Could Jesus Have Gotten a Math Problem Wrong?

Hi John
You may be interested to know that my Jesuit friends admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible!

They say that the writings of the early Church Fathers have the same ‘validity’ as the scriptures – and that it is only when one takes all of these writings together that
one can justify the doctrine.

Luther created a problem for himself and future generations by adhering to a policy of ‘sola scriptura’
– and that is why protestants have to resort to the ‘gymnastics’ they employ.

The fear of the church in Rome, at the time of the Reformation, was that protestants would become
unitarian . The ‘Radical Reformationists’ certainly wanted to ‘take all dogma and doctrine off the table’ and start from a ‘zero base’. For this and they were forced to leave Europe -or be killed. The ones who fled to Poland (the Polish Brethern) were later exterminated

One can never lose sight of the main argument against the doctrine of the Trinity – it is simply NOT SCRIPTURAL.
There are logical issues involved too – but I won’t go into these at this time.
Best Wishes
John B

OK – probably the last time I’ll post on this, but a few more thoughts on your responses. I’m going to skip some points because it’s late here in the UK, and I’ve had a long day…
(i) Why did Jesus not correct Thomas? Surely this was a serious enough error that it should have been corrected?
(ii) How would you then translate the rest of John 1? How did the “Word become flesh”? (FWIW, I find it difficult to argue that modern translations are all wrong. You are right in that the word “he” does not appear in v3, but then neither does the word “it”; it is the word for “same”. Given the rest of the chapter, I’m not sure ‘he’ is any worse a translation than ‘it’)
(iv) Yes, we can forgive someone when they sin against us. We cannot offer blanket forgiveness of sins. Jesus doesn’t correct the Pharisees, or qualify His statement. Likewise in John 10:30-33 (mentioned above) Jesus doesn’t qualify His statement.

Lets throw out a few more verses, just for fun:

Acts 20:28, in which the Ephesians elders are commended to look after the “church of God, which He obtained with His own blood”.
Titus 2:3 and 2 Peter 1:1, both of which refer to “our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ”
Revelation 4:11 where the 24 elders declare Jesus to be Lord and God.

FWIW, both the title Lord, and the title Saviour, were titles that were usually reserved for God alone.

Dear Ben
I’ll respond to your points in the order you presented them
Before proceeding I’d like to mention two points

(a) As the Rev. Samuel Clark observed in his book “Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity” (1712)-“if you think you have found a verse which ‘proves’ Christ = God, you will find in the immediate context a verse which shows them to be ‘two’
(b) The KJV bible has numerous mis-translations which generally attempt to re-inforce doctrine. Modern scholarly Bibles have corrected many of these.

(i) Why did Christ not ‘correct’ Thomas ?
Because Christ understood that Thomas was NOT
addressing him as God. Just check the words “Kurios’
and ‘Theos’ in your Greek interlinear bible- they refer
to people ranging from magistrates and judges, and
‘people to whom the law was given’ – to the Lord God
Almighty.
This verse was contextualised in any case by v 31,
which summarises Christs mission and shows Christ
and God to be different ‘selves’

(ii) How did the ‘Word become flesh’ – simple, Gods
creative power and will entered a man. And in case
one gets too carried away- verse 18 says ‘no man has seen
God’
(iii)The issue of blanket forgiveness of sins.
I never said that we had that power. God delegated
this to Christ only – but as believers, having been forgiven
we must in turn forgive others.

NOW- reverting to your verses
(a)Acts 20v 28
The KJV uses the words “which he had purchased
with his own blood”. The Greek interlinear bible uses
the words “which he purchased with the blood of
his own Son” (Zondervan)
(b) 2 Peter 1v1
“our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’
NAB and RSV give a translation from another
manuscript which states ” our God and the Saviour
Jesus Christ”
(c)Titus 2v3
“the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”(NIV)

The correct translation is ” the Great God and of
our Saviour Jesus Christ

This sort of nonsense pervades the KJV. I came upon
another example last week in 1 Thesallonians 3v11
where KJV states ” Now God himself and our
Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our
way unto you’
The Greek words are ” theos kai pater’ — God and
Father … so the verse reads ” May our God and
Father himself and our Lord Jesus Christ prepare
the way for us to come to you”
(d) You refer to Revelation 4 and somehow come to the
conclusion that the one who sits upon the throne is
Christ
I respectfully disagree.
God Almighty sits on the throne
(move into Chapter 5)
among the assembled throng around the foot of
the throne is a Lamb
who was deemed worthy to break the seals.

That’s Christ!

Best Wishes

John B

Ben
So sorry but I missed out your comments on John 10 vv 30-36
These verses are completely misunderstood…
In them Christ is referring back to Psalm 82.

In this Psalm (v1) it is God who rises in the divine
Council and gives jusdement in the midst of the
gods.
These ‘gods’ are the men who were administering
the laws of their day.
God proclaimed that they had not ruled wisely or justly.

The Jews to whom Christ was talking were the current
‘gods’
They refused to accept Christs testimony

The accused him of blasphemy simply because he said he was “Son of God’ (Christ had no need to qualify this.)

Christ was warning them that the day is coming when
God will judge the world by that righteous man whom he had ordained (Acts 17 v31). The Psalmists prayer
will be answered.

Best Wishes
John B

I would agree that the KJV is flawed in many places. However, I’ve not used the KJV in any of my studies.

You state:
“(b) 2 Peter 1v1 “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’
NAB and RSV give a translation from another
manuscript which states ” our God and the Saviour
Jesus Christ” ”

And yet, I cannot find this alternative translation in either the RSV or the NAB. In fact, in a brief search, the only translation I found that rendered it your way was the NWT, the translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I will, however, refer you to the debate that was had on this very blog on the same matter, beginning at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-an-introduction/

William
Thanks for your contribution.
I must say that I was dragged into the Biblical Unitarian position by the absolute paucity of scripture supporting the Doctrine of the Trinity.
My position is still flexible -but I will be difficult to move!

I am certainly not attracted to the ‘Kool Aid’ served up by the JWs

Your response to me was kind and compassionate and for that I am grateful.

Just a few comments

(i) “I and the Father are one”
The Greek word for one is ‘hen’
The same word is used in many other verses to mean
“Having a common purpose’ as in 1 Corinthians 3v8
or agin in Philippians 2v2 “having a single purpose’

(ii) John Chapter 8. The Jews took up stones to stone
him”
Have you ever wondered why they did NOT stone
Him?
It’s because such a stoning would have been illegal
and made them murderers. Stoning was only
permitted for blasphemy – and the Jews were NOT
accusing Him of blasphemy. Christ himself said that
he was The Son of God.
Why were the Jews so incensed that they were
tempted to stone him?
Well, for starters Christ had called them
-born of fornication
-children of the Devil etc.
However they restrained themselves and did not
break the law.

I think you have alluded to John 10 v 30-36 and this
Ihave covered in my preceeding post to Ben

Like you I am passionate about the truth – but
it is a painful process. Thank God for intelligent
and compassionate people who can help one along
the way!!
Every Blessing
John B

Ben

Regarding 2 Peter 1v1
Sorry about my sloppiness!
The words I referred to are in the FOOTNOTE to the chapter in the NAB

My reference to RSV was incorrect.

If one refers to the Greek Interlinear Bible one quickly gets to the truth of the matter

The interlinear gives

“tou theo kai lesou tou kyriou hemon ”
of God and of Jesus our Lord

The NASB puts it very well
” .. in the knowledge of God AND Jesus our Lord”

So the scriptures are NOT saying that Christ= God.

Best Wishes
John

“Regarding 2 Peter 1v1
Sorry about my sloppiness!
The words I referred to are in the FOOTNOTE to the chapter in the NAB”

It’s a footnote because it’s a minority translation.

“If one refers to the Greek Interlinear Bible one quickly gets to the truth of the matter
The interlinear gives
“tou theo kai lesou tou kyriou hemon ”
of God and of Jesus our Lord”

Not in any of the Greek bibles I’ve looked at. They all render:

“tou theo kai hemon kai soteros Iesou Xristou”

“The NASB puts it very well
” .. in the knowledge of God AND Jesus our Lord””

Not in any version of the NASB I could find. They all render it as “by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”.

Ben
We are evidently reading from different Greek texts

My texts are taken from Textus Receptus 1894 ——
” tou theos hemon kai soteros hemon iesou christos”
‘the God of us AND the saviour of us Jesus anointed”
see http://www.scriptures4all.org

and the Westcot Hart Edition 1891 with Nestle variants.
gives
“tou theou kai lesou tou kynou hemon”
” of God AND of Jesus the Lord of us”
see http://www.interlinearbible.org

Clearly the texts differ but they seem to show God and Jesus to be different persons One can argue the point but this is a trifling issue when there are so many clear verses which show that Christ is not God.

The variation in manuscripts for this verse are a literalists nightmare.
Best wishes
John

“We are evidently reading from different Greek texts”

So it would seem.

“My texts are taken from Textus Receptus 1894 ——
” tou theos hemon kai soteros hemon iesou christos”
‘the God of us AND the saviour of us Jesus anointed”
see http://www.scriptures4all.org ”

The same Textus Receptus which is widely regarded as inaccurate and one of the reasons that the KJV has the mistakes that you yourself mentioned?

“and the Westcot Hart Edition 1891 with Nestle variants.
gives
“tou theou kai lesou tou kynou hemon”
” of God AND of Jesus the Lord of us”
see http://www.interlinearbible.org”

Of the 11 Greek texts on that page only 1 differs from the text I gave above, and it’s the 1894 Textus Receptus that you’ve used above. All the Westcott-Hort texts read the same as I have used.

“Clearly the texts differ but they seem to show God and Jesus to be different persons One can argue the point but this is a trifling issue when there are so many clear verses which show that Christ is not God.”

Actually, there are many clear verses that show that Christ is the Son of God, which Trinitarians would affirm. You haven’t provided a single verse that actually shows that Christ is *not* God.

“The variation in manuscripts for this verse are a literalists nightmare.”

Variations do provide difficulties for translators, and for students of the Word. However, there is a wealth of resource and knowledge available about textual analysis, and the Greek NT we have today aren’t going to get much better. Additional findings tend to only confirm the decisions that have been made. The last big change (AIUI) was the Dead Sea Scrolls, which did call into question the aforementioned Textus Receptus.

Ben
Thanks for that
You state
“Actually there are many clear verses that show that Christ is the Son of God-which Trinitarians affirm”

And I affirm too
But of X is the son of Y, the one thing we can say with certainty is that Y is NOT X

You say
“you havn’t provided a single verse that shows that Christ was NOT God”

(i) With few exceptions (e.g. in the case of ‘god’ or ‘gods’) God refers to the Father
(ii)In Pauls writing Lord refers to Christ
(iii) Without exception “Father” and “Son” are different selves
Now -to a few of the verses-

CONSIDER CHRISTS WORDS
(a) The Father is greater than I John 14v28
(b) Jesus said to her”I ascend to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God” John 20v17
(c)The Son can do nothing of himself John 9
(d)Jesus was visible yet God is invisible 1Tim 1v17 6v16
(e)Jesus was appreoachable yet God lives in unapproachable light 1 Tim 6v 16
(f)Christ died but God is immortal1 Tim 1v17
(g) Jesus said that the Father is the one and only God
John 5 v44
(h)Jesus called ‘my God, my God, why have you foresaken me Mat 7v46
(i) Who did Christ pray to?
(j)Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent John 17v1, 3

AND PETER’S WORDS
(k) Jesus, a man attested to you by God, with wonders and signs which God performed through him Acts 2v22
(l)God raised him from the dead Acts 4 v10
(m) God has made him both Lord and Christ Acts 2v36

AND PAULS WORDS
(n) For there is but one God, the Father through whom we exist , and one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom all things are.. 1 Cor 8v6
(o)The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 2 Cor1v3 11v31
(p) Christ belongs to God because God is the head of Christ 1 Cor 3v23

AND EVEN IN HIS RESURRECTED STATE
(q) ‘then shall the Son himself be subjected to God
1 Cor 15v28
(r) and in Revelation Christ is depicted as the Lamb who stood at the base of the throne among the assembled throng.

Ben, my great sadness is that (particularly in your country) people are drifting away from the church, at a time when the church is most needed, and I attribute this to people being ‘fed’ doctrine which they can scarcely comprehend and which lacks scriptural support.
I encounter such people almost every day -some of them still ‘cling together’ inside the churches and find fellowship (clandestine) with fellow travellers.

Best Wishes
John B

“But of X is the son of Y, the one thing we can say with certainty is that Y is NOT X”

And yet this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which has been a foundational doctrine, even a hallmark of orthodoxy, within the Christian church for hundreds of years. I didn’t say it was rational, merely that it was true.

I know this won’t satisfy you, in the same way that I doubt you will be able to convince me that your translation of 2 Peter 1:1 is justifiable from the Greek.

Better and brighter men than me have defended this doctrine. I have done my part, but I suggest you look to them if you want further understanding.

“Ben, my great sadness is that (particularly in your country) people are drifting away from the church, at a time when the church is most needed, and I attribute this to people being ‘fed’ doctrine which they can scarcely comprehend and which lacks scriptural support.”

If you think that the doctrine of the Trinity is the primary reason (or, for that matter, a reason at all) that people are leaving the church in the UK, then you are sadly mistaken. If comprehension and rationality were the issue, then the church would have faded during the modern era, whereas, in fact, it flourished. The fading has been in the post-modern era, where the church has, in fact, lost it’s sense of spirituality and mystery than many people desire. And for those who do place a high importance on rationality, the Trinity is the least of their worries (and questions).

Ben
Thank you for that!
I come from a fundamentalist ‘exclusive’ background so I have not been brought up to have a reverence for tradition

Also I am not a total literalist and so I can let something like 2 Peter 1:1 go by as a bit of sloppy writing on the part of the original author.

I note what you say about post-modern Britain with interest . I am not sufficiently close to the matter , but people tell me that there is a deep spiritual hunger -in people that one would not expect- and that it is not being filled by what is on offer. ‘New Age’ has not fulfilled expectations!

I am something of an ‘Erasmian” and believe in ‘keeping things simple’-by defining as few things as possible.

This is abhorrent to some people.

I must say, you have done an excellent job defending the Trinitarian ‘camp’- no one could have done better- and I have been exposed to some very fine minds – particularly Jesuits.

As you say , we will probably never convince each other
– and should leave it at that.
My very best wishes
And respect
John B

Hi John B
Sorry I have been away so long and not at all involved. I think I agree with you that no side is going to convince the other at this point. I’ve had to just skim over this because I was away so long and my time is very limited to about an hour on the ‘net’ every night. I must say, you have been very polite, even when I was not.
I did notice you criticized the TR and then used it in the debate though. I think that may be fallacious (in the wider sense), lack consistency and undermine the rest of your (otherwise very well thought out) arguments. If one does this then it could be argued that since they are undermining some of their own points, then the rest of their arguments can be ignored. Why would one use a document they had previously criticized in order to make a point? Could it be perhaps that they are defending an issue rather than the search for truth and that this previously ‘flawed’ document presents their position in the best light? A little bit of defending the fort so to speak. I don’t know, but thanks anyway for your points. The whole discussion you both had was very useful to me. Particularly as I had assumed you were a JW initially, very bad of me. Sorry. But you presented your views far better than anyone else I have ever encountered.
As well, I think since we are probably clear where we stand on the topic, (and it may be at risk of descending into a ‘proof text’ battle , I’ve got hundreds) I’m probably not going to go into it. Sorry I missed it.

As Meldenius said…
“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas”
Except maybe the first one 😉
William

Hi William
You are right to query my approach to TR!

I was seeking to avoid ‘murky waters’ -but here goes…

You may have noticed in an earlier blog to Ben that I
alluded to ‘original texts’

I was NOT referring to TR

I was referring to the original texts which were allegedly written by the Apostle Peter.

I find the RSV and NAB(Catholic) Bibles to be most scholarly – and I live over a thousand kilometres away from a well resourced library -so I will stick to wnat is available to me

If you look at the preface to the Second Letter of Peter in the NAB, paragraphs 4 & 5 read-

“Nevertheless acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with great resistance from the early church.
The oldest certain references to it come from Origen in the early third century
Whilehe himself accepted both Petrine letters as canonical he testified that others rejected 2 Peter.
As late as the fifth century some churches still excluded it from canon, but eventually it was universally adopted.
The reason for the long delay was that there was still persistent doubt that this letter stemmed from the Apostle Peter.
Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work- i.e. one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to literary conversation popular at that time…”
It goes on to say that 2 Peter may have been written in the first or even second quarter of the second century.

Out of space -see next blog

William –
(continued)
In these circumstances many people would argue that it would be easy to miss out a comma, or a conjunction.

This type of problem results in apparent discrepancies in scriptures- and people like myself take the truth to ‘reside at a higher level’ rather than being literalist.
(as Hebrews and Catholics do)

My search for truth has been painful -from exclusivist fundamentalist to supporter of Desideratus Erasmus.
(inclusive and keep it simple)

I would not suggest that you change your stance on such things – only be aware that there are lots of people out there looking for truth. Many peoples first reaction is to brand one ‘unorthodox’ or an heretic!

I would not like to test the patience of our hosts any further.

I can see no ‘proof texts’ for the Trinity -but if you like to
try some on me ,my address is [email protected]

Every Blessing
John B

[…] Could Jesus Have Gotten A Math Problem Wrong? by C. Michael Patton Can you imagine it? Jesus five years old sitting in math class, 1 A.D. (Okay, maybe he was homeschooled, but just roll with me here guys.) He gets back his quiz he took the previous day. The result? 95%. Jesus just missed one! Wait. Can Jesus have erred? […]

Hi William!
I’m afraid that I ommitted an important thought from the foregoing.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the Rev Samuel Clark
in his book “Scripture doctrine of the Trinity” (1738) -now available as a reprint- words to the effect that
“if you think that you have found a verse which shows them to be one, you will find in the immediate vicinity a verse which shows them to be two”

2 Peter 1 v1 is an example – and you don’t have to go far to ‘prove’ it – see verse 2 -which clearly makes God and Christ two persons.

In these circumstances, is it possible that a comma or conjunction might have been missed out of verse 1 – particularly when read with verse 2

Every Blessing
John

John B. wrote: “(ii) John Chapter 8. The Jews took up stones to stone
him”
Have you ever wondered why they did NOT stone
Him?
It’s because such a stoning would have been illegal
and made them murderers. …
However they restrained themselves and did not
break the law.”

Please justify from scripture the statement that “they restrained themselves.” What I see in John 8:59 is that “Jesus hid himself.”

Clark
There are several Greek texts on this subject – and they vary slightly from one another.
The most common interpretation is ” so they picked up stones to throw at him , but Jesus hid and left the temple area'”
So, Christ’ hid ‘within the temple area.
Isn’t it naive to believe that anyone could hide from determined pursuers within such an area. If the pharisees really believed that Christ had blasphemed , they would not have given up so easily -and hunted him down.
Christ knew that his time had not yet come – so left to avoid a further confrontation.
On reading John Chapter 8 I cannot see anywhere that Christ was accused of blasphemy for claiming to be God.

i only see words like ‘my Father’- or a statement that Abraham had forseen his coming (i.e.the coming of a Messiah.)

Best Wishes
John B

The most common interpretation is that Jesus escaped miraculously. Your interpretation is strained and demonstrates that you have an anti-Trinitarian agenda that you need to impose upon the text. You make statements based on what is explicit vs. implicit in the text very inconsistently and hypocritically. For example, you say that you do not see explicitly where they accused him of blasphemy, while the implicit accusation is obvious, but then you say that the accusers restrained themselves, which is not explicit in the text AND is not even a reasonable inference from the text. Every inference from the text that is Trinitarian you reject for not being explicit enough, but you are happy to make anti-Trinitarian inferences from the text that no one else sees in the text implicitly, much less explicitly.

Dear Clark,
I feel a great sadness reading your response -since you are determined to see only what you want to see (the thing you accuse me of doing!!)

Where and why is the IMPLICIT accusation of blasphemy obvious?

I was ‘dragged’ out of my trinitarian position – by the absence of any scriptures supporting the Doctrine of the Trinity – all I see is apologists indulging in ‘gymnastics’ to justify their doctrine.
Every Blessing
John B

I’m going to jump into this without actually studyng the Trinity in detail. From a “I’ve sat in the pew and studied it a bit 30+ years ago.” point of view.

We have God.
In the Gospels we have Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
In Acts we have the Holy Spirit.

So what am I missing?

Is the non-Trinitarian (Or anti- or I don’t want to use a biased word that implies Trinitarianism is right and the opposing (even that sounds biased) view is wrong. A question I can ask here and be understood is: Are views on Trinitarianism heterodoxy or orthodoxy? (Is that the right way to phrase that in an unbiased way? (Gee, I’m being rather PC this morning.))) view that God is, in the terms of a Trinitarian, one person?

How does the non-Trinitarian explain John 1:1, references to the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God, the phrase “Son of God” as it relates to Jesus, etc.?

“I was ‘dragged’ out of my trinitarian position – by the absence of any scriptures supporting the Doctrine of the Trinity” -johnb

Err, what scriptures? What authority informed you that there are scriptures, where to find them and what writings should be so designated?

John
If one is a Protestant one believes that ones beliefs should be based solely on scripture – and the most fundamentalist would say that every word is to be interpreted literally. I ask such people “which Bible’?

The Catholics say that authority dervies from not only the Bible, but from the pronouncements of the Early Church Fathers and the saints – who were considered to be divinely inspired.
I find that the Early Church Fathers frequently contradicted one another – and I do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church.
I am of course branded an heretic for my views.
I am not a Bible ‘literalist’ but I do believe that while scriptures may contradict – truth resides at a higher level. In my judgement, there is a ‘golden thread’ of truth which flows through the sacred writings.
That is purely a matter of faith.
Blessings
John B

@BlueCat57 – You ask “Are views on Trinitarianism heterodoxy or orthodoxy?” The vast majority of the Christian church, be it Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, regard the Trinity as orthodoxy, and unitarianism as heterodox. The 1st council of Nicea (325AD) was the first council to put this in writing, in the Nicene Creed (amended 360 at the Council of Constantinople), and the vast majority of denominations subscribe to that. (Note that the term trinity, and some of its concepts, had been about for at least 100 years before the council of Nicea)

@John B: Hey 🙂 You write: “If one is a Protestant one believes that ones beliefs should be based solely on scripture – and the most fundamentalist would say that every word is to be interpreted literally. I ask such people “which Bible’?”

Most denominations will have this referenced in some way. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says:
“We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy
invalid or irrelevant.”
The Westminster Confession outlines…

(…contd) roughly the same.

Essentially this is saying that the answer to the question “which Bible”, is “the original manuscripts”, which are but that the available manuscripts allow a great deal of accuracy.

Yes, there are literalists who believe that every word must be taken literally, without taking into account form or style, but they are few and far between. Likewise there are those who would say that the KJV is the only true translation, but they are few and far between too.

Bluecat 57
No need to be too PC with me!

I am a biblical unitarian -which is heterodox.
I am an heretic with respect to orthodoxy.

I believe that there is one supreme God and that Jesus Christ is his Son.
I believe that the Holy Spirit is the means by which God acts in his creation – rather like the rays of the sun bringing warmth to earth.
I believe that the Doctrine of the Trinity is an unfortunate man-made construct which is without biblical support and was imposed on the people by force if necessary.
I believe that God is the Father of Moses, Abraham and Isaac – and our Lord Jesus Christ. ( and the whole of humanity)
I believe that mankind will ‘come to it’s senses’ – sooner than you think because of the ‘information revolution.”

I do NOT believe in the triune God – three persons sharing one substance – and by the way one of them has a dual nature!!! And by the way, ‘persons’ and ‘substance’ cannot be adequately described in terms the ordanary man can understand! (A mystery!)

The John 1v1 issue can be immensely complex if one permits (see my earlier post)
Just to say that in many respects John 1 is a mirror image of Genesis1 ,where we are told that God created everything by his spoken word . Something like 9 verses begin with “And God said”!!! In other words the word is not a person – but Gods plan was manifest in a person, the man, Jesus Christ see (v14)
My posts start at 40 in the first section.
Blessings
John B

Johnb:” If one is a Protestant one believes that  ones  beliefs  should be based solely on scripture –  and the most fundamentalist would  say that every word is to be interpreted literally.   I ask such people “which Bible’? ”

You ask people which bible? No, I’m asking you which bible. I’m not a protestant, but I think you need to answer this question.

Johnb: “The Catholics say that authority dervies from not only the  Bible, but from the pronouncements of the Early Church Fathers and the saints – who were considered to be divinely inspired.
I find  that the Early Church Fathers  frequently contradicted one another – and I do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church.”

I’m not Roman Catholic, but this is a gross distortion of catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is that the early church fathers are a strong witness to the inspired apostolic deposit of faith that resides in the church. Not that every statement of every church father is inspired and without a single contradiction.

The problem you have is that at least the protestants, at least in the early days, made a concerted effort to argue their agreement with the early church fathers, and quoted them approvingly. Since you don’t even make an attempt on that front, you are left with an even bigger burden of justifying how you have any clue whatsoever what books should be considered scripture. Why should I care about how you interpret this or that paragraph, when you can’t answer the…

Thank you for this post.

It may be my evangelical upbringing but I wince to think that our dear Lord ever took a doo doo.

Do you think it is possible that He did not have to go in such an earthly manner? Afterall, many scriptures could be pointed out to show how Christ did not always do things as humans do them (ex. miracles).

JohnB: “Where and why is the IMPLICIT accusation of blasphemy obvious?” First, I will note that I made points in my post that you are not addressing. Namely, you make the distinction between implicit and explicit when you ask for explicit statements, yet your interpretation depends on inferences that are very much NOT explicit, such as saying that the Jews restrained themselves.

Regardless of whether you choose to address the inconsistency I have pointed out, I will answer your question. Your interpretation is that: (1) Jesus made statements that made the Jews very angry. (2) Jesus then made a statement that was not blasphemy, nor was it even directed at the Jews. (3) The Jews did not pick up stones to use against Jesus during step (1), but only after step (2), even though step (2) had nothing to do with their desire to stone him.

I believe, to the contrary, that the Jews picked up the stones right after statement (2) because that was the statement that triggered their desire to stone him. A reasonable man would say that my interpretation is much more likely and reasonable. Someone with an anti-Trinitarian agenda would say otherwise, of course.

I have other fish to fry so I can’t spend much time here tonight.

I’m going to study the trinitarian/unitarian debate.

I found this link that sounds like it might be a good introduction to the issues. It appears to be recent, 2010.

Maybe I’m missing something but I’ve never found the idea of the Trinity troubling. After saying that, now I have to figure out how to explain why I don’t find it troubling as some here do.

Well, off to see the Wizard.

Dear Ben
As you observe most denominations have their carefully worded statements on Bible inerrancy. – and they generally go back to a statement that copies and translations of scripture are the The Word of God TO THE EXTENT that they represent the original.

They also affirm the accuracy of autobiographical texts.

We are in deep waters here.

When we looked at 2 Peter 1v1 we noted that the book was probably not written by Peter (see Preface in NAB)
but by someone who lived later and wrote under his name

We also observed that v1 of Chapter 1 contradicts v2 and several similar verses. While v1 ‘shows them to be 1,” v2 shows them to be two persons. Confirms Rev Samuel Clarks generalobservation!

Quite frankly we do not have (with certainty) all the original texts- and frequently when we have them we cannot ascribe them (with certainty) to the person after whom they are named. And then we have the problem of multiple and often varying texts.

All we have is the consensual view of the Church -or Councils of Bishops.

I have (vainly) tried to find out what “Apostolic Christianity’ was like and what was preached. I can not get any clear answers – except the ‘potted’ Catholic version.

See my blog to John, which follows

Best Wishes
John B

All is lost! We cannot believe anything in the Bible! Ackkkk! I must find sackcloth and ashes and rent my clothes! Then dash myself against something speeding down the highway because we can’t be certain about the contents of the Bible.

Come on folks. Time to move on, or at least over the CMPs post that covers the topic of uncertainty. I think it was in the last couple of months. Although it may have been older and I just found it recently. He did a couple on inerrancy in December 2011.

We’re talking about a fun, little thought problem here, “Could Jesus have gotten a math problem wrong?”, not the validity of scripture.

If you can’t lighten up then maybe you should head on over to The Wittenburg Door and read some of their older stuff. I hear the pre-1995 stuff is pretty good.

“When we looked at 2 Peter 1v1 we noted that the book was probably not written by Peter (see Preface in NAB)
but by someone who lived later and wrote under his name”

You noted that. I did not. It may say that in the preface to the NAB, but I’m sure that, as a Catholic Bible, it affirms a number of other theologies that I disagree with.

I couldn’t affirm inerrancy on one hand and deny the authorship of 2 Peter on the other. Whilst there are many scholars who do doubt it, there are equally many who don’t. It has not yet been proven that it was not written by Peter.

“We also observed that v1 of Chapter 1 contradicts v2 and several similar verses. While v1 ‘shows them to be 1,” v2 shows them to be two persons. Confirms Rev Samuel Clarks generalobservation!”

You regard it as a contradiction precisely because you do not believe in the Trinity.

“Quite frankly we do not have (with certainty) all the original texts- and frequently when we have them we cannot ascribe them (with certainty) to the person after whom they are named. And then we have the problem of multiple and often varying texts.”

You make this out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is. We have a vast number of manuscripts and very few differences considering the wealth of material. Most historians would cry with joy over the vast amount of material we have.

Clark
If you take a walk down to the Eid Gah Mosque in Kandahar this afternoon, and ask to see some of the ‘pious men’ you will find that they are very much like the Pharisees.
If you suggest that they are
born of fornication
that their father is the devil
that God or the Prophet foresaw your arrival

I guarantee that you would have their undivided attention!!!

They would want to stone you – but probably wouldn’t since that would be murder.

To answer your questions
(i) Yes the statements made the Jews very angry
(ii) Yes, Jesus made a statement that was not blasphemy
BUT NO, -it was directed at the most pious and self-righteous people you can imagine
(iii) I agree with you that something Christ said triggered their reaction.

There is a parallel between these verses and the events described in John Chapter 10 verses 27-40
in which Christ analogises the Pharisees with the ‘gods’ described in Psalm 82. They had ruled unwisely and would be judged by ‘that righteous man’; (Acts 17v41)

The verse “I and my Father are one’ is often misinterpreted since the word used for ‘one’ ,”hen’ is used in other contexts to describe ‘having a common purpose” 1 Corinthians 3v8 …. or “united with a single purpose” Philippians 2v2

It’s all so simple -unless you make it otherwise!
Blessings
John

Ben
It’s a contradiction of the Trinity because the rules the Trinity have been breached!

Just a couple of final thoughts
(i) Who did Christ say we should pray to– our Father
(who is also His Father)
(ii) The Prologue to Revelation
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to
Him”
(iii) 1 Corinthians 15 v28
“And when all things have been subjected to him
then shall the Son also be subjected unto him that
put all things under him , that God may be all in
all”

Ihave such insights almost every day – and seldom have had to pause and consider a contrary view.
When I have these are quickly resolved.
This doctrine has survived because of lack of information by the common man – driven by fear. Time up!!!
Blessings
John

Who should we pray to? John 14:14, “if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it”

As for your other dot points, you just assume they somehow support you without elaboration. Needless to say, we don’t know what you see.

“It’s a contradiction of the Trinity because the rules the Trinity have been breached!”

Lets be very clear here. The Trinity is 3 in 1 and 1 in 3. Finding a passage where Jesus refers to the Father is *in no way* a contradiction of the Trinity. That’s the whole point of the Trinity. You sometimes seem to think that Trinitarians are basically unitarians who believe the Jesus is God rather than the Father.

Let us also be clear about authority and equality. The 3 are equal, but defer in authority. The Bible is clear that the Son defers to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son, but that they are also equal.

“This doctrine has survived because of lack of information by the common man – driven by fear.”

Wow. This is possibly the most arrogant thing you have said. To imply that the only reason that the Trinity has survived is because the common man is uninformed is to make light of some of the greatest theological minds of the past 2000 years.

John
You are quote right – the inspired apostolic deposit of faith resudes in the Church. The history of the church does not give one cause for comfort! ‘Men of clay..”

I am ashamed to admit that the early Protestants have cause to hang their heads in shame. They tried to exterminate my wife’s ancestors, whose only ‘sin’ was to ask to go back to a ‘zero-base’. The lucky ones eventually escaped to Philadelphia in the USA.

Even today many churches ‘boot out’ believers who question the Doctrine.

You ask ‘which books should be considered scripture-
I don’t know but for starters the acceptable material
should reflect (in my opinion)
ONE God
Gods Laws
and because we fail to match up- Gods grace
the indwelling power of the holy spirit

As Erasmus said, there should be enough material to hold all good men together . Define as little as possible to achieve this. Think inclusively not exclusively.
FEAR is the enemy.

Best wishes
John B

That’s a very non-answer JohnB, and very circular. You list 3 criteria, which one might ask oneself by what authority you list them. But even if we shut our eyes and just accept you as Pope and take on board those three, we still have a wide range of answers. Are the scriptures from Qumran inspired for example? The church fathers? Various early writings, the Didache, 1st Clement, the gosple of Thomas, the gospel of James? What about all the various ancient Judeo-Christian works circulating in Ethiopia?

Come on JohnB, enquiring minds want to know.

John
I did not say I has all the answers.
I said “I don’t know , but for starters…”

It is up to every person to reach their own conclusions – and there are as many conclusions as there persons on
this earth. One thing I learnt at university is that the truth is out there somewhere -you just have to scramble through the rubbish and red-herrings.
I don’t believe that the truth resides within one person or group.
My own view is whatever our personal views we are judged by our behaviour towards our fellow man.
I also agree with Karen Armstrong that to some extent we construct an image of God which has greatest utility to us.

Your questions are meaningless – it’s like asking someone how many stars there are!

Regards
John

Ben
You are defying the laws of logic!
If we say A = B then we can say that B=A
If God is Christ then can we say Christ=God.
If you are a trinitarian then you believe that God is more than Christ- ‘God ‘ by your definition is three persons sharing one substance

If we say that a=b and b=c then we can say a=c
If we say Christ is God
and God is a trinity
then Christ must be a trinity ??????/

There are lots os these if you’d like?

You say
“you sometimes seem to think that Trinitarians are Unitarians who believe Jesus is God rather than the Father”
Absoluely not
There is one supreme God and he is the Father.
Christ is his Son
The Holy Spirit is Gods power in his creation.

Forgive me if you think I am arrogant – I simply cannot understand how intelligent men people can stick with the doctrine of the trinity. I think we need to consult behavioural scientists to work that one out.!!
Regards
John

“You are defying the laws of logic!
If we say A = B then we can say that B=A
If God is Christ then can we say Christ=God.
If you are a trinitarian then you believe that God is more than Christ- ‘God ‘ by your definition is three persons sharing one substance
If we say that a=b and b=c then we can say a=c
If we say Christ is God
and God is a trinity
then Christ must be a trinity ??????/”

You’re trying to use maths to explain the Trinity? I think whoever taught you about the doctrine of the Trinity didn’t know what they were talking about.

The laws of logic are created, just like any other law of nature. I’m more interested in worshipping the creator. The Trinity _does_ defy logic, yes. But then – if my God is truly understandable and explainable by man, then maybe my God is too small….

““you sometimes seem to think that Trinitarians are Unitarians who believe Jesus is God rather than the Father”
Absoluely not”

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Your approach towards defeating Trinitarian doctrine seems to be to show passages where Jesus is referred to as the Son, almost as if you think we believe that Jesus is God, and nothing else.

“If we say A = B then we can say that B=A”

Except nobody is saying Christ=God.

“If God is Christ then can we say Christ=God.”

Except nobody is saying “god is Christ”

“If we say Christ is God
and God is a trinity
then Christ must be a trinity ??????”

Really? Let’s apply that to another situation.

“If we say Coca-Cola is soda
and Soda is a range of carbonated beverages of various wide ranging flavours and colours
then Coca-cola must be a beverage of wide ranging flavours and colours ??????”

You seem to be a smart enough fellow JohnB, but do you really think you have better logical skills than the history if the church? That’s pretty arrogant.

“It is up to every person to reach their own conclusions – and there are as many conclusions as there persons on this earth.”

Wow, that’s your answer, relativism? All I’ve got to say then is that my source of authority says your interpretation is wrong, and you’ve really got no comeback.

John,
Your Coca-Cola = soda example intrigued me.!!!
Of course in this case Coca-Cola is a sub-set of ‘Cola’ which in turn is a sub-set of’ beverages.’

I live in the centre of Africa and am surrounded by evangeicals who insist that Christ = God.

You say that no-one is saying this, but note-
C. Michael Collins , our host, poses the question in his submission – “when did Christ know that he was God?”

Where I come from the teaching is that-
Father is God
Son is God
Holy Spirit is God

But, according to the Trinitarian definition of “God’
you cannot say”Holy Spirit is God” or “Son is God’ – because God is by their definition much more than this.

I am not saying there is no right or wrong and that everything is ‘relative’ – but I am quite convinced that we will all ultimately be judged by God, on our treatment of his creation – particularly our fellow man.
Of course salvation is by Gods good grace, and we are assisted to achieve this by the Holy Spirit.
I do not accept ‘perpetual salvation’ based blood sacrifice .
I live in a society where evil genocidal sociopaths
‘rule the roost’ and claim to be ‘born again’
There has got to be some repentance and change in behaviour – in my opinion.

Strangely, for six decades I was quite happy to accept the concept of “Godhead’ and leave it at that – but insistance on “Christ= God” triggered my desire to ‘get things right’.

Best wishes
John B

So is English your native language JohnB? Seems like it, but then you live in Africa.

IS is not the same as ==

Like most words, IS can have a range of meaning. One of the meanings is “belongs to the category of”. Another meaning is “consists of”. On the other hand == has a strict mathematical type connotation of equivalence.

Coca-cola is soda. Lemonade is soda. Fanta is soda. But you can’t say that soda is lemonade. You can’t say lemonade=soda.

Maybe the evangelicals where you are, are confused about the trinity. Plenty of them are. Or maybe you didn’t understand what they were saying. One reason I became Eastern Orthodox is that I think this group has a better grasp of the meaning of the trinity than any of the other groups I’ve come across. Better in the sense of both more biblical, more historical, more logical and easier to understand. So it should be, because we explained it in the first place. Which is not to say that we think other Trinitarian groups are wrong. But from my point of view, they often seem very confusing. You need to go back to the sources, or I would argue Eastern Orthodoxy, to get a clearer view on the meaning for trinity. We are the group who states the formula in church every Sunday, often in the original Greek. Go read what the church fathers said on the topic. Go read Athanasius for example.

I don’t understand about your comment on perpetual salvation through blood sacrifice. What do you accept, and how does it differ to…

You said:
“But, according to the Trinitarian definition of “God’
you cannot say”Holy Spirit is God” or “Son is God’ – because God is by their definition much more than this.”

But you couldn’t be more wrong. That is _precisely_ what the Trinitarian definition is.

The Westminster Confession puts it this way: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son”

Athanasius was mentioned above. The Athanasian Creed (albeit possibly not penned by Athanasius) is a good statement of the Trinity. It’s also summed up in this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-compact.svg or the following statements:

1. Father is God
2. Jesus is God
3. Holy Spirit is God
4. Father is not Jesus
5. Father is not Holy Spirit
6. Jesus is not Holy Spirit
7. There is one God

And let’s be clear. This doesn’t seem “logical” (as I stated above). We are designed to live in the tension, in the mystery, of the un-knowable-ness of God. We can discuss all you like, but if your end game is to fully understand God, then you will fail, particular if your arbiter of understanding is “logic”.

Whats not logical about it? I’m kinda bored with people saying the trinity is not logical. I’d like someone to prove that, or stop saying it.