Stepping in It – Again
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 NASB
Him – The section title in the English Bible (“The Deity of Christ”) is, of course, a theological addition to the text. It tells the reader how to read the following Greek text, a text that contains the third person, singular pronoun autou. In the NASB, it is theologically translated “Him,” (notice the capitalization), but the word itself can actually mean “her, him, it, itself, herself, himself, etc.” The meaning of the text, and its subsequent translation, is determined by the paradigm adopted by the translator. And that’s the point, isn’t it? We don’t read the text as neutral observers. We read the text according to the belief system we already have.
What does this mean? It means that the fundamental arguments about doctrinal theology are almost never about the text itself. We can all agree that autou is a third person, singular pronoun, but that agreement makes no difference whatsoever to the final outcome. The real disagreement is about where we start, not where we end.
If I start with the assumption (no matter how much evidence I gather to justify it) that the authors of the apostolic writings were Christians, then I will inevitably arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. If I start with the supposition that the authors of the text were first-century, orthodox, Torah-observant Jews, then I will never arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. It is simply unquestionably incompatible with Jewish orthodoxy.
Perhaps the statement above is a bit shocking and strong. Perhaps I should point out that fifty percent of the Church prior to 350 CE did not believe in the Trinitarian formulation. Richard Rubenstein’s work, When Jesus Became God,[1] demonstrates from the historical record that the triumph of the Trinitarian doctrine was determined by social, political and moral events much more than by theological persuasion. In fact, mob violence, murder, excommunication, emperor interference and unconscionable malice were strong contributors to the Western Church’s ultimate adoption of Athanasius’ reformulated theory. But it doesn’t matter anymore, does it? Now the doctrine is assumed to be the center post of Christian orthodoxy. Forget the fact that even today the Eastern branch of Christianity still questions Athanasius’ theory. After 1800 years, it must be true!
But it all hinges on this—that the authors stopped being orthodox Jews and became Greek-thinking Christians. Of course, the doctrine can survive even if the apostolic authors never thought of it. Why? Because now the doctrine is the exclusive claim of what it means to be Christian. Now it is a matter of salvation! Now, if you don’t believe it, you are condemned. But one must ask, “If the men who wrote about Yeshua were all orthodox Jews and continued to be orthodox Jews who followed a Jewish Messiah, then where did the idea of multiple gods come from?” For from a Jewish perspective, that is precisely what the Trinity is—a declaration of multiple gods.
Rubenstein (who, by the way, is not a theologian and has no axe to grind in this controversy) probably says all that needs to be said when he points out that Athanasius, unable to find textual support for his theory of the God-man, borrows a word from Greek philosophy, homo-ousios, to create the answer to the question, “How can Jesus be all God and all man at the same time?” Athanasius simply added that “the Father’s method of generating the Son is beyond human understanding.” Ruberstein responds, “Indeed! Everything about this theory is beyond human understanding.” The ultimate answer! And the ultimate application? Just kill those who disagree.
In the last few years I have investigated the history, culture and textual evidence associated with the doctrine of the Trinity. As a result, I have lost my position at the seminary where I used to teach and lost of support of some dear friends of many years. Perhaps you have experienced the same results when you begin to tread on the hoofs of sacred cows. Perhaps you have also stepped in it—and come out not exactly smelling like a rose. Does that deter you from pursuing the truth? Have you reached the point where you can no longer look at what actually happened, at who these men really were, and where the ideas you hold so dearly really came from? Or are you willing to wade on, trusting that YHVH is One, His people are called to Him and we really don’t have all the answers.
Topical Index: Trinity, Athanasius, Richard Rubenstein, John 1:3
Additional Note:
Without entering into another Trinitarian debate, consider for a moment the possible implications of Fretheim’s remarks about Proverbs’ language concerning the female personification of Wisdom.
Because birthing language is used for wisdom, but not for other creations of God in this text [Proverbs 8:24-25], wisdom’s relationship with God is established as a unique one. Inasmuch as wisdom is God’s daughter, she is divine in some fundament sense, not only creature.[2]
God has never been Creator before; inasmuch as Woman Wisdom is the first of God’s creation, God’s experience as Creator begins with her. For the first time, God has an Other with which to relate.[3]
This means that the God who proceeds to create the world, with wisdom “beside him,” is not a solitary figure in that creative task. God does not create in isolation, but works with that which is not God in creating the cosmos. For God to be in a precreation relationship with wisdom within the divine realm entails an understanding that relationship is basic to the divine identity.[4]
Woman Wisdom’s presence is not a neutral matter for God; she makes a difference to God for what God is about in creation. The point made is not simply that Wisdom was the first of God’s creations but that Wisdom became an integral dimension of God’s further creations and hence necessarily participant in what they had become.[5]
God chooses to be dependent upon wisdom, not only in creating the world but in continuing the relationship with that world.[6]
What language would John choose if he wanted to express these ideas in Greek? Do you suppose he would have said anything other than what he wrote in the first fourteen verses of his gospel? Of course, we can’t ask him, but it does look suspiciously like the ideas that are expressed in the Hebrew language of Proverbs, doesn’t it? If you were John writing in the first century in a Jewish Messianic context with a substantial knowledge of Hebrew as your mother tongue and a commitment to the monotheistic God of Israel, do you think you would title the first section of your letter “The Deity of Christ”?
[1] Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ’s Divinity in the Last Days of Rome (Harcourt Brace & Company, 1999).
[2]Terrence Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation, p. 211.
[3]Ibid., p. 212.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Ibid., p. 215.
[6]Ibid., p. 216.
elegant connections between the texts! However, as I continue reading in John 1 (verse 10 and beyond), I get confused about WHEN “her”(Wisdom) becomes “him”(Messiah)…Is the “Word” (memra?) …him or her? Is the “Only Begotten”…him or her? Hmmm….
In a few days I will write about Eric H H Chang’s work on John 1. He spends 200 pages discussing this complicated prologue. What I can tell you now is that all the authors of the apostolic material alter verses from the Tanakh to fit their arguments and that the material in Proverbs is the closest parallel “personification” of an attribute of God that we find in Scripture, so obviously John was well aware of this. In addition, the rabbis also personified concepts in the Tanakh as a regular part of their exegetical method (e.g., Torah). Wait until I discuss Chang’s material and then see if it helps.
.”….that all the authors of the apostolic material alter verses from the Tanakh to fit their arguments….” That was really offensive and an abomination to YHWH, to add/subtract, and distorting His words is absolutely an abomination to Him. Particularly, in regards to the many “prophecies” that Yeshua seemingly fulfilled.
Looking forward to your TW on Eric Chang’s work, Skip! Toda v’shalom!
I would like to ask if you are approaching the texts about wisdom as a Sadducee or as a Pharisee?
If your question is more than tongue in cheek, the answer would have to be the latter since the Sadducees did not recognize Proverbs as “official.”
That was a serious question, but if you read Proverbs (assuming you accepted it as a Pharisee) as a Sadducee, wouldn’t you perhaps take the personification literally? And if you did, wouldn’t you also take other personifications just as literally?. Thank you.
Laurita touches on a point I wanted to make. Wisdom is personified in Proverbs 8:, yes; but how does that carry over to Proverbs 9, in which Wisdom is clearly not to be understood literally? In fact, in the Proverbs Wisdom is first personified in 1:20; in that case the meaning is clearly metaphorical. Wouldn’t this metaphorical understanding be carried on through to those Proverbs following?
Thank you for your bravery in confronting and dispensing truth!
Yes, thank you so much, Skip. It takes a man who loves YHVH above all else to “step in it” deliberately as you have. I am a person of that faith, too. I’ve walked with numerous, harmful human enemies most of my life… but hand in Hand with YHVH. The only time I really felt alone is when I staggered away from His Side to do my own thing. What a super dark, cold, “death-like” time those 5 years were.
We (Ric and I) are here to encourage you and strengthen you as we, too, come to the understanding that God is God… and He is WAY bigger than our limited minds can begin to comprehend… as you have explained:
“trusting that YHVH is One, His people are called to Him and we really don’t have all the answers.”
Here’s the question.
Was John’s belief in Jesus born out of his personal experience
and intimate relationship with Him, or by some prior paradigm
that determined his way of thinking?
In 1 Jn 5:9-10 he writes: “We accept man’s testimony, but God’s
testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which He
has given about His Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God
has this testimony in his heart.”
I don’t disagree that readers will begin any text with their theological, cultural, and socio-political assumptions; however, the intellectually honest person will attempt to take the text at its face value and exegete it based on what is perceived to be the author’s theological, cultural, and socio-political views. Of course, this doesn’t mean they’ll be entirely successful.
From a historical context with respect to the writings likely to influence John the Gospel writer, we’d have to assume that both the Tanakh and a certain amount of the Apostolic writings were available to him. If we assume Colossians was both written before he wrote his Gospel and that it was available to him (same with at least some other Pauline texts as well as the Book of Hebrews), then it is logical he’d begin with that knowledge base.
James D.G. Dunn (The Epistles to the Colossians and the Philemon, NIGTC, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996], p 96) exegetes Colossians 1:16 (specifically this part of the verse: “all things have been created through Him and for Him”) in a way that I think readers here would partly agree, though he affirms a metaphorical understanding of Wisdom:
[As an interesting aside, in the footnote to this quote Dunn claims that the Greek en autō, in Him, “probably reflects the Hellenistic Jewish idea of the Logos as the ‘place’ in which the world exists”.]
Interesting that you cite Dunn. Eric H H Chang takes him to task on some of his ambiguity. I will be writing a bit more about this in a few days or so.
I’ll await your input when you utilize Chang. I’m pretty certain I’ll have something to say, as I’d read through portions of his book.
Skip, given that you are no longer with the seminary please be open, clear and bold about making your needs known – this community desires to make sure you and Rosanne are taken care of during this transition time! We love you and appreciate your leadership and that you are willing to take us along on your walk!
Ric Gerig, couldn’t agree more. Thank you, Skip, for walking alone. We all have to start there.
So, Skip, should we look at the Wisdom of Proverbs as the Ruach HaKodesh that Yeshua refers to as the one who needs to come and convict the world of sin?
That is a really good question, Dana!
I am not sure we can draw the conclusion that the personification of Wisdom is the equivalent of our notion of the Ruach, or even that it parallels Yeshua’s concept. Remember that Wisdom is personified as FEMALE, and that personification does not entail more than personalizing one of YHVH’s attributes. To introduce the Ruach as if it (notice the pronoun) is an existing entity and not simply the actions of YHVH in the world of men (as the Jewish sages would have seen it) is tantamount to reintroducing the entire Trinitarian argument again, via the backdoor, if you please. What if the Ruach is nothing more than God showing up in ways that human beings observe?
Hello Skip and Others,
This paradigm shift has come with a cost, but one I am still willing to pay rather than turn back, yet I have some inner hurt.
I am either met with silence, perhaps facial expressions that I cannot read, or someone may fall back on a Scriptural truism, We are in the world but not of the world, to end their questioning and feel a sense of comfort, and familial security for “being in Christ.” Yes, you and other resources urge folk like myself onward when reading something that fits the puzzle pieces now called “Jewish Roots of Christianity.”
I recently read online an article titled “Unearthing The World of Jesus” in the Smithsonian Magazine. It made the point that archaeologic findings are helping represent a person named Jesus who is a first-century Jew, that the Gospel writers assert had many followers who were devout in their commitment. Personally, I find that exciting, encouraging and today, inviting! They did something besides reject the Messiah and shout Crucify Him, crucify Him, they accepted, believed, touched, and embraced Him!
I regret by action “Christian friends” who shun folks like myself who find a sense of identity with our Biblical relatives! Calling one’s self a Christian today is almost a written family rule in the north American church. Believer, Messianic or member of The Way are terms seemingly heard as sub-Jesus, sub-culture- sub-evangelical. Thank you!
David Russell
Going back to the solid foundation of where our faith/trust comes from -the 3,500 year-old trustworthy Tanakh- can never be wrong. So glad you are aboard, David!
My husband and I have been under fire for several years because we questioned the “deity” concept. We understand your walk, Skip, and applaud the courage it takes and the cost it demands.
In the Peshitta (Lamsa’s translation) John opens thus:
“The Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. Everything came to be by his hand; and without him not even one thing that was created came to be.”
Such a subtly different beginning. The “his” and “him” in verse 3, grammatically, reference God Himself, and when read thus this passage makes perfect sense. So sad they are not “capitalized” in the English (none of the words are capitalized in the Greek text) so that the concept carries through.
We look forward to the ongoing discussion!
I have gone through Lamsa’s translation. It was loaned to me by a friend who was considered an adept in the New Age occult. She said it was the favorite of the occult because of Lamsa’s background and his slant. You might want to check that out.
Skip, thank you for your honesty and sharing about the loss of your teaching position. This last year, I was also asked to step down from my full-time position as an Associate Pastor of Small Groups. Although I worked with a great group of pastors that viewed themselves as open-minded and teachable, when it came to the doctrine of the Trinity, well, all minds were closed and there was no room for discussion. I was given some time to come to my senses and repent of my sin, but when I could not in good conscience deny the unique oneness of Yahweh, I was asked to leave. It’s been a hard road since then, going through a career change as a middle-aged man is difficult, and the loss of dear friends has been painful. Pursuing truth is a lonely place to be, but may Yahweh be blessed and His son exalted in our suffering for the truth. Keep up the good work brother.
Thank you, Tim, for your courage. You are in a very good place… the perfect place… the place you were created for… you are sold out to YHVH and His Messiah. Praise God forever.
So Skip, how does a person like myself, not as educated as you, know what is correct in the New Testament? How does a layman like me know when it says Him or when it means “her, him, it, itself, herself, himself, etc.”. I just love your teachings but really also want to learn how to find these things out on my own.
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him…….Here’s some links to “the beginning” that might be worth consideration and may help in clarifying some issues. (such as the “jump” from her to him.) I won’t draw extensions as that could be considered an unnecessary leading, but I’ll try to lay out some of the links between the passages.
The wisdom of Proverbs is chakmah, a feminization (to bring to fruit) of chakom, which is about tasting something and having a desire for it. As an example, a sculptor who turns a piece of stone, looking at its potential and determining its strengths and weaknesses is “tasting” it and determining his desire for it. In Genesis, there’s a different (not unrelated) type of wisdom, namely binah, (feminized) that is tied to a builder, (ben) a son, (ben) “between” (bien), which is what a builder or son is engaged in, and, oddly enough, the number 3. (the advocate) The relationship between these can be shown in the activity of a builder that has a pile of wood that he, or another has determined to build a house with. On the one hand, there’s the desire and potential, and on the other lies the manifesting of that desire. The builder is the advocate that brings the desire to reality (physical). The same can be said concerning a son and father, ie; David and Solomon. David wasn’t able to build the temple, but he could accumulate materials and draw out the design, it was left to the son to “continue” the work and bring it to fruition, again, being the advocate through which the desire of the father is determined. It’s interesting that the third day (shalish, a term of advocate) is the day that plants and their continuation was formed, as they take what was given and they sustain those whom it was given too. (advocate)
As I said, I won’t attempt to lead but if you consider these “links” the connections become pretty clear.
YHWH bless you and keep you….
Regarding “beginning”, here are a few things from the Greek. In John 1:1, the first clause is En archȩ̄ ēn ho logos, In [the] beginning was/existed the Word. Note that the definite article (hē, “the”) does not precede archē; so, we add “the” out of English convention: “In the beginning”.
Interestingly, in Revelation, John records Jesus words in 3:14, referring to Jesus Himself: Tade legei ho amēn, ho martys ho pistos kai alēthinos, hē archē tēs ktiseōs tou theou, These things say the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning / Origin / Preeminent. By nominalizing archē (adding the article, thus turning it into a subject nominative), John has turned it into a title, almost a name. The same applies to “the Amen”.
Archē has a number of different meanings, and, as always, context must determine any word’s meaning. The word is used as a prefix in what we translate as “High Priest”, and is also prefixed to “angel”, as in Michael the “Archangel”, e.g. Surely, there won’t be universal agreement on just what it means here; but, no matter how one exegetes it, one must consider the context which includes John’s nominalization of the other terms in this same clause, such as “the Amen”.
I read Rubenstein’s book and it was very interesting to learn from the perspective of a historian. I have also read parts of Chang’s lengthy tome “The Only True God”. His work is very detailed to say the least but very informative.
When I was researching this subject and this particular passage from the Gospel of John, I found it interesting that Tyndale uses the pronoun “it” in the first part of John’s opening statement:
1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men 5 and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.
Yes, he does. Correctly. Also some other earlier translations, as Chang notes. But then orthodoxy took over and the translations were altered to fit the theology. Another chapter in the continuing saga of theology before linguistics.
Skip why do you believe John was paraphrasing Proverbs if I can phrase it as such…
All the apostles received the command teach what I have taught you… then they became witnesses testifying about Jesus.
I do not see the correlation as to wisdom which was explained in Proverbs. which is about guidelines while the gospel is about the birth or manifestation of God in flesh. Or rather God’s will being manifested in flesh.
For me the OT was how God dealt with the peculiar people. They failed to observe the holinesss. God promised a restoration and sent it as Jesus or Yeshua.
Not a repetition of what was but a restoration unto what God desired… Could the paradigm not be that we are trying to find the restoration in failed processes that were introduced and in doing this we loose site of restoration versus sustaining that which was not understood. I am not saying that the commandments are nullified., I am saying that Johns gospel messages should rather be read to focus on what must be. And how God introduced it this time round… without trying to explain our view based on other people’s perception… Yeshua said Ye must be born again. Not ye must restudy…. I add to understand the restoration introduced by the gospel writers.
Lots of responses here. Let’s start at the bottom. John 3 – Yeshua does NOT say, You must be born again. Go look at the Greek verbs. What you are reading is an evangelical translation. The only time the words “born again” appear in the NT is in Peter’s letter. Yeshua says “you must be generated from above,” a very Hebraic idea.
Second, the idea that God finished with the Jews because they failed in their mission is typical Christian replacement theology (even in a mild form) and ignores that fact the Yeshua came FOR THE JEWS. He was a reformer calling them back to their original mission – a mission that has never been rescinded. The Tanakh deals with Israel because the WHOLE BIBLE is about Israel. It took a Gentile CHURCH to rewrite the mission and the history. You must reconsider how much of your view has been shaped by church teaching, not Scripture.
Third, every author uses imagery that is contemporary with the audience. John is not “paraphrasing” Proverbs. He is using the same technique, that is, personification of divine attributes, something that his audience would easily recognize and be comfortable with. Yes, Yeshua taught his disciples, but he didn’t teach them NEW language. He used the same language and the same imagery that they knew – and Wisdom as a woman is something they certainly knew.
Back to you. 🙂
Thank you for the concise response Skip.
Using imagery, like saying therre is water what prevents me from being baptized. Water implying words of wisdom and baptism referring to me getting involved in my self study to understand YHVH will. Or allegory meaning way of depicting something in a audible why that only the audience would understand… Leaving the message open for free interpretation according to the depth of the knowledge of the one reading the records.
Contrary to church indoctrination I accept it is about Israel and using the same allegorical interpretation I do not view Israel as the north african inhabitants. I view Israel as the ones that wrestle with messengers until they can understand and adapt their lifestyle to reveal that what is required by the originator of the message God.
As you said being generated from above.
So I am not Christian nor Hebrew I am Jacob wrestling with messengers so that I can also be part of Israel. I am not yet part of Yeshua I am still part of the immersing process…
As for wisdom being a woman I believe this would rather be words of correct teachings would be what restores rather ongoing repetitive teachings.
God has never rejected anyone He has maybe emphasized that we need to change the way we are approaching the records that are revealing His desire.
Skip,
Initially, I was a bit baffled by your response regarding “born again”, but I decided against saying anything – till this morning. I don’t disagree with your statement that gennaō anōthen means ‘born/generated from above’, as Jesus used it in John 3:3,7; however, the necessary implication in that verb-adverb combination – and what Nicodemus focused upon (3:4) – is that one must be born/generated again. Moreover, the adverb anōthen can be rendered “again” or “anew” (cf. Gal. 4:9; Wisdom of Solomon 19:6). Jesus’ words here are an example of paronomasia, a pun, a linguistic device John the Gospel writer employs quite often.
Nicodemus’ response obviously indicates that the very idea of being gennaō anōthen was foreign to him, even though he was apparently a learned man (“Israel’s teacher” – 3:10). When Jesus explained that it meant to be born/generated ex hydatos kai pneumatos, “of water and Spirit”, Nicodemus was still perplexed (3:9). If this was a “very Hebraic idea” as you assert, it was certainly lost on Nicodemus!
Peter’s use of anagennaō is a prefixing of the preposition ana with gennaō (used in 1:3 and 1:23). In its spatial sense, the preposition ana means “up” or “up to”, though when used in compound words sometimes the meaning is altered completely. In this case, ‘born again’ is how the lexicons render it. However, given that this only occurs here in the entire NT, I wonder if a shade of the spatial sense is intended, as in ‘up-born’, i.e. ‘born from above’?.
Going down a bit of a rabbit trail, I found another, similar word used. Paliggenesia, a noun which is a compound of palin, “again”, and genesis, “birth”, is found in Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5. In the Matthew verse it refers to the ‘rebirth’ of all things at the eschaton. In Titus it is used in a prepositional phrase: dia loutrou paliggenesias kai anakainōseōs pneumatos hagiou, “through (the) washing of rebirth and renewal of/by (the) Holy Spirit”. The word anakainōseōs is a compound of ana and kainos, meaning “new”.
I write all this to conclude that I think gennaō anōthen and anagennaō mean much the same thing. And I think Paul juxtaposed paliggenesia (noun form; not used as a verb) with anakainōseōs to say pretty much the same, though perhaps Paul wanted to strengthen the idea.
Craig you said Paul wanted to strengthen the idea. Would this mean as I think you imply… Paul wanted to reinforce or remind the audience or readers that this was not based on a choice they made – but rather the calling by God. Shema hear and do changes to faith trust and relay on.
While knowledge may reinforce my walk in faith it is not a prerequisite anymore as seems to be a Hebraic interpretation.
NB I am not saying knowledge is not need I am saying trust is more important than knowledge.
Seeker,
Regarding Paul’s statement, I meant simply that here in the specific context of Titus 3:5, by using two separate words, the first meaning ‘rebirth’ (“born again”) and the second ‘renew’ (‘up-new’, ‘new from above’), Paul likely wanted to reinforce that the ‘washing’ by the Holy Spirit constitutes a ‘new birth from above’. To state more succinctly, Paul could have used one or the other word and his point would have been made (“through rebirth by the Holy Spirit” or “through renewal by the Holy Spirit”)’; yet, he chose to use both.
I purposefully did not explain what those words entailed, as it wasn’t my intention to interpret any of the relative contexts.
Or maybe just implying accept that when God calls we become nothing when He makes His abode in us everything we live for… I just need to answer that to that loving call.
I have noticed that all fights must agree upon mutual terms. What must that agreement in this very old fight consist of? I have noticed that both sides agree that God can be reduced to a number, and that He is LIMITED by the concept that “One” must be confined to math, whether it is One as in ‘yachid’ (Hebrew for ‘indivisible’, which is a term for God that not one text applies), or whether it fractures the One into a trinity, which there is not a text for, either. I also think that I am beginning to notice something else, and that is that both sides ‘need’ certain texts to mean certain things not obvious to the average exegete, or earnest reader either. Both sides are straining the texts. Why? I think it could be because both sides have to agree that God cannot be One-all-be-all. One side thinks He has to be split up into exactly three mathematical components. The other side agrees on using mathematical certainty – albeit a single number – but also insists that He cannot save by Himself: He has to have help from a man; notwithstanding a very, very, very, very special man. But help, nonetheless.
I have also noticed that neither side can afford to just let the texts stay open to an inherent mystery beyond both them and us. Therefore, I have concluded that this must be a completely man-made fight that, like all fights, is missing the real point. I have begun to be curious as to what that real point could be. I have wondered if both sides stopped agreeing with each other on what must be fallacious terms, and set out to discover what the real terms might be, what marvelous truths we might uncover? Must we keep wearily fighting someone else’s malicious, divisive fight? Shouldn’t we at least be curious as to what we are really fighting about?
What if God were not a number?
……….or infinite? Who is, as is in, I AM.
Good point.
Both of the groups are probably wrong.
Before the creation event, there was only THE ONE (Ein Sof), and all was in THE ONE.
But then events unfold which lead to the Creation Event.
These events, however major and magnificent they may have been, were before and therefore outside the dimension of the material (natural) world and man.
One can assume that these events are not explained in Scripture because they are not essential to enable man to walk out his life on earth.
The only way to explore these events is by entering the spiritual world. The danger of this is that your experience and conclusions will depend on who guided you on this journey.
Those who insist that there is a Trinity have been guided by a Christian spirit.
Those who insists that “God” is one, by a Jewish (Judaism) spirit.
Pray that your guide be the Holy Spirit, because She is Wisdom (and the wife / female aspect of The Father).
So, we can start the journey by concluding that there are at least 2 aspects identifiable in the concept of YHWH.
Pieter,
I’m curious; by your words here you obviously adhere to a Kabbalistic, panentheistic conception. Are you an adherent to Lurianic (Isaac Luria’s) Kabbalah or another type?
Hi Craig,
I have read some Kabbalistic material (hence the term “EIN SOF”), but first encountered the concept of THE ONE in Hinduism. I make a point not to adhere to anything, I allow even my personal opinion to change regularly. My trust is in facts revealed through the TORAH. If is is not written (in TORAH)… it cannot be / happen 😉
In the sense that (a) “tree” (tree of knowledge of good and bad; tree of life; Mark 8:24) can be a metaphor for (a) spirit: The Sefirot, to me, fits the mould of the tree of life, illustrating the spirituality of the “Heavenly Family”. The enigma is that the sefirah of “wisdom”, for me, is not in the right place. Secondary to that, I concluded that the complexity of the “Echad” is beyond our highest understanding. I want to strongly emphasise that even though we should contemplate even the mystery of YHWH, men are not supposed to dissect and study it.
The folly of the Trinity was easy to fall into, because the 3 Aspects are all through scripture: Abraham interacted with “Loving-kindness”, “Righteousness” and Mediation personified. The wise approach is to look for these in scripture and have joy in finding them. The error is to force this miracle into dogma.
By the way, the Holy Spirit is “a she” and misunderstanding “Her” as “Him” is probably the root of the homosexuality and adultery problems in the churches.
Thanks for your response. I like to try to ‘see’ others’ perspectives. I’m assuming you depart from the typical Hindu belief that creation is coextensive with the Ein Sof, i.e, pantheism? The Lurianic belief is one of panentheism, that when the Ein Sof contracted, resulting in creation, that divine sparks were ‘deposited’ into all matter. Would you go that far?
Actually, in the NT, in the Greek Holy Spirit is neuter, because pneuma itself is neuter. Pneuma has a host of meanings such as “breath”, “wind”, and, of course, “spirit”.
Yes, my understanding is that Ein Sof contracted into the gravity, which the “Big Bang” erupted from, and the change pre-creation (contraction) included a fundamental change of Ein Sof into Elohim (collectively named YHWH). The first line of Genesis is a definition of the “Big Bang”, the second line describe the conditions immediately after the BB and “inflation” (hovering / fluttering) controlling the explosion and ensuring even expansion (which does not normally happen with explosions).
A year ago I would have been reluctant to consider panentheism. But have since looked into dark matter, dark energy, dark fluid, etc. and I am being gradually convinced that these “unseen” may just be the spiritual dimension, unwittingly already discovered by science. If we differentiate between spirits (ruaghim) and demons (shadim) then what the kaballists called “sparks” may be a network of ruachim communicating with the Ruach HaKodesh (in this I include our own ruach, which need to submit and integrate with the RHK). The shattered shards ala Kaballah, and the spirits of the Nefelim (which cannot return to YHWH) would then slot into the shadim group. This would explain what may seem like a “depositing” of the unseen elements, both good and bad.
[The error in Greek thinking is confirmed by the Hebrew which does not have a neuter.]
Thank you for the discussion.
Shalom
Thanks for your answer. Would you then, like Lurianic Kabbalists, believe that it is necessary for all the ‘sparks’ (the ruachim only; excepting the shadim) to eventually reunite so that the Ein Sof can be ‘whole’ again?
Do not know. Do not see a need to return to Ein Sof. See time as a spiral, not a circle. Jacob Lorber wrote in about the 16th century that “energy” (spiritual…) gets absorbed by higher forms of life and (only) the highest forms (man) need to reunite with the Originator?!?
The “Bride” may be the mechanism of completion / return?
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your openness to express your views.
Pieter I would love to embark on the spiritual journey. The problem all records are either Christian or Jewish exegetical assumptions. No facts only probabilities. As my friend Job struggled to accept these teachings so do I as I read the kingdom of God is power, it is in us, it is peace joy and righteousness in the holy spirit. So yes our guide can only truly be the holy spirit, or spirit of truth… and to see or enter this relationship we must be regenerated. From above. With respect to all scholars this implies no in depth knowledge of the history or the covenants will help as only the new covenant will be the possible way to be regenerated… when YHVH inscribes our hearts himself through his spirit as he did when introducing all his servants even wisdom and deeds…
With all due respect, Seeker, how will you know it is YHVH? The only distinguishing feature that completely differentiates Him from all other spirit guides or entities (and there are plenty! Just look around!) is the fact that He claims to be the only Creator. This is His sign that we are His. You have to have the historical FACTS surrounding this claim as embodied in a people who lived out what obedience to that Creator looked like, as per how He delineated what that obedience was (and still is) before you could know it was YHVH at all. Do you know who you are listening to? We all have to answer that question. This is the only way that we have been given.
He was the One Who chose to speak to us with history in a people. We didn’t choose that. 100% of His servants subscribed to that specific obedience. How do you know what the covenant is without its history? The ‘new covenant’ is just the original one recodified in a new WAY, which is, as you say, written on the heart and made possible by the gift of that Holy Spirit. Love does not change, therefore the covenant has not changed.
I really love your heart for service! He will work through any of us who humble ourselves to listen to how He has chosen to speak to us.
Laurita I read of only two spirits… unfortunately it was the messengers that created their own spirits by mingling truth, assumptions, exegesis and dogma instead of sticking to either.
Obedient to the creator… I love that. Tell me how do you hear Him. If he is the same why is he talking to us through records and not as in the OT. Because of the mediator…
Yeshua of 2000 years ago OR Yeshua today. Those doing good deeds..
Hi Seeker,
I can see from your posts and independent thought that your are truly a “truth seeker”.
Our “facts” are of this material world, the real “facts” are of the spiritual: Only when our facts concur with the spiritual facts are our facts true.
When things go wrong for me (no shalom or joy), it is not the Devil or witchcraft (although these may be tools – as in Job’s case), it is YHWH who are either punishing me or testing me (as in Job’s case). If things go well, it is again YHWH, either blessing me or testing me. In both scenarios, my response should be to humbly before YHWH, return or continue my journey with loving-kindness to my fellow travellers and in righteousness.
However, in my experience, the more I study scripture and the more dogmatic I get, the more I stumble and fall.
My advise is to forget about the Christians (a creation of Ignatius) and the Jews (even the chief rabbi of the state of Israel cannot define these) and find a community in which to discuss and debate truth VIGOROUSLY. The Spirit in you will then lead you where you are supposed to be. Although I strongly disagree with the anti-Messiah sentiment of Judaism, I really enjoy arguing with Jews: They can be seriously pugnacious but afterwards back to being warm friends.
If you spent the day with Skip and Roseanne today as we did, mostly with Jews, at Beth Messiah Messianic Synagogue in Sarasota your sweeping statement, “I strongly disagree with the anti-Messiah sentiment of Judaism” might be better modified by the words “some (or many) interpretations of Judaism”.
Skip was warmly received and attentively listened to all day and given grateful thanks by all and I can assure you that their Judaism will be the beneficiary of the event for some time to come I am sure. Senior Rabbi Judah Hungerman (I love that name) gave thoughtful consideration to a question I posed to him and he hit a home run with his answer.
My wife and I were invited to return any time for shabbat or other celebrations and may do so as I agree with your last sentence.
Pieter,
Thank you. I love your and Craig’s discussion on Ein Sof.
I know nothing thereof but gets me thinking of Gnostic view I read of in early research.
God created this earth and all in it to have suitable vessels to collect his shredded cloak of glofy and power… souls following specific lifestyles…
So all we can do is humble unto His will… refrain from whoring, Stop telling lies, respect agreements etc.
There is some overlap between some forms Kabbalah and Gnosticism, though there are quite a number of variant forms of each.
Amen Laurita, some “knowledge” is necessary, but the fact is that I “don’t know” more than I know. We have a bit of a problem admitting that. I would suggest the difference is whether we walk for ourselves or the benefit of the whole, which includes me.
” I have wondered if both sides stopped agreeing with each other on what must be fallacious terms, and set out to discover what the real terms might be, what marvelous truths we might uncover?” and what if “Elohim” had more to do with a willingness to engage and the power to accomplish that. Where would that leave us with “echad”, not just one but unity.
Hey Robert,
And what if “elohim” referred, a la Michael Heiser, and place of residence rather then a holy being?
It’s the ‘what ifs’ that trip me up.
It’s actually the same thing. 🙂 But we’re not left wondering “what if”, if ( 🙂 ) we look closely and do the work. As an example, E-L aleph-lamed, is the qualified “not”, or rather to “chose” not to do something. That makes it willing, as in Joshua was commanded not (el) to fear. To go further, Abram was called to go “to the land” and just a lamed would have sufficed as it means “toward” but “el-haretz” is used instead. He was to go willingly, not by coercing, but you go to a your residence by choice, it’s where you chose to live. Now read “in the beginning Elohim”….and the “els” of psalms 82 were all willingly acting also.
YHWH bless you and keep you…..
????
From the OP:
Is this a necessary dichotomy? Cannot one approach this assuming that the authors of the apostolic documents that we call the New Testament were both Christians (as in Christ-followers / Messiah-followers) and Torah-observant Jews (excepting Luke, e.g., who probably was not an ethnic Jew)?
I would suggest that it is today, in the earliest years the term Christ would have been well associated with the term Messiah and all it entailed, if for no other reason than the closer association with the synagogue and Jewish congregations in general. The modern church is a bit weaker in its understanding of that sssociation.
“If I start with the assumption (no matter how much evidence I gather to justify it) that the authors of the apostolic writings were Christians, then I will inevitably arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. If I start with the supposition that the authors of the text were first-century, orthodox, Torah-observant Jews, then I will never arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. It is simply unquestionably incompatible with Jewish orthodoxy.”
This conventional wisdom may not be true. Remember that when Paul preached to the Bereans (Jews) his teaching was checked against the OT scriptures to see if they were true. So the real question is: How were first century Jews convinced that Jesus was God incarnate?
The rabbis ask the question: Why does the Bible start with the second letter of the alphabet rather than the first? They have some cute allegorical answers. The real answer is that it does start with the first letter.
The aleph is a silent letter, and in the case of Gen 1:1 it is also invisible. The metaphor for the letter is that “God spoke and created the heavens and the earth” The diagonal vav is God speaking into the void, and the two yods are two new creations.
From the invisible and silent aleph we derive that when God spoke and created the heavens and the earth, there was no one there to see or hear him do it.
Job 38:4 ¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Now consider the first two letters: The invisible aleph and the bet. ‘Ab’ Father. You can’t see it because of the invisible aleph. But from the beginning, no man has seen the Father.
Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
The first two letters you see are bet and rosh..’bar’ or Son. We only see the Son. And the Son makes the Father known because we ask the silly question: Why does it start with the second letter.
The first three letters you see are bet, resh , aleph.. the Son spoke and created the heavens and the earth.
Now we have two of the three persons of the Godhead. When we get to the Spirit hovered between the waters, we have the third. Add this to a dozen other trinitarian formulations in the first few verses, and the fact that AB Father has gematria of three, when the believing Jews of the first century read their own scripture, they way Jesus taught them to read it, seeing him hidden in all of it, the trinitarian nature was a natural result.
We currently dialog with descendants from the non-believing Jews, and can expect their take on it to reflect the same disbelief of their ancestors, even though they retain the methods to read it the same way.
The Hebrew word amar is ‘said’or the ‘word’ but it is also ‘lamb’. Why would modern Jews add modern vowels to make these different words if not to hide the fact that the Word is the Lamb, and the Lamb is the one who spoke and created the heavens and the earth?
The question you pose already contains unwarranted assumptions. The question is not “How were first century Jews convinced that Jesus was God incarnate?” It is rather, “WERE any first century Jews convinced that Yeshua was God incarnate?” I am fairly confident in saying the answer to that question is “NO.” You have posed the question with a built-in bias toward Christian Trinitarianism. I see no evidence in the apostolic writings that would allow this, and furthermore, virtually all the Trinitarian theologians I have read would AGREE that there is nothing in the text that explicitly says any first century Jew accepted this statement.
I submit that the gender of the pronoun autos in John 1:3 and following is at least partially resolvable by the larger context – resolvable grammatically in a way in which neither Unitarians nor Trinitarians can deny. This is assuming that autos refers to ho logos (“the logos”, i.e. “the word”) from 1:1, a position with which both sides most usually agree.
First, note that ho logos remains the subject throughout verses 1-3. In verse 4 ho logos is described further (brackets replace the pronoun): “In [ho logos] was life, and the life was the light of men”. Verse 5 carries over this “light of men”, which/who “shines in the darkness”.
In verses 6-8 we find a parenthesis. Here John (the Baptist) becomes the subject, while “the light”, aka ho logos, becomes the object. The subject reverts back to “the light” (ho logos) in verse 9.
This “true light” erchomenon, “coming”, into the world “enlightens every human”. Erchomenon, which is a present middle/passive participle (in Gk. a ‘verbal adjective’) referring to the “true light”, is either masculine or neuter in gender [all Gk. participles encode gender]. This negates the possibility of a feminine autos.
But, we must resolve a technicality in the syntax first. It is possible that erchomenon refers to “every human” rather than “coming into the world”. However, it is much more likely that this points to 1:14 in which ho logos sarx egeneto, “the logos became flesh”. Anyone who wishes to argue the other way argues against the logical flow of the context.
With that settled, let’s continue on.
This “true light” was “in the world” (v. 10), and though “the world was made through him/it, the world did not recognize him/it” (v. 10). In verse 11 we find that “His/Its own” did not recognize/receive him/it. Who should we identify as “his/its own”? Let’s leave that unresolved. Yet, “all who received him/it” were given the right by him/it (ho logos) “to become children of God”. Verse 12 answers how this was done; it was by belief, pisteuousin eis to onoma autou, “those believing in his/its name” defined as those ‘born of God’ (verse 13). Whose name?
Now we come to the crux of the argument: verse 14. What does it mean for ho logos to ‘become flesh’. Was it that ho logos inhabits this flesh (Unitarian view), or was it that ho logos took this flesh to him/itself (Trinitarian view)? I think this is resolvable by doing a search for “name” in John’s Gospel, in which “my name” clearly refers to the Messiah (14:13,14,26; 15:16,21; 16:23,24,26), or “his name” in which the referent is the same (2:23; 3:18; 10:3; 20:31). Also note 17:11, “Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are”.
John 20:31 (NASB) then provides the definitive answer, as it expresses the entire purpose for which the book was written:
Hence, given that receiving and believing in the name of ho logos results in one becoming a child of God (1:12-13), and those believing in the name of Jesus Christ / Messiah Yeshua results in same, wouldn’t we conclude that ho logos is coextensive with Jesus Christ / Messiah Yeshua? Doesn’t this mean that when ho logos sarx egeneto, “the logos became flesh”, the preexistent ho logos joined flesh to him/itself?
Ugh. I found an error in paragraph 5. “It is possible that erchomenon refers to ‘every human’ rather than ‘coming into the world’” should instead be “It is possible that erchomenon refers to “every human” rather than “the light”. The rest of the paragraph is fine. Sorry for any confusion.
Believing in the ho logos…
Craig,
This sounds as if you are saying if God’s will does not find application in what I do then no amount of trust, belief, faith or prayer will transform or regenerated me.
In short I must become Torah obedient or observant before God will start with the regeneration…
Seeker,
I’m not sure how you are drawing your conclusion. Can you explain?
I purposely didn’t draw out any conclusions/expound on the text. One must individually make an interpretive decision on just who/what ho logos is. However, interpretation must start with the understanding that ho logos and ho logos-become-flesh are coextensive in some way. To state that ho logos ‘merely’ inhabits the flesh, keeping the two separate and distinct during the time of Yeshua’s earthly existence (and post-earthly existence), is to impose a view not supportable by the larger context of the entire Gospel. In other words, ho logos, who/which precedes creation as the agent of creation (1:3), acquires sarx, flesh (1:14), thus resulting in a new mode of existence as ho logos-become-flesh, or “word made flesh”. The Book of Revelation makes it clear that this mode of existence as ho logos adhered to flesh continues post-resurrection.
Obedience is word taking on flesh. That is how…
There is no other means to become sons and daughters of God.
Unless I am reading the OT and NT incorrect.
This is one verse that I would firmly agree has nothing to do with the deity of Yeshua.
To say “..and apart from him nothing came into being..’ is blasphemy against the One and Only Creator God. the Father, Who created everything alongside Wisdom. Then again, YHWH can create anything out of nothing. No problems there, surely?
Torah/Instruction was first SPOKEN-Oral Torah-and passed on down the generations by word of mouth as commanded-when you get up, when you sit down, when you walk……a daily practice for right living, taught from a young age.
Torah is the Word from YHWH’s mouth, CREATED therefore by YHWH.
IF Torah (law in “NT”) has been done away with, wouldn’t that mean Yeshua “the living Torah” has been done away with, I wonder.
It’s the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the “NT” that are “baffling” many; in addition to the many twisting of Tanakh verses as “prophecies” to being fulfilled by Yeshua.
Are they meant to Confound?
Scripture /Tanakh has NEVER been confusing, (but for MAN-MADE laws/ instructions)
– obey YHWH’s instructions to receive blessings, rebel to receive curses.
IF only we are childlike in purity…. perhaps we will accept the simplicity of life, living as in Micah 6:8, rather than choosing to walk into quicksand of a complicated “Gospel” , another “God”, and smack into idolatry! 🙁
Just my standpoint….shalom!
Skip, have you ever addressed John 8:58? I was in a discussion with a group of Jewish people recently, some of them Orthodox, and they were absolutely convinced that Jesus was claiming to BE God in this verse. I know that many Christians also interpret this verse the same way. Is there another way to interpret Jesus’ words here, as well as the response of the people to which he was speaking, which was to immediately try to stone him? Why else would they respond that way?
No, sorry. I haven’t written on it yet.
Let me point out that Eric H. H. Chang’s work The One True God discusses this verse. For those not aware, there’s a pdf available online. A handy Scripture index can be found at the back of the book, making things much easier.
Having opened that up, I’ll state two things. First of all, from my perspective Chang really strains at trying to make this fit into the Unitarian view (as he does with John 1:15,30 and etc.). Secondly, Chang, like Sir Anthony Buzzard (I’ve been reading through Chang’s pdf and had been reading through a bit of Buzzard’s articles on his website for a while now) misrepresents the Trinitarian view. I’m not suggesting they are doing it purposely or maliciously; I truly think it’s a misunderstanding. With that in mind, I’ll attempt to facilitate an understanding of the true Christian Trinitarian view, deducing it into a formula:
YHWH = The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit
and at the same time:
YHWH = The Father
YHWH = The Son
YHWH = The Holy Spirit
Any ‘Person’ individually constitutes YHWH and all ‘Persons’ collectively constitute YHWH.
I should add: No ‘Person’ is any other ‘Person’; i.e. The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father, and the converse of each of these statements is true.
Succinct and === incomprehensible. Which is precisely why C. S. Lewis says that the Christian God is not a person, but an idea. The “persons” are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but “God” is not any of these but rather that “collection” of these. This is language strained beyond its limits, as Millard Erickson notes. In what sense does the word “person” mean three simultaneously independent yet not distinct beings with unique consciousness yet the same essence, etc. (see the usually formation, e.g. John Piper)? This is pure equivocation, and as Trinitarian scholars admit, makes NO SENSE, which is why, of course, it must be a “mystery.”
It doesn’t make any sense by its own definition of “person”, that is true. But an indivisible God doesn’t make any sense, either, by that same definition of “person”. I can see that I forgot something on my list of things both sides have to agree on: perhaps the most important thing of all, and that is the definition of the word “person”. Both sides have to agree that “person” determines function. Both sides agree that “God” determines the function “Father”, and “Son” determines the function “Son”, for example. Hmm. Very Greek, wouldn’t you say?
I was formulating my response when you posted yours. I agree that the definition of “person” is the most important thing for each side to agree upon. When describing the Trinity I place ‘Person’ in quotes as a way to illustrate that it’s not the same as per (at least one) modern understanding of the term. We see “persons” as being separate individuals, each with a distinct mind, will, etc.; however, this is not what was meant in the original formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine. In the Christian doctrine of the Trinity it’s three ‘Persons’ in one subsistence, the latter consisting of one mind and one will.
Still, that presupposes that “mind” and “will” are determined by “person” or “persons”. Again, function is following form.
Laurita,
I don’t see how what I’ve stated amounts to mind and will being determined by “person”. I’ll restate and amplify. In the Trinity there is one mind/will in the one essence, with each ‘Person’ subsisting in this same essence sharing the same mind/will. Each ‘Person’ is constituted by their role/function, while sharing in the same mind/will. In the economy of salvation, the Son becomes a divine/human ‘Person’ with a separate human will in addition to the one divine will shared by all ‘Persons’ of the Trinity.
In the immanent/ontological Trinity the Father sends the Son; the Son is the one sent. Yet, each ‘Person’ is co-equal. However, in the economic Trinity (in the economy of salvation), the Son is in a subordinate relationship to the Father. Different roles; different economies.
Craig, I will ask you the same question that I am asking Skip: define “person”.
Get a dictionary. “person” is a common word in human vocabulary. It just isn’t applicable to an “essence” that is THREE persons but not essentially distinguishable in attributes. By the way, attributes INCLUDE uniqueness (cf. Aquinas).
You are absolutely correct! The doctrine of the Trinity does not use the word “person” in any way that we can understand as it is used in ordinary human language. But that is PRECISELY the problem. Since the word “person” when applied to the Trinity cannot mean what we think “person” means in any of our normal use of the term, then WHAT DOES IT MEAN? It is of no value to simply say, “Well, it doesn’t mean what we think of as person.” That means nothing. Unless the Trinitarian can specify what “person” means in a way that is comprehensible, not simply a negation, then the word has no meaning for us. And, by the way, Trinitarians admit this and go to great lengths to try to demonstrate that because of this equivocation we need to accept the doctrine “on faith.” It is, after all, a MYSTERY, which is the equivalent of saying that the MOST IMPORTANT fact about who God is is something that we must believe but is totally incomprehensible in human language. Now, I ask you, what kind of God demands that I believe something I CANNOT understand?
But what we have been given to understand is that we are made in His image. When I look to see what I understand of that, I see myself as defined by the Hebrew understanding of community, and what the New Testament calls the Body, and I also see myself as nephesh. This has to be my starting point of understanding because this is what has been given to us.
Again, we can see the linguistic struggle in Piper’s attempt to talk about this:
It is not a contradiction for God to be both three and one because He is not three and one in the same way. He is three in a different way than He is one. Thus, we are not speaking with a forked tongue — we are not saying that God is one and then denying that He is one by saying that He is three. This is very important: God is one and three at the same time, but not in the same way.
In regards to the Trinity, we use the term “Person” differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an “independent individual” in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.
What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as “I” and others as –You.” So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a “You,” even though He regards Himself as “I.” Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that “Person” means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an “I” and the other two as a “You.” END
Now go back and read this VERY SLOWLY. Keep asking yourself, “What does this MEAN?” It comes down to sheer gobbledegook. You simply cannot make sense of it because it violates all the meanings of “person,” “distinct,” “I” and “you.” As Wittgenstein would say, “This is nonsense.”
I don’t disagree with on this. The historical and orthodox position is that no ‘Person’ is an “independent individual”.
Funny that you have to have the “independent individual” before you can count.
GREAT POINT!
But that’s what “person” means.
John 4:24 “God is a Spirit” : “Pneuma ho Theos”. It didn’t say “person”, I have noticed. Is “spirit” analogous to “person”? I guess now I am throwing monkey wrenches, and should go to work.
We must somehow reconcile the Biblical fact that the ‘Person’ for whom “the voice of one calling in the desert” is to “prepare the way” for is YHWH (Isaiah 40:3) and at the same time this same ‘Person’ is the Messiah (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23).
Isaiah 40:5: Then the glory of YHWH will be revealed,
And all flesh will see it together;
For the mouth of YHWH has spoken.
One may attempt to construe this as an instance of shaliach, of agency; however, in agency, can one be properly called by the same name as the one s/he represents – let alone the divine name? If I give someone else power of attorney to act on my behalf, to act in my name, this does not entail that that individual actually acquires my name. They are able to sign documents in my name, but they cannot actually sign my name. We remain distinctly different entities.
In an earlier comment in this thread I noted that the entire purpose of John’s Gospel is to promote the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, with this belief providing eternal life in His name (20:31); and (going a bit further), in the prologue belief in the name of ho logos provides “the right to become children of God” (1:12), i.e. gain eternal life, thereby implying that ho logos = the Messiah. Moreover, Messiah describes Himself as “the light of life” (8:12), the same description provided of ho logos in 1:4-9. They are one and the same entity, though we should state, using more specificity, that prior to the Incarnation He was ho logos and after He is ho logos-become-flesh (1:14).
But agency in the ancient Middle East isn’t exactly like power of attorney today. Agency is the full representation of the person who sends the agent, even though the agent is not that person ontologically. If an “agent” of the King shows up at your door, it is as if the king is standing there, not simply the king’s representative. This is what Yeshua claims over and over. He is the fully authorized agent who perfectly represents the Father and is therefore the Father’s full expression for us. But that doesn’t make him ONTOLOGICALLY the same as the Father, does it?
Please point me to some literature that indicates that 1st century (or earlier) AME thought regarding agency is such that “the full representation” of the sender is conferred onto the agent in a manner stronger than agency is today.
Even still, the ontology of mankind is clearly of the same kind whereas, the ontology of YHWH is clearly other than humanity. So, given that the position here is that the Messiah is not YHWH (that’s the main issue), even if He is superior to mankind in some way, I still see an insurmountable difficulty in construing this as agency. That is, can a man (as per Buzzard, e.g.), even one that is ‘divine’ though clearly subordinate (not “co-equal”) to YHWH in some manner, claim YHWH’s name? From my perspective, that chasm is wider than, say, a bug’s ontology is to a human. That is, the created to the uncreated is a wide gulf indeed.
Yeshua came to “exegete” the Father (John 1:18). He is the full expression of the Father, yes. Yet, it is belief in the name of ho logos = Messiah Yeshua that provides eternal life – this same ho logos defined as theos in John 1:1c. He is also King, King of Israel (John 1:49, 12:13). And He is also the one for whom the Baptist paved the way, the one Isaiah spoke of in 40:3, identifying Him as YHWH. And this is why I see Messiah as being ontologically equivalent to the Father (though not the same ‘Person’), i.e. both are YHWH, as they actually share the same name.
Craig, I wanted to thank you, Skip and bcp for this discussion. Also, I wanted to ask you if you agreed with the dictionary definition of “person” that Skip quoted, however, if you would rather, what definition would you choose? Thank you again. This is great!
Given that a word only acquires meaning in its relative context among other words (typically at least at the sentence level), and that the common meaning for “person” is not applicable to the Trinity, I’ll come up with one definition expressly the Trinitarian ‘Persons’. However, given that I’m an ‘armchair theologian’, I reserve the right to amend this at a later time:
Person:
In Christian Trinitarianism, each of the following: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with each one co-equal in power (omnipotence), omniscience, omnipresence, eternality, glory and Being; each subsisting and sharing in the one divine nature/essence (Gk. homoousios), this essence consisting of one divine will and one consciousness, the Persons individuated only with respect to relative roles/functions; e.g., the Father sends the Son, the Son is the one sent; and, while each Person recognizes Himself as distinct from the other Persons within the Trinity, this is only by virtue of the shared consciousness of the one nature/essence; however, in the economy of salvation (economic Trinity) the Father and the Son communicate with one another, though this is due to the dual nature (divine/human) of the incarnate Son.
With the working definition for ‘Person’ established, I ask the reader to read (again) my 11:29am and 5:37pm comments. In this way, I can logically (with no contradiction) illustrate that believing in the Messiah provides eternal life in His name (John 20:31), which is the same name as that of ho logos (John 1:12), which is the name of YHWH (John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3; cf. John 1:1c), and that this does not result in the illogical conclusion that the Son = the Father, because these two, while ontologically the same (homoousios as YHWH), are not the same ‘Person’.
Angel of the Lord comes immediately to mind. Since no Jew believes that the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate “Jesus,” and Jewish sages clearly view the angel of the Lord in some capacity as of equal authority as YHVH Himself, here is an example from the text of a “representative” who has full agency of person but is not the person represented. By the way, Yeshua claims the same status, if I read the texts as Jewish rather than Christian. What that means is that he can point to the angel of the Lord as precedent for his own Messianic claim without implying that he thinks he is God.
Skip,
Re: yesterday 11/22/16 9:14pm: That’s an excellent example of agency; however, to my mind it still falls short of the NT examples in the Messiah. The reason is that, from the Scripture I’ve seen, these angels of YHWH merely are viewed as having and actually have equal authority for the purpose for with which they were sent by YHWH (something a person today with durable power of attorney has with the one for whom they act as agent); but, they cannot actually claim to be YHWH, and the Scripture does not actually call them YHWH as the Messiah is explicitly portrayed as being (e.g., John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3).
I have to admit that Genesis 18 has me baffled. The Scripture plainly states that YHWH appeared to Abraham and YHWH speaks, yet Abraham sees three men, for whom he provides hospitality. Abraham shows obeisance to the three men, but addresses either the men or YHWH (or are they one and the same?) as “my Lord” (singular).
Respectfully, I don’t find any Scripture making the claim that Messiah used angel of the LORD passages as a precedent for a claim that He Himself was YHWH’s representative. Perhaps there are, but I don’t recall any.
Craig, try one “”Angel of the LORD” and two accompanying angels, which went on to Sodom to enact orders while the One stayed back to parley with Abraham.
Laurita,
But that is to infer much more than the context warrants.
Take into consideration that angels, even Gabriel, never allow anyone to worship them, but always say “worship God” so at least One of them was worthy of worship, but there could not have been more than One of them being worshiped. This one is a hard one to get around without muddying the definition of “divine”.
Yes; this one is difficult for sure. In verse 5 the Scripture reads, “‘They said’…”, implying two or more, but most probably all three were speaking collectively.
BTW, did you see my comment @ 8:35am, in which I defined “person” for today, then explained that historically “person” was not used of the ‘Members’ of the Trinity?
I did, but I am trying in vain to search for Skip’s TW that changed my conception of the person completely. I don’t know how to search for it, but I was going to find it to direct you to it. In it, he argues that the smallest unit recognized by YHVH was the family, and that the person was defined by the community, which is opposite of how we think. I did want to ask you if you had read his summary written Oct. 23, 2015 titled “Richard Nisbett The Geography of Thought”? We could start there.
I read through that blog post, and skimmed the comments. Having studied New Age thought and its encroachment into the West, I’m familiar with some of the differences between Eastern thought and Western thought. I’m concerned that, by extension, an affirmation of Eastern thought leads to the promotion of Socialism, and at the same time a demonizing of Capitalism. Certainly, the demonizing of Capitalism is rampant among the US schools of “higher learning” (and even ‘lower learning’). But, I digress a bit.
The way I see it, a “person” can only be defined at the individual level. I’m fully responsible for myself, and though I can and certainly should aim to both serve and positively influence others, ultimately, these others are responsible for themselves. You can lead a horse to water…
This idea of the self as only fully constituted as a person while in community, or relationship, has been imposed upon the Christian Trinity. This is found in ‘Social Trinitarianism’, which is quite typically explained with circularity. It goes like this: The ideal society is thought to be one in which everyone is not selfish, that the community is more important than the individual (the implication is that a person, just by defining “person” as an autonomous individual, is him/herself selfish). In fact, a “person” is (usually) defined as (a) having a center of consciousness; (b) yet only constituted by his/her social relations; (c) and the only true unity is unity-in-diversity; (d) therefore, the self is not an autonomous individual (thanks Carl Mosser). This ‘ideal’ is then imposed on the Trinity (unfortunately for adherents to this thought, this clearly devolves into Tritheism – three gods, each with his own center of consciousness), understood as a perfect community, mutually inhering in love. This then is projected back onto humanity (thanks Karen Kilby): since this is how God is – and we are, of course, made in the image of God – then this is how the ideal society should be.
I have to ask: If a person is only constituted by their personal relationships, should a person be put in solitary confinement, find him/herself marooned on a desert island, etc., would s/he cease to be a person?
Just a thought on this Craig, I agree with you that the concept spelled out in social trinitarianism is off the biblical standard, but I’m also sure that it’s not what’s attempting to be clarified here. The command is to love your neighbor AS yourself, that’s a term of equity, as opposed to what you described here. The concept in social triniarianism swings the balance in favor of the community over the individual and is therefore unequitable. It’s like the farmer who gave his neighbors his good seed, although it benefitted them, it benefitted him as well in that his crop remained pure. The individual is certainly wholly responsible for his actions, but the consequences of his activities weigh on the community, that’s where the social identification is cemented. So yes, a person marooned on an island is identified as a person because life or death may ensue due to HOW he handles what he has available, and that’s probably closer to reality than our current state of understanding. Again, the main thrust here is equity among the individuals of the community.
For the sake of our discussion here, setting aside the issue of the Trinity entirely, I’ll proceed. Yes, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, which means we are responsible to him/her, and we are responsible for him/her; but, on the latter, ultimately, we are limited, as we cannot control his/her actions. That is, our responsibility for our neighbor is limited by his/her own free will. In terms of sin, of deviation from the Law, e.g., we are each individually responsible. However, if we lead someone into sin, or are complicit or tacit in endorsing it, then we are most certainly responsible; conversely, if we dissuade someone from sin, we are responsible (in a positive manner).
Assuredly, negative actions by an individual will affect the community negatively. And, we should do our best to curb such actions. However, since humans aren’t omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent, we are limited in our ability to eliminate the negative actions of others in their entirety.
Of course that’s pretty much all true but, what I was pointing at is what I thought was the center of this discussion, namely, what is a person defined as. (Biblically) What I’ve said here is an overlayment of a general principle found in scripture. If it helps, good, if not, toss it out. I think if you apply it to your understanding of “the trinity” you might find some interesting things. Again, I’m not here to state or argue a stance, but only try to open up our thinking by presenting some considerations, which is all this is.
Robert,
Very well then. Since I’ve stated all I wish to state about this idea of unity-in-diversity in community as regard “person”, I’ll say no more for now.
Spirit Confusion June 22, 2014.
Shamed Or Ashamed Feb. 25, 2014
Who Do You Think You Are Jan. 6, 2015
A Personal Savior? Oct. 1, 2014
Craig, I am about to go crazy trying to find the TW I want, but you could go through these while I continue to search.
I, like you, are as equally concerned with the New Age skew as I am learning to be with the Western problem. I think the real problem may lie somewhere within the fact that we have so totally inverted ourselves in the pursuit of humanism – and that would be BOTH East and West – that we have lost the ability to understand who we are; BUT, to be fair, the Hebrew is more East than it is West, so we have to start there. In fact, if we are to have any chance of correcting this huge flood of thought coming out of the East, I think it is imperative that we learn to understand from another paradigm. I do not think this is a dialectic between East and West; instead I see it as the schism being CAUSED by East and West both dropping an essential piece of the puzzle. I am calling for a cease fire while we all search for what we most certainly had to have dropped when we decided to engage in this fight.
P.S. I don’t think either side has it right. Could we consider going back to the beginning and starting over?
Maybe I can help since I wrote them. What is the topic or a verse or something to look for?
Thank you! It was the one where you were talking about the family as being the smallest unit recognized in the Hebrew economy. YHVH interacted at the corporate level, such as the family unit or the tribal or national level. You went on to talk about the phenomenon of the personal being a product of the community. It really blew my mind. I sure wish I had it posted on my wall, it was certainly a paradigm shift for me!.
Laurita,
What’s with all this homework over the Thanksgiving holiday? 😉
Glad to see your awareness of New Age dangers. No doubt secular humanism is a growing problem; but, the way I see it, it is the New Age encroachment causing this synthesis (Hegelian dialectic), that is, it’s being combined with rampant consumerism and hedonism.
I’ll take a gander at those TWs.
I read through those, including many of the comments, and I’m not much if any further moved. Sorry.
ahhh…but the seed has been further solidified and the concept more easily followed.
Here, have another cookie.
I tasted it for you (if you were familiar with my cooking skills, you would thank me) ?
Not trying to move anyone, for sure (not my job). The breaking point for me was the Lord’s Prayer. It is a corporate prayer. I realized that the most important focus for me in this world was the salvation of all I loved. Salvation in all its fullness – now and forevermore. The burden of my heart was for all related to me to share what I have and need, too.
Proper prayer is never ‘just’ about me. First and foremost, it is about Him, and the rest of it is about love (connections with, in all dimensions), and how i fit into that. The realization that God looks at me ALREADY as incorporating all I love (because all that I love – am connected with – IS my identity!) was huge. Huge. What a relief! We get saved all TOGETHER; in tandem. Even though everyone ultimately gets their own free choice, my choices make the correct choices of those around me either easier or harder, depending on how well or not I am relating to them. Salvation IS the reconnecting of fracture! This was the dam break for me. Love honors love, and love is never singular. Never.
My identity IS who and what I love (which constitutes my community). Hmm. So is His…. Our insistence in the West to work from the singular out matches nothing in reality. In fact, the individual uniqueness of each and every person and thing is a derivative, or side effect, of what it is connected to. A person all by themselves is a nonentity. My conclusion of that is that that must include God (too many ‘that’s’ too early in the morning- sorry). He is not singular in His identity, either.
Take a longer look at Exodus 3. The voice from the bush is identified as “Angel of YHVH,” but the scene immediately switches to YHVH Himself who is to be worshipped. The Angel of YHVH is treated as YHVH, yet there is no confusion at all that the angel of YHVH is ontologically YHVH. YHVH may manifest Himself as the angel of YHVH, but this does not make the angel of YHVH a separate “person” as the Trinitarian claim of the pre-incarnate Christ would suggest.
Yes, Skip, as a VICEROY. High role of authority given and to act upon, like you mentioned before.
Angels/ messengers are not to be worshipped!.
With my definition of ‘Person’ provided, I’ll answer your question re: John 4:24. “Spirit” is analogous to the divine essence/nature (homoousios).
Certainly it would be wrong to anachronistically impose, e.g., our modern understanding of “house” (with running water, electricity, etc.) onto the Biblical text. Isn’t it just as wrong to anachronistically impose modern conceptions of “person” onto the Trinitarian formulation?
Sure, if it were a case of anachronism. But it’s not. The theologians who formulated the doctrine used Greek terms to describe the contradiction, and those Greek terms we can understand IN THE CONTEXT of their time. So it isn’t the imposition of OUR idea of person that is the problem. It is their own concept of person that is the problem, as they themselves admit (see Erickson).
Can you point me to where in Erickson?
Christian Theology (I have the first edition), p. 342
OK, thanks. As I recall it’s his ‘all-in-one’ systematic, correct? I don’t have it, but I think I know where I can at least view it (at a local used book store, but it’s prolly the 2nd ed.), though I do have his The Word Became Flesh. Don’t have access to a decent theological library.
What I find fascinating and amusing in this discussion is that, from what I’ve read on this site and others, Hebraic thinking has no trouble with contradictions and conundrums, while the “Greek mindset” is one of linearity, requiring resolution of contradictions; yet, here we are discussing a ‘doctrine’ in which I’m promoting one that is admittedly inherently paradoxical and humanly incomprehensible, while the rest here contend that because it’s “contradictory” it must be in error. The irony!
Research the pagan roots of the trinity concept, Craig, and see if it could EVER line up with the Hebraic belief that there is but ONE GOD.
And yes, i do see the irony of the conversation, now that you point it out.
Are you even willing to change your stance on the topic, on any given point? If you are determined that YOU are right and there is NO WAY anyone, anything, or any ‘fact’ will sway, then the conversation is nothing more then a chance for everyone to air their personal beliefs, at best and an exercise in futility at worst.
? Here, have a cookie while you ponder your next move. ?
I’ll say this: the more I learn, the more I know that I don’t know. (A similar thing happened in my record [LP] collecting.)
I’ve briefly looked at the ‘pagan roots’ of a trinity doctrine, but I also found supposed pre-Christian pagan Messiahs dying for others (I have a book titled Apollonius of Tyana: Founder of Christianity, the subject purportedly birthed early 2nd cent. BC). I’ve also seen pagan influence on Mariology (another bucket of worms entirely). I’m just not sure that the presence of a corresponding falsehood necessarily negates a presumed truth.
Thanks for the cookie. However, it looks like you took a bite. 😉 Or at least broke a piece off. But, that may just be my anal-retentive Greek mindset looking for a perfectly round cookie…
bcp, you bring a ray of cheer to this murky waters. Shalom!
Not exactly irony. It is true that the Hebraic mind can entertain paradoxes and even contradictions in ways that make Greek squirm, but the Trinity is not a Hebrew idea, so it needs to at least be internally non-contradictory and logically consistent in the Greek explanation it attempts. Hebrew can say, “God is the author of good and evil,” and although I don’t understand how that can be the case, I at least know what it means because I know what “good” and “evil” mean, even in the Hebraic world. But when I say that God is “three persons in one essence,” I don’t even know what that means because, as Piper clearly explains (?), the word “person” doesn’t mean what we think it means. You see the problem?
I have spent hours reading through your community of heartfelt and informative replies-interesting to me though is a common thread of silence, do you Skip,et al, believe Jesus is alive? or dead?
Yes, I would say. Very Greek. More in a minute.
The main problem in explaining the Trinity is that “person” conveys something quite different than what it did in the original formulation. With that in mind, it’s not a matter of equivocation, though, unfortunately, the way in which most (if not all) ‘Social Trinitarians’ explain the doctrine does amount to that. The historical position was never such that each individual ‘Person’ has a separate distinct consciousness or will, but that there is one divine consciousness and one divine will. Hence they are not truly independent. The ‘Persons’ are distinct only in relation to one another, that is, they are “relatively” distinct from one another, though always of the one divine essence.
The doctrine that Christ/Messiah has two wills, one divine and one human (“not my will but yours be done” – Luke 22:42), was not officially codified until 681/2 at the Third Council of Constantinople, though it can be inferred from Chalcedon. We must keep in mind that these Councils were not convened to establish doctrine per se, but to address specific beliefs understood as heretical.
I’d like to further qualify one of your statements. The “persons” are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but “God” is not any of these but rather that “collection” of these should be more like:
The “persons” are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and while each is fully God, “God” is not merely any of these individually but rather that “collection” of these.
John Piper:
The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.
the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.
The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.
The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally — the Father regards Himself as “I” while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as “You.” Likewise the Son regards Himself as “I,” but the Father and the Holy Spirit as “You.”
While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior to the other. Instead, they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love, mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and all other qualities. END
If this isn’t equivocation on the meaning of “person,” then I have no idea what you are talking about. Pun intended. 🙂
Puns are fun, but I digress. You are right: falsehood has a way of canceling its own self out. I don’t have to get involved. I think Hegel and company were wrong about truth being determined by the dialectic. Truth is determined by itself.
If there is one thing that you have taught me, Skip Moen, more than any other, it is that in Hebrew, the definition of “person” is diametrically opposed to the Greek definition of “person”. I don’t see why this discussion has to be limited to the Greek definition of anything. Yes, that just might return us to talking about apples and oranges, but then, I do think that we should be talking apples and oranges with any Greek; at least when it comes to things originating in Hebrew. Am I a good student?
Yes Laurita, you are a good student.
Am i a bad one because once i figured out that the trinity was a greek/pagan concept that was absorbed into the christian cult that i dumped it altogether and never looked back?
Here’s where Piper errs (actually the article is from guest Matt Perman, though given that it’s on Piper’s site, he’s responsible): “The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness.” Nope. This is something Social Trinitarians have put forth, but it’s not in the original formulation. It seems Perman/Piper have collapsed the distinction between the economic Trinity (in the economy of salvation) and the immanent Trinity.
Wow. More information yet left for each to decide as they become informed.
God is no man that he shall lie. God is the eternal light, God is the holy in our midst. So Laurita all these explain spirit. My question then why would a spirit have a spirit….
My view God is the Almighty Creator, the unseen eternal.
He had a desire or will the Holy Spirit whch guides and keeps all progressively moving forward… the Torah the more you reflect on it the easier things fall in place. An eternal mystery but promise since the beginning of the creation.
Those applying these being guided by the spirit or knowledge of truth will be sons and daughters of God. The redeeming power and wisdom of God. Yeshua.
I try to find a different meaning but keep returning to this view….
God, God’s will, God’s desired deeds. Father son and holy ghost.
The more I read discussions of the Trinitarian view and the OT explanation of how God intervened with men the more I am convinced I may be reading to much into what God expects from me…
Seeker,
Think “Godhead” 3 separate entities united in one purpose.
Perhaps.
Nope, sorry. Godhead does not mean “united in one purpose.” Review Piper. Godhead means IDENTICAL IN ESSENCE. Homo-ousias. Of the same substance (essence). Not a functional category like purpose but rather an ontological category. Thus Aquinas and others can speak of the attributes of God as though they are equally and identically to be applied to each “person” because the three persons are really ONE ESSENCE, that is, one ontological being. IF it were only purpose, there would be no problem at all. You can I can have the same purpose, even an identical one, but we are not the same person.
Hmmm, have you read bcp? ?
I suggest you do because SHE has not read not read Piper, and SHE does not find HIS ‘definition’ any more important then HER definition of any given word.
HER definition (to which she was referring to, having not read Piper) for the word Godhead is just as she specified:
Three distinct entities united in purpose.
I understand perhaps the intended import of Piper’s work, however, there is no refugee camp that i know of that offer his materials and i try to base my life and my spiritual response to what any average individual would have access to. Higher learning and eloquent discourse is not the fare of common man.
Having said that i must admit i got my concept of Godhead from EW Bullinger, and i like it. Since i like it and am content with it, i would read Piper only to figure out what you and Craig throwing back and forth. ??
No offense intended. ?
Ok, appreciate the sarcasm, but frankly, YOUR definition isn’t the crucial one. You are welcome to redefine what the Trinity means if you wish, but it won’t help resolve anything. If you want to explore how the proponents of the Trinity think of “person” and “Godhead,” then you will have to use the definitions they provide. And I already provided Piper’s definition in the blog comments for you and others to read. And, by the way, the AVERAGE individual frankly has no idea about the technical aspects of any of this, just as the average believer has no idea how the doctrines were formed, who was responsible for them or what they really mean. E W Bullinger’s suggestion is not credible since it simply avoids the issue by selecting a way of looking at the problem that is not germane. His suggestion of ONE IN PURPOSE clearly is not what Athanasius and Gregory had in mind (since they reject that) and the suggestion does not deal with the crucial terminology of “essence” which is at the heart of the Trinitarian doctrine.
POINTS!! All of them, even in my direction, except i wasn’t trying for sarcasm, i was trying for realism.
I never ‘got’ the trinity and never focused on it, even when i thought i might agree with it.
I have read what you posted and, at this point, would only be giving it lip service to respond to it as it takes me a while to digest and i’m not about parroting or agreeing with anything for the sake of agreement.
If i were to speak to someone on dirt level, w/out the benefit of your input or this discussion, that is how i would approach it and lay it out. I’m not looking for what any person would say about it, i’m looking for a working concept that would explain to someone on base level (who may NEVER come into contact w/something like this website) what *I* am saying.
My definition, simplistic tho it may be and WRONG, for you, works for me, w/in that concept.
I adore the work that you do that teaches me about what people were thinking w/in the culture and context of the time that Scripture was written. Trinity was not a conversation at that point, and i can easily discuss that with anyone.
For the record, i believe that in the end, people accept and walk in ONLY that which ‘works for them’. It might be with a lot of reading or little, but in the end, that’s what they go with.
PS: this has ALWAYS been my major response to Scriptural discussion. It simply has to be available to the dirt level to be relevant.
Too much history written by those the rule and have the power to teach THEIR paradigm, but YHVH’s pull in the depths of each individual is Micah 6:8, all the rest is…..whatever we, as individuals, make it. (or gravy, as i have sometimes said).
No disrespect or frustration intended.
Hey Skip, i’ve really thought about what you said your posted dated 11/22/20163:48 pm and i am really confused.
I do not believe in the trinity. I believe that the entities (stretching for explanatory words that do not collide with the ongoing conversation) are separate entities. I think i understand your stance to be that there are only 2 entities, am i correct? I accept three, and don’t mind you being wrong. ?
The trinity, by all definitions that i can sift means that three ‘beings’ are one essence, and in that, one being. Correct?
My approach is that they are NOT one essence. Be they TWO or be they THREE, they are separate entities, but they are united in purpose.
I’m not trying to coerce you into agreeing with me a vis a vis, Bullinger. Or, at least my concept of what i THOUGHT Bullinger believed.
Because, obviously, i’ve been wrong for a number of years. >sigh<
In my head (I'm a visual thinker) every time i saw the word 'godhead' i saw three kings sitting on three thrones, YVHWH in the middle, obviously ruling regent.
Humbly, even tho i now understand that i've been wrong, i choose to keep my a) definition and b) visual because c) change is hard. ?
OK, let’s set aside the Trinity. Let’s agree that three “persons” in one essence is hopelessly confused. What do we have left? We have the ONE monotheistic YHVH Elohim. The ONE TRUE GOD as described hundreds of times in the Tanakh, and endorsed by Yeshua and the apostles. Then we have the Messiah, as described by Paul and others–a MAN, not a God, chosen by YHVH to act as His full agent and image representative, endorsed at the resurrection, given all authority as a result of his perfect obedience, the first-fruit of the coming Kingdom. So, ONE GOD and one Messiah. Two separate persons who might share the same purpose, at least in the case of the role of the Messiah. Then we have the Spirit, a circumlocution for YHVH’s action among men, not a “person” but a function of YHVH observable to men. This explanation does not require equivocation on any word nor does it employ the philosophical idea of essence. And it fits the Scriptures.
Does that help?
I don’t know about bcp but it sure helps me!
Why is it wrong to bring in the philosophical term (homoousios, same essence? Isn’t “person” itself a philosophical term? We use anthropomorphism, which is not found in Scripture, to describe actions of God depicting him as human.
Also, I think I’ve found a working definition for “person” that will (hopefully) make all sides happy: an irreducibly complete individual substance (i.e., ousios) of a rational nature. Defining some of the terms within the definition: a “substance” excludes all accidents, i.e., it is not contingent upon the existence of anything else; “rational nature” means possessing the ability to reason, i.e. living.
Hence, all living human beings are persons (I am not you; you are not me). YHWH, God, is a Person. The problem immediately presents itself in applying “person” to the individual ‘Persons’ (hence my quotes) of the Christian Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And, this is precisely why the original formulation did not use an equivalent term.
YHWH, God, is one substance (homoousios) with three hypostases (subsistences) – NOT three “persons” constituting the one Person! The word used for each individual hypostasis in the one homoousios, the one Person, was either prosōpon (Greek) or persona (Latin), each word having been used originally of an actor’s mask, and later, at the time of the Trinitarian formulation, used of the role assumed by the actor. Therefore, each prosōpon (persona) is only individuated by their respective relative roles/functions within the one substance/essence.
So, there are not three persons within the one divine Person (which would be nonsense); each prosōpon has distinct roles/functions individuating Him from another prosōpon, which does not amount to Him being an individual person.
“Modes of being” has been proposed to describe the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity, which I like; but, some may be inclined to think of modalism, i.e. Sabellianism, which is certainly incongruent with Scripture.
Your comment is a good articulation of the traditional view. Thanks. Doesn’t help me get past the history, logic or 4th century Greek terms. But perhaps it clarifies the complexity.
I have a lot of things to get done now so I am going to sign off of this discussion for awhile. I am sure it will come up again as we get closer to the conference with Anthony Buzzard in February.
I can appreciate your point of view. I’m pondering Exodus 3.
Make them all kings and this would be my definition of godhead. thank you.
Of course, on that definition you are a polytheist. Do you mean you have 3 kings and one God, or do you mean you have 3 kings who are each God?
hmmmm, good point, one i never actually considered.
One Monarch/GOD.
The others are subordinate regents. But then we get into hierarchal or so called ‘godly order’, that according to your teaching, doesn’t exist in YHVH’s .
I’m open to suggestions here. Being as how i (obviously) never thought that through. Then comes the question “do i WANT to make this topic a focus”. Will it enhance my obedience to Torah and my adherence to ONE GOD.
Because rabbit trails are lovely, but in the end….they go no where. For me, anyway.
Heeee, bcp, rabbit trails lead to lovely rabbit homes! Perhaps…hopefully….
There IS hierarchy in the Kingdom, as I understand it. YHWH is above ALL, HE rules over all the angelic beings, who serve and watch over us, then there is US, who serve each other.
Shalom to you!
YES, Skip, that sure is pretty clear to “Then we have the Spirit, a circumlocution for YHVH’s action among men, not a “person” but a function of YHVH observable to men “, as revealed/illustrated/ demonstrated in the lives of ALL historical persons in the Scriptures/ Tanakh.
Only Yeshua is a man/person, a representative/viceroy of YHWH a Spirit His very own Ruach ha’kadosh, a set-apart Spirit=TWO-in-One! 🙂
Shalom!
My opinion is that we are ‘saved’ by perfect doctrine. Or semi-perfect doctrine.
scratch that!
My opinion is that we are NOT ‘saved’ by perfect doctrine. Or semi-perfect doctrine.
Coffee, please…
☕️ Obedience is key.
I had someone explain it thusly to me: living to the best of your ability in OBEDIENCE to what you believe is Truth while you pursue Truth leads to sanctification.
I’m not sure if i even hold to the ‘saved’ doctrine any more.
I admire your tenacity, Craig, even if it exasperates me at time. Exchanging old wine flasks for new is an arduous, thankless task.
I once did a research project and submitted it to a well known international pastor/teacher who found it to be worthy of repetition. In the course of presenting it to other believers that he came in contact with he was met with such vitriol that he decided to shelve it.
Not that i blame him.
My response was to want to gather all the pushback commentary and learn to respond to it, coherently and Scripturally.
Alas, my life took a rabbit trail and i left the project undone. Now it is shelved, i think, permanently, as my pastor/teacher went off the rails as well. IMO
😉 or ANY doctrine. Seems to me pretty clear that YHVH saves. End of story.
That’s what i’m talking about!
Hello Seeker,
I have been reading for hours through this post of TW.
I am wondering,
Who do you “seek”?
Romans 7 solidified for me the deity of Yeshua
Too cryptic for me. Romans 7 is Paul’s “straw man” argument about the application of the Torah. It isn’t even Augustine’s idea about Paul’s so-called “conversion.” How do you derive support for the Trinity from this text?
The new covenant is with house of Israel and the house of Judah. A new marriage or remarriage with Israel (house of Israel (Northern Kingdom) & house of Judah)
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
How does a Holy YHWH stay true to his Torah having previously divorced the house of Israel/Ephraim/Northern Kingdom?
Romans 7 describes the role of Yeshua dying releasing Israel (both houses) from the torah of marriage and resurrecting as the new man to be able to marry Israel.
This means that at the original wedding on Mount Sinai, Yeshua had to be present as the bridegroom.
The new covenant was realized on Pentecost/Shavuot Acts 2.
I appreciate the explanation. I just don’t think this is what Paul has in mind, and I don’t see any grounds for the “divorce” theme. Read Hosea. Think about the UNBREAKABLE covenant that YHVH makes. Ask yourself who really walks away from the “marriage.” Remember what metaphors are for. And don’t add someone to Sinai who is not there in the text. Then let’s continue.
Skip, was it the Father’s Voice that everyone heard at Sinai? Who’s Voice was it?
Probably a “Bat Kol”, the Mother (Holy Spirit)’s voice.
I have been thinking a while on this one.
The Father seems too holy to interact with man, that is why we need a High Priest mediator (Another problem with the Son’s deity is that you cannot really be High Priest interceding with yourself).
But the problem is Abraham !!! … The Father seems to be the one that directly offered the “covenant of promise”; sealed in the presence of the Holy Spirit (Deep Darkness); with the Son signing on behalf of Abraham and thus by proxy accepting the death penalty when it was breached.
Check out the TW called “Zeus Or YHVH”.
Thank you for the reference.
I think Skip’s teaching in a way supports my understanding.
The events at Sinai, after Shavuot, was a precursor (shadow / type) of the Acts 2:1-3 event:
“And when the days of Shavuot were fulfilled, as all were assembled together as one, There was suddenly a sound from heaven like a powerful wind: and that entire house in which they were sitting was filled with it. And tongues that were divided, appeared to them like fire, and sat upon each one of them.”
In both events, the YHWH that presided was the Holy Spirit.
Pieter
You said there is a cognitive truth (our observations) and spiritual truth.
If YHVH be too holy to interact with humans why does the scriptures say he did and does… Because he has not interacted with me and you on a personal level does not say he didn’t with others.
Spiritual truth for me is we will only comprehend and understand what YHVH knows or personal reality can handle… Just my 2c…
Please note I did not say YHWH, but the Father.
[The biggest hindrance to discussion culminating in consensus may be terminology.]
The “Y” in the “family (“this is My memorial unto all generations” – Gen.3:15) name” does refer to the Father … in paleo: the arm and hand reaching out (to man).
It is not the Father who is directly interacting. The High Priest mediator (Son) and Holy Spirit (Mother) do.
But Abraham’s story seems to disprove my understanding.
Something like the strong right arm of God that apparently saves which some apostolic sects have literally stated as implying officers or ministry roles within the sect…
We all have a favorite conviction which is neither paradigm nor doctrine it is just that something that keeps us believing. Which is how I believe God intended it.
Shalom Luis!
May I respond to your post… Christianity, who should be acquainted with the use of parables, struggle to understand how Jeremiah is using the parable of the “divorced” wife.
Jeremiah 3:1 They say, “If a man divorces his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man’s, may he return to her again?” Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; “Yet return to Me,” says the LORD
Jeremiah makes this plea five times throughout the chapter, revealing the rachamim and chesed of the Almighty is far beyond the scope of mankind’s comprehension.
Jeremiah outlines the path to reconciliation with the Almighty YHWH Who is willing to embrace His penitent people-ALWAYS!! HALLELUYAH!
Israel/we need to CRY out to Him- v 4 Will He remain angry forever? v 5
v 14 is the most wonderful verse in the Tanakh:-
“RETURN, O BACKSLIDING CHILDREN”, SAY THE LORD, ” FOR I AM MARRIED TO YOU. I WILL TAKE YOU, ONE FROM A CITY AND TWO FROM A FAMILY, AND I WILL BRING YOU TO ZION.” Amein! Toda, ABBA!
Chap 7 : Jeremiah warns His people not to place their hopes on blood sacrifices or look to The Temple of the LORD to save them, that these institutions cannot deliver them from their brazen sins. Rather, they must turn away from IDOLATRY and return to YHWH by keeping His commandments.
On the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt …this did I command them saying, ‘Listen to Me/ shema/שָׁמַע so that I am your God and you are My people, you walk in all the ways that I command you…’”
Jeremiah, points the wayward nation in the direction of Godliness.
The era of the new covenant has not yet arrived. Rather, Jeremiah’s prophecy addresses a future messianic age when the entire Jewish people – both Judah and Israel – will be restored, reunited, in the land of Israel (Ezekiel 37:15-22).
On the contrary, there had been no time in history when the Jewish people were more fractured and dispersed than the first century C.E.
Jer 7:34- “No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Amein!
Jer 31- continues to contrast the exodus from Egypt with the messianic age; the Jewish people will enter into a “new covenant” when they will be permanently restored to their land, never to be exiled again.
The covenant that YHWH forged with the Jewish people is eternal; Jeremiah exclaims the LORD’s reaffirmation of His eternal covenant with the children of Israel.
…Adapted from outreachjudaism.
Blessings to you!
Did I unencrypt? Does this make sense? Or am I off base?