Trinitarian arguments and anti arguments are often overly superficial

Tweet

What a huge subject...okay, some first things? Disclaimer 1: if you're a Christian and reading this, so you're not confused, I'm not attacking your faith, and I am a Trinitarian. Disclaimer 2: if you're a Christian and you don't believe in the Trinity, I'm not attacking you either. Disclaimer 3: if you're not a Christian, please know in advance that I'm not attacking you either, and am...more or so talking about written Texts and their context as a point of interest. It is one thing to say a text says something, it is another to argue that that text is reality. That is to say...I'm a nerd, and this is what I do. That is...I'm simply trying to show some difficulties with some popular arguments...and, possibly introduce some important literary elements which are not always seen at first glance because it's just something I've noticed over the years in listening to people debate, a lot of arguments between we Trinitarians and those who are more unitarian, tend to go back and forth revolving around the Greek term Theos in relation to Jesus. That is to say, God. The arguments tend to revolve around passages in the New Testament which refer to Jesus as God or Divine. One groups says "it says Jesus is God!", another group says "no it says He is divine!" Both arguments tend to be...missing the meaning of God and divine (it's really a circular argument linguistically, the two ideas are really close and have to do with nature, and a title given because of nature vs. a title and a name given describing it's nature...see how it goes in circles?). As a simple matter of fact, I do favor the arguments which refer to Christ as Theos-when the writer of John's Gospel has Thomas saying "My Lord and my God", that is the context of John 1:1 and it really is to be seen as linking Jesus with God, as the quote where Jesus says "And this is Eternal life, knowing you, the Only True God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Though it is sometimes used as an argument against the Trinity, actually it is a very large theological statement and the "and" is actually linking the 2 persons together and should be understood as an "also"-that is, when Jesus says "I and the Father are One", John is linking the 2. Also, as I pointed out elsewhere, where Jn 1:18 has no one seeing God, later in John seeing Jesus is equated with seeing God-and that is tying up 1:18 as a major theme...kinda saying "no one has seen God...but now in Jesus not only do we see Him but we know Him." That is the context of the "God" statements within John's Gospel-and in part, the Gospel of John was probably written to give clarification re. the nature of the Son in relation to the Father (the statements are too intentional-John reads like a theological treatise, as well as devotional character). Arguments revolving around the def. article on both sides miss the point, it is omitted in both John 1:1 and 1:18 and that is a fact which anyone can look up-that is to say, if your argument that Jn 1:1 should be the word was "a" god, because there is not def. article...then it's kinda weak, because only a few verses later a major proof text is also lacking the article. As I said, while I agree with that and I am a Trinitarian, all of that is actually missing something much larger, which John Calvin mentions in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion"-the use of the term Kyrios (Lord) and it being a substitute for the Name of God, Yahweh. (note to readers, Calvin wrote Jehovah, as was common until recent times) That is to say, Calvin rightly observed (as did the Church Fathers) that there are many quotes within the New Testament which take an Old Testament passage which is clearly talking of Yahweh, and applying it to Jesus as Yahweh. The beginning of Mark's Gospel, for example, "Prepare the way of the Lord"-the OT phrase is of course, speaking of Yahweh...and Mark is linking this with John preparing the way for Jesus. The writer of Mark, as a literary theme, is linking this "Lord" of the Old Testament with Jesus. Another example of this is Acts, where Peter is quoting Joel about "calling on the Name of the Lord (the OT phrase, is Yahweh), and linking that to calling on Jesus-as well as it now becomes that "there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved". That is a very big statement, theologically speaking, because it has salvation resting not on the Name of Yahweh, but on the Name of Jesus. As well the OT formula "the day of Yahweh", in the New Testament becomes "the day of the Lord Jesus", and "the Spirit of Yahweh" of the OT becomes in the New Testament "the Spirit of Jesus Christ". When I listen to people argue about the term Theos, both arguing for and against it's use in relation to Jesus...it really is kind of a sign of a very superficial understanding of the Text. The clearest example of this is Hebrews 1:10, which the writer has "the Father" speaking to Jesus, calling Him "Lord" and ascribing the work of Creation to Him. He is not here an "agent" of Creation as in vs 1:2, but the Creator. And it must be noted, that the quote is from the Old Testament, and is speaking of God as Creator. It is akin to the book of Revelation calling Jesus "the First and the Last", another Old Testament title of God. And the writer of Revelation is clearly putting that into the lips of Jesus. The New Testament is not simply painting Jesus as another Moses or another David, because neither of them were ever given such veneration that their name would be equated with "no other name under heaven". The simple truth is, though some are throwing around terms like apostates (on both sides-and it's not cool), this actually is the context of the New Testament writings, and this is how the Church Fathers understood them. That is, the Father never existed without His Word or His Spirit, and though distinct, there is also a unity which exists which can not be severed, as the Church Father Origen said, it is as the sun, and rays of light streaming from the sun. Arguments re. the Father being greater then the Son is actually a different subject and the basis of Jesus being called Kyrios (Lord), and the passages being OT passages about Yahweh, still stands. That is, they took clear OT passages about Yahweh, and applied them to Jesus. And that is far more significant then the use of the term Theos (God).