Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[cgaviria]

Speech is sound waves. Sound waves don't speak. If Jesus spoke He is a being. If that is what you believe I go back to be my question what is the basis for your change in who elohim refers to. You said that it was the Father who created the world and the water. What is the basis for this claim?

Why are you getting carried away by my use of speech? I am AFFIRMING that Jesus Christ was there as a being to SPEAK. The connection of the "word was God", or rather "speech of God" in John 1 alludes to the Genesis account of the speeches that brought forth things into existence, and Jesus as a being that existed then, SPOKE those things, Hence WHY HE IS CALLED THE WORD, because he spoke everything into existence.

 

[Butch5]

Obviously, the scripture reference isn't saying literal words are God. It is spiritually saying that Jesus Christ is the speech of God that brought forth everything into existence.

What does "spiritually saying" mean?

 

[Wgw]

You said you define the Trinity per the Nicene creed. How do you define the Shema in light of the Nicene creed?

"I believe in one God..."

The Nicene Creed is an expression of the Shema, in that the triune nature of God is not refuted by the idea that God is One, but rather, I should say, proven by it. Unity is not "atomic" in a Greek philosophical sense of the word. Indeed, God, representing an essential union of three persons, is the very model of unity per se.

 

[Wgw]

What does "spiritually saying" mean?

The phrase used in a Biblical sense is actually meaningless. Spiritual means in ancient language "pneumatic," hence "aspirate" and to say speech is Spiritual means that it is Pneumatic, as in, related to breath.

 

[cgaviria]

What does "spiritually saying" mean?

Meaning it is not a literal thing, it is something "spiritual" pointing to a literal thing. Its figurative pointing to a LITERAL THING. When this scripture says, the "Word was God", or rather, "the Speech was God", it wasn't literally saying that words were God, it was saying that Jesus Christ was God. And why the use of the word "speech"? Because he acted as the mouthpiece of God speaking everything into existence. Hence why he is called the "word of God" or the "speech of God". Its figurative or spiritual language conveying that very literal truth.

 

[Wgw]

Meaning it is not a literal thing, it is something "spiritual" pointing to a literal thing. Its figurative pointing to a LITERAL THING. When this scripture says, the "Word was God", or rather, "the Speech was God", it wasn't literally saying that words were God, it was saying that Jesus Christ was God. And why the use of the word "speech"? Because he acted as the mouthpiece of God speaking everything into existence. Hence why he is called the "word of God" or the "speech of God". Its figurative or spiritual language conveying that very literal truth.

Aha, there it is. More proof of my point that non-Trinitarianism is incompatible with a literal understanding of the unaltered text of John 1:1-14. At this time both of the most active opponents of the Trinity in this thread have now admitted they do not regard this pericope as being entirely literal. Indeed, in this entire thread, we have seen no convincing refutation of my OP; the position of my opponents hinges upon a non-literal interpretation of this pericope and other passages, or in cases we have seen of other non-Trinitarian members of this forum, a rejection of their authority altogether.

Based on this, I am considering at present my argument to have been vindicated. Barring any novel, compelling interventions, I will most likely unwatch this thread to stop my inbox from being flooded in the next day or so.

I want to thank the many Nicene participants in this thread for joining me in arguing this case; I think you have done a fantastic job for the cause of Christianity, and I congratulate you.

God bless.
-wgw

 

[Butch5]

Why are you getting carried away by my use of speech? I am AFFIRMING that Jesus Christ was there as a being to SPEAK. The connection of the "word was God", or rather "speech of God" in John 1 alludes to the Genesis account of the speeches that brought forth things into existence, and Jesus as a being that existed then, SPOKE those things, Hence WHY HE IS CALLED THE WORD, because he spoke everything into existence.

OK, then what is the basis for saying the first instance of elohim is the Father and the second is the Son? Why would they be different?

 

[cgaviria]

"I believe in one God..."

The Nicene Creed is an expression of the Shema, in that the triune nature of God is not refuted by the idea that God is One, but rather, I should say, proven by it. Unity is not "atomic" in a Greek philosophical sense of the word. Indeed, God, representing an essential union of three persons, is the very model of unity per se.

Sounds philosophical if you ask me. I like scripture verses. If you say God is divided in three, quote a scripture. If you say God is divided in three things, like a pie cut in three, then quote me a scripture. I find it disturbing that anyone would believe that God is made up of three things. My belief is that there is only ONE God, undivided, and none other like him, and he is fully expressed in his FULL IMAGE, which is the Son. The Son is lesser than the Father, since he is an image of the Father.

 

[Butch5]

The phrase used in a Biblical sense is actually meaningless. Spiritual means in ancient language "pneumatic," hence "aspirate" and to say speech is Spiritual means that it is Pneumatic, as in, related to breath.

People use the word spiritual for so many different things that it's hard to try to figure out what they mean. That's why I ask.

 

[Butch5]

"I believe in one God..."

The Nicene Creed is an expression of the Shema, in that the triune nature of God is not refuted by the idea that God is One, but rather, I should say, proven by it. Unity is not "atomic" in a Greek philosophical sense of the word. Indeed, God, representing an essential union of three persons, is the very model of unity per se.

OK, but what does that mean? You believe in one God. Is the Father God? Is the Son God, is the Holy Spirit God? Many Christians answer these questions in the affirmative. If you answer in the affirmative, how is there one God?

 

[Wgw]

Sounds philosophical if you ask me. I like scripture verses. If you say God is divided in three, quote a scripture. If you say God is divided in three things, like a pie cut in three, then quote me a scripture. I find it disturbing that anyone would believe that God is made up of three things. My belief is that there is only ONE God, undivided, and none other like him, and he is fully expressed in his FULL IMAGE, which is the Son. The Son is lesser than the Father, since he is an image of the Father.

I shall I suppose comment on this point in a manner of valediction.

Alas on this point you simply resort to another position I outoiend early in the thread, rhat of resorting to a classical strawman regarding the doctrine of the Trinity.

Trinitarians do not believe that God is divided, composited, like a "pie cut in three," et cetera. This is why we say Jesus Christ is God, not a part of God.

Interestingly what you describe is, I think, more akin to certain highly esoteric interpretations of Kabbalistic Judaism, that is, the idea that the sephirot represent shards of a shattered God that it falls upon Kabbalists to somehow reunify.

 

[Wgw]

OK, but what does that mean? You believe in one God. Is the Father God? Is the Son God, is the Holy Spirit God?

Yes.

Many Christians answer these questions in the affirmative.

Almost all, in fact, if we measure the relative size of the non-Trinitarian denominations still ostensibly Christian with the size of the Trinitarian church throughout history.

If you answer in the affirmative, how is there one God?

Simply in that the three prosopa or hypostases exist within one divine essence; God is eternal, uncreated, immutable, impassable and unbounded, and the three prosopa are united in this one divine essence. Objections to this idea rely on the anthropomorphological error that one God requires on Person, which relates to human alienation from other humans, resulting from the Fall.

 

[cgaviria]

Aha, there it is. More proof of my point that non-Trinitarianism is incompatible with a literal understanding of the unaltered text of John 1:1-14. At this time both of the most active opponents of the Trinity in this thread have now admitted they do not regard this pericope as being entirely literal. Indeed, in this entire thread, we have seen no convincing refutation of my OP; the position of my opponents hinges upon a non-literal interpretation of this pericope and other passages, or in cases we have seen of other non-Trinitarian members of this forum, a rejection of their authority altogether.

Based on this, I am considering at present my argument to have been vindicated. Barring any novel, compelling interventions, I will most likely unwatch this thread to stop my inbox from being flooded in the next day or so.

I want to thank the many Nicene participants in this thread for joining me in arguing this case; I think you have done a fantastic job for the cause of Christianity, and I congratulate you.

God bless.
-wgw

How does a literal interpretation of the "word was God" mean anything literally logical or justify your point of view? How is a word God? How is a word like "it" God? Or a word like "hello" God? Words in themselves are not God. When it says "word", its something spiritual. By saying "word", its referring to Jesus Christ. The "word was God" spiritually/figuratively means "Jesus Christ was God". You are confusingly taking my whole thing out of context and creating your own confusing garbled mess. I feel pity for you, because in sounding so wise in your own eye quoting things like the Nicene Creed outside of scripture and naming all these old roman church fathers, you really are not wise in correctly interpreting scripture. Its alludes you and you are blind to it and you want to see things your way. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the wisdom of the world. When scripture calls Jesus Christ the "word", there is wisdom in understanding that its referring to him as the one who SPOKE in Genesis. There is wisdom is understanding in knowing why God called Jesus Christ an only son. The spiritual meaning of only son is that he was the only one that was created directly by the Father, and other living beings were created by Jesus Christ when he spoke. There is also wisdom in understanding that a son does not precede a father and also a son does not come at the same time as a father, a Father comes first then a son, which is why the Jesus BEGAN, because the Father never began. There is wisdom in understanding why Jesus Christ was called the image of the unseen God. It is because he reflects the very nature of the Father as creator, and an image is lesser than the thing it creates. There is wisdom in understanding why he was called the "first born" of creation. Because he was created FIRST, then all other living beings were created through him. Things things are discerned with wisdom. You're not going to find a scripture that directly proves or disproves the trinity doctrine. There is not one scripture that says, God is a trinity. This doctrine is discerned with wisdom in studying scripture.

 

[Butch5]

Yes.



Almost all, in fact, if we measure the relative size of the non-Trinitarian denominations still ostensibly Christian with the size of the Trinitarian church throughout history.



Simply in that the three prosopa or hypostases exist within one divine essence; God is eternal, uncreated, immutable, impassable and unbounded, and the three prosopa are united in this one divine essence. Objections to this idea rely on the anthropomorphological error that one God requires on Person, which relates to human alienation from other humans, resulting from the Fall.

Can you define what you mean by essence.

 

[Wgw]

Can you define what you mean by essence.

No, since strictly speaking the divine essence defines description. How does one describe that which is entirely transcendant? The divine essence refers to the incomprehensible, impassable, immutable, eternal Godhead, a "boundless limitless sea of being" (St. Gregory the Theologian), the fullness of all qualities in their highest and infinite form (St Basil the Great).

We know of God only through his revealed attributes, prosopa or energies, we do not know nor can we claim to know the divine essence.

 

[Butch5]

No, since strictly speaking the divine essence defines description. How does one describe that which is entirely transcendant? The divine essence refers to the incomprehensible, impassable, immutable, eternal Godhead, a "boundless limitless sea of being" (St. Gregory the Theologian), the fullness of all qualities in their highest and infinite form (St Basil the Great).

We know of God only through his revealed attributes, prosopa or energies, we do not know nor can we claim to know the divine essence.

My question was what you mean by essence, not what the divine essence means.

Then please tell me how you can tell anyone in this thread that they are wrong. If you don't know what the divine essence is how can you see this guy or that guy has it wrong?

 

[Butch5]

.

 

[Wgw]

How does a literal interpretation of the "word was God" mean anything literally logical or justify your point of view? How is a word God? How is a word like "it" God? Or a word like "hello" God? Words in themselves are not God. When it says "word", its something spiritual. By saying "word", its referring to Jesus Christ. The "word was God" spiritually/figuratively means "Jesus Christ was God".

Here you make the grave error of confusing eisegesis with a literal interpretation. We know, from John 1:14, that the Word refers to Jesus Christ; "Logos" is a revealed name which connects our Lord with OT prophecy and helps us understand the relationship between Father and Son, through analogy (consider that a Thought is logically the father or precursor of a Word).

If we read John 1:1-14 in isolation or opposition to the text, we might erroneously misread it as suggesting a divine, incarnate and uncreated Bible. However when we read this exegetically, the actual meaning becomes clear.

Your argument here is simply a red herring to divert our attention from your non-literal interpretation of this section and your eisegesis of other passages. I fear that you are under the misconception that literal exegesis means "spiritual or non literal" whereas eisegesis is a "literal reading."

I feel pity for you, because in sounding so wise in your own eye quoting things like the Nicene Creed outside of scripture and naming all these old roman church fathers, you really are not wise in correctly interpreting scripture.

In the course of this thread I have quoted no Romans, and only referred in passing to a single Roman Catholic (Thomas Aquinas). I believe that St. Augustine of Hippo was Milanese and not Roman per se. Of course, Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory et al were residents of the Roman empire, but then, so was Jesus Christ; St. Paul was a Roman citizen. There is a reason why in the Islamic world it became common to call Christians "Romans" in some places.

Of course, I could well quote St. Ephrem the Syrian, the patron saint of my parish church, in defence of the Trinity.

But I do not need to do that; all I require is the canonical Bible, as St. John, St. Matthew, Moses and others provide essentially everything neccessary to defend the Nicene position.

 

[Wgw]

Then please tell me how you can tell anyone in this thread that they are wrong. If you don't know what the divine essence is how can you see this guy or that guy has it wrong?

On this point we can distinguish between the divine essence, and the persons of the Holy Trinity, which are revealed explicitly. Functionally, one can say that the three persons are united essentially, on the basis of "I and the father are one," et cetera.

 

[Wgw]

Its alludes you and you are blind to it and you want to see things your way. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the wisdom of the world. .

Eludes, not alludes. The two have rather different meaning.

The wisdom of God is indeed foolishness to the world, and the raison d'etre of this thread is non-Trinitarians attempting to comprehend the Godhead according to the preconceptions and limitations of secular, human knowledge, rejecting truth in favour of anthropomorphological truism.

When scripture calls Jesus Christ the "word", there is wisdom in understanding that its referring to him as the one who SPOKE in Genesis. There is wisdom is understanding in knowing why God called Jesus Christ an only son. The spiritual meaning of only son is that he was the only one that was created directly by the Father, and other living beings were created by Jesus Christ when he spoke.

There is greater knowledge in the understanding that paternity does not imply, but rather is distinct from, creation. There is still greater knowledge in recognizing that He who created all things (John 1:1-5) is not a creature.