toldailytopic: The Holy Trinity.

[The Berean]

Eisegesis VS Exegeses. I prefer to derive my beliefs from scripture rather than try to make scripture fit with some pre-concieved man made doctrine.

By definition any beliefs you derive is by definition a man-made doctrine, right? The moment YOU interpret Scripture and use your mind to express a belief you have created a man-made doctrine. :think: Not that that is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[csuguy]

By definition any beliefs you derive is by definition a man-made doctrine, right? The moment YOU interpret Scripture and use your mind to express a belief you have created a man-made doctrine. :think: Not that that is necessarily a bad thing.

You miss my point. Man-made doctrine is not in itself bad (at least so long as you acknowledge that it is man-made). What is bad is when you start interpreting the bible in light of your man-made doctrine VS deriving your doctrine from scripture.

 

[The Berean]

You miss my point. Man-made doctrine is not in itself bad (at least so long as you acknowledge that it is man-made). What is bad is when you start interpreting the bible in light of your man-made doctrine VS deriving your doctrine from scripture.

But it seems everyone does this. No one is without bias or preconceived notions, or attitudes that are derived from one's culture. It's common in debates to assert to another that their interpretation of the Bible is made in the the light of a man-made doctrine while at the same time claims that one's own interpretation is "pure" in the sense that it only comes from Scripture. Calvinists, cessationists, KJO-folks and may others claim their "doctrine" is only derived from Scripture.

 

[csuguy]

But it seems everyone does this. No one is without bias or preconceived notions, or attitudes that are derived from one's culture. It's common in debates to assert to another that their interpretation of the Bible is made in the the light of a man-made doctrine while at the same time claims that one's own interpretation is "pure" in the sense that it only comes from Scripture. Calvinists, cessationists, KJO-folks and may others claim their "doctrine" is only derived from Scripture.

Everyone has bias of course, which is why we must strive to remove our bias and instead study so as to understand where the author of a writing is coming from. We must approach scripture from the bias of its authors - as much as that is possible.

 

[The Berean]

Everyone has bias of course, which is why we must strive to remove our bias and instead study so as to understand where the author of a writing is coming from. We must approach scripture from the bias of its authors - as much as that is possible.

:up:

 

[Selaphiel]

Eisegesis VS Exegeses. I prefer to derive my beliefs from scripture rather than try to make scripture fit with some pre-concieved man made doctrine.

Agree, but if you are going to criticize the doctrine of the trinity, you should consider the doctrine in its entirety. The Christology of 100% man and 100% God is absolutely central to the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity.

Thomas was merely letting out an exclamation of surprise and realization. If we look down a little farther in the same chapter the author of John says "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31. Tell me - was the author of John bilnd to what he himself wrote in John 20:28? The author wrote the things he did to support the fact that Christ is the SON of God (not God and not God the Son) - and we must interpret the book of John in light of this fact.

There is nothing in the text that indicates any exclamation or amazement. The text literally says: "My Lord and my God" just as a servant of a king would say "yes my lord".
And no I do not think John was blind to 20:28, I think he understood that Son of God was not a denial of Christs divinity as the Word of God.

Wrong. I inserted God in front of the quote because that is who it is talking about, as is made clear when read in context.

"Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

That is the NIV translation. Where is the word God in the Greek manuscripts?

ἣν καιροῖς ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων,

Literally reads:

"Which he will bring about at the right time-- he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords."

Preceeded by 1 Tim 6:14:

"to keep the commandment without spot or blame until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Lord Jesus Christ is "he" in 6:15-16

It is interesting to note that an alternate translation of this passage (provided in the footnotes of some bibles) is "..Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised!" Quite a different meaning. Just goes to show how much interpretation goes into translating. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:5&version=NIV)

It is not a translation issue here, it is a manuscript issue. The Nestle-Aaland Greek New Testament deems the version (not the one NIV uses) to be oldest.

I'll agree to that - after all our bible was put together by the RCC, and also modified by them for many centuries - so it is not surprising that there is some support for the trinity and the idea that Christ is God. Despite their efforts, however, the majority view presented in scripture is that Christ is the Son of God, the mediator BETWEEN God and men, that God is the head of Christ, etc. In otherwords, the majority view presented by scripture is that Christ is not God.

Well, I disagree that there is any necessary tension between Son of God and the divinity of Christ. Jesus Christ, his entire person, is the mediator between God and men. That does not reject that he was the Word of God made flesh, and the Word of God is not presented as a creation, but something that is one with God in a relationship with Him and it has always been like that.
Doctrine and the theology of the early church was an attempt to sum up and make sense of scripture. They acknowledged the variety of voices.

 

[nicholsmom]

I think John Murray (Collected Writings, 3:236) captures the proper sense of the passage:

"There is also the dignity of his station, 'equal with God.' He was on an equality with God. This equality is not an accession either by robbery or attainment. He did not consider his being on an equality with God something he had gained or was to gain. It was not something of precarious tenure; it was the consequence of his being and continuing to be in the form of God and, therefore, his natively, essentially, and immutably. The thought of the clauses may be paraphrased thus: being in the form of God and, therefore, not considering his being on an equality with God a prize or booty but an inalienable possession, he made himself of no reputation."

AMR

That's nice. I'd never read that perspective before, but it makes beautiful sense. Thanks for that

 

[kmoney]

Can Jesus act against the Father? Kinda a non-entity of a question. It's like technically one might feel forced to answer, "Yes", but it'd be a pretty hollow sorta answer ... not to mention irrelevant seeing we know the fact is He hasn't and our faith is resident in the idea that He never will.

Does that answer your question?

It does if when you say you might be forced to answer "Yes", you were actually answering "Yes".

And I don't see it as irrelevant. I think it can be an important question when it comes to the argument about the Trinity being 3 gods or 1 god.

 

[Stripe]

It does if when you say you might be forced to answer "Yes", you were actually answering "Yes".

And I don't see it as irrelevant. I think it can be an important question when it comes to the argument about the Trinity being 3 gods or 1 god.

Sometimes I find it more proper to be respectful than to be right.

 

[kmoney]

Who's being disrespectful?

 

[Son of Jack]

It does if when you say you might be forced to answer "Yes", you were actually answering "Yes".

And I don't see it as irrelevant. I think it can be an important question when it comes to the argument about the Trinity being 3 gods or 1 god.

In answer to your question, kmo, I'd look at it this way. This isn't really a logical question as much as it is an ontological one. What I mean is that it might be logically possible for Jesus will something other than what the Father wills (which then applies to the Holy Spirit as well), but, and this is a big BUT D), it is an ontological impossibility. Jesus being God is a maximally perfect as is the Father and the Holy Spirit, thus they (as distinct persons) will always will in accordance with that maximal perfection. So, Jesus is logically free to will as He wishes, but He is "bound" (for lack of a better term) by His nature to choose in a maximally perfect way.

 

[Brother Vinny]

In answer to your question, kmo, I'd look at it this way. This isn't really a logical question as much as it is an ontological one. What I mean is that it might be logically possible for Jesus will something other than what the Father wills (which then applies to the Holy Spirit as well), but, and this is a big BUT D), it is an ontological impossibility. Jesus being God is a maximally perfect as is the Father and the Holy Spirit, thus they will always will in accordance with that maximal perfection. So, Jesus is logically free to will as He wishes, but He is "bound" (for lack of a better term) by His nature to choose in a maximally perfect way.

I think I just pulled a brain muscle. Green rep coming your way. :thumb:

 

[freelight]

tempted in all ways

tempted in all ways

In answer to your question, kmo, I'd look at it this way. This isn't really a logical question as much as it is an ontological one. What I mean is that it might be logically possible for Jesus will something other than what the Father wills (which then applies to the Holy Spirit as well), but, and this is a big BUT D), it is an ontological impossibility. Jesus being God is a maximally perfect as is the Father and the Holy Spirit, thus they (as distinct persons) will always will in accordance with that maximal perfection. So, Jesus is logically free to will as He wishes, but He is "bound" (for lack of a better term) by His nature to choose in a maximally perfect way.

This brings up the controversy of Jesus really having free will then, in his humanity,...while incarnated. If Jesus could not possibly sin by will or nature,...then we could question if he really was 100% man, but this gets into the debates over his human/divine nature(consistency/coordination, etc.) In any case,....Jesus in his divine nature would naturally choose according to the dictactes of such a nature,...yet if in his humanity he could have 'sinned' in any way...then it would be possible for him to do so, hence he proved his loyalty to the Father by resisting temptation. Of course various viewpoints exist on this point.



pj

 

[csuguy]

Agree, but if you are going to criticize the doctrine of the trinity, you should consider the doctrine in its entirety. The Christology of 100% man and 100% God is absolutely central to the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity.

There is no need to address every little point of the trinity. Besides - the 100% man 100% God thing is just as illogical as the rest of the trinity. Unless man = God, one cannot both be 100% man and 100% God. If one is equal amounts of both - then one is 50% man and 50% God.

There is nothing in the text that indicates any exclamation or amazement. The text literally says: "My Lord and my God" just as a servant of a king would say "yes my lord".
And no I do not think John was blind to 20:28, I think he understood that Son of God was not a denial of Christs divinity as the Word of God.

It is the context from which we can derive that it is clearly and exclamation. He was doubting Christ and refused to believed that he had arrisen - then Christ appeared to him and proved it to him - and upon the realization that Christ had indeed came back he said "My Lord and my God."

And yes - acknowledging Christ as the Son of God necessarily denies him being God.

That is the NIV translation. Where is the word God in the Greek manuscripts?

ἣν καιροῖς ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων,

Literally reads:

"Which he will bring about at the right time-- he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords."

Preceeded by 1 Tim 6:14:

"to keep the commandment without spot or blame until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Lord Jesus Christ is "he" in 6:15-16

Actually, if you look up above at it in context it says:
"In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

"God" or "Jesus Christ" could be the antecedent for "he." The translators were able to determine the correct one based upon what is said of "he" - "[one] who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see." Does that sound like Jesus? No - Jesus came down from God and lived amongst us, and was seen by thousands if not millions throughout his life time. No - it is God who no one has seen or can see. The translators are thus correct here.

It is not a translation issue here, it is a manuscript issue. The Nestle-Aaland Greek New Testament deems the version (not the one NIV uses) to be oldest.

You maybe right here - I haven't studied the issue.

Well, I disagree that there is any necessary tension between Son of God and the divinity of Christ. Jesus Christ, his entire person, is the mediator between God and men. That does not reject that he was the Word of God made flesh, and the Word of God is not presented as a creation, but something that is one with God in a relationship with Him and it has always been like that.
Doctrine and the theology of the early church was an attempt to sum up and make sense of scripture. They acknowledged the variety of voices.

Basic logic tells us that one cannot be one's own father - Christ is necessarily not the Father who is the only God. Since he is not the Father - he is necessarily not the only true God.

Christ - a man - is identified as the mediator between God and men. As a mediator he is necessarily neither God nor one of the sinful men who need interceding before God - if God went directly to sinful man and sinful man to God, there would be no mediator.

Christ is the first born of creation, he is the wisdom of God - the first creation. It is through God's Wisdom/Logos that God created everything else. This is all in scripture as I have shown.

The early church was extremely diverse and did not take into account all the different views. Rather - those whom they disagreed with they wrote off as 'heretics' and destroyed their writings and scriptures. In particular the 'orthodox' church.

 

[csuguy]

In answer to your question, kmo, I'd look at it this way. This isn't really a logical question as much as it is an ontological one. What I mean is that it might be logically possible for Jesus will something other than what the Father wills (which then applies to the Holy Spirit as well), but, and this is a big BUT D), it is an ontological impossibility. Jesus being God is a maximally perfect as is the Father and the Holy Spirit, thus they (as distinct persons) will always will in accordance with that maximal perfection. So, Jesus is logically free to will as He wishes, but He is "bound" (for lack of a better term) by His nature to choose in a maximally perfect way.

Then his sinlessness means nothing - since he could never choose to sin to begin with. Thus his temptations were a sham.

 

[Selaphiel]

There is no need to address every little point of the trinity. Besides - the 100% man 100% God thing is just as illogical as the rest of the trinity. Unless man = God, one cannot both be 100% man and 100% God. If one is equal amounts of both - then one is 50% man and 50% God.

That is a misunderstanding of what is meant. What is meant is that Jesus Christ had a fully human nature and a fully divine nature, not some mathematical statement about a 200% of a being.

It is the context from which we can derive that it is clearly and exclamation. He was doubting Christ and refused to believed that he had arrisen - then Christ appeared to him and proved it to him - and upon the realization that Christ had indeed came back he said "My Lord and my God."

Sorry, but that is wrong for many reasons. First reasons is that using the expression "My Lord!" or "My God!" as an expression of astonishment in the time of Jesus would be blasphemy to say the least, it is taking the name of God in vain, so reading it as an astonishment is anachronistic to say the least.
Second, the word used is ho theos mou and not theos mou, not god, but the God. Ho theos is only used about God himself.
Third, the statement is not said to everyone as one does when one expresses astonishment. The verse starts with "Thomas said to him" (apekrithe Thomas which is a very specific form used of direct speech to one person.

Or as Professor of the New Testament Francis Moloney says it in his commentary on the gospel of John (Sacre Pagina: The Gospel of John pp.539-540):

"This confession is not against something, but the final affirmation of the Christology of the gospel"

Actually, if you look up above at it in context it says:
"In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

"God" or "Jesus Christ" could be the antecedent for "he." The translators were able to determine the correct one based upon what is said of "he" - "[one] who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see." Does that sound like Jesus? No - Jesus came down from God and lived amongst us, and was seen by thousands if not millions throughout his life time. No - it is God who no one has seen or can see. The translators are thus correct here.

I disagree. Where is the Word of God in John 1:1? With God and have been with God since all eternity. What happened to Jesus after the resurrection? He ascended and assumed his place back at the right hand of the Father, where he always has been.

Basic logic tells us that one cannot be one's own father - Christ is necessarily not the Father who is the only God. Since he is not the Father - he is necessarily not the only true God.

Christ - a man - is identified as the mediator between God and men. As a mediator he is necessarily neither God nor one of the sinful men who need interceding before God - if God went directly to sinful man and sinful man to God, there would be no mediator.

Christ is the first born of creation, he is the wisdom of God - the first creation. It is through God's Wisdom/Logos that God created everything else. This is all in scripture as I have shown.

The early church was extremely diverse and did not take into account all the different views. Rather - those whom they disagreed with they wrote off as 'heretics' and destroyed their writings and scriptures. In particular the 'orthodox' church.

Basic logic? This is not exactly the same kind of father and son relationship , it is an image, not human biology. God did not have sex with Mary did he? If not, basic logic says that he can not be his father in that sense either.
He was the Father of Jesus through the miraculous conception through the Holy Spirit. That does not make Him the Father of the Word.

No one is denying that Jesus Christ was a man, that is not the question, the question is whether that was all he was.

Christ is not the firstborn of creation if you recognize that Christ was the Word of God. I'm sorry, but the language of John is clear, the Word has always been. The use of imperfect tense in John 1:1 is not an accident. The John commentary I quoted above put it well:

"Before the arche of Gen 1:1 there were only God, the waters of chaos, and darkness, but the author of the Fourth Gospel announces that even then the Word "was". The use of imperfect tense of the verb "to be" places the Word outside the limits of time and place, neither of which existed en arche." (Ibid. p.35)

This places the Word before the creation.

And yes the church was diverse and it wrote off people as heretics. I do not see that as proof for the heretics being correct in any way. They did not do it to be nasty, they did it because in the early church one needed to put the belief into a system and there were differing opinions and some had to be chosen over others. I think it is wrong to assume that the church were idiots, the fathers were dedicated believers and these issues were resolved in councils and decisions were made.

The Trinity is considered a mystery, a derivative description of what the Fathers found in the scriptures. I have to agree with them, because there are simply too many portrayals of Jesus as God himself in the scriptures. I accept that it can seem unclear in some parts of scripture, but the doctrine of merely an abstract in human language trying to capture a divine mystery.

He commands the sea in the synoptic gospels which is a clear image of God controlling the sea of chaos.

He is the glory (doxa, kabod) of God in the world according to John.

Thomas confesses that Jesus is Lord and God.

He is described as being in the form of God, being equal with Him in the Carmen Christi.

In Him the fullness of God dwelled according to Colossians. Dwell is used in the same way it is used to describe God dwelling in his Temple.

 

[kmoney]

In answer to your question, kmo, I'd look at it this way. This isn't really a logical question as much as it is an ontological one. What I mean is that it might be logically possible for Jesus will something other than what the Father wills (which then applies to the Holy Spirit as well), but, and this is a big BUT D), it is an ontological impossibility. Jesus being God is a maximally perfect as is the Father and the Holy Spirit, thus they (as distinct persons) will always will in accordance with that maximal perfection. So, Jesus is logically free to will as He wishes, but He is "bound" (for lack of a better term) by His nature to choose in a maximally perfect way.

Again, I don't see the WILL as relevant. I'm interested in the CAN. And both you and stripe seem to be saying that they CAN. And if you say they CAN, that is part of why I understand the argument that the Trinity is polytheism.

However, something you said caught my eye. I highlighted it in yellow, above. Did Jesus say "Not my will, but your will be done", in the garden? Doesn't that imply that Jesus' will was NOT the same as the Father's will at that time? Now, Jesus then acted in accordance with the Father's will, but it was seemingly against his own will.

 

[kmoney]

Then his sinlessness means nothing - since he could never choose to sin to begin with. Thus his temptations were a sham.

Yes, another important question.

 

[csuguy]

That is a misunderstanding of what is meant. What is meant is that Jesus Christ had a fully human nature and a fully divine nature, not some mathematical statement about a 200% of a being.

It's not a misunderstanding - its bad logic on the part of trinitarians. It's like saying my bowl of cereal with milk in it is fully cereal and fully milk. NO - it is a combination of milk and cereal - not fully either.

Sorry, but that is wrong for many reasons. First reasons is that using the expression "My Lord!" or "My God!" as an expression of astonishment in the time of Jesus would be blasphemy to say the least, it is taking the name of God in vain, so reading it as an astonishment is anachronistic to say the least.

"My Lord" wouldn't have been - Lord is simply a title of authority and power, and it was common place to call someone Lord at that time. "My God" yes - that would have been more on the blasphemis side - especially if he was calling Christ God. The Jews mistook Christ's words in John 10:30 to mean that he was claiming to be God, and he corrected them - asserting that he claimed to be God's Son.

Second, the word used is ho theos mou and not theos mou, not god, but the God. Ho theos is only used about God himself.

Ho is simply an article - not a title. Even where it is not explicitly stated - ho is implied.

Third, the statement is not said to everyone as one does when one expresses astonishment. The verse starts with "Thomas said to him" (apekrithe Thomas which is a very specific form used of direct speech to one person.

Yes - he was directing it towards him, because he is the one who astounded him. That doesn't change anything.

Or as Professor of the New Testament Francis Moloney says it in his commentary on the gospel of John (Sacre Pagina: The Gospel of John pp.539-540):

"This confession is not against something, but the final affirmation of the Christology of the gospel"

The Christology of John is a bit of a mix - both with statements that appear to make him out to be God and statements that utterly reject such a notion. John 10:30-36 does the best of clearing this issue up - with the Jews mistaking him for claiming to be God, and his correcting him that he claims to be God's Son.

I disagree. Where is the Word of God in John 1:1? With God and have been with God since all eternity. What happened to Jesus after the resurrection? He ascended and assumed his place back at the right hand of the Father, where he always has been.

Christ desceneded from heaven and was sent to us from God. John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. Plenty of people saw him - therefore he cannot be the one "who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see." One who sees God dies - hence God passed by Moses, but did not let him see him.

Basic logic? This is not exactly the same kind of father and son relationship , it is an image, not human biology. God did not have sex with Mary did he? If not, basic logic says that he can not be his father in that sense either.
He was the Father of Jesus through the miraculous conception through the Holy Spirit. That does not make Him the Father of the Word.

Yes - basic logic. You are trying to right off logic for "revelation" - which isn't really revelation but just man's logic that has been glorified throughout the centuries.

God didn't have physical sex no - but he certainly impregnated her. So yes - that does make him the Father via basic logic. It's not the "norm" but still logical.

No one is denying that Jesus Christ was a man, that is not the question, the question is whether that was all he was.

The question is whether he is the one true God. The one true God is the Father - but Jesus is not the Father - therefore he is not God. Simple.

Christ is not the firstborn of creation if you recognize that Christ was the Word of God. I'm sorry, but the language of John is clear, the Word has always been. The use of imperfect tense in John 1:1 is not an accident. The John commentary I quoted above put it well:

"Before the arche of Gen 1:1 there were only God, the waters of chaos, and darkness, but the author of the Fourth Gospel announces that even then the Word "was". The use of imperfect tense of the verb "to be" places the Word outside the limits of time and place, neither of which existed en arche." (Ibid. p.35)

This places the Word before the creation.

I've already quoted the scripture for you which explicitly states that Christ is the firstborn of creation. Christ is the Logos/Wisdom of God - and that Wisdom is again the first creation (Proverbs 8). He is the light of the world - again the light was the first creation (Genesis 1:3). THROUGH him all else was created, but he is himself a creation.

And yes the church was diverse and it wrote off people as heretics. I do not see that as proof for the heretics being correct in any way. They did not do it to be nasty, they did it because in the early church one needed to put the belief into a system and there were differing opinions and some had to be chosen over others. I think it is wrong to assume that the church were idiots, the fathers were dedicated believers and these issues were resolved in councils and decisions were made.

I didn't say they were idiots, but they are men - and thus their logic is fallible.

The Trinity is considered a mystery, a derivative description of what the Fathers found in the scriptures. I have to agree with them, because there are simply too many portrayals of Jesus as God himself in the scriptures. I accept that it can seem unclear in some parts of scripture, but the doctrine of merely an abstract in human language trying to capture a divine mystery.

Most of scripture makes it very clear that Christ is not God - despite a verse here or there that seems to support the trinity. He himself claimed to be the Son of God - not God. You are falling into the old error of lifting up man's logic to revelation - calling the trinity a mystery.

He commands the sea in the synoptic gospels which is a clear image of God controlling the sea of chaos.

Christ was GIVEN all authority and power. The power to control the seas is not his own - but God's. God's authority and power are innate - Christ's is not.

He is the glory (doxa, kabod) of God in the world according to John.

It is through Jesus that God manifested (aka revealed) himself to the world - Christ is God's mediator. This does nothing to support the idea that Christ is God.

Thomas confesses that Jesus is Lord and God.

Can be explained as an exclamation of surprise. It also doesn't deal with Christ's own denial of being God in John 10:30-36.

He is described as being in the form of God, being equal with Him in the Carmen Christi.

Carmen Christi? It is true that Christ is in the FORM of God, being the IMAGE and REPRESENTATIVE of God - but an image is not that which it represents. Christ is only equal with God relative to the rest of creation - he is still beneath God. "God is the head of Christ" "the Father is greater than I"

In Him the fullness of God dwelled according to Colossians. Dwell is used in the same way it is used to describe God dwelling in his Temple.

And? God certaintly dwelled in him - and he left him on the cross. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

 

[Ps82]

I believe in ONE God. I believe that he is invisible and that he is LIFE; therefore, all of his infinite essence is alive.

I believe that God could be an infinite number of identifiable personages if he so chooses... but I do believe that he has chosen to reveal himself as three personages - in regards to being our CREATOR, our INNOCENT SACRIFICE, and our SAVIOR.

All deserving to be glorified as the ONE true God. Yet, the ONE who deserves our worship FIRST is our Savior, Jesus Christ ... for he is the only divine manifestation of God that actually experienced persecution and physical death for our sake.

I identify these three as the FATHER (as creator), the Son(as the sacrifice), and the Holy Ghost (as the savior) that holds us unto the completion of our glorification. All three are the ONE God... for the truth is Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and besides ME there is NO SAVIOR..