The Trinity: an unbiblical
concept? / Reply Wolfgang Schneider 02ff, 2002-06-19
The biblical Trinity
and some other specifics of the biblical Christian faith.
Article anonymous 00-02, 2001-01-28
Part 1 – Discourse 26
Is belief in the Trinity necessary for
salvation? – Discourse 82
The denial of the Trinity, the false
Catholic Trinity and the true biblical Trinity. – Discourse 107
Is the Trinity only an activity of
God in three persons? – Discourse 1072
At the request of visitors to this site, the discussion with
Wolfgang Schneider of https://www.Bibelcenter.de
about the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ will continue to be published
here. With a view to keeping the work involved to a minimum, we will just
directly reproduce the various e-mails that were exchanged.
(Schneider quotes Horak): At this point I would like to
ask you what the reason is why your community of believers endeavors – by all
possible and impossible means – to deny the divine nature of the Son of God, our
Savior and Redeemer. Just why is this a problem for you? (end of quote)
SCHNEIDER: To make matters clear: I cannot answer your question on behalf
of the community of the "Primitive Christians" (Christadelphians), you will
have to ask around. But as far as my own position goes, I would like – just to
avoid the possibility of misunderstanding – first of all to inquire what you
actually mean by "the divine nature of the Son of God" – what do you
understand by this? What does "divine nature" mean, in this context? I
absolutely do not deny that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, that he
proceeded from God, that he did the will of God at all times, that he was
without sin and remained without sin, that he gave his life as an expiatory
sacrifice for us, that God raised him up from the dead etc. … But I do deny
the Trinitarian confessions of faith that were imposed by the soi-disant
Christian councils of the church, which state that Jesus is himself God, that
God consists of "one God in three Persons" and all the rest of this
nonsense, which is nothing but a continuation of the Babylonian mystery
religion.
You ask me why I have a problem with this. Do you not have a problem with
following the mystery religion of Babylon in Christian dress, and even trying to
proselytize for it?
(Schneider quotes Horak): All other Christian congregations apart from
the Jehovah’s Witnesses are delighted about this and are happy that God
sacrificed himself in his Son for the sins of the world and for their salvation (end
of quote).
SCHNEIDER: Why did God have to sacrifice himself? Do you think that God
had sinned? If all other Christian congregations are delighted about this, as
you say, it only testifies to their absolute ignorance of Scripture… God did
not sacrifice himself! God sacrificed his Son, the man Jesus, in that this man
of his own free choice submitted himself to the plan and will of God and gave
his life as a sacrifice!
(Schneider quotes Horak): And you deny this in the same way as the
Pharisees did in Jesus’ own day. How can we possibly understand such a thing? (end
of quote)
SCHNEIDER: "In the same way as the Pharisees did in Jesus’ own time"
is completely beside the point here… Surely the person who fails to recognize
the Messiah in Jesus, like the Pharisees, and makes something else out of him -
namely "God" – is the one who resembles the Pharisees? PS: Just to obviate
the risk that you may continue to impute beliefs to me which I do not hold, let
me state here briefly that I do not belong to the community of believers who
call themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses, and have never had any close links with
them either in the past or in the present… just to prevent people getting the
wrong ideas (or leading you to jump to conclusions in the same way as you did
when you supposed a connection between me and the Primitive Christians).
You seem to be making the same mistake as the Jews of that time… they did not
listen properly, and you do not read very carefully, seeing that Jesus said
absolutely nothing about his having seen Abraham! He said that "Abraham was to
see my day, and he saw it and was glad"… Just to make the point again, it
all depends on the direction of the activity – who is seeing whom! Jesus did not
say that he had seen Abraham (as the Jews, and you too, evidently suppose) – he
said that Abraham had "seen my [sc. Jesus’] day". The astonished question
of the Jews in response shows that they had not been listening properly, because
their comment turns Jesus’ words back to front.
Whereupon Jesus makes it clear to them that before Abraham was (and he
emphasizes it with his heavily loaded "I am [he]"), he (Jesus) is and has
been the one – namely the promised Messiah – whose day Abraham had seen!
HORAK: Your argument that Jesus’ statement in Jn 8,56, "Your father
Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad", is to be
understood as if the Lord were here quoting the Old Testament, where "we find
it reported that Abraham was given to understand that the Messiah would come
from the line of Isaac", is actually inaccurate, seeing that Abraham knew
nothing at all about an "anointed one" or Messiah.
The promise that was given to Abraham was actually, as we are told in Gen 17,21,
"But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at
this season next year". And this bears no resemblance at all, surely, to the
Lord Jesus’ words above.
SCHNEIDER: Hmm… interesting, what you say here… Above all in the
light of Heb 11 and what is there stated about Abraham. We ought to try, as far
as possible, to take into account all scriptural passages relating to the same
theme, if we want to get a comprehensive view of the whole picture.
HORAK: The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says nothing else (and
certainly does not claim more) other than what Moses tells us in Gen 17,21!
Abraham was offering up his only son to whom it was said, "in Isaac your descendents shall be called"
Hbr 11,17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested,
offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his
only begotten son; 1,18 it was he to whom it was said, "in Isaac
your descendents shall be called." 11,19 He considered that God is able
to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a
type. Heb 11,17-19;
And neither in the one passage nor in the other do we find any
suggestion that Abraham knew anything about a Messiah who was to come.
(Schneider quotes Horak): Here you make just the same mistake as you
accused me of earlier – you are not reading with sufficient care. The Lord says
here, "Before Abraham was, I am." Where does Jesus say here that Abraham was
earlier? He says exactly the opposite, namely that he (Jesus) was before
Abraham. Now that is not just a case of superficial reading, but a deliberate
inversion of the meaning of the statement (end of quote).
SCHNEIDER: You are upset by this "earlier"… but how then do you
understand the word "before"? Your claim that Jesus is saying that he was
before Abraham, however, makes Jesus appear in a very bad light, as if he had
suffered from an insufficient command of his own language and in consequence got
grammatical tenses mixed up… :-) So then, if he wanted to say that he had
lived at a time before Abraham, the text would quite simply have read "Before
Abraham, I was", or "I was already in existence before Abraham"… But is
that what Jesus said? Not at all! So who is turning statements back to front
now, and reversing the simple sense?
HORAK: I am not getting upset by the term "earlier". What upsets me
is that it is written in Scripture, "Before Abraham was, I am", and you are
trying to persuade people that what is written is "Abraham was before me, I am
the one". Such nonsense!
SCHNEIDER: I only find that the sentence "Before Abraham was, I am"
is incomplete as it stands, and what is more it is grammatically incorrect… so
I am of the opinion that the sentence cannot have been meant in this way. Seeing
that, as you doubtless know, the original manuscripts did not include any
punctuation such as we use today, this having been added only later by
translators, we have to ask ourselves whether a different punctuation might not
be the correct one that yields the true meaning of the statement.
HORAK: This sentence is neither incomplete, nor is it grammatically
wrong. It consists in the Greek – in the earliest texts, as well – of just five
words: "prin abraam genesthai ego eimi" (in that order). Here "prin" is
to be translated as "earlier than" or "before". "genesthai is
derived from "genea" (birth, generation) and is to be translated as "was
born" or "existed" or "was". Then "ego eimi" means purely and
simply "I am". Punctuation – of whatever kind – makes absolutely no
difference to this state of affairs.
(Schneider quotes Horak): The words "I am" in Jn 8,58 are translated,
in my 8 German and 5 English Bibles, in all cases as "I am" rather than "I
am he". And if you look at the original Greek text, where the actual words are
"ego eimi", this plainly translates as "I am" and nothing else. And here
there is absolutely no call for a supplementary reading on the basis of
so-called "analogy". That is why the 15 international translation teams of
all the Bibles I mentioned likewise added nothing to the sentence. Just by way
of comparison, we find this "eimi" again in Jn 19,21: "Write… that he
said ’I am the King of the Jews’", with the same words in Jn 18,35.
So don’t try to pull the wool over people’s eyes (end of quote).
SCHNEIDER: Who is trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes here?
Surely you are not going to try to claim that the "I am" in Jesus’ words
at Jn 19,21 implies an eternal existence? As for the translation of *egw eimi*
as "I am he", just take a look at Mt 14,27 ("But immediately Jesus spoke
to them, saying, ’Take courage, IT IS I; do not be afraid’"), also Mk 6,50
("for they all saw him and were frightened. But immediately he spoke with them
and said to them, ’Take courage, IT IS I; do not be afraid’") and again Mk
13,6 ("Many will come in My name, saying ’I am He’ and will mislead many").
And yes, all the translation teams you mentioned translate these passages on the
basis of the assumption that God is "triune"… consequently they do all
agree with one another, but unfortunately they none of them do justice to what
Jesus actually said and meant. …
HORAK: For me this ends the discussion about the pre-existence of Jesus
Christ.
SCHNEIDER: Oh … OK!
HORAK: In the course of this exchange with you and your two colleagues,
anonymous and W. Hink, I have been endeavoring to show you in the light of
Scripture that Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Israel’s Messiah, already
existed as the Word of God with God and at the right hand of God since time
immemorial, and will continue to do so for all eternity.
SCHNEIDER: Unfortunately you have not done so on the basis of Scripture,
but rather on the basis of what you, in view of your Trinitarian beliefs, have
read into the Scripture…
HORAK: That you do not recognize this testimony in Scripture has nothing
to do with the quality of the testimony itself, but is exclusively the result of
your hopeless attempt to maintain the false teaching of the "Christadelphians".
SCHNEIDER: It has nothing to do with the deficient quality of the clear
statements of Scripture, but it certainly does have to do with the deficient
quality of your interpretations, which at a number of decisively important
points are in contradiction with what we find stated in Scripture. I can only
say again that I don’t have any "ax to grind" for the doctrine of the
Christadelphians… I am not even acquainted with their doctrine, as such, in
any detail – though of course I have picked up one or two of the essential
points of their beliefs by now, as a result of the remarks of Mr anonymous and
also Mr Hink here on this site, and I have also read another book on this same
subject which was published by their church… All the same, it is quite
possible that there may be differences between my understanding and their
understanding of some scriptural passages. So let me ask you again – please do
not put me into a compartment where I do not belong!
HORAK: I haven’t the time to grapple with problems which you and those
who share your views have constructed – apparently in view of a certain
psychological "character" with reference to some kind of Babylonian mystery
religion.
SCHNEIDER: My object in this connection is to make known the truth about
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ… especially to those who, as a result of the
massive lie propagated by the Whore of Babylon since the time of Nicaea, not
only do not even recognize it as a lie but actually try to serve it up as the
truth to others…
HORAK: I would ask you therefore not to send me any more comments.
SCHNEIDER: OK… Then this ought to be the last… Unless of course you
change your opinion as a result of what I have written here.
SCHNEIDER: In Discourse 26, fairly early on in your
observations, you state the following with reference to the doctrine of the
Trinity…
(Schneider quotes Horak): The doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is the
doctrine of the Trinity of the divine Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in
the unity of the divine nature (end of quote).
SCHNEIDER: Here let me put a few questions with a view to clarifying the
terms of discourse: a) What is a "divine Person"? (b) What is the "divine
nature"? (c) "God" is not mentioned here, but only the "Father", "Son"
and "Holy Spirit"… If these three entities are to be termed "divine
Persons", then what is "Go""?
(Schneider quotes Horak): It (the doctrine of the Trinity) grew up in the
first centuries of the Christian era on the basis of what the New Testament says
about Jesus as the Son of God (e.g. Rom 1,3) and the eternal Word (Jn 1,1-18)
and about the Spirit whom Jesus promises to send in Jn 14, with the clearest
formulation occurring in the command to baptize all nations (Mt 28,19) (end
of quote).
SCHNEIDER: This remark shows that even you acknowledge that this teaching
is not an original Christian teaching (that is to say, it did not exist in the
early congregations, nor was it taught either by Jesus or by the apostles)! I am
happy to concur with your view that this doctrine "grew up" in the course of
several centuries… which is remarkable, because this means that the doctrine
stands in opposition to the doctrine that was taught by Jesus and his apostles
and of which we find reports in the Bible… seeing that the latter did not "grow
up over several centuries"! The scriptural passages you refer to, in any case,
do not testify to any kind of divine Trinity… Yes, the New Testament tells us
that Jesus is the Son of God, but it does not report that Jesus lived from all
eternity. Yes again, the Bible also reports that Jesus spoke of the sending of
the Spirit before it occurred. According to the testimony of some old
manuscripts of the Fathers of the Church (e.g. Eusebius), however, this "clearest
formulation" in the command to baptize the nations (Mt 28,19) seems not to
have been included in the copies of the Gospel according to Matthew which
Eusebius used and from which he quoted at the Council of Nicaea… seeing that
it was only in his writings dating from the time after the Council of Nicaea
that he quotes this passage, interestingly enough, with this formulation of the
command to baptize the nations. So the oldest manuscripts that have come down to
us today date from the time after the Council of Nicaea, they all include
likewise this same phrasing with the reference to the command to baptize in the
name of the Trinity, but other writings of Eusebius from an earlier date did not
include these words even when he quotes Mt 28,19 directly… ! This shows
clearly enough that the words were only inserted in copies of the Gospel
according to Matthew after the time of the Council of Nicaea… ! (With
reference to Eusebius’ manuscripts and their exact phrasing, see e.g. the
critical apparatus of Nestle/Aland, 25th edition!)
(Schneider quotes Horak): According to this, the divine Persons are
distinguished in such a way that the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. This Trinity in Unity was
defined in the third century AD. The Trinity in Unity consists in the fact that
the three Persons are a single God on the basis of their divine nature or
substance; in their identity of nature they are likewise equally coeternal, in a
mutually interpenetrating unity of being (end of quote).
SCHNEIDER: Well, that all sounds very elegant, but what are we to
understand by it? What is "Trinity in Unity"… in what respect then are the
"three" actually at the same time "one"? As for the "Unity in Trinity"…
i.e. in what respect does this unity exist of three distinct "Persons"? What
is "divine nature" or "divine substance"? What is meant by "the three
Persons are a single God on the basis of their divine nature or substance"?
Does this make "God" a term that describes a "nature" or "substance"?
Can the word "God" really refer to a kind of "species" (or nature or
breed) rather than to a living being, a living and spiritual "person"? What
does it actually means to say that all three components (persons) are "likewise
equally coeternal, in a mutually interpenetrating unity of being"? What is "unity
of being"? What is "mutually interpenetrating" supposed to mean – as you
use these terms so liberally, I am assuming that you can also explain them in
words of one syllable… and would be very pleased if you would answer my
questions with a clarification of your terminology.
HORAK: Did you not notice in your reading of this Discourse that I was
here quoting the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Catholic church ("Catholic
Trinitarian theology"), and I follow this up with an account of evangelical
theology, just so as to give the reader an overview of the status quo? So you
would have to address these questions to a Catholic theologian rather than to
me.
SCHNEIDER: And what doctrine of the Trinity do you stand for – if at all?
All the same, your whole argument seems to postulate a Trinity… or have I also
"failed to recognize" something here?
HORAK: The Trinity as it is presented to us in the Bible. That, too, I
have repeatedly stated in the course of this discussion. Or did you not notice
this either?
(See also Discourse 107: The
denial of the Trinity, the false Catholic Trinity and the true Biblical
Trinity.
SCHNEIDER: I did notice… and precisely this formulation
("the Trinity as it is presented to us in the Bible") strikes my ear both
with a Roman Catholic and with a Protestant accent. Where then does your own "doctrine
of the Trinity" differ from their Trinitarian doctrines?
HORAK: I don’t know where my view of the Trinity differs from the
Trinitarian doctrine of the Catholics.
SCHNEIDER: Hmm… Well, that is interesting… You tell me that in the
sections in question you are quoting first Catholic and then Protestant
doctrine… Have you not even read these sections yourself? And you don’t know
in what respects your view is different from the Catholic and Protestant
doctrines that you quote?
HORAK: I am so little interested in this matter that I have never gone
into it – in contrast, evidently, with you.
SCHNEIDER: So how do you know that I have "gone into it", as you say?
HORAK: This is perhaps the different between the two of us – that you
involve yourself with all kinds of different religions, while I am fundamentally
only involved with the Bible.
SCHNEIDER: Ah… and although you then proceed to comment on this issue,
you do not know or you cannot discern how your views, being based on the Bible,
are different from the Catholic or Protestant views that you quote (the latter
also being supposedly based on the Bible)?
HORAK: The matter I brought up as an introduction to my Discourse was a
short summary of the Catholic dogma of the Trinity, so that uninformed readers
would be given a rough overview. This was not the fruit of in-depth study. The
fact that these fundamentals of Catholic doctrine are matters with which I am
familiar follows obviously from the fact that I myself wrote them down.
SCHNEIDER: But a moment ago you seemed to be saying that you didn’t
know all that much about Catholic doctrine….
HORAK: And to be perfectly honest, I am not in the least interested in
what Catholic, Protestant or any other kinds of Fathers of the Church and
theologians may have found to say about the Trinity. I am of the habit of
forming my own opinions, on the basis of my own analysis, and the same was true
in the present case.
SCHNEIDER: Fine… It’s interesting, though, that the opinion you come
to, based on your own analysis, agrees in almost all respects with the Catholic
and Protestant doctrines of the Trinity, as they are known to you. Or would you
dispute that?
HORAK: And in your view this should be forbidden – or what do you mean to
imply?!
SCHNEIDER: What do you suppose I am wanting to forbid?
HORAK: Well, it appears you regard it as forbidden to agree in even some
points with Catholic or Protestant doctrine. I can understand it when someone
examines human doctrinal opinions to see whether they conform with the Bible.
But your way of proceeding seems to be rather lacking in objectivity. You
condemn pretty well everything that agrees with Catholic teaching. You would
probably make it a criticism of Moses himself that in 8 out of the 10
commandments he agrees with the Catholics.
Picking up on your phrase – a rather derogatory phrase, it seems to me – "the
opinion you come to, based on your own analysis", how do you actually form
your own opinion?
SCHNEIDER: Not at all derogatory, I was just quoting your own words
exactly, and setting them over against Catholic and Protestant doctrines (which
you seemed to imply contradicted your opinion).
HORAK: What’s this? …… Am I now contradicting Catholic teaching or
am I not? Just a moment ago you were criticizing me for agreeing with this
doctrine in essentials.
(Schneider quotes Horak): Do you adopt it (an opinion) from others
without examination? (end of quote).
SCHNEIDER: Obviously not, but what are you getting at?
HORAK: Well….. Then the question just suggests itself, who has been "borrowing"
from whom, you from the Christadelphians, or them from you. Or both of you from
the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Because otherwise this denial of the divinity of
Jesus Christ is not widely disseminated worldwide.
(Schneider quotes Horak): I will say it again: it does not concern me to
know what human doctrines I agree or disagree with. The one and only thing
important for me is that I should be in agreement with the Bible (end of
quote).
SCHNEIDER: That is just the way I see it…
HORAK: Well, then… finally we find a point of agreement.
(Schneider quotes Horak): And if Catholic teaching, or other doctrines,
do agree with my views, that is quite OK with me. This would show that,
surprisingly enough, the Catholic church is in conformity with the Bible, at
least in some areas (end of quote).
SCHNEIDER: Exactly…
HORAK: Wow, it gets better all the time! ………
SCHNEIDER: I would say just the same thing… and interestingly enough
the result of this kind of approach in the last 25 and more years has been my
discovery of considerable discrepancies between what the Bible teaches (namely,
absolutely NOTHING resembling the "Divine Trinity") and the doctrine
propagated by far and away the greater part of the Christian churches about God,
Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (namely, a doctrine of the "Divine Trinity").
This is really and truly a contrast between biblical doctrine and the generally
accepted teaching of the churches.
HORAK: I am 65 years old, and have now been studying the Bible for more
than 30 years. If in your biblical studies you have failed to find the
statements that relate to the divinity of Jesus Christ – since that is what it
comes down to for you, as also for our friends the Christadelphians, when the
Trinity is at issue – that is your problem, and I do not understand why you keep
bringing me back to this point.
SCHNEIDER: Well… I am just exceedingly curious to know how someone can
teach certain doctrines and claim that they are to be found in the Bible, when
they are not written in the Bible at all in the way you suggest…
HORAK: Oh, really? I would be very interested in that as well. Could you
just explain it to me?
SCHNEIDER: What is really going on in such a case?
HORAK: Just what is going on, exactly?
(Schneider quotes Horak): I compel no one to share my own views, of
course I leave everyone absolute freedom to form his or her own opinion in the
light of the Bible (end of quote).
SCHNEIDER: I see it in the same way… Of course one can also learn
important things from others sometimes, or get suggestions that point you in the
way of going into a particular biblical topic on your own – wouldn’t you
agree?
HORAK: Of course! But definitely not from those who themselves are quite
off the mark in relation to the issue at hand. You must agree with that?
SCHNEIDER: That is why I find it altogether peculiar how in this
Discourse text you on the one hand indicate (at least in an indirect manner)
that your explanations have no agreement whatever with the Catholic or
Protestant doctrine of the Trinity, as you prefer to follow biblical teaching on
this subject, while on the other hand your remarks seem to be agreeing up to the
hilt with the Trinitarian doctrines of the churches… So where is there any
difference at all between the doctrine of the Trinity that you have worked out
for yourself, and the orthodox ecclesiastical view?
HORAK: I don’t suppose you do it intentionally, but it almost looks as
if you want to be an advocate of the Catholic or Protestant churches, you
mention them so often.
SCHNEIDER: Oh, really? Actually I just wanted to avoid any kind of
unclarity as to what doctrine of the Trinity might be meant, when there appears
to be a wide range of different teachings on this score…
HORAK: Well, with you at least I was aware that it was just one and the
same Trinitarian doctrine that you were referring to. You have mentioned it,
after all, quite enough times.
Which view is really based on the Bible is something you can only find out by
reading the Bible itself – not with dogmatically tinted spectacles either, but
without prejudice and leaving yourself open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
SCHNEIDER: Just in passing, how can we really determine on an objective
basis which of two apparently contradictory doctrines is really based on the
approach you propose above – "…reading the Bible itself – not with
dogmatically tinted spectacles either, but without prejudice and leaving
yourself open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit"?? This clearly is what you
would claim that you do, and I agree with you about this principle and apply it
likewise in my biblical studies, and yet all the same my understanding of the
Bible, based on this approach, is opposed to your own… Which of us then has
come to conclusions that are "without prejudice and open to the guidance of
the Holy Spirit"? Which of us has a position that is really based on reading
the Bible without "dogmatically tinted spectacles"? How can you explain the
fact that the understanding you have arrived at in this way agrees in almost all
respects with those same "dogmatic tints"?
HORAK: Just take it as read that even the Catholic church, like a blind
chicken, can sometimes find a grain of truth.
SCHNEIDER: Yes, I have also noticed in the past that groups stigmatized
as "sects" have sometimes arrived at conclusions that are actually more in
harmony with the Bible than what is to be found the doctrines of the "official
and established church".
HORAK: That is why I also see the Catholic church as the biggest – and
most powerful -sect in the world. But as you yourself acknowledge above, it may
be in conformity with the Bible in certain areas.
Yes indeed, how can we make an objective distinction in such a case? I am still
of the opinion that this is only possible on the basis of what is written in the
Bible, in accordance with the principle that "Scripture is its own
interpretation".
SCHNEIDER: Interesting… I apply exactly the same principle, and come to
a rather different result on this issue of the supposedly "biblical"
Trinity…
HORAK: Well then… I would like to explain my position to you one more
time. There is just one God, the Almighty. Jesus Christ is the Word of God, that
is to say a part of him, a part that God separated from himself to allow
him to become man. Consequently Jesus Christ is a part of God, equal to God and
so is also himself God. Not however another, a second God, but still the same,
one and only God – spatially separated from God, admittedly, but in spirit still
connected with him as before. God was in him – because he himself was a part of
God – and he was God – because God was in him.
As I have found that you evidently have not read certain parts of my argument, I
will take the liberty of sending you in the attachment a page and a half from
Discourse 26.
SCHNEIDER: Well, I will read them through again… and may perhaps have
some questions, as in the past.
HORAK: This extract from Discourse 26 is my concluding argument in
relation to the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ. I have also attempted
here to point out the consequences that follow if this truth is denied.
SCHNEIDER: The consequences you point out relate to the presupposition
you assume… but will be quite insignificant surely, if your premises are
actually wrong?
HORAK: And what would follow if your premises were wrong? Does
that question never occur to you?
If you have no further interest in the attached remarks, you can simply delete
them. But if you do after all read them, I would beg you just to forget what the
Catholic church, or any other church or even the Babylonian mystery religions
have to say, and purely and exclusively focus on those statements that are
derived from Holy Scripture and form your conclusions on this basis.
SCHNEIDER: That is what I always do, as far as I can… and I come to the
conclusion that the scriptural passages you advance by no means teach the
existence of a "Trinity" or the "divinity" of Jesus Christ. But perhaps
this may result from the fact that by this term "divinity" you understand
something specific that I am not acquainted with, and so am consequently unable
to find it in the Bible? You go on about Jesus being God… but where do you get
this idea from, when Jesus says repeatedly that it is not he who is God, but
Another is, namely his Father? You want to interpret the Scripture on the basis
of Scripture, and yet you seem not to have noticed that your understanding of
the equation Jesus = God is not in agreement with the words of Jesus himself
(e.g. in Jn 17,3)… What do you make of that?
As far as I am able to recall, you read Ph 2,5 ff and the two verses Jn 5,17-18
as implying that Jesus was identical with God… although these passages do not
actually say any such thing… You also leave it completely unclear what you
understand by "the form of God" in Ph 2, and do not give the least hint of
what "being like to God" or "made in the likeness of God" can possibly
mean… Just quoting a few verses in which certain words in the German
translation happen to occur is not sufficient to "prove" an opinion… How
was it, for instance, that Jesus was "in the form of God"? What form does
God have? What form did Jesus have? In what respects was or is Jesus like to
God? Were the Jews then right or wrong in the opinion they uttered?
HORAK: Hmm – I don’t know: I suppose we are actually communicating in
our own language here? And when we find it written in Ph 2,5-6, "Christ Jesus,
who… existed in the form of God" this is a perfectly clear English
sentence… or is it not? – Just could you explain to me how you would interpret
that? And when we find it written in Jn 5,18 that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus
because he "made himself equal to God" – if it is the case, then, that Jesus
Christ made himself equal to God – could you just explain to me how you can
understand this passage to be saying that he did nothing of the kind? Or are you
supposing that Jesus would have stated an untruth? Incidentally, I take your
point – a few verses certainly are not sufficient to confute my opinion!
To give an answer to your questions:
"What form does God have?"
God is spirit – this is sufficiently evidenced in Scripture.
"What form did Jesus have?"
Jesus had human form, that is also clear.
"In what respects was or is Jesus like to God?"
Spiritually, Mr Schneider, spiritually!!
Finally you ask:
The physical, bodily and human part of the Lord came of a human line of descent,
by way of his father and extending back to David. And that was what the Jews
were able to grasp. The spiritual part, however, came of the Holy Spirit, who
had begotten him – from God. Thus God was "in him", and that is why he was
equal to God. And when Paul says in Ph 2,5-6 that he was in the form of God, he
means the "spiritual" form. But in as much as previously to this God had
never shown himself to a human being – as Scripture tells us that any human who
saw God face to face would be bound to die – the form of his Son Jesus Christ
should absolutely be seen as the one and only form in which God has made himself
visible to humanity.
"Were the Jews then right or wrong in the opinion
they uttered?"
I take it from the way you put the question that in your opinion
the judgment of the Jews was correct. That is, after all, the only position you
can in consistency hold, in view of your belief that Jesus was not God.
Well, what is to be said to this? This means that you must also, of necessity,
adopt the same view as the Jews – that Jesus was a blasphemer and so was
deservedly condemned and crucified. Are these conclusions you come to as a
result of your biblical studies?
(Schneider quotes Horak): You write here, "So anyone who denies that
Jesus was God, and claims that he was only man, is accusing him of that same
blasphemy which was the reason why the High Priest condemned him to death…."
(end of quote).
SCHNEIDER: Jesus himself denies that he is identical with God… At all
times he pointed to Another, namely his Father, as the one and only true God.
… How come, in all your reading of the Bible, you have never noticed this?
HORAK: Really? And why then did Jesus say, in answer to the High Priest’s
question whether he was the Son of God, "You have said it yourself", so
laying himself open to the charge of blasphemy, because he had made himself the
equal of God? According to your interpretation he would have been well able to
say, with a good conscience, that he was the Christ, but not God, and so avoided
condemnation – as for the Jews at the time the promised Christ was not the Son
of God but the Son of David, and so just a man, as you also argue.
(Schneider quotes Horak): You further write: He therefore condemns him
once again, and strikes him in the face just as the Jews did at the time, and
what is more brands the Lord as a cheat and confidence trickster (end of
quote).
SCHNEIDER: The opposite seems to be the case…
HORAK: What opposite…? Could you just explain that to me in detail?
I would also be very much appreciative if you would just answer my questions.
For instance, how it was that Caiaphas condemned Jesus because he pretended to
be God, if according to your interpretation of Scripture Jesus did nothing of
the sort and was not God at all. Why was it that Jesus at this juncture gave no
hint that he did not see himself as God? Why was it that when Thomas hailed
Jesus as "My Lord and my God", Jesus gave his seal of approval to this
confession of faith? How is it that Jesus can say, "He who has seen Me has
seen the Father" – God, that is – if he was not God in the first place? The
logical conclusion in reverse would be that the Father is not God either. But I
trust you would not be willing to go so far? Or would you?
SCHNEIDER 24-06-02 / 17:30:
(Schneider quotes Horak): …how it was that Caiaphas condemned Jesus
because he pretended to be God, if according to your interpretation of Scripture
Jesus did nothing of the sort and was not God at all. Why was it that Jesus at
this juncture gave no hint that he did not see himself as God? (end of quote).
SCHNEIDER: Here we had better take a look to see what is actually written
in the Bible in this connection. You say that Caiaphas condemned Jesus because
he pretended to be God? Where did you find this in the Bible? I presume you are
referring to the following passage in Mt 26? (…)
Well, verse 63 tells us that Caiaphas wanted to know whether Jesus was THE
CHRIST, the SON OF GOD… or have I missed something here? Caiaphas says
absolutely nothing about Jesus’ having described himself as God… Verse 64
gives us Jesus’ answer as "You have said it yourself". In other words
Jesus is confirming that he is the Christ, the Son of God… !! BUT however,
Jesus says nowhere anything in support of your assertion! Jesus did not anywhere
claim to be God, and Caiaphas did not condemn him for this reason.
Where then do you get this idea that Caiaphas condemned Jesus, because Jesus
pretended to be God?
HORAK: Because I – clearly in contradistinction to you – have also
studied the Gospel according to John, and there I find it written:
The Jews were seeking to kill Him because He was making Himself equal with God
Jn 5,17 But He answered them, "My Father is
working until now, and I Myself am working." 5,18 For this reason therefore
the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking
the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal
with God. Jn 5,17-18;
We stone You because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.
Jn 10,31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone
Him. 10,32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the
Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 10,33 The Jews answered Him,
"For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because
You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." Jn 10,31-33;
As you can see from this, the Jews at that time took the view -
just as you do now – that Jesus was only human. And his condemnation by Caiaphas
was based solely and simply on this very same reason. If this circumstance had
not been, in Jewish law Caiaphas would have had no grounds whatever for
condemning him to death. What kind of accusation would he have been able to
bring forward here? The fact that Jesus had said that he was the Son of God was
regarded by the Jews as equivalent to the claim that he himself was God. – You
really should study the Scriptures in rather more depth at this point!
(Schneider quotes Horak): Why was it that when Thomas hailed Jesus as "My
Lord and my God", Jesus gave his seal of approval to this confession of faith?
(end of quote)
SCHNEIDER: Because Thomas quite plainly did not make the same mistake as
would be made centuries later by trinitarians who read things into his words
that Thomas was not in the least conscious of… and moreover, because Jesus did
not misunderstand Thomas, as trinitarians of all stamps seem to do.
HORAK: Aha… So you actually know what Thomas was "conscious of" at
the time. I have frequently been amazed by biblical commentators who have such
confidence that they not only know what the Evangelists wrote, but even what the
people of the time had in mind. And you even know what Jesus was thinking at the
time! So he didn’t "misunderstand" Thomas. I will not reply to this point,
as I think you are actually too intelligent not so see what a paralytic argument
you are putting forward here.
(Schneider quotes Horak): How is it that Jesus can say, "He who has
seen Me has seen the Father" – God, that is – if he was not God in the first
place? (end of quote)
SCHNEIDER: Oh well… I have frequently heard people talk about how when
looking at a man’s son and his actions you can "see" the father in him…
you must have heard of this kind of thing? So I would suggest that in reading
this statement made by Jesus we should equally bear in mind that Jesus did after
all say that God is spirit (in other words, a being invisible to the human eye).
Had Jesus forgotten that, or did he mean to contradict it, when he said here "He
who has seen Me has seen the Father"? Surely not… Jesus knew perfectly well
that he was not God (spirit), otherwise after all no one would even have been
able to see him…
HORAK: Good grief… You know, yet again, what Jesus was thinking of at
the time. And you know too that we would not be able to see a spirit. So what is
the situation with your spirit – the basis, I presume, of your devising
this argument? Is it not visible? It is at any rate present on the page, as one
may read. And in the same way, the Spirit of God was not "visible"
(literally) in his Son Jesus Christ, but was present nonetheless.
Incidentally, the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ finds a perfectly
unambiguous response in another statement made by Jesus. In Jn 17,5 the Lord
says:
Father, glorify Me with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Jn 17,5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with
Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. Jn
17, 5;
This is the proof – pronounced by the Lord himself – of the
preexistence of Jesus Christ. By this statement he confirms that he was with the
Father before the creation of the world, that he had glory with the Father. And
there you have automatically the proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
(Schneider quotes Horak): Hmm – I don’t know: I suppose we are actually
communicating in our own language here? And when we find it written in Ph 2,5-6,
"Christ Jesus, who… existed in the form of God" this is a perfectly clear
English sentence… or is it not? (end of quote)
SCHNEIDER: Yes, it is an English sentence!
(Schneider quotes Horak): Just could you explain to me how you would
interpret that? (end of quote)
SCHNEIDER: I understand this sentence in such a way that it is not in
contradiction with other passages… For example with Jesus’ own statement
that God is Spirit (and therefore does not have any "form" in that sense)…
I am also aware of such facts as that someone who has the form of another, is
not identical with this other! How do you interpret this passage then? On the
basis of this statement you make out that Jesus and God are identical, and leave
Jesus’ statement that God = Spirit quite out of account… Isn’t that true?
HORAK: Is that your only argument, that the Lord said that God is Spirit?
Because you do keep harping on this point! I understand Ph 2,5-6 ("Christ
Jesus… existed in the form of God") entirely in the light of the Lord’s
statement that God is Spirit. This Spirit of God was also in His Son Jesus
Christ. What you appear to be unable to grasp, however, is the fact that God
cannot be compared with a human being. By contrast with our human limitation,
God can let his Spirit dwell in his Son. That is why the Lord says, in Jn 12,45,
He who sees me sees the Father.
HORAK 27-06-02 / 21:30
Although I told you on 19 June that I was no longer interested
in continuing this discussion with you, and although you then informed me that
from now on you would not send me any further comments, it was then you – once
again – who visited me with page-long e-mails containing statements of your
position with which I am already more than enough acquainted.
In my reply I put a few questions to you, with the idea that your answers should
be the determining factor for my deciding whether it might still make any kind
of sense to keep up contacts with you in this intellectual exchange on the
divinity of Jesus Christ and the nature of the Trinity
The answers I then received from you on 24 June, and which I have supplied above
along with my comments, did however confirm me in the supposition that you are
not really prepared to discuss these issues but are only looking for an occasion
to publicize your unbiblical theories.
When I visited your website "Bibelcenter.de", I also had the opportunity of
reading that even the Hänssler publishing house, with whom you seem to have
been in partnership, had terminated its agreement with you with immediate effect
just two weeks ago, in view of "customer complaints about the theology
publicized by you and on your web pages", as it was no longer willing to lend
support to your theological views.
So let me tell you here again for the last time: the view you advocate, that
Jesus Christ was not God, contradicts all scriptural statements that are
relevant to this point, and it is my deepest conviction that it is as
wrongheaded as a theological view possibly can be. Your argument on this point
is thus not only lacking any serious biblical support, it is also – and for this
very reason – a proof of the fact that you are here promulgating a dogma, just
as the Catholic church is wont to do.
I would like to back this up with a final scriptural demonstration. The apostle
John, who hardly comes under suspicion of being either Catholic or Protestant
and so a Trinitarian, and who thus even for you – as you have written above – as
an apostle possesses full credibility, confirms in his first Epistle and without
any beating about the bush that Jesus Christ is the true God:
We are in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
1Jn 5,20 And we know that the Son of God has come,
and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are
in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal
life. 1Jn 5,20;
But of course I am thoroughly aware that in spite of the
argumentative straits to which you have been reduced, you will not – as an
Anti-Trinitarian – be able to give up this dogma. In spite of the Lord’s own
witness, you cannot believe in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, as then you
would also have to acknowledge his divinity. And if you affirm his divinity,
then you would at least have to make room for a divine "duality", and that
would bring the whole structure of your beliefs to the point of collapse.
I think that I have now given you, objectively speaking, quite enough
opportunity and space at Immanuel.at to air your point of view, and from now on
will not answer any further e-mails coming from you.
The Biblical Trinity and some other specifics of the biblical Christian faithUnlike all other religions in the world, biblical Christianity is not
a religion. It is a relation. A relationship with – or
connection to – God, as our Father in Heaven. That is why our Lord
Jesus Christ told us: Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Mt 23,9 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your
father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Mt 23,9; So, in biblical Christianity, we do not call anyone on earth
our Father – the one and only Almighty God in heaven is our Father. In fact
God created not only us but all human beings, with Adam and Eve, our archaic parents, and is
therefore the father of us all. But very few people want to know anything
about this. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Jn 4,23 "But an hour is coming, and now
is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth;
for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 4,24 "God is
spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
Jn 4,23-24; And as Paul also confirms to us in his first letter to the
Corinthians, God’s Spirit dwells in us if we are God’s children. Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1Cor 3,16 Do you not know that you
are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
3,17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the
temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. 1Cor 3,16-17; So this is a very similar connection to the one the Son of God had with the Father during his mission on earth: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? Jn 14,10 Do you not believe that I am in the
Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to
you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding
in Me does His works. 14,11 Believe Me that I
am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of
the works themselves. Jn 14,10-11; Finally, the Lord Jesus himself also tells us that the one
who loves him will be recognized by the fact that he will keep the word of
his Lord. And therefore the Father will love him, and both Father and Son
will come and make their abode with him (in his spirit). If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. Jn 14,22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him,
"Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to
us and not to the world?" 14,23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If
anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We
will come to him and make Our abode with him. 14,24 "He who does not
love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine,
but the Father’s who sent Me. 14,25 "These things I have spoken to you
while abiding with you. 14,26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to
your remembrance all that I said to you. Jn 14,22-26; So, let us summarize: Paul tells us above, in 1Cor 3,16,
that the Holy Spirit dwells in us if we are children of God. The Lord Jesus
tells us above, in Jn 14,23, that the Father and the Son will come to us and
abide with us if we love the Son. Thus we have united Father, Son and Holy
Spirit in our spirit! It is therefore obvious that it is in the nature of spiritual beings to integrate
themselves both in the spirit of a human being, as well as in other spiritual beings. In their spiritual
form, they are non-material and can merge into each other, as when we empty one glass of
water into another on the material plane, and the two both waters become one (trinity). However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; Acts 7,48 "However, the Most High does not
dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says (Isa 66,1-2):
7,49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool of my feet; what
kind of house will you build for me?’ says the Lord; – Or what place
is there for my repose? 7,50 Was it not my hand which made all these
things?’ Acts 7,48-50; In the biblical Christian faith, therefore, there is no rite, no liturgy, no
"masses", no priests, bishops, cardinals, popes or anything else like that.
Biblical Christian believers themselves are God’s temple and in their spirit
have immediate and direct connection with their heavenly Father. For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." 2Cor 6,14 Do not be bound together
with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness,
or what fellowship has light with darkness? 6,15 Or what harmony has
Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
6,16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? And it is also this spirit of the children of God who will
live after the resurrection as a spiritual being in the eternal dimension
with our Father in heaven, after he has walked the path that our Lord Jesus
Christ has already gone before us as the first fruits (1Cor 15:20-28). But you, when you pray, go into your inner room and pray to your Father who is in secret. Mt 6,5 "When you pray, you are not to be
like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and
on the street corners (or on the "Wailing Wall"! / FH) so that they
may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
6,6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door
and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees
what is done in secret will reward you. 6,7 "And when you are praying, do
not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that
they will be heard for their many words. 6,8 "So do not be like them;
for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. Mt 6,5-8; |