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

Therefore BobRyan, Jesus is YHWH.

 

[Albion]

What's unavoidable in the Bible books is that God has divine offspring to which he has granted powers and authorities.

Naaaa. You might construe some of his creatures that way, but when the Bible clearly identifies the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, each of them, as being God...

...that argument doesn't work.

 

[hedrick]

In lower school the curriculum is often in anticipation of the enlarged concepts encountered later.

What's unavoidable in the Bible books is that God has divine offspring to which he has granted powers and authorities.

I think you'd be hard-put to find the Bible calling the Holy Spirit an offspring.

Of course "offspring" includes son, so there's nothing wrong with that. To me "granted powers" doesn't sound like what I see in the NT. It sounds a bit too close to superman, i.e. a human granted super powers.

While not all classical Christology speaks this way, Chalcedon allows us to see Jesus as a normal human with no super powers, who is united in a personal union with the Logos. All power came from the union with the Logos. This is consistent with Jesus’ own way of speaking, which normally attributed his ability to do things to God, and not any power of his own.

I say not all classical Christology speaks this way, because the concept of communication of attributes complicates speaking of the distinction between human and Logos. But I come from the Reformed tradition, and from the modern end of that. Both make the distinction I just described.

 

[mikpat]

One could predict the outcome of the verbal exchanges between Hoghead and Erose——-The absolutely mysterious character of the dogma of the Holy Trinity is, indeed, not defined, that among the truths of Faith, there are mysteries concealed in God which can only be known on the basis of divine Revelation only.

Christianity has always regarded the dogma of the Trinity the most profound and fundamental mystery of faith.
As someone said, even after Revelation and acceptance of faith, they remain covered by the veil of Faith.

But we can engage in some way, as the man said: "The dogma of the Trinity is, in fact beyond reason but not contrary to reason."

 

[Colter]

I think you'd be hard-put to find the Bible calling the Holy Spirit an offspring.

Of course "offspring" includes son, so there's nothing wrong with that. To me "granted powers" doesn't sound like what I see in the NT. It sounds a bit too close to superman, i.e. a human granted super powers.

While not all classical Christology speaks this way, Chalcedon allows us to see Jesus as a normal human with no super powers, who is united in a personal union with the Logos. All power came from the union with the Logos. This is consistent with Jesus’ own way of speaking, which normally attributed his ability to do things to God, and not any power of his own.

I say not all classical Christology speaks this way, because the concept of communication of attributes complicates speaking of the distinction between human and Logos. But I come from the Reformed tradition, and from the modern end of that. Both make the distinction I just described.

As a student of both the books of the Bible and the Urantia Book, I see the Trinity differently. I see Jesus as a Son of the Trinity, not the second person of the Trinity. Religionists experience an irresistible urge to speculate in the formulation of theological concepts which can sound reasonable yet be erroneous.

We just assume that when Jesus said "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that he was referring to himself. But earlier Jesus had said that to see him was to see the Father not the Son.

 

[Erose]

As a student of both the books of the Bible and the Urantia Book, I see the Trinity differently. I see Jesus as a Son of the Trinity, not the second person of the Trinity. Religionists experience an irresistible urge to speculate in the formulation of theological concepts which can sound reasonable yet be erroneous.

We just assume that when Jesus said "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that he was referring to himself. But earlier Jesus had said that to see him was to see the Father not the Son.

Urantia book? What is that? Is that where you strange ideas of the Trinity come from?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Erose]

Yes, but look at what Thomas said. He likens God to a prince ruling from afar. Also, note: He stresses it is the power of God that is present, not God per se.

And you need to read a little further when Thomas says that God is PRESENT by not only His Power (which is the only one that he uses the king analogy), but also His PRESENCE and ESSENCE.


[QUOTE="Hoghead1, post: 69679732, member: 381793" Whether or not creatures have a "real relationship" to God isn't the issue here. The issue is whether or not God does, and Thomas states clearly that he doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Actually this has nothing to do with whether God is omnipresent or not. God does not have to be part of the universe to be present in the universe.

For God to be omnipresent would require Him to be transcendent. In fact I would say that it would be quite impossible for a materiel being, which if God was part of the universe he would have to be, to be omnipresent unless you are claiming that God and the universe are synonymous.

Anyway even if you are and that is how you define God's omnipresence; the debate is whether or not Thomas teaches God's omnipresence, which without any doubt he does, as has been shown over and over. It isn't is Thomas teaches your concept of omnipresence, which obviously he doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScottA]

We just assume that when Jesus said "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that he was referring to himself. But earlier Jesus had said that to see him was to see the Father not the Son.

If that were the only thing to go by, it could be considered an "assumption" - but there is a ton of stuff showing Jesus to be the Christ...a ton.

 

[Erose]

Well, I simply do not trust those definitions. As I said before, what you are talking about here is the immanent trinity. I also wonder whether the sources you cite are not in fact arguing that we know what God is doing in the world, but not what God actually is, which is what economic, as opposed to the immanent, theory of the trinity claim.

All you had to do was check out the links provided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Colter]

If that were the only thing to go by, it could be considered an "assumption" - but there is a ton of stuff showing Jesus to be the Christ...a ton.

Sure, I agree, but I'm specifically talking about the Son that is the second member of the Trinity. Yahweh of Judaism wasn't thought of as a Trinity or having a divine Son. So all of this was revealed or re-revealed in Jesus.

 

[Hoghead1]

All you had to do was check out the links provided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, I checked out the online sources you referred to. I would encourage you to read them more carefully. They make it plain that the economic theory of teh Trinity is a claim we can know only God's actions in history, what's in it for us, not what God is in his own nature. You might want to take a look at what a major theologian such as Karl Rahner has to say on the subject of the economic vs. the immanent Trinity.
At first glace, yes, Thomas does seem to be saying God is is omnipresent. But you need to read the fine print, which make apparent his claim is actually that Gods' created grace in present, not God. I am not alone in this this interpretation of Thomas. It is shared by a number of contemporary scholars. So you might want to take a look sometime at Everitt (2010) ( article titled "The Divine Attributes'). Hudson ("Omnipresence," in "The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology." 2009).

 

[Hoghead1]

And you need to read a little further when Thomas says that God is PRESENT by not only His Power (which is the only one that he uses the king analogy), but also His PRESENCE and ESSENCE.


[QUOTE="Hoghead1, post: 69679732, member: 381793" Whether or not creatures have a "real relationship" to God isn't the issue here. The issue is whether or not God does, and Thomas states clearly that he doesn't.

Actually this has nothing to do with whether God is omnipresent or not. God does not have to be part of the universe to be present in the universe.

For God to be omnipresent would require Him to be transcendent. In fact I would say that it would be quite impossible for a materiel being, which if God was part of the universe he would have to be, to be omnipresent unless you are claiming that God and the universe are synonymous.

Anyway even if you are and that is how you define God's omnipresence; the debate is whether or not Thomas teaches God's omnipresence, which without any doubt he does, as has been shown over and over. It isn't is Thomas teaches your concept of omnipresence, which obviously he doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

No, that is not all what I am saying abut Thomas, as I just explained in a previous post.

 

[Razare]

If you are talking abut the Trinity, then you are going on the teachings of men, of the fathers. The very term "Trinity" is not found in Scripture. Your vies of the Trinity is very close to the various extra-biblical psychological models of the Trinity proposed by the fathers. That shows you are in fact influenced by "wordily wisdom."

None of the terms in our Bibles were in the original Bible. It was written in a different language and translated.

So certainly it must all be incorrect unless we read it in the original languages? The translation turned it into the doctrines of men?

Or does "trinity" describe a teaching in the Bible, even though, the Bible does not contain the word. That's personally why I don't esteem the word too highly, and prefer the teaching. But just because men came up with a word to describe a teaching from scripture, does that then mean the teaching is false?

So if we create a word to describe something in scripture, what we're then describing becomes false because a word was invented?

 

[Hoghead1]

None of the terms in our Bibles were in the original Bible. It was written in a different language and translated.

So certainly it must all be incorrect unless we read it in the original languages? The translation turned it into the doctrines of men?

Or does "trinity" describe a teaching in the Bible, even though, the Bible does not contain the word. That's personally why I don't esteem the word too highly, and prefer the teaching. But just because men came up with a word to describe a teaching from scripture, does that then mean the teaching is false?

So if we create a word to describe something in scripture, what we're then describing becomes false because a word was invented?

The Trinitarian formulations are largely extra-biblical in nature, i.e.g "worldly wisdom," the thought of the church fathers. That was my point, that's it, all I said. I don't follow what the rest of you post has to do with anything I said.

 

[Hoghead1]

One could predict the outcome of the verbal exchanges between Hoghead and Erose——-The absolutely mysterious character of the dogma of the Holy Trinity is, indeed, not defined, that among the truths of Faith, there are mysteries concealed in God which can only be known on the basis of divine Revelation only.

Christianity has always regarded the dogma of the Trinity the most profound and fundamental mystery of faith.
As someone said, even after Revelation and acceptance of faith, they remain covered by the veil of Faith.

But we can engage in some way, as the man said: "The dogma of the Trinity is, in fact beyond reason but not contrary to reason."

NMO, that is way, way off from what I and Erose are talking about. I grant you the Trinity is often presented as a mystery. However, I think the "mystery" of the Trinity is largely due to muddled thinking on the part of teh fathers.

 

[HermanNeutics13]

The best explanation for the Trinity is found in the Athenasian creed. When trying to come up with analogies, it is easy to fall into a heresy.

 

[Erose]

OK, I checked out the online sources you referred to. I would encourage you to read them more carefully. They make it plain that the economic theory of teh Trinity is a claim we can know only God's actions in history, what's in it for us, not what God is in his own nature. You might want to take a look at what a major theologian such as Karl Rahner has to say on the subject of the economic vs. the immanent Trinity.

That is the definition I have been giving you. Economic Trinity deals with how the Divine Persons relate to each other, and how that is reflected in salvation HISTORY.

At first glace, yes, Thomas does seem to be saying God is is omnipresent. But you need to read the fine print, which make apparent his claim is actually that Gods' created grace in present, not God. I am not alone in this this interpretation of Thomas. It is shared by a number of contemporary scholars. So you might want to take a look sometime at Everitt (2010) ( article titled "The Divine Attributes'). Hudson ("Omnipresence," in "The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology." 2009).

Look all I can do, and all you can do is go off of that Thomas himself wrote. You may think that what he is proposing isn't really omnipresence, but Thomas believed what he was proposing was omnipresence. Those are two different points. We aren't arguing whether or not that Thomas' position is your understanding of omnipresence, but whether or not Thomas believed and taught that God is omnipresent, which is exactly what he believed.

I agree that Thomas did not teach pantheism, which is an impossible proposition for God as Christianity teaches. God isn't part of creation, because He created creation. And one doesn't have to be part of something to be present, in it. God has to be present in His creation because all of creation exists and is actively sustained by God.

 

[Meowzltov]

As a student of both the books of the Bible and the Urantia Book, I see the Trinity differently. I see Jesus as a Son of the Trinity, not the second person of the Trinity. Religionists experience an irresistible urge to speculate in the formulation of theological concepts which can sound reasonable yet be erroneous.

We just assume that when Jesus said "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that he was referring to himself. But earlier Jesus had said that to see him was to see the Father not the Son.

I'm afraid the Urantian ideas are not going to be respected or welcomed here. Remember that this is a Christian forum.

 

[ScottA]

Sure, I agree, but I'm specifically talking about the Son that is the second member of the Trinity. Yahweh of Judaism wasn't thought of as a Trinity or having a divine Son. So all of this was revealed or re-revealed in Jesus.

I guess I don't get your point.

The prophecies are who was all that and more..."For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

The fulfillment of prophecy...

The witnesses...

Etc., etc.

 

[Hoghead1]

I guess I don't get your point.

The prophecies are who was all that and more..."For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

The fulfillment of prophecy...

The witnesses...

Etc., etc.

The problem is how to interpret Isa. here. Is the passage referring to Christ, or is it referring to a purely earthly king. The appellations here are also appropriate to describe an earthly king. So the passage is ambiguous.