|
|
Post by heretic on May 14, 2006 16:23:03 GMT -5
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." (NRSV) If there is one Scripture that really gives me doubts about the Trinity, it's this one! Can anyone help me to iron it out please?!  |
|
|
|
Post by evanescence on May 17, 2006 6:20:59 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't see how that scripture disproves the Trinity. Ephesians 4 talks about the unity in the Body of Christ.
I'm sure someone else may be able to help you out.
God bless
Evanescence
|
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on May 18, 2006 21:37:33 GMT -5
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." (NRSV) If there is one Scripture that really gives me doubts about the Trinity, it's this one! Can anyone help me to iron it out please?! I'm still an Arian but I view Mark's discussion of Jesus' knowledge far more critical than this. In the "economy of the Trinity" there is an assumed authority of the father. What that authority is tends to wander all over the place from my readings (from Thomas Aquinas' rather strict equality to modern protestant works which are almost Arian). If anything this, on a neutral reading, tends to lend strength to the Trinity. In verse 10 Christ accends "higher than the heavens" that is, to the place reserved for God, and "fills the universe"[NIV] which is language that is usually reserved for God. Now an Arian can handle this because the language can be read as adoptive and an Arian does view Chirst as being in a special position vis-a-vis God. Its just not a good proof text for either side. |
|
|
|
Post by heretic on May 21, 2006 9:41:20 GMT -5
Thanks gkchesterton
I think what confuses me is that comma after baptism! To me, it can be read to mean that the 'Lord' and 'God and Father' are two seperate entities - God the Father and the Lord Jesus while my friends seem to believe that the 'one' of everything is referring to a single entity.
That doesn't make sense to me as this would interpret Jesus and the Father as the same entity (modalism/Sabellianism?) which I definitely don't believe in!
Your Arian interpretation seems to make the most sense at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by skeptictank on Jun 10, 2006 22:00:35 GMT -5
Heretic-
(modalism/Sabellianism?)
If I may offer my input, though I don't know what you mean by this, I would love to give you some two cents. Christ says in Jhn 10:30 "I and [my] Father are one." That doesn't mean that they are the same person (that wouldn't make sense because otherwise there would be question to christ's sanity when he prays) but it does suggest that they together are one entity (them combined with the holy spirit).
Paul write's to this form of oneness in 1Cr 12:15: "If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?"
God is one body, but of three components which we know as "the father, the son, and the holy spirit".
If I completley butchered gods nature, I beg someone to rebuke me.
Skeptic Tank
|
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jun 12, 2006 21:22:19 GMT -5
Modalism is the idea that God is of one nature and one person expressed in many modes. Therefore, Jesus is praying to himself. When Witnesses argue against the trinity they are generally arguing against modalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by heretic on Jun 18, 2006 17:13:48 GMT -5
Maybe my confusion will be clearer if I split it!
"One Lord" = Jesus
"One God and Father" = the Father
So it doesn't say that Jesus is God, it does say that the Father is God.
So in my mind, this verse is saying either:
Jesus isn't God.
or, the alternative to read the verse straight through
the one Lord and the one God and Father are the same - but I know that Jesus isn't the Father, so I throw that interpretation out.
I guess what I really need to work out is how the 'one lord' and 'one God and Father' connect to each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Sept 15, 2008 12:44:08 GMT -5
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." (NRSV) If there is one Scripture that really gives me doubts about the Trinity, it's this one! Can anyone help me to iron it out please?! Well he doesn't say "one God a three person being" but "one God and Father." Similarly, Paul does not say, "For us there is one God: the Triune God." He says, "For us there is one God, the Father." |
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Sept 15, 2008 21:23:53 GMT -5
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." (NRSV) If there is one Scripture that really gives me doubts about the Trinity, it's this one! Can anyone help me to iron it out please?! Well he doesn't say "one God a three person being" but "one God and Father." Similarly, Paul does not say, "For us there is one God: the Triune God." He says, "For us there is one God, the Father." To be perfectly fair, no He doesn't. You are abbreviating it as such but the scripture does not say that. If we used your logic then any of the items can be dropped and retain the same meaning. Therefore we can get the construction "For us there is one Lord, the God." |
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Sept 15, 2008 21:31:31 GMT -5
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." (NRSV) If there is one Scripture that really gives me doubts about the Trinity, it's this one! Can anyone help me to iron it out please?! Well he doesn't say "one God a three person being" but "one God and Father." Similarly, Paul does not say, "For us there is one God: the Triune God." He says, "For us there is one God, the Father." Again, you do the same contraction here. We agree that there is "One God the Father of all". No Trinitarian doesn't. As for the formulation of the Trinity that is held to be contained in St. John's Gospel (also known as John the Theologian). And no, that is not limited to John 1:1. It is much deeper than that. Would you take a look at some of John Chrysostom's work on the matter? |
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Sept 17, 2008 13:43:53 GMT -5
Nice try sly. But that is not what Paul said is it? Nobody was debating whether there was only one God the Father as opposed to 2 God the Fathers.
The POINT is that Paul identified the one God as the Father. That is one person.
Trinitarians do not identify the one God as one person but as three persons.
LOL. Chrysostom was a nut.
|
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Sept 17, 2008 21:05:08 GMT -5
Nice try sly. But that is not what Paul said is it? Nobody was debating whether there was only one God the Father as opposed to 2 God the Fathers. The POINT is that Paul identified the one God as the Father. That is one person. Which again no one who believed in the Trinity would deny. I'll be frank, what we have left of Arius is far better than the argument you are trying to make. Ok, so you're not a current Witness but you are definitely an ex-Witness and one that really needs to climb out of his very limited world view. Chrysostom is regarded as one of the greatest Christian thinkers ever. He is regarded as such by people much smarter than you and I. Unlike you, he spoke Greek as a native and first language which gives his analysis of John far more credence than anything you can purpose. Second, you did not address the argument at all, instead, you poisoned the well. That doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look under educated at best and willfully ignorant at worst. |
|
|
|
Post by anne on Sept 18, 2008 13:20:01 GMT -5
How did Jesus raise Himself just like He said He would? How Did The Father raise Jesus, how did the Holy Spirit raise Jesus.
John 5
Honor the Father and the Son.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyc on Jul 3, 2009 13:28:57 GMT -5
heretic - your point is well understood. In my discussions with those who believe in the Trinity, a fall back is the undefinable nature of God. I've noticed that the Trinity can take on all sorts of different identities.
Setting aside whether or not Jesus is God, the absolute definition of the Trinity requires all three entities to be equal. Your scripture points to a difference in equality which cannot be explained by the Trinity doctrine. I see many who try to explain how the Lord can be the same personage as God, but they can't explain why the scripture would bother to point out that there is one being greater than the others. That alone would not allow the existing definition of the Trinity to be truthful. There are too many scriptures which make the Son subordinate to the Father. If you focus on one thing, that would be the best way to disprove the Trinity.
|
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jul 5, 2009 18:12:02 GMT -5
heretic - your point is well understood. In my discussions with those who believe in the Trinity, a fall back is the undefinable nature of God. I've noticed that the Trinity can take on all sorts of different identities. Setting aside whether or not Jesus is God, the absolute definition of the Trinity requires all three entities to be equal. Your scripture points to a difference in equality which cannot be explained by the Trinity doctrine. I see many who try to explain how the Lord can be the same personage as God, but they can't explain why the scripture would bother to point out that there is one being greater than the others. That alone would not allow the existing definition of the Trinity to be truthful. There are too many scriptures which make the Son subordinate to the Father. If you focus on one thing, that would be the best way to disprove the Trinity. Then they are utterly failing. The Lord is God, because they are the same thing, which is why the Jews could call God the Lord. Jesus is not the same personage _as_ God he is the embodiment of the Word, _one_ of the persons of the Trinity. Look, I remained Arian for a long time. It is a _hard_ thing to get your head around. But you're going to have to cite specific scriptures if we are to address them. |
|
