Jesus' identity and Trinity

Faith & Science Conversation
13

So far no know one here has said Jesus was not God. Everyone I’ve read so far believes Jesus was the incarnation of God.

What’s debated is what is the trinity. Some of us here clearly views what that word to mean as different things. The apostles may have believed in something similar or contains what the trinity teaches but that particular phrase was not first used until the third century by Tertullian. Now I don’t recall him mentioning specifics about the Holy Spirit having a individual will and personhood in depth and I don’t recall him considering anything about the angel of the lord and how that “avatar” played into the trinity.

But the apostles and first two centuries of christians did not use the phrase trinity to refer to God and I’m not so certain the way Tertullian used it is adequate, nor its modern use, to really explain what the father, son and Holy Spirit is.

That’s what I’m saying. We all clearly believe Jesus was God made flesh. What’s the difference between Gods word was god and was with god becoming flesh vs God splitting himself into three and so on and how does it equate to Christ existing before his birth. That all directly plays into how trinity is being commonly used in my experiences.

14

As for how it’s connects to culture is this.

Trinity is a coined phrase by men used to explain their understanding of certain aspects of God and that phrases changes in its meaning between one person and the next and from one century to the next even if it’s slight. That coined phrase contains an ideological view that may or may not be complete and it’s affects the way someone views God which means it holds a certain culture within it which shapes dogma and doctrine and therefore culture within the body and even how those outside of the body thinks about it.

Also as a side note. Tertullian also believed that unbaptized babies died and went to hell. So he’s not exactly my main go to teacher for all things accurate and true.

15

I don’t think it entered their minds Nick. It took three centuries to formulate the Trinity doctrine.

16

Well it didnt entered their minds. Their (some of them)were the ones that wrote the Gosples. The holy spirit helped them to. They wrote about the three persons in the Gospels.

17

Plus i dont think theres that an isue as long as someone does believe Jesus as God and not as “a god”

18

That is a nice theory, but some of the events recorded in the gospels are evidence that He knew more than His culture.

Two instances come to mind.

  1. A healing of a blind man which required adjustments indicates a knowledge of anatomy not available in His culture.
  2. He knew that there are not husbands and wives in heaven.

Mark 8
22 They came to Bethsaida. Some people[d] brought a blind man to him and begged him to touch him. 23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village; and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Can you see anything?” 24 And the man[e] looked up and said, “I can see people, but they look like trees, walking.” 25 Then Jesus[f] laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26 Then he sent him away to his home, saying, “Do not even go into the village.”[g]

Matthew 22
23 The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection;[a] and they asked him a question, saying, 24 “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. 26 The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman herself died. 28 In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.”

29 Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels[b] in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching.

19

Except they never used the phrase and I don’t see any evidence that they rejected the angel of the lord as god also and I don’t see where they referred to a pre incarnate Jesus or where they gave the Holy Spirit personhood as a individual being with its own free will as opposed to it being a power to help us.

20

I have. He wasn’t nounally. Adjectivally yes. He wasn’t coterminous with a Person of God. The (only begotten) Son of God was not (congruent with, mapped to, identical to, the very exact same thing as) God the Son. Neither was He God the Son lite, shorn of omnis (whatever they are), collapsed down to a Spirit fertilized ovum like a neutron star.

1 Like
21

I agree. That’s what I said as well. But we both still believe Jesus was god, just merely not a god while walking on earth as a shackled version that existed since creation with all divine knowledge and power.

Or maybe I misunderstood you.

22

Correct but it all kinda points to that view. If not then what are all thes things like Son Of God ,me and the father are once etc. I mean who father is jesus talking about? And what spirit is he talking about? And what voice said from the heavens this is my son?

23

There is no evidence that ‘they’ included ‘the angel of the lord as god’.

‘They’ gave the Holy Spirit personhood 64 times at least.

24

? God the Father.
? God the Spirit
? God the Father’s

25

Not if you mean adjectivally God. And no, He was never a shackled and simultaneously unshackeld version since creation. Creation is eternal.

26

Isnt that what trinity teaches? God The Father ,God the Son , God the Holy Spirit? But all dinstict ?

27

Agreed Nick.

1 Like
28

I’ll go through those verses later and I looked at a handful just now and don’t see anything so far giving any evidence that the spirit is a individual being with its own free will. It still seems to be a power that helps us. But I’ll read through them all over the next few days before responding again about does it have its own personal free will.

29

That’s down to your cognitive bias. A plain reading of the text with minimal interpretation and imputation to the minds of the writers shows that the Holy Spirit is personal. To force them to be using deliberate personification of an abstract concept is inelegant, imparsimonious, not dialectical. This says nothing about whether He’s real or not in absolute terms. It’s what the text says.

30

If that’s the case then why not conclude that the word is also a personhood prior to being incarnated in Christ or why did the Jews not consider that wisdom has personhood?

Personhood is implying more than just something being personal. It does imply that it has freedom through a individual free will. Or why did they also not say God expressed in at least 4 ways and so on? Trinity is simply a inclusive coined phrase to express even the basics of God and that’s why it took four centuries for it to be used.

31

If personhood can mean less than a free independent thinking being then I will see why they did not include other things such as the word of god being a being prior to Jesus and as I keep mentioning the angel of the lord. Those things would also both fit.

Just showcasing why it’s easy to reject the baggage of the trinity along with what it does not consider and still believe that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit works in people’s lives.

It’s too inconclusive and lenses for me to stand behind. But people act like you’re rejecting the Bible by saying you don’t believe the trinity accurately and fully explains god and if that has to be supplemented with other things that it’s ok to reject it and use better biblical based terminology.

When studying with jews, and muslims, and sharing my faith this constantly comes up.

  1. Do you believe in the trinity?
  2. Yes.
  3. What about the angel of the lord was that God?
  4. Yes.
  5. Then why is it not the Quadruplet?
    Then I have to go through loops to explain it.

Verses.

  1. Do you believe Jesus was god?
  2. Yes.
  3. Was the angel of the lord God?
  4. Yes.

For me in general it erases having to deal with it and argue over the terminology and what it means to who and so on.

Just in general it’s easier and more consistent for me to say I don’t believe in the trinity because I believe God expressed himself in more than those three ways and that the Holy Spirit is not a free willed agent but a power.

Then when it’s brought up was Jesus God I can use scripture to show how even though he was god, but was not a god in flesh but a incarnation of the word that became revealed as Jesus pursued it , and having met the prophecies that was foretold concerning the Messiah and the Lord of Lords I can fall back to another personalization of God that jews recognized as god and that’s the angel of the lord. It’s just simply more concrete to me than the coined phrase by some guy 300-400 years after Christ passed away.

32

Concerning the trinity again. When Jesus went to the desert for 40 days satan didnt knew him . In detail Satan dint know who Jesus was . But Satan new God. So i assume that he met the other two persons just not the son somehow . Again this is just a spceulation but i would like to see your answer and everyones here. Had that question for a long time but i came up with my conclusion