xjwsforChrist

KASSAD SAID


hi brothers/sisters,

Trinity has been the most popular causes of debates during my short time in the field.

I know you've been asked about this a lot of times, but just want to get your thoughts where you stand between Arianism and Trinitarianism, and why. It seems to me that Arius, who advocated the arianism theology in the 4th century was correct on his understanding, and most of the scriptures, if not all, agree that Christ is lesser than the Father and never was equal. In fact, even Christ himself acknowledged that.

Somehow Arius was branded as a heretic, maybe because he was part of the minority (not sure of this), and the trinity doctrine was backed by Constantine himself. It seems like how the Athanasian Creed was brought into being was just due to the "bandwagon effect", and not necessarily that it really is sound in scripture.

Wondering what is going on in the minds of those that establish the trinity. Perhaps they are afraid of this eventually developing into many gods like the pagans had, and so they resorted into this 3 is 1 theology? or perhaps they think Arianism would lead to minimizing Christ in any way? or perhaps it is just a political move though I can't see how it can be used that way?

Today Orthodox and Protestants all believe in the trinity, I can't believe such a huge error has been permeated in large portions of Christians... They all believe that Jesus IS God. That Jehovah/Yahweh IS Jesus. In my heart of hearts, I'm repelled from believing it, because it seems to me it is an obvious distorting of the Scripture, but then again perhaps they are right... I was wrong before

TEC SAID

I am tired and off to bed, but I did not want your post to go without a response

I will come and discuss my understanding and thoughts on this tomorrow, kassad.

Peace to you,
tammy

KASSAD SAID

thanks tec!

PSACRAMENTO SAID

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:59 pm Post subject:
Ok, here we go again,LOL!

The Trinity doctrine is a doctrine of NATURE and NOT of "identity".
Gos is not the NAME of God but his "title" or perhaps better, a description of His greatness.
The trinity states that Father, Son and HS share the same nature BUT are NOT the same person.
The Father is God, Christ is God and the HS is God because GOD is what describes they nature : They all have/share the same attributes.
Jesus is NOT The Father and The Father is NOT Jesus, no more than YOU are your father or your father is you even though you BOTH SHARE the SAME nature ( Human).
The first step to understanding the Trinity is that.
If you understand that part, we can go from there.

PSACRAMENTO SAID

The issue with Arianisim is NOT the denial of Christ's divinity ( it doesn't do that), it is the notion that Christ was created.
There is a mis-mash of views on Arius,. typically form his adversaries.
What we call "arianisim" has survived in many forms, JW's being one of them.

In short, the Trinity states that The Father, Son and HS, all share the same nature and are of the same substance BUT are 3 distinct persons and consciousnesses but that by virtue of their perfect union, they are one in mind and purpose and love.
It states that because Father begot son, then son is of the same nature as Father, it states that the HS proceeds from BOTH of them and as such, the HS is Son and Father.
The Trinity states that all 3 are divine AND have separate (but united) consciousness.

Arianisim states that Christ is less than The Father, the HS is just the will.power of God.

EX:
The focus of the Council of Nicaea was the divinity of Christ (see Paul of Samosata and the Synods of Antioch). Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and to the Holy Spirit (giver of life). Under Arianism, Christ was instead not consubstantial with God the Father [13] since both the Father and the Son under Arius were made of "like" essence or being (see homoiousia) but not of the same essence or being (see homoousia).[13] Ousia is essence or being, in Eastern Christianity, and is the aspect of God that is completely incomprehensible to mankind and human perception. It is all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another,[14] God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all being uncreated.[15] According to the teaching of Arius, the preexistent Logos and thus the incarnate Jesus Christ was a created being; that only the Son was directly created and begotten by God the Father, before ages, but was of a distinct, though similar, essence or substance from the Creator; his opponents argued that this would make Jesus less than God, and that this was heretical.[13] Much of the distinction between the differing factions was over the phrasing that Christ expressed in the New Testament to express submission to God the Father.[13] The theological term for this submission is kenosis. This Ecumenical council declared that Jesus Christ w

TEC SAID

Good morning.

I don't actually accept either arianism, or trinitarianism. I don't like doctrines at all... I find they become inflexible (regardless of their understanding or truth); and then become things used to divide people. When it is our love that binds us... for Christ and God, and for one another... and not our acceptance of doctrines.

That being said, here are my thoughts:

Arianism has Christ as being a created thing. (at least what we know of it now; who knows how many different ideas there might have been circulating then) That is my problem with that doctrine. Because Christ is begotten. Came from the father. Born, not created. He is the only one; the Son. Not an angel; not a mere man; not God (Jah)... but the Son.

I also do not embrace the trinity doctrine. The doctrine itself is described, shown, accepted, understood in many different ways by many different groups. So who knows what someone else is thinking just by stating that?

I understand what Paul means here because he described it. I can accept this understanding of Christ having the same nature as God, because I understand this to be true. Same nature; not same person; but also not equal (other than that God gave Christ all authority - but even this states that God -the Father of Christ - is greater than Christ) Christ himself said that the Father is greater than Himself. And one day, he hands the kingdom back.


So this is my understanding:

God = the Father
Christ = the Son (walked in the flesh, died, returned to His Father and then cam back to us as the Spirit; the Spirit of Truth; the Holy Spirit)

I see no 3rd person.

The Holy Spirit is what I struggled the most to understand - even though my mother had said the one thing that made the most sense to me (though I was deep into my jw study, so I 'corrected' her) That Christ IS the Holy Spirit. That is why he had to die first, and then the Holy Spirit could come.

(and I have just come to grasp the difference between the Holy Spirit - Christ - and the holy spirit of God that Christ carries in himself from having been born from God; that Christ passes to whomever He is pleased to give it... so that those who receive such spirit (the gift of life) also have life... and all are one)


But regardless of what one accepts or not on this matter, if one is looking to Christ to see/understand God; if one is following Christ and his teachings... then to me it becomes a matter of: he who is not against you is for you. I know plenty of trinitarians who accept me in the same way (and also plenty who would cast me out, lol)

Peace to you,
tammy

PSACRAMENTO SAID


The Trinity is not a doctrine of salvation, no one is required to believe in it for their salvation.
It was man's attempt to try to understand and describe the nature of God, Christ and the HS ( as if those things can actually be described by man).
The issue is that it was made using language that not only doesn't translate well outside of Greek and Latin BUT uses an understanding for 4th century people that no longer applies to us.
It is a doctrine in need of "rework" with modern terms ( to say the least).
Tammy states a great example of "confusion" with the Trinity when she says that Christ is NOT equal to The Father, which CHrist Himself plainly states.
COnflict with the Trinity? No.
Why?
Because the Trinity states that Son and Father are equal in Nature, not authority.
I am equal in nature with my father, but I submit to His authority as my father.

The issue of the HS is really the one that makes or breaks the Trinity for some people.

That Christ is viewed as the HS in some interpretations is correct and that the HS is viewed as God's spirit is also correct.
The Trinity address that when it states that the HS is in union with BOTH, hence both are the HS BUT what does it mean that the HS is a separate person?

It means that the HS is also active and consious "outside" His union with Father and Son.
EX: When Christ gives his followers the HS and breathes on them, He doesn't disappear but gives of Himself to them but he continues to be One with the Father and the HS.
ACTS 13 is a fine example of the HS commanding on its own:

13 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

JUSTMOM SAID





Nicely worded my sister...

Thank you for that!

We understand the concept of the trinity more so than JWs, (who refute it ALTOGETHER)... because of the unity and same nature that The father and Son come from and having Holy Spirit and Christ "becoming The Holy Spirit" perse....but we cannot say we are trinitarians either because of the "worlds" understanding of it depending on what religion you identify yourself with.

Just like when people ask me "If I am a Christian?" ......well depending on who it is that is asking and why.....we are NOT Christains the way the world defines "Christain" (sometimes being ashamed how people use that word loosely). It is NOT just someone that is "abeliever" or someone that attends a church that teaches "Jesus". So I may consider myself a Christian (which means annointed one).... but NOT the term Christian the same way the world considers it.

Thanks again
Love Justmom

PSACRAMENTO SAID

Words are funny.
I call myself a Christian of course BUT I also call myself a Catholic in the correct sense of the word - Universalist.
I believe in the Catholic Church, that is the universal church that ALL believers, regardless of denomination, belong to.
I think the term is "old catholic" or "orthodox catholic" as opposed to Roman Catholic ( under the direction of the Vatican).
Of course when I say Catholic people thing RC, just as when I say Christian people also get a certina "mental image: in their head.
When I say I am a devote Christian, which means I am devoted to Our Lord, they think "bible thumber" or "fundamentalist" of curse.
I have learned to not care what other people think about the words I sue to describe myself and my beliefs.
Can't make everyone happy, right?

Now, am I a Trinitarian?
That is a tough one because I don't really have any issues with the doctrine, other than the fact that its wording is archaic and that it tends to cause more confusion than it helps, BUT I do believe that Christ is God, Just as the HS is Christ and God too.
So...

TEC SAID

Words ARE funny. They cause at least as much trouble as they help to resolve. Like the 'equal' thing you mentioned above; thanks for explaining, btw.

English is a hard language... we can have a word that has different meanings; and we can have many words with the same meaning.




Well said. We look to Christ, and our relationship with Him is all that matters. No one is to be judging the servant of another.

Thanks also, Justmom.

Peace,
tammy

PSACRAMENTO SAID

Words and language can cause us so much headaches !
As any JW would know, LOL !
The word "day" in Genesis for example.
Or the use of the word ransom in regards to Christ's sacrifice for us.
That word as used by Mark continues to this day, cause debates in theology.
Most view it as an anaology of sorts, that a price had to be paid BUT the analogy got to "stretched" that people debate to WHOM it was paid:
Was it to God? to Satan? to death?
Whole doctrines were developed because the writer of Mark decided to use that analogy.
Of course when we apply that word TODAY ( as opposed to when the GOM was written) we have a certian understanding of what it means to US.
That it had a different meaning to the writer and audience of the GOM is , for most, irrelevant.
But there you have it.

CHARIKLO SAID


There is a difference in understandings here. I am aware of it and was made aware of it very quickly when I joined this forum. I immediately said something like it made no difference between me and that person, and that is so.

My understanding is very close to Paul's with perhaps a very slight difference in emphasis, but that may merely be in the words used.

You all know that I am a practising Catholic, and you are not, as far as I am aware, so I don't think it would be helpful to set out my beliefs and understandings here, because then we could quickly fall into expressing our differences, and why? It would be merely to repeat the divergence that Christians have experienced all the way down the centuries.

I don't want to write anything that would disrupt the unity of spirit that I feel is here on this forum, among our members, because this board is a beautiful, peaceful and I feel very blessed corner of the Internet. I do not believe we differ in our understanding and experience of the reality and nature of God and Christ; to examine doctrinal differences would be to open the door to discord of a nature that I wouldn't want to see here. There might be those who would find my expression of my beliefs to be something to which they might not only feel unable to acknowledge but which they could find unacceptable, and I would note things that didn't accord with my beliefs.

But I already knew that! I am comfortable with our differences In some things, and I would never attempt to persuade anyone that I know how things really are...that's what the Watchtower do, so that their followers slavishly call their beliefs "the truth". Sheer control psychology! I believe we have a real unity of spirit here; I don't want to see it disturbed, nor be the reason for any disturbance.

KASSAD SAID


thanks paul, tec, justmom for sharing your views!

i totally agree chariklo. we are all in Christ as one and should focus on building and edifying one another rather than figuring out which of us is in the "truth" (i now regret posting this) . Those that are important for us to understand was stated plainly in the Bible so that we can do them, those that are not, such as this doctrine - the nature of God and prophecies for the future, not so much. perhaps it is arrogance to even try, perhaps. in the end i guess all will be revealed anyway, For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known...

CHARIKLO SAID


No need for regrets, kassad! Don't feel bad.

Nothing I wrote was meant as a reproach to you. We're all on the same page here, I think; we merely read it from our individual chairs in our individual rooms, through our own eyes. By which I mean, we all come from many thousands of miles apart, and come here bringing our own perceptions and experiences, and yet, for the most part, we are all together in spirit.

I think you've helped us clarify and articulate our unity! That's how I see it. So, thank you!

TEC SAID

Well said, everyone on this thread

Just wanted to state that.

Peace and love to you all,
tammy