Bible Interpretation and History

Can you point out to me something in this passage (or thread) of yours, the root of which is not plunged deep into the compost called "interpretation".There appears, to me at least, to be a central dilema in your premise: to whit, you ultimately fall back to someone's intepretation: be it your own or some 'scholars' or at best, some non-inspired early Christian writing - many of which cover (as linked previously (and according to my and my scholars interpretation)) - faith alone. Not to disparage for disparagings sake but all these scholars are also simply interpreting as best they can.In the end, all that seems accomplishable is to pit one views scholars against views scholars - as if scholarship was ever a proof of anything anyway. There is certainly no biblical warrant for the idea that scholarship results in truth. To the contrary in factThis message has been edited by iano, 19-Apr-2006 01:52 AM

I know. I don't know how to get around all the things that appear to you and no one else. There is a sense in which everything falls on people's interpretation. There are those who argue that the earth is really flat. No one takes them seriously. Right, and sometimes what they say is questionable, and you can tell because there's disagreement among them. Other times, what they say is obvious, and their interpretation is the only reasonable one, and they all agree, as in this case. Not in this case. Find one reputable scholar who believes that the early church taught Luther and his Protestant descendants "no works" doctrine, and we'll discuss interpretations. Until then, you're just making noise.Having said all that, let me say this:My premise has nothing to do with anything iano is saying, and I don't want the premise to get lost. The premise is that if a Bible teaching/interpretation cannot be found anywhere in church history for centuries (and church history goes all the way back to apostolic times), and then pops up under explainable circumstances, then shouldn't we be able to dismiss that interpretation as inaccurate?

Granted. You elaborated on the doctrine of the Trinity as an example of something which should be rejected on the basis of your (and your scholars presumably) interpretation of early church writings and the BibleConsider the following position held by mainstream Christian denominations. Presumably the theologians of each hue there have studied both the Bible and early church writings and come to unity on the doctrine of the Trinity. On what specific basis are you suggesting your premise should be taken seriously? The weight of scholars appear to be overwhelmingly against your view.

quote:

---

Roman Catholicism:

​

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life.

​

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

​

The fundamental truth of the Orthodox Church is the faith revealed in the True God: the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

​

Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod):

​

We teach that the one true God. is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, but of one and the same divine essence, equal in power, equal in eternity, equal in majesty, because each person possesses the one divine essence.

​

Presbyterian Church (USA):

​

We trust in the one triune God.
Southern Baptist Convention:

​

"The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."

​

United Methodist Church:

​

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

---

I'd add the evangelical church to the above too.

I didn't suggest this. I asked how the co-equal Trinity teaching of most modern churches could accurately represent the view of Bible writers when no one had ever heard of it until 300 years after the Bible was written.

As far as your list of churches who hold to the "co-equal" view of the Trinity, you should note that since all Protestant denominations are just offshoots of Catholicism, they are not multiple witnesses.Really you only have two witnesses listed. One is the Greek Orthodox church and the other is the RCC. Even then, those two witnesses are both under doctrinal obligation to agree with later councils that established the "three co-equal persons" doctrine in response to the bloody battles of the 4th century.Again, we're back to history, not interpretation.In AD 325, before those bloody battles over the doctrine of the Trinity, the Council of Nicea said what everyone before them said: "There is one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God."Notice the wording: "One God, the Father." That wording is consistend and unchanged from the New Testament to Nicea, a span of about three centuries. Then Arius had it out with numerous other bishops for fifty years, and the wording became "One God consisting of three co-equal persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."That's a pretty dramatic change, and it can be specifically placed as occurring during Athanasius' lifetime in the 4th century. Before the 4th century, no one--no one at all--ever made any suggestion that the one God consisted of three co-equal persons.Then, for reasons that we can see and understand, we can watch in history the development of the co-equal doctrine. Then that doctrine was made an official requirement of all catholic churches in the 5th century. 500 years later, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches split, both of them maintaining that doctrine (no surprise). 500 years after that, the Protestant churches split off from the Roman Catholics, also maintaining that doctrine.The story is very easy to follow and very well-known. In my opinion, it eliminates all the interpretational issues.Admittedly, on this subject--the Trinity--you can find scholars disagreeing on what the Pre-Nicene church taught. (Maybe you should have used this doctrine to make your previous point on.) However, all of them would have to admit one thing that's simple fact. Before Nicea and at Nicea, the one God is always said to be the Father every single time a specific statement is made. After Nicea, the one God is said to consist of three co-equal persons. That is very consistent.

Isaiah 9:6 was written considerably before any Council of Nicea. In that passage the prophets writes that the human child born shall be called "The Mighty God". So here we have a teaching of a born child Who is "The Mighty God". And "The Mighty God" is Jehovah - "The Mighty One, God, Jehovah, hath spoken" (Psalm 50:1 ASV 1901)Isaiah 9:6 also teaches that the son given shall be called "The Father of Eternity". So we have in this prophecy a born child who is the Mighty God Jehovah and a Son given Who is the Father of Eternity. The Father of eternity or Everlasting Father is Jehovah God - "For You are our Father ... You, Jehovah, are our Father; Our Redeemer from eternity is Your name" (Isa. 63:16)The prophet Isaiah did not counsult with the Council of Nicea which occured well over half a dozen centries latter.Neither did the prophet Zechariah consult with the Nicean Council when he wrote of Jehovah of hosts -the sender, sending Jehovah of hosts - the onw being sent. This amounts to God as both the Sender and the One Sent. God sending Himself in a mysterious way:ZECHARIAH 2:8-11"For thus says Jehovah of hosts, After the glory He has sent Me against the nations who plunder you; for he who touches you touches the pupil of His eye. (v.8)

​

For I am now waving My hand over them, and they will be plunder for those who served them; and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me. (v.9)

​

Give a ringing shout and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for now I am coming, and I will dwell in your midst, declares Jehovah. (v.10)

​

And many nations will join themselves to Jehovah in that day and will become My people; and I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you." (v.11)In this passage the One sending is Jehovah of hosts. And the One being sent by the Sender is also Jehovah of hosts. Jehovah of hosts the speaker is also the one sent by Jehovah of hosts the sender. This is a marvelous window into the mysterious triune nature of God in the Old Testament. And it is well before the term "Trinity" was coined in defense of critics attacked the full incarnation of God in the man Jesus Christ.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 02:15 AM

None of those lines are talking about jesus, when was jesus ever called the mighty one or the mighty god?zechariah is talking about an angel it even says it in the earlier verses, maybe you would know this if you didn't quote mine itthe trinity makes christianity polythiestic, the celts had tri-gods and christians called them polythiestic

Plenty of us call Him the Mighty God. Just because you don't doesn't mean that no one has. Reading the verses it is clear that Jehovah of hosts is the sender and the sent one.The Trinity is not polyttheistic in your belief not in mine.

Pardon me, but you totally misunderstand the hebrew culture and naming convention of the time. Calling a child 'the mighty god' is a celebration that the god of Isreal is great, not saying the the child is god.Let us look at what the Jewish Study bible says about Isaiah 9:6 (the mighty God' Trying to interpret ancient Jewish writings with Christian preconceptions is bound to come across misinterprations.

if this is true its purely because of the lines being interpreted that way, not because its talking about jesus, i've heard no one call him that. umm no it says angel in 2.3, it talks of the angel measuring jeresalam for god, it says man in 2.1 but its an angel in human form, the lord of hosts is an angel of god there are polythiestic religions that have gods that are three but of one substance, this is exactly like the trinity in christianity.
if you consider the trinity to be monothiestic but the other polythiestic then its a double standard.
i don't think the trinity is scriptural or monothiestic in anyway.

In the experience of many of us Jesus has in fact been a Mighty God. So it is true in the prophecy and in the experience of the belivers. The prophecy is talking about Jesus who is God incarnate as a man.You have unbelief in this matter. Sometimes the Angel of Jehovah and Jehovah are used interchangeably. Since a Angel is strictly a messenger it is appropriate that Jehovah of hosts being sent by Jehovah of hosts functions as a Messenger, and Angel of Jehovah.I wrote a typo here: I meant this: Your response: Where did I write that God was three with one substance? Perhaps you should take that complaint to those who made that statement.Isaiah 9:6 attributes the first name to this mysterious God as Wonderful. That means to me full of wonder. Anything full of wonder is not easy to explain.Hebrew scholar Franz Delitzsch writes concerning this word: The Hebrew word pehleh, translated "Wonderful" in Isaiah 9:6 carries such meanings as:something unusual,
unheard of,
extraordinary,
hard to understand,
beyond one's powers,
too difficult,
incomprehensibleThe root word's meaning is clearly illustrated in the following passages:"Is anything TOO HARD for the Lord?" (Genesis 18:14); "Such knowledge is TOO WONDERFUL for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it" (Psalm 139:6); "But the angel of the Lord said to him, Why do you ask My name, seeing it is Wonderful?" (Judges 13:18)That the child born is the Mighty God and the Son given is the Father of Eternity is knowledge too high for me. I cannot attain to it. And nothing is too hard for God. He is thoroughly and throughout Wonderful.Though the Triune God is Wonderful and beyond our ability to explain He is nevertheless "unto us" for our enjoyment and participation. We may enjoy His presence and His salvation for He is unto us. We may experience the Triune God without being fully able to explain the Trinity. We may just praise Him and call Him Wonderful!.The Trinity is not for man to have a doctrinal formula for its own sake. The Trinity is for man's enjoyment and experience of God.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 11:39 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 11:40 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 11:42 PM

Ramoss, We are convinced of the veracity of Isaiah 9:6 as we have interpreted it because of the testimony of the man Jesus of Nazareth. His life, death, and resurrection appear to us as indications that this was indeed a born child who was the Mighty God Jehovah and a Son given Who was the embodiment of the Father of Eternity. The approvedness of His testimony convinces us that the divine utterance of Isaiah 9:6 surely concerned Him.God raised up the Jews as His perculiar people also for the purpose that He could bless the nations as He told Abraham:" ... and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3b ASV 1901)It is an unfortune thing when some object to God extending His blessing to the nations because they want to lock it all up within the Jewish culture, contrary to God's plan.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-03-2006 07:32 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-03-2006 07:33 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-03-2006 07:37 AM

Hmm, your post was written a couple weeks ago, and I never noticed it. True enough, but not pertinent.Jesus gets called God several times in the NT. Unlike those you are currently arguing with, I believe that Zech 2:8-11 is referring to Jesus (before he was born and called Jesus, however). I believe Isaiah saw Jesus in Isaiah 6, not the Father.None of that, however, has anything to do with the fact that when the one God is mentioned in the NT, it always says the one God is the Father. For example, Jn 17:3 has Jesus himself calling the Father the "only true God." 1 Cor 8:6 has Paul saying there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In 1 Tim it says there is one God and one Mediator. Since the Mediator is the Son, then the one God he is referring to is the Father.This is very consistent in the NT, there are no exceptions. It is very consistent in the writings of the early fathers, there are no exceptions. The Council of Nicea in its creed says there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, consistently following in the footsteps of the NT and earlier Christians.Yes, if Jesus is referred to by himself, he is regularly called God, because he is the divine Son of God. When he and God are referred to together, however, the name God is only applied to the Father, each and every time, with no exceptions.Tertullian explains it in his writing Against Praxeas.

quote:

---

I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord." But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever." For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam.

---

That's from ch. 13, and it was written about AD 200. Speaks for itself, I think, when you consider that everyone before and after him until and including Nicea, acts in accordance with this description.

I preface my comments here by repeating that the Trinity is for man's experience and enjoyment of the divine God. Logical debates on the theoligical formula for doctrinal purposes alone are endless and quickly can become vain.I refered to Isaiah 9:6 and your wrote: I think Isaiah 9:6 is pertinent to this statement: The fact is that the one divine Father is identified with the "son ... given". And the one divine Mighty God is identified as the "child ... born". You said "every single time" the one God is always said to be the Father. Isaiah 9:6 is a time in Scripture where the one God is said to be a born child and the one Father is said to be the son given.The brothers at Nicea only attempted to defend the mysterious revelation of God in the Scripture for ideas which tried to negate Christ's deity, as in the Arian heresy of Christ's incomplete divinity. I believe similiarly that a number of times the Angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament refers to Christ before His incarnation. I am quite aware of those verses. My attitude is to simply say Amen to whatever the word of God says. I don't think it is my responsibility to reconcile those statements about God all the time. It is enough that God has testified both to me.The Lord Jesus is also the Holy Spirit - "Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) So there is distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus but there is no seperation. One lives within the Other. And there is mutual coinherance between the Three of the Godhead.Again the Lord Jesus is the Holy Spirit who dispenses life - "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) He came that we might have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10) But ultimately this life is simply Himself dispensed into man as "a life giving Spirit" which He became.There is also distinction between the Father and the Son. But there is no seperation. Each lives within the Other:"Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us. Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?" (John 14:8,9)We must respect that this recollection of the Apostle John is written along with His recollection of the saying " ... the only true God, and Him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ" (John 17:3). I don't want to use one passage to deny the varacity of the other in either direction. I want to embrace both passages as the truth of God even though I cannot explain how both could be true.There is distinction among the Three of the Trinity. But there seems to be no seperation. Philip asked to be shown the Father and Jesus says "and you have not known ... Me". The Apostle John did not have to record that. Perhaps we might think Christian theology would have been simplier if he had just left that out. But he did include it. And it makes sense in light of the ancient prophecy that the Son given would also be the Everlasting Father.So I have no problem with your references to John 17:3 or 1 Cor. 8:6. I really don't have any complaint against your using those verses to make your point. But I also want to equally embrace 1 Cor. 15:45 and 2 Cor. 3:17 and John 14:8,9. I can only say that our Triune God is WonderfulI believe that God is a Trinity for His purpose of dispensing Himself into man. He is not a static Trinity as an object of objective worship. He is a dynamic Trinity for impartation and dispensing of what He is into man.I am not defending a static Trinity formula for our objective worship. I am for the dispensing of God's life and nature into man in His economical operation as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each are God. Each are eternal. And Each lives within the other. And They are one God.This is for our participation in the Divine Life and enjoyment of the Divine Being.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-03-2006 01:19 PM

the trinity is a faulty interpretation of hebrew writtings, and renders christianity polytheistic, unless your definition of monotheistic is different than mine i would say it can't be
how is the trinity helpful if it confuses people?