And might I add that the same kind of thing can be compared to pledging allegiance to the flag. We aren’t actually pledging to a piece of cloth, but what that flag represents, namely our country and the pride and patriotism in honoring it and it’s people. By the same token, if I’m understanding you correctly, Aaron, though I may disagree with you in the issue of Christ’s deity, is that we pay respect to Christ as God’s representative, the only begotten of God, as one who was sent by God to perform the mission God instituted from the foundation of the world. He is God’s salvation for us.
I find it a strange argument. The SAME scriptures Aaron uses to disprove Christ’s divinity are the same verses that some, like the Muslims, would use to prove that He didn’t want (or expect) to be worshiped any more than Moses did when he came down from the mountain lit up like a Christmas tree!
A representative should not be worshiped - Islam knows that too. The best Aaron can argue for, is that Christ was an uber-representative - to which Islam would answer back, yes, but not the highest uber-representative which is Mohammad. Buddhists might make the same claim…and my guy with the hub-cap.
Rather than defending monotheism, I think Aaron has left it for the ‘contest of representatives’ vying for the hearts of men. A realm of defense that is foreign to Christianity, but. apparently the elite and uber-qualified Aaron is ready to take on. His arrogance precedes him. Good luck, Aaron, you got a chit-storm coming at ya. Not from this tiny group, but from the World.
Ran, if it could be shown that the words most commonly translated “worship” mean, in every instance, “the adoration which is ONLY due God,” I think your objections would have some force. But it’s just not the case. Consequently, I think the battle for Trinitarianism is going to have to be fought elsewhere.
Also, if there’s anything I’ve said that has given you or anyone else the impression that I’m arrogant or think of myself as “elite,” then I sincerely apologize. I would be really embarrassed (with an emphasis on “ass”) if anyone actually thought that based on something I said. 
The arrogance and elitism is found in the argument itself, not in your presentation. You’re telling everyone here that they have been worshiping a facade and lie all their life. So this is not about some finer point of theology but the very core of people’s faith that you are attacking. It’s gets kinda personal in that regard, no matter how sweetly you present it.
You’re asking for proofs to the contrary - but I ask myself if your real motivation is to convince and convert.
You have every right to make the challenge - but why not read some books on understanding the Trinity by authors far more knowledgeable on the subject than any of us? You might start with Anselm, for example.
I have a question. Is it logically possible for the same being to have two different wills?
The reason I ask is because Jesus distinctly prayed in Gethsemane that “if there was any other way but the cross, let’s do it”. Nevertheless, not MY will but YOUR will be done. Two very distinct wills, then.
Just curious what the trinitarian response to this is. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around how it’s possible for a multipersonal unity that is One God to have two different wills.
I don’t see two wills, I see obedience to a Father. When Christ exhibited His full (perhaps) Godhead to His disciples, they could hardly look at Him, ultimately, He allowed Himself to be reduced to sin. What kind of will could allow for that unbelievable humility? He is a stumbling block for many - logic is not faith.
Ran,
I would agree with you that logic is not faith, but then neither is tradition. Logic certainly helps with faith though, as it’s easier to have faith in something that doesn’t seem contradictory.
Obedience to the Father certainly comes into play here, but my question (pointedly) is that if Jesus was God in the fullest sense of the word; as one person of a multipersonal unity called God (or Godhead), then how is it possible for him to have a different will than the Father? Isn’t obedience to the Father evidence of a different will? We are said to obey when we do what we are asked to do, regardless of what our preference would be, but that doesn’t make our will the same as the one we obey.
We have a will also, and we know we do right when our will comes into obedience to the Father’s as well, but that doesn’t make US God. The answer has to be more complex than that, then.
And tradition doesn’t? I find the belief that Christ was the God/man existing right from the get-go as the earliest fathers set about answering the question. “Who the heck was He?”
It’s easier for me to believe Christ was God than it is to believe He was a mere man…and it makes perfect ‘sense’ that He was both from the moment of conception. Some of the things He said as well, lead one to that conclusion.
The development of the doctrine of the trinity did not come out of the blue…and, yes, they had the same problems, logically, that we have, but ended up defending the doctrine because the alternatives created even deeper, more contradictory problems.
Tradition is also a mixed bag, Ran. Unfortunately with tradition, you end up with a lot of doing things “because that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
My difficulty is in lining up trinitarian doctrine with the plainest statements of scripture. For example, the scripture states that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. It doesn’t say God was Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. The scripture consistently describes Christ as the Son of God (as well as the Son of Man), but never as “God the Son”. I for one am uncomfortable with the idea that stuff like this is just a coincidence. I see Jesus teaching his disciples to pray to the Father, not to himself, and saying things like “the Father is greater than I” and calling Him “my God”. I look at all the statements that Jesus made about his identity (notwithstanding the I AM statements, which could be representative agency), and that others made about his identity, and I just don’t see trinitarianism as a sequitur of that. It’s not that I don’t see any evidence that could lead to a trinitarian idea, (obviously it came from somewhere) it’s just that there seems to be more against than for, on the whole. And that’s leaving aside the whole question of whether the Holy Spirit is really a distinct “person” of God, or simply the power of God personified for the benefit of our understanding of the Holy Spirit’s functioning. It just seems like unnatural hair-splitting to me. I can see how the trinity could be inferred from scripture, but nowhere do I see it clearly taught or implied.
Now, I’ll admit that I’m no great theologian, but it seems to me that theologians are often the most wrong about God. The Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark was built by an amateur.
I heard it said recently by a trinitarian that in order for God to be Love, he must have a relational way to express that within himself (hence the trinity), or the phrase is meaningless. But it seems to me that this is self-defeating logic. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? God is what He is, regardless of having the ability to express it with an “audience”. If we assume that God is Love (a good assumption, as scripture directly states it), and that love was already perfectly expressed in a trinity, then why create anything toward which to express that love outside of Himself?
I’ve heard it said by these same trinitarians that God “doesn’t need us”. Perhaps in some senses that’s true, yet He’s clearly chosen to include us in his plan and make us part of the body of His Son, and that His ultimate plan is to be “all and in all”.
Why, if He’s already complete in a trinity?
Just some thoughts.
Too late to edit, but I thought this was a good “non trinitarian” explanation:
concordant.org/expohtml/GodA … eity1.html
I think this is essentially Martin Zender’s position as well.
Guess I’ll drop some thoughts here. My view of Jesus’ prayer in Geth. has changed over the last few years. As a young man I was always puzzled by it because there was a obvious dillema; Jesus had been predicting his death which was certain to happen and Jesus was requesting God to have it some other way.
I am now leaning to believe this has more to do with his being God than being human. It was the objection that made me revisit the scenario. My gut instintc is that the author or Jesus wanted us to wonder about the very issues we discuss. Why would Christ know he’s going to be “lifted up” or “crucified” and yet ask for it to happen some other way? I was always ready to settle for answer given: Jesus is showing his humanity.
I first began refocusing when I answered the question for Jesus, which was an emphatic NO. At least that’s the answer I see the Father giving him. Then I had to question why? It was immediately obvious to me, the Cross was not God’s goal. God’s goal was ressurection. And so there was no other way of acheiving the very victory required for the “dead” world.
My objection to this prayer being part of his humanity became more rounded when I remembered that it was Jesus himself who told the disciples not to fear the ones who can beat your body. Yet here was the master doing that very thing. Was he as weak as Peter? So I figure he’s dreading something else. Then I began to posit…DEATH. I don’t believe Jesus feared it, but rather HATES it (the last enemy to be destroyed). In all of scripture the one thing a eternal, holy God does not do was about to be his future (see my avatar for Lucas’ point of view). Jesus was about to be envoloped by sin, which is what God hates. For if Jesus really did fear his body being beaten, then why tell his disciples not to fear it (sort of makes him a bit of a hyprocrite). Rather I see this passage as part of his DEITY. I tend now to believe this is why Jesus prays so emphatically, not because he’s damn scared of the romans, but because he hates sin so much and must become it (the symbol of the cross - transgressors - sinner), that is something to dread. For God could have sent down 1 angel and probably could have destroyed everyone/everything and been done with it. Instead God takes on the worse thing of all…sin. Thus For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, to become sin, that we might live (sure it’s mixing John and Paul’s words, but I think it fits quite nicely).
Aug
Hm! That was an interesting angle Auggy. Thanks! 
I believe Auggy is on the right trail, however I believe in the Garden where it is settled, Christ’s dread is not death. Physical death was not feared nor did sin never darken Christ’s soul. He took on sinful flesh without sinning and on the cross, He was a sin offering, not sin. When the 2Cor. scripture says, He became sin, it is referring to ‘sin offering’. Christ the Lamb, was pure as snow from beginning to end.
What I believe Jesus wrestled with, was that He knew he would suffer an ABANDONMENT like no other. In a mysterious or metaphysical way, God abandoned Himself for us, in the greatest act of love imaginable. He gave all of Himself for and to us.
“My God, my God, why have You abandoned Me?”
These are the words of an unimaginable dread realized.
Be blessed,
John
You did notice Auggy stating that he didn’t think it was fear of death that prompted the prayer in Gethsemene, right John? (Or fear, per se, of anything really.)
Jeepers Pratt, I no more than get back after suffering my “Shinola” comment and you already have your red pen out. Talk about a short leash. 
But alas Jason, your corrective ways have caused me to further ponder this very subject we discuss and of which I have been meditating on for two months. I will later post my thoughts, while hoping your red ink might have run out by then. 
John
Regarding the statement, “Mr. Don Bast points out that Jesus had a God, and Mr. Rick Farwell points out that He is God.”
IMO both are true.
The way I see it Jesus is God to us by representation and we should worship Him as God.
But IMO He is not God in essence.
He is the same as God to His creatures.
When you are “the same as” something you cannot be that thing.
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature (Col. 1:15)
What I think is so sad though is when one side accuses the other of the sin of pride.
One day we will all learn if Jesus is God in essence or by representaion.
In the mean time, why can’t we just have an opionion without being accused of sinning?
hey, friends… i’m kind of new, but if it’s ok to jump in…
Scripturally, i read that there is One God, the Father Almighty, who is invisible, and Spirit. and that the Son was both with God, and was God in the beginning, before the world was made (John 1:1, John 17:5).
the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches a primary Godhood of the Father, whose divinity is the eternally begetting source of the Son’s divinity, and nature. so from that point of view, Christ is certainly God in His nature, and certainly Man, but not God, the Father.
and seeing as He was born to a virgin by the power and Spirit of God (God, essentially), i don’t see any problem with calling our Lord fully God, and fully Man in nature. under and from the Father, but essentially identical to the Father, and for us men and women, the totality and fullness of God, in flesh.
Welcome, Grace!
Nice post. I pretty much agree.
If you get a chance, tell us a little about yourself in the Introductions section.
Sonia
The following is a continuation of a discussion that began on another thread (Should we form universalist congregations?.
Ok, cool.
-
How do you define “being?” Would you say it’s the same as “existence?”
-
Do you think Scripture reveals the Supreme Being as having more than one first-person perspective, mind and will?
-
How do you define and understand the word “God” in the following verses? John 5:43-44; 14:1; 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Gal 1:3-5; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Rev 3:12.
If Jesus is the Supreme Being, it would seem strange to me that he would have to be given “all authority in heaven and on earth” and made “Lord of all.” Doesn’t the Supreme Being possess this unique authority and status by virtue of his nature and existence?
Moreover, according to Paul, God is Christ’s “head” (1 Cor 11:3). And then we also have the direct testimony of Jesus himself concerning his proper relationship to the one he refers to as “my God” (John 20:17; Rev 3:12; cf. 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Eph 1:3, 17; Col 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 1:6). In John 5:19, Jesus states, “…the son can do nothing of himself.” In verse 30, Jesus declares, “I can do nothing on my own” and “I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who has sent me.” And in John 14:28, Jesus explicitly states, “…my Father is greater than I.” It would seem from verses such as these that the being Christ refers to as the “one God” and the “only true God,” and who Paul refers to as the “one God,” is superior to Jesus.
But surely you do not believe Christ is equal to God in every sense, for Christ himself said he had a God (the Father), and that this personal being was greater than he. If there is some sense in which God is greater than Jesus, then Jesus and the person that is so often referred to as “God” (the Father) are not equal in every possible sense. It may be argued that the ontological equality of Jesus to God is being taught in John 5:18. There, we read that Jesus was “calling God his own father, making himself equal with God.” For a good response to this objection, I recommend the following: angelfire.com/space/thegospe … n5_18.html
The “equality” with God of which Christ is speaking is explained in the context. Jesus was “equal” to God not in an ontological sense but in the sense that Jesus had been given the same right as God to be working on the Sabbath. But this authority was not inherently his; Jesus could do nothing on his own, and God was greater than he. This right had been given to him by God in the same way that God made Jesus Lord and gave to his Son “all authority on heaven and on earth” when he raised him from the dead. Jesus was thus “equal” to God in the same sense that Joseph (who had been given Pharaoh’s authority and power) was “equal” to Pharaoh (Gen 44:18).
Paul was undoubtedly expressing the same idea above when he wrote, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col 1:19). But for a man to have “all the fullness of God” dwelling in him does not make him God. Ephesians 3:19 says that the goal of every believer is that they may be “filled with all the fullness of God.” Similarly, Peter speaks of believers becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). But neither of these verses mean that believers are ultimately going to become the Supreme Being.
But who and what is Paul referring to when he wrote “He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory?” You seem to simply be assuming that the “he” in this verse refers to the Supreme Being. I believe the “he” refers to a fully human Messiah. It was the Messiah who was “manifested in the flesh” (i.e., came into existence as a fully human being).
You put “God” in brackets above, but the reading of the earliest and best manuscripts is not “God” but rather “he who.”
If it’s not true that Jesus is the Supreme Being, then it would be no honor to Jesus to believe that he is. You’d be neither glorifying God nor Jesus by believing that Jesus is God if he in fact isn’t. In fact, I think you’d be embracing a “lesser view” of both God and Jesus by believing that Jesus is God if he actually isn’t. To say that denying Jesus’ deity is “lowering the bar” is, to me, like saying it is “lowering the bar” to deny that every man is “God incarnate.” Neither would be the case. Our reasons for believing that Jesus either is or isn’t the Supreme Being should, I believe, be grounded primarily in what Scripture reveals, not in what we happen to think is a “lesser view.” A false view and idea is always the “lesser view” and the “lesser idea.”
I’m not sure I understand your response here. Could you elaborate a little more?
I’ll check it out. But the same goes for “Attributarianism” or any other belief regarding the nature and number of God. If is neither logical nor revealed in Scripture, then a rejection of it is hardly an example of believing “less” or of “lowering the bar” (and yes, I’m including my own beliefs!).
That’s like saying, “A rejection of Lefein as God, is lowering the bar. Biblical or not.” If you are not God, then a rejection of the belief that you are God is not “lowering the bar.” Similarly, if Jesus isn’t the Supreme Being, then it’s not “lowering the bar” to reject the belief that he is the Supreme Being.
Do you think God’s infinitude enables him to express his being in the form of an entity that is fully human and fully dog?
I think my question is very much relevant, because we’re talking about what’s logically possible for God to do and to be. Do you think God’s omnipotence and infinitude enables him to bring into existence a being that is fully human and fully dog? Or do you think it’s logically possible for God to undergo some kind of change and become something that is fully God, fully human and fully dog?
You say you don’t think Jesus was created. But is not “man” a created being? And isn’t “Jesus” is the name of a being that Scripture describes as a “man?”
Do you think there was a time when “The Eternal Son” did not exist as a man? If so, then whenever the Eternal Son began to exist as a man, wouldn’t this mean that the Eternal Son underwent a radical change and became something he wasn’t before? And if so, wouldn’t this mean that when the Eternal Son became a man something different came into existence that did not have any existence before (i.e., a person who is both fully God and fully man rather than fully God only)? At the very least, wouldn’t it mean that a new nature which is inseparable from the identity of the Eternal Son had come into existence?
Truth = That which is
I AM = That which is
That which is = That which is
I AM = Truth
He that is = I AM
He that is = That which is
He that is = Truth = That which is
He that is = Truth
I AM = God
I AM = Truth
Truth = God
Jesus = Truth
Jesus = God
God = Jesus
Emmanuel = God with us
Emmanuel = Jesus
Jesus = God with us
Emmanuel = Jesus = Truth
Emmanuel = Truth
God with us = Truth
I AM = Truth
God = Truth
God with us = God
Emmanuel = God
Jesus = Emmanuel
Emmanuel = Jesus
Jesus = God
Jesus = Truth = I AM = Truth = God
Emmanuel = Truth = I AM = Truth = God
Jesus = I AM = God
Jesus = God