The Trinity

[ByFaithAlone]

To preface this topic let me give you a little background on me. I have been Christian all my life, went to a Christian school and have always been strong in my faith except for a few minor issues. As I got older I began questioning my faith (which I still believe is a very healthy thing for you to do spiritually as it helps you grow).

The most important one to me right now is the Trinity. I'm struggling with the concept. I know that Jesus used the phrase "I am" to describe himself but some claim that this has been mistranslated (any news on this would be helpful). Also, Jesus said that, ""No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36 NIV). This does not sound like an omniscient member of the God-head to me (please help). Also, there is this passage - John 14:28 (New International Version)

28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Again this shows Christ being unequal to God (or am I wrong???).

I would appreciate any help. Again my issue is not whether or not Jesus is the Messiah but if he is divine. BE WARNED: I will QUESTION your answers and will not stop until I find something satisfactory.



P.S. I might use some of these answers in a Sunday School class I'm teaching so extra references would be great!

[EduChris]

...I know that Jesus used the phrase "I am" to describe himself but some claim that this has been mistranslated (any news on this would be helpful)...

In Greek, Jesus said "Ego eimi," and this is the same Greek wording used in Exodus 3:14 where gave is name as "I AM." There is no debate about the translation. Non-trinitarian folks usually try to say that the context doesn't demand that we associate John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14, but it seems that the Jewish people to whom Jesus was originally speaking made the connection (correctly, in my view).

...Jesus said that, ""No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36 NIV). This does not sound like an omniscient member of the God-head to me (please help).

According to Philippians 2:7 says that Jesus gave up his divine privileges and took the position of a slave. This was a temporary "giving up" of his privileges while he was here on earth. During his ministry, Jesus did not have omniscience or any of the other "omni" words we associate with God; instead, Jesus relied on the Holy Spirit, just like we do.

..."You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I ... Again this shows Christ being unequal to God (or am I wrong???).

Certainly Jesus without his "omni" attributes could say that the Father was greater. Also, I think its possible to use the human father/son relationship here. A human father is not necessarily "better" than his son, but usually a son will show deference to his father in a way, giving him honor and respect even though they are equals in the eyes of everyone else.

...P.S. I might use some of these answers in a Sunday School class I'm teaching so extra references would be great!

Feel free. I haven't told you anything "original"; it's all out there in the standard scholarly commentaries.

[EduChris]

...extra references would be great!

I see I misread this previously. Here are some references:

The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Volume 1, pp. 765-766

Faith Seeking Understanding, pp. 174-182

[ByFaithAlone]

EduChris:

Thanks for helping me clear up this issue

I especially liked how you explained the passage I quoted by using the Philippians verse. The help with the Greek was also most appreciated.

However, I still am going to question you (as promised).

Here is the Philippians passage in a little more context:

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Although this passage clearly explains how some of his power was given up, how can you account for the miracles of Christ if his power was gone? The only way I can think of explaining it is by saying that the Father worked the miracles through Christ like he did with Moses and the Prophets. Does this logic make sense to you or do you have other reasoning?

[EduChris]

...how can you account for the miracles of Christ if his power was gone?...

Jesus seemed to suppose that his disciples should have been able to do the same kinds of miracles that he did. He urged them to have faith, to pray, and to make sure that what they asked for was in line with God's will. So to me, Jesus' miracles were dependent on his faith, his prayer, and his ever-present desire to do the will of his Father.

The miracles that Jesus performed were said to be "signs." Most of the miracles in the Bible revolve around the Exodus, the Elijah/Elisha period of Israelite decline, and Jesus' ministry and the subsequent founding of the church. It seems God uses miracles at particular, pivotal times and occasions. There is no reason to suppose that God's will is to do miracles so often that they would cease to be signs.

[myth-one.com]

Actually, what you don't understand
is that Jesus is the Lord from heaven.
He is the second man.
Adam was first, Jesus was second.
What do you not understand?

Here is the verse:

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Please tell us the meaning of that verse.

[ByFaithAlone]

...how can you account for the miracles of Christ if his power was gone?...

Jesus seemed to suppose that his disciples should have been able to do the same kinds of miracles that he did. He urged them to have faith, to pray, and to make sure that what they asked for was in line with God's will. So to me, Jesus' miracles were dependent on his faith, his prayer, and his ever-present desire to do the will of his Father.

The miracles that Jesus performed were said to be "signs." Most of the miracles in the Bible revolve around the Exodus, the Elijah/Elisha period of Israelite decline, and Jesus' ministry and the subsequent founding of the church. It seems God uses miracles at particular, pivotal times and occasions. There is no reason to suppose that God's will is to do miracles so often that they would cease to be signs.

But would you agree that at one time Christ was less then the Father? Even if he is not now, the fact that he was not omnipotent on earth would go against most conventional views of the Trinity?

[EduChris]

...But would you agree that at one time Christ was less then the Father? Even if he is not now, the fact that he was not omnipotent on earth would go against most conventional views of the Trinity?

I think most Christian scholars accept the view that Jesus did not draw on his own divine powers during his earthly ministry. Instead, Jesus relied on the same sort of prayer-based relationship with God that all humans can have.

Have you ever watched the show, "Undercover Boss"? I haven't watched the show, but the storyline intrigues me. When the company CEO takes a low position in the company (unbeknownst to his coworkers) he is temporarily "lower" than his "manager." But in reality, the CEO is still the CEO, even though he has taken the position of an underling in the company.

[JehovahsWitness]

I know that Jesus used the phrase "I am" to describe himself but some claim that this has been mistranslated (any news on this would be helpful).

#QUESTION: How does "εγω ειμι" (ego eimi) rightly translate? Actually both "I am" and "I have been" are legitimate translations of the Greek εγω ειμι, ego eimi.

"Ego eimi" is literally simple present. However the usage of Jesus is similar to what many scholars refer to as the “historical present.� meaning that Jesus places his present tense usage in a past tense context by using the Greek word “prin�, meaning “before�. Jesus said “before Abraham� came to be existing "[lit] I am" In this situation English would use the present perfect tense ('I have been').

J. H. Moulton's Grammar of New Testament Greek states: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress (Burton § 17).It is frequent in the NT: Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Jn 5:6; 8:58; 14:9; 15:27; Acts 15:21; 26:31; 2 Cor.12:19,2 Ti.3:18; 2 Pt.3:4; 1 Jn 2:9;3:8." (Note that Moulton includes John 8:58 in this category).

There is really no indication from the context that Jesus was using the verb as a title and not reason why it should be directly linked to the tetregrammaton as used in Exodus.

P.S. I might use some of these answers in a Sunday School class I'm teaching so extra references would be great

References as requested
http://godandson.reslight.net/archives/1030.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... art-1.html
http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/

Exodus 3:14


God's reply to Moses question in Ex 3: 13 in hebrew was : ’Eh·yeh′ ’Asher′ ’Eh·yeh′ (Hebrew: �היה �שר �היה) Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.� However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yah′ (Strongs 1961), from which the word ’Eh·yeh′ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.� Rather, it means “become,� or “prove to be.� Strongs Hebrew lexicon says that this means "to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass"

Also "Ehyeh" is in the imperfect state, first person singular, so it would be “I shall become�; or, “I shall prove to be.�

Rotherhams trys to reflect this meaning by rendering verse 14 “I Will Become whatsoever I please".

Note: The Targum Onkelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a).

[EduChris]

...There is really no indication from the context that Jesus was using the verb as a title and not reason why it should be directly linked to the tetregrammaton as used in Exodus...

The Jews to whom Jesus spoke these words certainly had no trouble understanding Jesus' claim to divinity here. That's why they picked up stones to throw at him. Even Bart Ehrman (no friend to Christianity) knows that in the Gospel of John Jesus is divine.