Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!jah From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Re: Trinity: the fine line Message-ID: <411@philabs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 15:23:45 EDT Article-I.D.: philabs.411 Posted: Mon Aug 12 15:23:45 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 01:12:28 EDT References: <603@usl.UUCP> <3015@topaz.ARPA> <97@unc.unc.UUCP> Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 91 In article <3015@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.UUCP (Hedrick) writes: > >I agree with the main point of your response. The idea of the Trinity > >does not threaten the unity of God, as "Lady Godiva" seemed to feel it > >did. However your particular wording suggests the classical heresy of > >Modalism. Frank Silberman asks > Who declared Modalism to be a heresy? When did this happen? > As long as a person believes, "All (the Father, Son and Spirit) are God and God is One" then, I believe, everything else is extraneous. I believe that we just can't express what God is in human terms. That is clear. But we do our best. > >There is not enough distinction to give us three Gods. > >But there is enough to allow for personal relationship to exist > >within God before he ever created any human beings to love. > How much more distinction is required to give us three gods? > That is, suppose some ancient Roman told you that his religion > is monotheistic -- that Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, Vulcan, Diana, > Mars, Dionysis, etc all were different aspects of the one true god. > How would you confront him? Obviously, you believe his religion > is a false one, but would this be a monotheistic falsehood or > a polytheistic one? If you admit that his religion might be > monotheistic (independent of its lack of general truth content) > then the term monotheism no longer has any useful meaning. Maybe the term monotheism is too limiting to describe the truth contained. This is true of the term Trinity. Maybe that's why its not used in the Bible to explain God. God has one will, one plan, and one mind. The Bible says, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Where the word for God (Elohim) is plural indicating more than one in some sense,yet One. And the word for "One" here, (I forget offhand) suggests a unity or oneness as in one mind, one heart, one purpose, one plan...united. I don't think it is important to classify what type of religion one believes. It adds nothing to the truth contained within and generally diminishes any of the real essence that is there. > Then why is the doctrine of the trinity so important to Christianity? The Trinity is just men's way of trying to describe something that is not easily understood. How can God be One and then be seen in the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit? That's where the doctrine of the trinity comes in. Its an attempt to explain it. God says He's One God and then He talks about Himself as if three. He understands it. We try to. We know that all three are God because it is written. The Old Testament clearly makes the distinction as does the New. And yet, He emphatically declares He is One God. Who am I to argue with God about who He is? > >Differing understandings of the Trinity have traditionally had effects > >on what one believes about Jesus. Normally heretical understandings > >of the Trinity (or lack of the doctine entirely) has been combined > >with what I would consider substandard understandings about Christ. > >Typically God is made too abstract to really involve himself in human > >history, so Jesus comes out as something less than a real incarnation > >of God. > This understanding explains why the Jewish and Moslem beliefs about Jesus > are not really "rejections" of Jesus, but rather disagreements over what > is actually there to be accepted. Its hard to accept something that appears logically inconsistent even when it is God that declares it. For instance, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah says: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Is. 9:6 (KJV). If this child were not actually God, it would be Blasphemy to call Him these names. There are numerous other places where similar things are said about The Anointed One, though not quite so blatantly. (Ps. 2:7; ICh17:11-14; IISa 7:12-16; Micah 5:2; Ps 110:1) And many of the Lord's prophets were filled with the Spirit of God (eg. Moses, Joshua, ..., Samual, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, ..., Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, ...). The Spirit of God is mentioned as distinct, yet God (Is. 11:12). Jesus was filled beyond measure. Jewish and Moslem belief about Jesus is not really based on Scripture. The following list is a condensed list of prophecies concerning Messiah, His time, His purpose and His plan: Daniel 9 (timetable, Messiah's death, second coming), Isaiah 9 (He will be called God), Isaiah 11 (the ruling Messiah), Psalm 22 (the Crucifixion), Psalm 110 (He is Lord and Savior), Isaiah 53 (He redeems us from sin and sickness by His sacrifice)...there's more but this selection makes my point. Julie A Harazduk