Some random (and interesting) comments from Facebook friends:

* “Here we have tiny finite minds trying to fathom the Infinite nature of God. It’s fun trying … but at the end of the day … we aint got a hope of unravelling the mystery of the Trinity. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t really exist in the Bible … it is just what was left when church scholars refuted all the other heresies in the early centuries.

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired what went into the Bible as much as He inspired what was left out. So I figure it is not for us to truly fathom the full nature of the Godhead just yet … we have eternity to explore Him. :-)”

*”Hmmm…In Matthew 23:37 Jesus resorts to the imagery of a mother hen to illustrate a point about his “maternal” concerns toward Jerusalem. It does not follow that Jesus has feathers or lays eggs.

Similarly, the language of “masks” is intended to illustrate a theological point, but it is very risky to make it the point of departure for theological reflection.

Here the old preacher’s maxim applies: prove your point from your text, not from your illustrations. So whilst it may be helpful to think of the various “persons” of the Trinity as being LIKE masks in certain respects, it’s not proper to say they ARE masks and then proceed as though the illustrative image (“mask”) has any ontological status (i.e. as though it described the reality of the divine nature).”

*”The doctrine of the Trinity is essentially an exclusive, not an inclusive doctrine. It’s more about saying what God is not like than enabling us to comprehend God’s intrinsic nature. It excludes Arianism, Adoptionism, Sabellianism, Pantheism, etc, but it doesn’t go on to make the same mistake all of those heresies make, of wanting to fill in the gaps that are there in scripture. Instead it leaves room for mystery and epistemic humility in the face of God’s Infinitude. The temptation is to think of some earthly analogy that explains the Triune nature of God or makes it more comprehensible to us. But as soon as you do that, as soon as you employ any analogy (ice, water, steam; sun and rays of the sun; masks; leaves of a clover, etc) you are in danger of becoming a heretic because all analogies fall down at some point and imply something about God that contradicts what Jesus reveals. There is no earthly analogy of God’s nature. Yet God is fully revealed in Jesus.

Only God comprehends God, in the sense of fully knowing. Though we can fully know what God has revealed to us of his nature.”

* “God is mystery. It seems eminently unreasonable and perhaps the pinnacle of Western intellectual arrogance to think the creature has any hope of understanding the creator. The upside of this is that we have an endless ocean of theological reflection and experience in which to swim.”

* If God is mystery, and it is “eminently unreasonable” and “arrogant” to think we have any hope of understanding God, then I fail to see what value you can ascribe to the “ocean” of theological reflection and experience. If the premise is true, then I couldn’t imagine a greater waste of time than going for a swim in the collective ignorance of a humanity who have no hope of understanding anything whatever about God.”

* “As a Christian who doesn’t believe Jesus is God my multiple reasons are based on a number of comparisons between the infinite One God Yahweh and the finite human Jesus. Most importantly anytime the inifite is reduced to the finite it annihilates itself. Jesus cannot be fully God (totally God with no part of God outside himself) for that reason. If Jesus is only a finite god that is part of a trinity of other finite gods then he is no god at all. Acts 2:36 “GOD (YAHWEH) has made this JESUS … both LORD (BOSS NOT YAHWEH) and CHRIST (THE HUMAN ANOINTED BY YAHWEH).” I note that Jesus never comes out directly and states “I am God”. I think people choose Jesus as a god because it is like Zeus – nice handy finite human-like god that one can fully know and comprehend. Not like an infinite God that one can never fully know and comprehend.”

* “Most importantly anytime the inifite is reduced to the finite it annihilates itself.” How do you know, since you are using finite reasoning? Perhaps part of being infinite is the ability to be finite and infinite at the same time. Also, the scriptures don’t speak in terms of God’s infinity, they talk in terms of his eternity. Infinity is a construct of human philosophy and mathematics, so perhaps we are trying to impose Western philosophical categories where they don’t belong.

The doctrine of the Trinity compensates for this anyway. Jesus is not a ‘finite god’ – that is the teaching of the JWs that he is ‘a mighty god but not Almighty God.’ The second person of the trinity is fully human and fully God. That is not something that fits human syllogisms, but that is the way the scripture presents him. And yes he does claim clearly to be God.”

* Let me amend my statement with ‘fully understanding’ then. My comment is a reaction to Western intellectualism which rejects anything it can’t understand. Of course we understand God inasmuch as he has revealed himself to us.”

The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:

…
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really ‘true Christians’ at all.
– James Barr “Fundamentalism” (SCM Press:1977) p.1

* “It’s pretty easy for me to understand. God has many faces…God can be found anywhere. I see it as the macrocosm(the creator), the microcosm (the Christ in all of us..the higher self) ,and the sacred connection or web of it all (the holy spirit).”

* “”God was IN Christ” (2 Cor. 5:19-21) NOT “God WAS Christ””

* I’m not aware of anybody who argues that Jesus can be FULLY known and comprehended. Indeed, I think that for anybody to regard Jesus as divine they would have to completely repudiate such an idea. They’d also have to pretty much ignore the NT writings – which are clearly pervaded with the idea that Jesus far exceeds the grasp of human comprehension.”

* “The historic finite Jesus of Nazareth can be as known as fully any other finite human. The Christ of faith (what Jesus became in the minds of others after his death – a second part of a supposed trinity of the ONE God) is not Jesus of Nazareth but a man made invention. Again, see my newest note -“COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ONE GOD YAHWEH & THE HUMAN JESUS OF NAZARETH””

* Two points, I think: First, unless I’m very much mistaken, your remark here actually assumes the very point you’re trying to argue – but what if one does not accept that the human Jesus can be known as fully as any finite human? It seems that such a person would not accept the conclusion of your argument. Second, and more interestingly in my view, who ever said that any finite person can be fully known? Such a suggestion doesn’t seem at all plausible to me for there is, I can safely assure you, no finite human whom I fully know – and that includes even myself. I don’t then see how one use this criterion of limited knowledge to distinguish God (whom I do not fully know) from any human person (none of whom I fully know). I think you’re on safer ground pointing to the other “limitations” (temporal and spatial, for instance) than to this one. Although, of course, even these arguments are quite familiar to Trinitarians!”

* That Jesus is fully human does not preclude him being fully divine. He is not 50% God and 50% human, he is fully both. If that seems foolish, then so be it. if that doesn’t sit well with human philosophy, then so be it.”

* 19th century liberalism takes as its starting point the assumptions of materialism, a closed universe, intractable laws of nature, and the supremacy of human intellect and reason. Its view of God tends towards the totally transcendent divine substance that Hegel proposes. Of course if you start with those assumptions you must go with the dogma that anything in the bible that makes Jesus out to be divine as well as human must by definition be later fiction. But there is no real rational or empirical evidence for that view. I am not a fundamentalist just because I accept the Incarnation, the miracles of Jesus, the Atonement or the Resurrection. There is a difference between being a fundamentalist and simply not being a liberal.”

* Jesus cannot be fully God as he lacks many of the attributes of God.

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is everywhere (omnipresent) – The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is confined / restricted to his human body

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is all knowing (omniscient) – The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is doesn’t know when the end will come

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is all powerful (omnipotent) – The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth heals a man in stages with spittle and dust / cannot do miracles because of people’s unbelief.

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is Spirit- The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is human flesh with a spirit.

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is eternal, self-existent- The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth began as a fetus inside Mary

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is invisible- The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is totally visible from his birth till his death

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is immutable (unchangeable)- The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is changed in the normal physical and psychological stages of all humans / aged.

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is does not urinate, deficate or pass wind.- The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is urinated, deficated and passed wind.

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is does not get tired or sleep.- The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is got tired and slept

– The infinite ONE Yahweh is does not die.- The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is died by Roman execution.

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is sends but is not sent- The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth was sent and did not send

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh is rules but is not ruled over- The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is ruled over by God

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh commands but is not commanded – The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is commanded by God

– The infinite ONE God Yahweh anoints the human Messiah / Christ – The finite historic time / space human Jesus of Nazareth is anointed by God”

* Hey, hang on: “tiny finite minds” ? I should be insulted, sir. 😉

More seriously, whilst I know what you mean when you say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, I do think people look in the wrong place for the Biblical foundation of the same. It seems clear to me that the early Christians didn’t come by the notion of the Trinity as the endpoint of a process of biblical exegesis so much as because their experience of Christ as saviour drove them inexorably to conclude that if Christ is, indeed, indispensably central to the saving activity of the God who NEEDS no other THEN Christ must be God (this is, of course, to collapse a huge amount of theological reflection into very few words, but I trust the overall gist makes sense).

This in certain respects renders all these sorts of objections   rather beside the point – they are very problematic, to be sure: I merely wish to emphasize that to accept that Jesus is ONLY human whilst still saying the sort of things that the Jewish tradition says about God as the ONLY true God leaves one in a pickle of an equal albeit different sort. Given the things early Christians wanted to say about Jesus AND the sorts of things they wanted to say about God AND their understanding that their religious experience was an experience of the Holy Spirit – well, the doctrine of the Trinity really seems to be sort of inevitable.”

* HOW JESUS BECAME GOD

… in conventional hellenistic biographies … Famous military and
intellectual heroes were ofetn said to have at least one divinity as a
parent. Miraculous births in depictions of their lives were the rule rather than the exception. …

Reverse Christology: Stage One

.. Peter and others … began to think of him as the son of Adam pictured in Daniel 7 … perhaps the earliest Christian affirmation, has been described as a “Exaltation christology” – as an evaluation of Jesus that assigns him the role of son of Adam at his death and resurrection. … Paul’s letter to the Romans … Christ Jesus, God’s son,
descended from David, appointed son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:3-4) In this view, Jesus became, or was elevated to, son of God by virtue of his resurrection. … Every Israelite ought now to be confident that God has appointed him both lord and messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2: 36) … Jesus himself at his trial: You will see the son of Adam sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of the sky. (Mark 14:62) Although his followers certainly regarded Jesus as an eschatological prophet during his brief public life, his real function was to be exercised in the future.

Reverse Christology: Stage Two

… he was designated son of God, not at his resurrection but at his baptism (this is known as “adoptionist christology”) … He saw the skies torn open and the spoirit coming down toward him like a
dove. There was also a voice from the skies: “You are my favored son – I fully approve of you.” (Mark 1: 10-11)
…

Reverse Christology: Stage Three

… the gospels of Matthew and Luke … moved the messianic status of Jesus back to his birth. ….. The hellenistic biography or encomium, following the model of Aristoxenus …. consisted of five elements: a miraculous or unusual birth, revealing childhgood episode (or episodes); a summary of wise teachings; wonderous deeds; a martydom or noble death. …

Reverse Christology: Stage Four

… the prologue to John’s gospel … the Christ hymn in Philippians. …
The divine logos, a complex Greek term here translated “word and wisdom”, existed from the beginning with God. … It is understandable that the bishops gathered at Nicea in 325 CE insisted on the full equality of Christ with the father: anything less would have put
him on a par with other royal figures who could boast of one divine parent. Jesus the Christ had to be made coequal with God for political if not for theological reasons. In that process, the iconoclast was transformed into the icon.

from Robert W. Funk “Honest To Jesus” (Hodder & Stoughton: 1996) pp. 279 – 295″

* @ Rowland: Incidentally, well done AGAIN – you stirrer of otherwise settled waters….”

* Which only goes to show that we can never know what God is only what God is not !! (persons) For those of you who say “yeah, what about Jesus ?”- Philippians tells us he took the ‘form’ of a human which of course means he was really human but he was/is also God. Get your head around that. See what I mean !! Isn’t the Trinity awesome ?”

* Interesting reconstruction by Funk – but to play devil’s advocate for a moment: I think it is widely accepted that the notion of the Trinity comes at the end of a line of theological development which started very early. So there doesn’t seem to be any inherent reason why Funk’s reconstruction should be rejected in its broad outline (I’m sure not even Funk would expect everyone to accept every detail). The problem lies more at “Stage Zero” – there has to be, I think, a point of departure which gives rise to such developments. I think it will be agreed that at “Stage Zero” (i.e. the time of Jesus earthly ministry) the concept of the Trinity was historically and conceptually a long, long way off. And I think it will be agreed that the church certainly didn’t go straight from “Stage Zero” to “Stage Four” (i.e. a set of scriptures which [arguably] evidence a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity). The real disagreement will be whether “Stage Zero” merits the sort of developments which came later.

I think your answer to that is “absolutely not” but I’m not so sure. Actually, truth be told, I think that once one acknowledges something like Funk’s stages of development occurred, then one is hard pressed to explain it unless Jesus of Nazareth is doing something decidedly “super-human” (for want of a better phrase).

Did you notice, incidentally, that the very thesis Funk puts forward – that we can trace a discernible development in theological thought concerning the deity of Christ – actually gives lie to the claim that the New Testament provides no grounds for a claim of Christ’s divinity. One can’t actually have it both ways. If the New Testament gives no hint that Jesus might be more than human, then Funk’s thesis of various stages of development of the idea is bunk, pure and simple.”

“John’s narrative is more fiction than history when compared with the  Synoptics. It is enough to look at his invented lengthy speeches, which are totally incompatible with the style and content of the preaching of Jesus preserved in the first three Gospels.”

– Geza Vermes “The Authentic Gospel of Jesus” (Penguin:2003) p.371

Likewise, pseudo-Paul (the using Paul’s name when Paul was dead and writing 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) hints that Jesus is God but the authentic Paul always makes a distinction between “god our father and the lord jesus christ”. (There are no capital letters in the Greek. The capitals in our English version are added by the translator based upon their believed dogmas. Hence “lord” applied to Jesus may not be anything to do with Jesus as God but, rather, with Jesus as boss / master.)”

* How, then, do you square your competing claims? On the one hand, you say that the NT writings offer “no hint” that Jesus is God. On the other hand, you cite Funk’s ordering of the NT writings to support an argument that Jesus “became god” through a process of historical development. I’m quite comfortable with the second of these claims, but as a matter of logical necessity it rules out the former.”

* “A tree has branches, leaves and roots – but we don’t call it three ‘persons’.”

* However, when you have three trees side by side and you claim that all three trees are really one tree you either can’t count to three or you don’t see the other two trees. If Jesus is God then Father God is not infiite. If the holy spirit (in reality God’s shekinah glory) is added as a third God then Jesus, Father God and the holy spirit are all finite for they require the other to “gods” in order to be fully the ONE God. The ONE God Yahweh (Father God) does not require any other gods to help him be God. God is one not three. Both Jews and Moslems understand this basic truth yet many Christians are addicted to the idolatry of worshipping a human as God. God can never be fully contained in a human body. God is infinite and cannot be contained in a finite human body.”

(Sometime late 2010)