The Nature of Christ
We believe that Jesus was a man, born of a woman at a specific point in history. Being the son of God, he was not exactly as we are, though he was subject to the same weaknesses and desires we are. Through prayer, perseverance and strength of character, Jesus resisted the trials of sin to the point of giving up his life, rather than give in to the desires of the flesh. In doing so, Jesus opened a pathway to God for the rest of us, who are kept from God by our sins.
Jesus is the son of God, who ascended to his Father's side 40 days after being raised from the dead. He could not remain dead, for God had said that we die because of sin, and Jesus had not sinned. Jesus will return to earth, at the time appointed by his Father, to start the long work of preparing the earth and humankind for ultimate reconciliation with the Creator.
Mainstream Christian Teaching
The bulk of all Christianity teaches unequivocally that Jesus is God. This claim is made without qualification. Typically, it is said that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God: that Jesus was fully God, and never ceased to be God while on earth. And usually, when it really gets down to the nitty-gritty, it is said the whole issue (the Trinity) is a mystery.
Inherent Flaws:
1. The fundamental truth of the Bible is that God is One. Any teaching that in any way appears to deviate from or undermime this profound truth must be very firmly substantiated. The doctrine of the Trinity pretends to be such a teaching, yet it is entirely absent from the entire Old Testament. This doesn't make sense.
2. Mortality and Immortality are mutually exclusive characteristics. If Jesus is God, he couldn't have really died, for God is immortal by nature. Likewise, if Jesus died, he couldn't really be God, for God cannot die. Immortality is not a fluctuating quality! A being is either mortal or immortal. You can't have it both ways with this. Either Christ died, and he is mortal, or he's God and can't die. Pick one alternative, as holding both is simply untenable. Traditional Christians typically respond to this point with the idea stated above in the introduction, that Jesus was fully human and fully God. But look at the next point.
3. For the temptations of Christ to have been in any way real, there had to exist the possibility that he sin. If Christ is God, it is impossible that he could have sinned, for God is perfect by nature. Jesus pointed this out in Mt 19:17, marking the distinction between himself and God (only ONE is good...). If Christ was God, and therefore couldn't sin, all his 'temptations' were faked, and his identification with mankind a cruel sham! And for those affirming the 100%/100% idea, do you really see God locking Himself into a nature that could potentially sin? Finally, James explicitly states that God cannot be tempted by evil (1:13-15).
4. Another point: God is all-knowing, Jesus learned (Luke 2:40, 52) during his life, which implicitly means acquiring knowledge or wisdom not previously possessed. In fact, there were some things Jesus never knew until after his resurrection - like the date of his return (Mrk 13:32). Traditional Christian thought (see above) has it that he never ceased to be God, so how did he learn? Did he just 'forget' for a while, while on earth? Did he later "remember" that he was omniscient? Again, omniscience and humanity are mutually exclusive characteristics. And if you are omniscient, you can't shed that quality temporarily.
5. God is undeniably all-powerful, while Jesus always acknowledged that his power was received from God, not inherently his own (ie. John 7:16, 8:28, 12:49-50, 14:28). He said this about his teaching as well, in many places. Why would he say this if he and God were the one and same? In addition, when the disciples requested to sit at his right hand and at his left, he said that this was not his to give, but the Fathers' to decide (Matt. 20:23). The usual response to this is that the different persons of God have different domains of authority; but there you would venture out onto thin ice indeed, as it is very difficult to be One, yet have multiple and distinct personhoods, with distinct levels of authority.
6. God is by nature invisible and never seen (Jn. 1:18, I Tim. 6:16, I Jn. 4:12); Jesus was of course seen. To say that God was never seen, and then to continue that Jesus is God just doesn't make sense. The idea that Jesus is God isn't a mystery or some profound biblical truth too deep to understand - it just doesn't make sense.
7. In the Bible, God = the Father, and no other. See Rom. 1:7, Col.3:17, I Thes. 1:1, II Tim 1:2 and many more (for example, the introductory words of almost all Paul's letters). The appelations "the Father" and "Jesus" are never used interchangeably in the Bible.
8. In Mtt. 28:10 Jesus speaks of his followers as "brethren". Are we children of God, or brethren of God? We can't be both. It again follows from this simple description of our relationships to them that Jesus and God occupy very distinct stations. And in fact, how can a Father and Son be the one and same? Again, to affirm so isn't a mistery, it's nonsense.
9. In Mtt. 3:17 God says: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" in a voice from heaven as Jesus rose from the waters of baptism - What is the value of God indicating his pleasure in Christ, if Christ was God himself? And what had Christ supposedly achieved here, if he was God and it was impossible for him by nature to sin or do wrong?
10. I Cor 11:3 and 15:8. Here are two more instances (post resurrection!) where Christ is clearly not equal with God.
11. And the clincher: in John 8:17-18 Jesus quotes from the law the necessity that evidence, to be valid, must be agreed upon by two witnesses. Jesus states that the two witnesses are himself and God. Two, not one. If Jesus were God, there was only one witness, and if Jesus says there are two, then he and God are not one.
12. In Ephesians 5:2, Christ is described as a "fragrant offering and sacrifice to God". This does not make sense if they are the one and same person. And in fact, if Christ is God, could you really conceive as the all-powerful God, the only creator of the universe, supreme in glory and majesty, as a 'sacrifice'? Here is where we Christadelphians really have a problem with the supposed doctrine that Jesus is God: it's a nice idea that God gave himself as a sacrifice for us; but the all-powerful God of the universe as a pitiful sacrifice for me, a human sinner? Somehow we just don't see it. However, the vision of Jesus as a perfect man, the most loved son of God, overcoming the inherent weaknesses of the flesh by prayer and determination: there is an image that makes sense.
Jesus is the son of God, who ascended to his Father's side 40 days after being raised from the dead. He could not remain dead, for God had said that we die because of sin, and Jesus had not sinned. Jesus will return to earth, at the time appointed by his Father, to start the long work of preparing the earth and humankind for ultimate reconciliation with the Creator.
Mainstream Christian Teaching
The bulk of all Christianity teaches unequivocally that Jesus is God. This claim is made without qualification. Typically, it is said that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God: that Jesus was fully God, and never ceased to be God while on earth. And usually, when it really gets down to the nitty-gritty, it is said the whole issue (the Trinity) is a mystery.
Inherent Flaws:
1. The fundamental truth of the Bible is that God is One. Any teaching that in any way appears to deviate from or undermime this profound truth must be very firmly substantiated. The doctrine of the Trinity pretends to be such a teaching, yet it is entirely absent from the entire Old Testament. This doesn't make sense.
2. Mortality and Immortality are mutually exclusive characteristics. If Jesus is God, he couldn't have really died, for God is immortal by nature. Likewise, if Jesus died, he couldn't really be God, for God cannot die. Immortality is not a fluctuating quality! A being is either mortal or immortal. You can't have it both ways with this. Either Christ died, and he is mortal, or he's God and can't die. Pick one alternative, as holding both is simply untenable. Traditional Christians typically respond to this point with the idea stated above in the introduction, that Jesus was fully human and fully God. But look at the next point.
3. For the temptations of Christ to have been in any way real, there had to exist the possibility that he sin. If Christ is God, it is impossible that he could have sinned, for God is perfect by nature. Jesus pointed this out in Mt 19:17, marking the distinction between himself and God (only ONE is good...). If Christ was God, and therefore couldn't sin, all his 'temptations' were faked, and his identification with mankind a cruel sham! And for those affirming the 100%/100% idea, do you really see God locking Himself into a nature that could potentially sin? Finally, James explicitly states that God cannot be tempted by evil (1:13-15).
4. Another point: God is all-knowing, Jesus learned (Luke 2:40, 52) during his life, which implicitly means acquiring knowledge or wisdom not previously possessed. In fact, there were some things Jesus never knew until after his resurrection - like the date of his return (Mrk 13:32). Traditional Christian thought (see above) has it that he never ceased to be God, so how did he learn? Did he just 'forget' for a while, while on earth? Did he later "remember" that he was omniscient? Again, omniscience and humanity are mutually exclusive characteristics. And if you are omniscient, you can't shed that quality temporarily.
5. God is undeniably all-powerful, while Jesus always acknowledged that his power was received from God, not inherently his own (ie. John 7:16, 8:28, 12:49-50, 14:28). He said this about his teaching as well, in many places. Why would he say this if he and God were the one and same? In addition, when the disciples requested to sit at his right hand and at his left, he said that this was not his to give, but the Fathers' to decide (Matt. 20:23). The usual response to this is that the different persons of God have different domains of authority; but there you would venture out onto thin ice indeed, as it is very difficult to be One, yet have multiple and distinct personhoods, with distinct levels of authority.
6. God is by nature invisible and never seen (Jn. 1:18, I Tim. 6:16, I Jn. 4:12); Jesus was of course seen. To say that God was never seen, and then to continue that Jesus is God just doesn't make sense. The idea that Jesus is God isn't a mystery or some profound biblical truth too deep to understand - it just doesn't make sense.
7. In the Bible, God = the Father, and no other. See Rom. 1:7, Col.3:17, I Thes. 1:1, II Tim 1:2 and many more (for example, the introductory words of almost all Paul's letters). The appelations "the Father" and "Jesus" are never used interchangeably in the Bible.
8. In Mtt. 28:10 Jesus speaks of his followers as "brethren". Are we children of God, or brethren of God? We can't be both. It again follows from this simple description of our relationships to them that Jesus and God occupy very distinct stations. And in fact, how can a Father and Son be the one and same? Again, to affirm so isn't a mistery, it's nonsense.
9. In Mtt. 3:17 God says: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" in a voice from heaven as Jesus rose from the waters of baptism - What is the value of God indicating his pleasure in Christ, if Christ was God himself? And what had Christ supposedly achieved here, if he was God and it was impossible for him by nature to sin or do wrong?
10. I Cor 11:3 and 15:8. Here are two more instances (post resurrection!) where Christ is clearly not equal with God.
11. And the clincher: in John 8:17-18 Jesus quotes from the law the necessity that evidence, to be valid, must be agreed upon by two witnesses. Jesus states that the two witnesses are himself and God. Two, not one. If Jesus were God, there was only one witness, and if Jesus says there are two, then he and God are not one.
12. In Ephesians 5:2, Christ is described as a "fragrant offering and sacrifice to God". This does not make sense if they are the one and same person. And in fact, if Christ is God, could you really conceive as the all-powerful God, the only creator of the universe, supreme in glory and majesty, as a 'sacrifice'? Here is where we Christadelphians really have a problem with the supposed doctrine that Jesus is God: it's a nice idea that God gave himself as a sacrifice for us; but the all-powerful God of the universe as a pitiful sacrifice for me, a human sinner? Somehow we just don't see it. However, the vision of Jesus as a perfect man, the most loved son of God, overcoming the inherent weaknesses of the flesh by prayer and determination: there is an image that makes sense.
posted by Jason at 1:47 PM
22 Comments:
Jason,
The bulk of all Christianity teaches unequivocally that Jesus is God. This claim is made without qualification.
This statement is a bit over-generalizing things. You may believe that their "qualification" is invalid, but the "bulk of all Christianity" did not arrive at this conclusion based on nothing. There are scriptures in the Bible that support the view that Jesus is God. You can say that you believe these scriptures to be added, misinterpreted, etc. but I don't believe you should be as dismissive of the view as you did especially if you're giving a comprehensive study on the subject.
My thoughts.
-Paul
P.S. Turn on Word Verification in your Comments tab to eliminate spam comments.
However Christianity arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity isn't relevant, I'm afraid. There were many false doctrines conjured up in the centuries after Christ, some stuck, some didn't (purgatory, infant baptism, etc.). Now, hundreds and hundreds of years later, do your eally think the Church could ever admit to making such a huge mistake on the magnitude of the Trinity?
I've done my comprehensive study on the subject, numerous times in fact, and I'm still astounded that so many Christians are completely and utterly in the dark about who God & Jesus are. The contradictions alone which result from turning Jesus into God should be more then enough for even the most basic of Bible students to scratch their heads and wonder what the heck is going on. Why was the Trinity never taught by the apostles? Why are Jews so passionately monotheistic today if their history revolved around a Trinue God? Why did it take three hundred years before the concept became doctrine? The questions and implications that come as a result are staggering...
Jason,
The historical evidence does tend to show that the doctrine of Jesus being God was not a common belief of the early church. However, there are a few verses in scripture that support this view (in no uncertain terms). One can say that these were added to support the doctrine but then the infalliblity of the Bible is compromised. Therein lies your dilema. What do you do with these verses that just doesn't seem to fit with the majority of the text?
We can have a look at those verses if you'd like. Which ones did you have in mind?
Well, let's start where you'd expect me to start... John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
It'd be easier to outline the nature of Christ first but we can jump into things with both feet if you'd like :)
In Infamous John 1:1
1. This chunk of text doesn't talk about God being Trinue and it doesn't even hint that God is Triune. A neutral observer wouldn't look at these verses and exclaim, "Yes, of course, God is three!". If anything, John 1:1 should be a stock verse for the pre-existence of Christ, not the Trinity. :)
2. Jesus is referred to as being the "Light" in vs. 4, 8 and 9. He is not referred to as being the "word". Light is often used to describe Jesus. For example, John 1:4-5, John 3:19, John 8:12, John 9:5, 39, John 12:35, 46, 1 John 2:8, Luke 1:49, Luke 2:32. On the flip side, Jesus is never referred to as being the "Word" (see below).
3. As you're probably aware, "word" is "logos" in Greek. There are many, many translations that come as a result of "logos", all dependant on the context. Some of the ways logos is translated: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.
Note that “Jesus Christ” is never once a definition of "logos".
4. "Logos" does not in itself denote personality. The rules of Greek grammar require that pronouns must agree with the nouns they represent in case, number and gender. Since the word logos (word) is masculine, its pronoun would of necessity be masculine. For example, the word church (ekklesia) is feminine. So the church is called a "she" in the Greek whenever a pronoun is used. No one would claim however that this makes the church a literal person.
5. “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word "logos" in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. Most notably, it is this communication with mankind that has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).
In a simpler sense, the "logos" is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. Jesus is the manifestation of God's plan and purpose with mankind.
6. If we understand that the logos is God’s expression, it is clear that they were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. No ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29 and 30: “…when He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.”
7. There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that not only refer back in time to God’s work in the original creation, but also foreshadow the work of Christ in the new administration and the new creation. It is not by accident that the Gospel begins with the same phrase as the book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1, ‘In the beginning’ introduces the story of the old creation; here it introduces the story of the new creation. In both works of creation the agent is the Word of God.
Your thoughts?
1. In every instance when the word "mystery" is used, the mystery is always revealed.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity depends on verses being taken out of context. E.g. John 10:30, etc.
Instead of using personal opinion, prove using Scripture that the OT Israelites, the NT Jews & Gentiles, and the 1st century churches understood God was three in light of the evidence in this post showing otherwise.
Jason
I wasn't aware you had made any points...?
If you go through the original post, you'll see each point is supported by verses and chapter references, not personal opinion. I await your explainations pointing out my misunderstanding of the Trinity.
Again, what points have you made?
Hey, wait a second, how come you get to pick ONE verse and claim it proves 2/3 of the Trinity? I supply mutiple verses saying the opposite and yet it's me taking things out of context.
Read a little bit further. After Jesus says those words in verse 10, the Jews want to stone him. Why? Because the Jews say Jesus is making himself God. In response, Jesus responds, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"
In other words, the JEWS were called "gods" and yet no one ever considered the Jews to be 2/3 of the Trinity.
Secondly, look at these multiple verses in John 17: "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word; that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And the glory which you gave me I have given them, that they may be one just as we are one: I in them, and you in me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them as you have loved me.
Anyone reading John 17:21 would naturally assume that believers make up the third part of the Trinity. This is what the verse says, right? Who cares about context? Or, you can read ALL the verses and realize that Jesus isn't literally God simply because he says He's one with God. It's simply a figure of speech showing unity.
Thanks for the book referrals but I'll stick with the Bible, it's easier to understand.
I said, "The doctrine of the Trinity depends on verses being taken out of context. E.g. John 10:30, etc."
You agreed by saying "Taking the very short verse you quote is John 10:31 reading just that verse at least comfirms 2/3 of the Trinty."
Then I offer multiple verses in John 17 showing how this verse in John 10:30 is to be taken and you yet ignore it because it doesn't fit with what you were taught about the Trinity.
As for Greek, I get everything I need to know from the handy dandy concordance.
Have you ever used a concordance before? Do you know what it is? Perhaps you were taught never to use one...?
I find it interesting you've yet to refer to a single verse from Scripture to show that I'm wrong about this doctrine in particular. It's easier to criticize the person then the belief isn't it :) It doesn't require as much Bible knowledge.
Read 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Do you think these verses suggest we need to read other books before the Bible makes sense?
I have no problem hearing God's still small voice. But then, that's what happens when one isn't busy reading books written by the wisdom of man.
You know, you validate a lot of the things that my own study have brought out. I just 'accepted' them, asking God to clarify them in time. Yet, no clarification ever came.
This statement of faith, with minor exceptions, is what my own study of the bible have concluded, so I accept that I'm not crazy, or being heretical. I appreciate your candor in your findings, and if I find something IN SCRIPTURE that says otherwise, I'll let you know.
As for the debate, the word itself dictates that there must be at least 2 witnesses to make a claim... a single verse claiming that Jesus is God isn't testemony enough. While I'm not saying that Jesus ISN'T God.. I see no actual scripture that says he IS.
Right on the money!
Thanks very much for your comments. If you would like to discuss something further, I'd be more then happy to do so.
Jason, have you honestly read any of the major statements against your position? Augustine's De Trinitate? Cyril's On the Unity of Christ? There's a little book called 'The Christological Controversy' edited by one Richard A. Norris, which is a collection of early texts where this question was so fiercely debated. I recommend it.
You seem to be on the side of the Arians, is that right? They thought the Scriptures taught the pre-existence of Christ, but not his divinity.
Hi Brian,
I'm prepared to discuss the major statements contained within Scripture.
As for the pre-existence of Christ, the original post clearly explains the Christadelphian position.
I'm missing where you say what the Christadelphian position is on the pre-existence of Christ. Could you clarify?
The reason for reading the arguments of the later tradition, besides the fact that the great patristic theologians were endlessly more intelligent than either of us, would be to realize that you're not the first to notice any of these complexities in the scriptural portrayal of Jesus and his relation to the Father. And even a glance at those arguments would make clear that Trinitarian doctrine is much more nuanced and careful than the rather crass and simplistic notion you implicitly war against.
I'm missing where you say what the Christadelphian position is on the pre-existence of Christ. Could you clarify?
"We believe that Jesus was a man, born of a woman at a specific point in history."
The reason for reading the arguments of the later tradition, besides the fact that the great patristic theologians were endlessly more intelligent than either of us, would be to realize that you're not the first to notice any of these complexities in the scriptural portrayal of Jesus and his relation to the Father.
Neither I, nor the Christadelphians, are claiming to be the first.
And even a glance at those arguments would make clear that Trinitarian doctrine is much more nuanced and careful than the rather crass and simplistic notion you implicitly war against.
This is mere conjecture. If you'd like to discuss Scripture, I'd be more then happy to do so.
I'd just like to say that predestinedtoo's comments seem spot on the money to me. A lot of great points in the original post Jason, but I was waiting for you to get to the revelation of truth that is the trinity. It makes sense, it honestly does.
The Bible doesn't teach the concept of the Trinity which is why I didn't get into the "revelation of the truth that is the Trinity".
Post a Comment
<< Home