Lets start the Trinity thread

[GrayPilgrim]

In this thread I woudl like to discuss both the importance of the Trinity and the nature of the Trinity. As a starter-- I would say that the Trinity is an essential doctrine as it has many implications not only on other theological postions but on our actions. If one holds to an Arian vew [i.e. the Son and the Holy Spirit are seperate/jr. beings] then it will lead to abuse of power and de-huminization of women. If one holds to a mutual submission view then itwill lead to a break down in the social order. It is for that reason that I beleive the only appropriate view is the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father and the eternal subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son.



[I have intentionally been dogmatic in this post with no Biblical citations to start the debate, not as a defense of my position]

Let the debating begin!

[ibowatjesusfeet]

I believe that the trinity is one, but three seperate "positions." For instance, I am a son, a brother, and a friend. I am not three sepearate people, it's just me.

There is God, the Father. There is God, the Son and Redeemer of man, and God, the Holy Spirit who lives in all who accept Christ.

[Revolg]

The Trinity is three persons.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7**say hey ibowatjesusfeet, ya said--

I believe that the trinity is one, but three seperate "positions." For instance, I am a son, a brother, and a friend. I am not three sepearate people, it's just me.

**8** hmm. while your desire to reject tritheism is undoubtedly correct, you're falling into the error of modalism. the Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father. they are three distinct persons, each of whom necessarily presupposes the existence of the other two.
peace.

[Revolg]

Modalism is a ancient heresy that used to exist in the early church. Most of the church members were undoubtely Trinitarians in the fullest sense of the word. But there were some that weren't and they were condemned heretics. People back then defended the trinity and would die for it.

[GrayPilgrim]

Generally the orthodox Trinitarian presentation has been:

God is one. God is made up of three distinct persons. God has always existed as three distinct persons. Thus we have the teaching that these three distinct persons are not different modes of existence of the One God, but three distinct persons [Father, Son and Holy Spirit]. And to quote the phrase from the Arian controversy "There is not when he was not., which was to counter Arius's teaching that the Son is a later creation of the Father with his phrase, "There is when he was not."

So I would argue that the eternal subordination of the Son teaches us that within the God head there is equal value, but a definite hierarchy. {What I would not do to be near my Sys Theo books and note!} This gets us into the filioque clause of the clause, which split the church between teh East and West in the Middle Ages (1033 if I recall). In which it states that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father [i]and the Son[/].

More food for thought.


GP


PS Ibow thanks for the post, and rememeber this is stuff that we will never get our heads around, we're just too small.

[$cirisme]

This thread is like evangelion bait. :hrm: :huh:

[phantaz sunlyk]

granting that there is only one God, and that this God is tripersonal, in what sense, then, is God "one"?

in what way are the Father, Son, and Spirit related to one another (ps graypilgrim, it was 1056 a.d.), and how do these relations effect/define that oneness?

peace

[GrayPilgrim]

Thanks phantaz sunlyk for the date, I talked my self out of anything ending with a 6 thinking I was confusing it with 1066 and William the Conqueror.

[AVmetro]

We need an anti-Trin invite. Someone logical and rational for once, eh?

:idea:

[Revolg]

Contact Brandon K from CARM.. The meanest, toughest, and most "illogical" anti-Trinitarian there is. 'Nuff said'.

[Pilgrim]

I'm not sure I follow the logic of a subordinate spirit and Son leading to the bad treatment of women?

[jpholding]

Originally posted by cirisme
This thread is like evangelion bait. :hrm: :huh:

Egomanion has started his own private forum where he can talk to those who admire his brilliance.

Let's see....himself...his brother....

I guess that's it. :huh:

[Revolg]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
I'm not sure I follow the logic of a subordinate spirit and Son leading to the bad treatment of women?

And you're clergy of the Presbyterian Church?

[Jaltus]

Hmm, I see subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, but not sure about the Spirit to the Son.

[phantaz sunlyk]

say hey y'all, i just wrote Brian Holt and invited him over here. Brian has written a very long book contra the deity of Christ (which i reviewed at mista J.P. Holding's tektonics.org). he's a JW, and very good at defending unitarianism from the point of view of sola scriptura.

i hope he comes.

peace.

[dizzle]

Do you think JP will then come as well?? I hope so :idea: You, JP, and AV are the Trinity tag team extraordinaire.

[AVmetro]

say hey y'all, i just wrote Brian Holt and invited him over here. Brian has written a very long book contra the deity of Christ (which i reviewed at mista J.P. Holding's tektonics.org). he's a JW, and very good at defending unitarianism from the point of view of sola scriptura.


Does he partake of the Great Methodist, Adam Clarke? With a little bit of Adam Clarke cited here and there? With additional insightful interjections from Adam Clarke? :p

:hi: :idea:

[AVmetro]

He sounds pretty reasonable, Phantaz :thumb: Can't wait to see you and JP in action!

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey; first, to suga-dee--

Do you think JP will then come as well?? I hope so You, JP, and AV are the Trinity tag team extraordinaire.

**8** thanks, i'm flattered. i imagine JP would come in, as Holt is a published author gaining a following.
the only thing i worry about is whether or not we'd simply scare a unitarian away afor he could develop his arguments. 1 unitarian post for every 13 anti-unitarian post? would tend to be exhausting--not everyone is a loser enough to be able to spend all day online (like evangelion) responding to 1,000,000's of posts.
yo, AV!!!!!!!!--

Does he partake of the Great Methodist, Adam Clarke? With a little bit of Adam Clarke cited here and there? With additional insightful interjections from Adam Clarke?

**7** ha! that was funny, but over my head. i don't get it!
peace.

[GrayPilgrim]

Arianism tends towards abuses of power in that the lesser beings, in their view women, also have less inherent worth as they are not also in the image of God. It is basically warmed over misogyny in theological garb.

[Piebald]

J.P. Holding is already a member apparently. He even posted a link to this message board system on his "What's New" page. :)

[Blake Reas]

Originally posted by jpholding
Egomanion has started his own private forum where he can talk to those who admire his brilliance.

Let's see....himself...his brother....

I guess that's it. :huh:
Hahaha, true true. The tektonites are a marchin!

:rofl:

[efta777]

I hope we can start getting some debators in some of these threads soon - it's pretty annoying when there's so many people who agree:)

[efta777]

Am I a freak for understanding the Trinity? I mean, it's never been a problem for me... God is one, God is three. It seems like it's a pretty heavy thing and all, but I've never found an issue with it.

[Piebald]

Well we could always argue over who loves the Trinity more.

:hrm:

[Piebald]

I've never had much of a problem with it at all. O'course, the reason could be that my understanding of the Trinity is the problem....

Three centers of will and cognition (persons) in a single being, right?

[GrayPilgrim]

You know its funny I never did until I started seeing just how awesome it really is. The basics are not what make the Trinity hard to grasp its all the wonderful extensions that flow from it that are harder to grasp imho.

[yxboom]

Originally posted by jpholding
Egomanion has started his own private forum where he can talk to those who admire his brilliance.

Let's see....himself...his brother....

I guess that's it. :huh: :rofl: :thumb:

[Pate]

What do you think about this:

Without the concept of Trinity, it would not make sense to say that God is essentially loving. The existence of a person who is the object to love, is needed for love to be possible. If the only existing person would be God (understood in a non-trinitarian monotheistic sense), then either God could not be essentially loving, or else His act of creation would be a kind of forced act, not a free one, as He would be dependent on His own creation, without which He could not fulfill his ability to love. But because God is Triune, the love between the persons of trinity resolves this difficulty.

[jpholding]

Originally posted by efta777
Am I a freak for understanding the Trinity? I mean, it's never been a problem for me... God is one, God is three. It seems like it's a pretty heavy thing and all, but I've never found an issue with it.

If you're a freak for this, I am more so. It makes sense to me.

I would suggest that if Holt comes aboard that it be mainly Phantaz and he who butt heads. My stance is pretty well known...

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html

Phantaz, you can also ask Holt to bring friends.

Pst! Did just commit a bannable offense?!?

JP

[GrayPilgrim]

No offense seen. As you did not question the lineage or otherwise impune the character of others, IMHO.

[smilax]

Originally posted by phantaz sunlyk
in what way are the Father, Son, and Spirit related to one another (ps graypilgrim, it was 1056 a.d.), and how do these relations effect/define that oneness?Ahh! When's your article on Filioque coming out?Originally posted by Hamster
Three centers of will and cognition (persons) in a single being, right?That's the definition of personhood based from Descartes, but the concept of a person was actually formulated as a result of the Trinity. Consequently, the modern definition imposed back onto the doctrine makes for some weirdness. Are there now three wills of God? Is He suffering from multiple-personality disorder?

[efta777]

Pst! Did just commit a bannable offense?!?

From what I understand so far this isn't as much of a problem as it... er... was, once... elsewhere.

[Piebald]

the modern definition imposed back onto the doctrine makes for some weirdness. Are there now three wills of God? Is He suffering from multiple-personality disorder?


Yes, in a sense -- isn't Christ's will distinct from the Father's? Of course, they are in perfect harmony, so it could be said that they have the same will, don't they?

And I think saying that Yahweh has a "multiple personality disorder" is kind of fallacious -- Yahweh is not a human being, and need not be set up cognitively as human beings are. The complaint is like asserting that human beings have a disorder which prevents them from growing feathers properly. A lack of feathers might be a symptom of disorder in parrots, but not human beings.

As for imposing the modern definition of "person" onto the Trinity - that's a great point! I never thought about that! How would you define "person" as it relates to the Trinity?

[Revolg]

You you deny Christ's divinity then you also deny the Messiah's prophecies in the Old Testament:

Psalm 102:25-27

" 25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. 26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: 27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."

Psalm 45:6-7

" 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Jeremiah 23:5-6

" 5 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

I quoted from Messiahrevealed which basically has them there for me ;).

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Revolg
And you're clergy of the Presbyterian Church?

Yes and I never quite understood that particular argument. It seems a little bit off base to me. If you can explain it I'll buy into it.

[smilax]

Originally posted by Hamster
As for imposing the modern definition of "person" onto the Trinity - that's a great point! I never thought about that! How would you define "person" as it relates to the Trinity?Modern definition: an autonomous conscious entity. (Descartes.)

Hellenistic definition: a psychosomatic entity without permanent qualities. (Aristotle.)

I've been learning this stuff for the past month or so, so bear with me as I attempt to explain it... (No, I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but I still find these things fascinating.)

Augustine reasoned that the God the Father "imagined" Himself, and that this "image" of Himself would be perfectly like Him, for God would not imagine Himself wrong. This image would be the Son, the Word, and the Father and Son would share a bond of love and fellowship, which would be identified with the Holy Spirit.

On the East, the Cappadocians found this approach unsatisfying. God had revealed Himself to be a Trinity, and this would have to be the highest form of reality, not divine simplicity. (Three persons "forming" one God, not one God "splitting" into three persons.) Otherwise, as an earlier poster mentioned, how can you say God is love? But now the question was left: the ontology is the same for the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, so how can they actually be distinguished? What distinguished one person (prosopon) from another if the nature (ousia) was otherwise identical?

Solution: personhood is precisely that nature. (This is somewhat related to the idea that the body was the person, and the spirit was the person, rather than the dualistic idea of body and spirit as parts.) The Father and Son need no distinguishing qualities because the identification of them as two separate persons is in itself that ontological distinction.

Weird, huh?

So in essence, a "person" for them was a relational entity partaking in communion, and that personhood was identical to the person's nature. And the neat thing is that if you accept the classical definition of the image of God as "inheriting" certain characteristics, (rationality, intelligence, spirituality, ...,) relationality becomes exactly one of those characteristics.

So a person isn't actually real until he is involved in a community. (See also the Jewish concept of dyadic personality, namely that a identity is defined by your relationship to others.) It's rather amazing stuff.

Being as Communion, by John Zizioulas, gives a defense of this Orthodox view of the Trinity.

[Pilgrim]

Ok. let me try this over here....


One of the arguments against a triune God is that it seems like a logical impossability for there to be a being with a multiple ontology.

But is that true? In the natural world we can take light for instance. According to the wave/particle theory of light we can prove mathamatically that light exists simultaneously as wave and particle. Not one in one moment and the other in another moment. Light then has a mathmatically provable multiple ontology.

Does this prove God is a trinity? No. Does it show that it is logically possible for a God to exist in a trinity...yes.

[smilax]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Yes and I never quite understood that particular argument. It seems a little bit off base to me. If you can explain it I'll buy into it.Have you at least seen the pretty chart in the volume edited by Piper and Grudem?

[GrayPilgrim]

Originally posted by smilax
Augustine reasoned that the God the Father "imagined" Himself, and that this "image" of Himself would be perfectly like Him, for God would not imagine Himself wrong. This image would be the Son, the Word, and the Father and Son would share a bond of love and fellowship, which would be identified with the Holy Spirit.

Piper advocates this view in The Pleasures of God, following Jonathan Edwards. While I tend to agree that it does have problems in the issue of ontology, if one holds ot the eternal subordination and all, however I find it to be a helpful way to grasp the relationship between Persons of the Trinity.

[smilax]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
While I tend to agree that it does have problems in the issue of ontology, if one holds ot the eternal subordination and all, however I find it to be a helpful way to grasp the relationship between Persons of the Trinity.I have absolutely no problem with it on the economic level, but Rahner's rule makes me edgy. Seems too eerily close to the slope towards process theology for me. And yes, it is incredibly helpful, especially when you want to talk about the social implications of the Trinity.

[Pilgrim]

Let me calrify, I can see how it possibly leads to the poor treatment of women but not how it necessarily leads there.

[GrayPilgrim]

I am not familiar with Rahner's rule. Could you explain it?

[smilax]

Rahner's rule: "The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity."

So essentially, how the Trinity acts throughout history with mankind (creation, salvation, judgment, and so on, called "God for us") is precisely how the Trinity relates internally between members (called "God in Himself,") and vice versa. Basically, functionality and ontology are equivalent.

And yes, that reminds me of, "God is what God does."

[Piebald]

Wow! Thanks for the info! I'm definitely going to check out that book you referred to!

Thanks Again!

:thumb:

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey y'all. forgive me, i'm gonna interact with posts as i come to them (so check it outtttttt, i may be talking to YOU!).
first off, to mista JP HOLDING--

I would suggest that if Holt comes aboard that it be mainly Phantaz and he who butt heads.

**8** i just heard back from him, and he respectfully declined. but hey (jp), i gotta good idea. check ya mail and get back at me.
next, SMILAX--

Ahh! When's your article on Filioque coming out?

**7** ha! i quit chewing tobaccy (2 + cans a day) and lost the ability to think for over a month. the mind is sllllllllowly coming back.
every time i think i have a good idea that's original, it turns out that some cat came up with it fifty years ago. this time the Eastern Orthodox Sergius Bulgakov beat me to the punch.
hey, bravo definitions of personhood! did ya get Zizioulas? an even better defense of the East overagainst the West is in Vladimir Lossky's _Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church_.
AND WHO WAS IT ON THIS THREAD THAT SAID THAT GOD MUST BE TRIUNE IN ORDER TO BE LOVING? excellent point with solid roots in the history of Christianity!
one last thing SMILAX--Rahner's rule is perfectly capable of a sound rendering. see Yves Congar's commentary in _I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Vol. 3_ .
peace! sorry if i missed anything!

[AVmetro]

Does he partake of the Great Methodist, Adam Clarke? With a little bit of Adam Clarke cited here and there? With additional insightful interjections from Adam Clarke?

**7** ha! that was funny, but over my head. i don't get it!
peace.

Referring to him as "The Great Methodist" didn't tip you off? :o Evangelion of course! :D :rofl:

[AVmetro]

So Brian declined, eh? Anyone up to asking...Greg Stafford :idea:

I doubt, however, that he'd condescend to our "level" :no:

:argue:

[AVmetro]

Or how about Heinz Schmitz? Or Wes Williams? Edgar Foster?

:hi:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Um,

I have Stafford's email, but I expect him to decline on the basis of being busy, no harm in trying though.

hey, are they new smilies...?
from Guy :D

[GrayPilgrim]

Ahh, I had never heard that called Rahner's Rule before. Thanks!

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey suga daddy--

Evangelion of course!

**8** ha, i should have known it from the repetition of a single 2 word phrase 4 times within the span of 10 words.

Anyone up to asking...Greg Stafford

**7** sure, bring up some folks. i was gonna try and get ahold of edgar foster but i lost his address. bring, like, an army since we both gonna be here.
peace.

[Rubia Warren]

*sigh*
I'll never understand the meaning of those 7s and 8s.

[Pilgrim]

That makes two of us!

[Lizard]

3

[GrayPilgrim]

4

[jpholding]

GrayPilgrim:
4

When it reaches 7 or 8 it will stop. :o

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey la rubia, do the numbers bother you that bad?

[Chuck_D]

phantaz sunlyk:
granting that there is only one God, and that this God is tripersonal, in what sense, then, is God "one"?



I really started to understand this when I looked at the Biblical ideal of marriage:

Gne. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Quoted by the Lord Himself Matt. 19:5 and Mark 10:7) Now the word translated "one" is echad which indicates a unit composed of several components or a single unit taken from a group of like units.

Now, one of the standard apologetics for the Trinity is that whenever God is described as "one" the Hebrew word is echad rather than yachid which indicates an indivisible one.

So the way I see it, the Father, Son, and Spirit are much like a husband and wife. Separate beings, but a composite "one."

The divine relationship is even closer, however, because the Son and the Spirit "proceed" from the Father, with the Son embodying the Father's wisdom. JP's article on Wisdom theology set this out in detail http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html, but I'll just say that this isn't a problem for the Son's eternal nature because he would've existed as long as the Father has been wise, which has been from Eternity Past. :yipee:

[GrayPilgrim]

Chuck_D:
The divine relationship is even closer, however, because the Son and the Spirit "proceed" from the Father, with the Son embodying the Father's wisdom. JP's article on Wisdom theology set this out in detail http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html, but I'll just say that this isn't a problem for the Son's eternal nature because he would've existed as long as the Father has been wise, which has been from Eternity Past.

I could not get the link to work. But off the top of my head, I usually get leary about hearing of Christ being personified wisdom, or that Prov. 8 refers to the preincarnate Christ. Why? In the intertestimental period with the influence of platonic thought God was pushed into the purely spiritual with man locked in the physical (sounds very Kantian, don't it?), and the only way that he could communicate with us was via an intermediary-- wisdom (xokmah or logos). So although it used to be seen as a referent for Christ, in reality it was actually a demigod. Like I said, I could not read JP's article so I don't now the route he went, just giving you my initial alarms.

GP

[Chuck_D]

GrayPilgrim:
I could not get the link to work. But off the top of my head, I usually get leary about hearing of Christ being personified wisdom, or that Prov. 8 refers to the preincarnate Christ. Why? In the intertestimental period with the influence of platonic thought God was pushed into the purely spiritual with man locked in the physical (sounds very Kantian, don't it?), and the only way that he could communicate with us was via an intermediary-- wisdom (xokmah or logos). So although it used to be seen as a referent for Christ, in reality it was actually a demigod. Like I said, I could not read JP's article so I don't now the route he went, just giving you my initial alarms.

GP

Yikes. I accidentally included a comma in the link. Let's try it again: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html

As for your concern, I see where you're coming from, but it's not a necessary conclusion from the wisdom argument.

Jesus is the mediator between God and man, but that doesn't necessarily make him some sort of demi-god. It's just his function, just as it is the Spirit's job to indwell.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey CHUCK D, nice to meet ya--

Now, one of the standard apologetics for the Trinity is that whenever God is described as "one" the Hebrew word is echad rather than yachid which indicates an indivisible one.

**7** hmmmm. i wouldn't lean too heavily on that one. the Hebrew "yachid" (="absolute unity") is very rare, and "echad" is the most common descriptor used for non-compound unities anyway.

but I'll just say that this isn't a problem for the Son's eternal nature because he would've existed as long as the Father has been wise, which has been from Eternity Past.

**8** yeah, nice. have you ever considered taking the bit in Prov. 8:30 as the point of departure for the explanation of the Son's eternality? "daily i was his delight, rejoicing before him always..." this would posit the loving communion twixt Father and Son as the explanation for the eternality of the Son.
wot ya think?
peace in Christ

[smilax]

GrayPilgrim:
In the intertestimental period with the influence of platonic thought God was pushed into the purely spiritual with man locked in the physical (sounds very Kantian, don't it?), and the only way that he could communicate with us was via an intermediary-- wisdom (xokmah or logos). So although it used to be seen as a referent for Christ, in reality it was actually a demigod.Fear not; Holding is not a dualist. In fact, he's chronically obsessed with "the Semitic mind."

[GrayPilgrim]

From his posts, I did not think he was, just that I don't generally go for personified Wisdom. I even think Prov 8 is a metaphor and not a personification of wisdom refering to the preincarnate Christ.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey GRAYPILGRIM--

I don't generally go for personified Wisdom.

**7** hmm. what is your take on the origin of John's labelling Christ 'ho logos'? and where is your Scriptural explanation for the nature of the Son's sonship vis-a-vis the Father?
just curious...

I even think Prov 8 is a metaphor and not a personification of wisdom refering to the preincarnate Christ.

**8** what about Wisdom of Solomon? do you think that ps. Solomon perceived an actual distinction within the being of God?
also, when you say that you think Prov 8 "is a metaphor", are you saying--
"I think Solomon did not believe himself to be writing of a personal hypostasis, ergo Solomon's words could not refer to a personal hypostasis"
or
"I think that the Spirit did not intend his inspiration to be applied to the Son of God, and Solomon knew this when he wrote it"
or
"I think that the Spirit did intend his inspiration to be applied to the Son of God, and Solomon did not intend this when he wrote it"
or what?
and also...

In the intertestimental period with the influence of platonic thought God was pushed into the purely spiritual with man locked in the physical (sounds very Kantian, don't it?), and the only way that he could communicate with us was via an intermediary-- wisdom (xokmah or logos).

**7** yet John presents Christ precisely as the intermediary between God and ho kosmos. seems to me to be guilt by association. to posit Christ as (due to his distinct hypostatic property) mediator does not entail his being a lesser-god.
check out the following--
http://www.tektonics.org/PS_FS.html
peace in Christ--i dig ya bananaman :thumb:

[GrayPilgrim]

phantaz sunlyk,

If you don't mind I will try to answer this in depth here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=360).

But briefly I'll answer your question of what I meant by metaphor: "I think that the Spirit did intend his inspiration to be applied to the Son of God, and Solomon did not intend this when he wrote it." I will attempt to defend this position more indepth on the Proverbs 8 thread. I think that John was probably speaking with the Logos thought in mind, but he intended to tweak the traditional understanding held at that time. So I guess you could say he was speaking to that belief with a view to alter it. I hope this is sufficent for now and will write more on this at the thread posted above tomorrow or Saturday at the lateest

[dizzle]

Hey GP:

Have you ever read God Crucified by Richard Bauckman? It sheds a new perspective on this issue that is very, very interesting.

[ANNODOMINI2000]

I have a big problem with many Evangelical's obsession with the word and concept of a 'Trinity'

The Bible clearly teaches these simples truths...

1. God is the Father of Jesus
2. Jesus is the Son of God and also the Son of Man
3. The Holy Spirit is God's Power, which is at One with Himself

Anything much beyond this is theological clap-trap.

[Solly]

The Bible clearly teaches these simples truths...

1. God is the Father of Jesus

True enough, as far as the incarnation is concerned. But then you must answer the question why it is that one whom God father's is not God also?

2. Jesus is the Son of God and also the Son of Man

Thomas: My Lord and my God. Peter: Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

3. The Holy Spirit is God's Power, which is at One with Himself

Jesus said: If I depart, I will send him to you...when he the spirit of truth is come.

Anything much beyond this is theological clap-trap.

With respect, anything that affects our understanding of who God Is, and the salvation he has wrought out for us, is not theological clap-trap. Anything that diminishes his glory is. It is incumbent on us all to search the scriptures and see if these things are so, and to receive them, even if we cannot intellectually understand them.

peace in Him

btw, greetings from Northampton - fancy going via the states just to say hello!

[ANNODOMINI2000]

i am not really interested in debating this.

anyone can quote verses to defend their position, but that does not prove their position is necessarily correct.

i just prefer to keep my faith simple thanks.

[smilax]

God sure wasted a lot of scrolls and ink in giving us the Bible then, no?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey bro, i look forward to your longer response.
for what it is worth, i agree with your summary statement that, "I think that the Spirit did intend his inspiration to be applied to the Son of God, and Solomon did not intend this when he wrote it." i also agree with your comments on John (insofar as they go). will move rest of discussion to the Prov. 8 thread.
peace in Christ.

[Chuck_D]

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** say hey CHUCK D, nice to meet ya--

Now, one of the standard apologetics for the Trinity is that whenever God is described as "one" the Hebrew word is echad rather than yachid which indicates an indivisible one.

**7** hmmmm. i wouldn't lean too heavily on that one. the Hebrew "yachid" (="absolute unity") is very rare, and "echad" is the most common descriptor used for non-compound unities anyway.

but I'll just say that this isn't a problem for the Son's eternal nature because he would've existed as long as the Father has been wise, which has been from Eternity Past.

**8** yeah, nice. have you ever considered taking the bit in Prov. 8:30 as the point of departure for the explanation of the Son's eternality? "daily i was his delight, rejoicing before him always..." this would posit the loving communion twixt Father and Son as the explanation for the eternality of the Son.
wot ya think?
peace in Christ

Hey Phantaz,

I'm feelin you. I don't consider the yachid vs. echad thing as the end all-be all of Trinity apologetics. I consider it more of an evidential or probabalistic deal. Yachid only appears 12 times in Scripture, but it was still available, and one has to wonder why Inspiration would leave the door open to the composite deal when it could have easily been shut, and not just on the issue of the word for "one." Glenn Miller has a huge article about that here : http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin02.html But then again, all of Miller's articles are huge. ;)

Yeah, I think Prov. 8:30 works. :thumb:

[Chuck_D]

ANNODOMINI2000:
i am not really interested in debating this.

anyone can quote verses to defend their position, but that does not prove their position is necessarily correct.

i just prefer to keep my faith simple thanks.

Having your personal preference is one thing, labeling other points of view as claptrap is quite another.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** rock on coolman chuck d :yipee:

[ANNODOMINI2000]

smilax:
God sure wasted a lot of scrolls and ink in giving us the Bible then, no?

I do not believe God wishes us to try to understand who He is, nor understand the divine relationship between Him and His only begotten Son. If God's thoughts are beyond us, then so is understanding His substance, so to speak. Do you really believe mere humans can define what and who God is??

The Bible is not meant as a theological debating tool, but the guidebook to eternal life.

[GrayPilgrim]

ANNODOMINI2000:
I do not believe God wishes us to try to understand who He is, nor understand the divine relationship between Him and His only begotten Son. If God's thoughts are beyond us, then so is understanding His substance, so to speak. Do you really believe mere humans can define what and who God is??

The Bible is not meant as a theological debating tool, but the guidebook to eternal life.

AD2000, I agree that the Bible is not a theological debating tool, and most of us here are not of the opinion that we can comprehend God completely, we are just desirous to have some understanding of our Great God. To quote Augustine, it is "faith seeking understanding." I think you have a point, because there can be too much debate and not enough listening to the Word of God, which as you say is the guidebook to eternal life.

May God grant you His grace and mercy this day! :)

GP

[smilax]

ANNODOMINI2000:
I do not believe God wishes us to try to understand who He is, nor understand the divine relationship between Him and His only begotten Son.So you, like the Athenians, would worship an unknown God?If God's thoughts are beyond us, then so is understanding His substance, so to speak.Then salvation is beyond us, too.Do you really believe mere humans can define what and who God is??Yes. That's what Scripture is: God's self-disclosure to man.The Bible is not meant as a theological debating tool, but the guidebook to eternal life.Hold up there. No one says the Bible is a "debating tool," but rather an infallible source of truth. And if all the Bible is is a guidebook to eternal life, then you'll have to explain how the following passages help:

I Chronicles xxvi, 18: "At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar."

Psalms cxxxvii, 9: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Ezekiel iv, 15: "Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith."

II Timothy iv, 20: "Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick."

Bottom line: eternal life is crucial, but it's not all the Bible is for. Salvation isn't even the end in itself; God created us to serve Him, and salvation is only the means. Why does salvation even work? Because the Father loves the Son, which you seem unwilling to explore; but it is that love that is delivered to us while we are in Him, and it is that love that saves us. Salvation is slavery to Christ!

Ecclesiastes xii, 13: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

Romans viii, 29: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

Colossians i, 10: "That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God."

Hebrews xi, 6: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

[ANNODOMINI2000]

I think you almost totally miss my point. The Scriptures you quote are also irrelevant to the discussion. So what?

[smilax]

ANNODOMINI2000:
I think you almost totally miss my point. The Scriptures you quote are also irrelevant to the discussion. So what?"So what?" indeed.

1. God is knowable through Scripture.
2. Human language can explain God.
3. God wants us to grow in the knowledge of Him.
4. The Bible is more than "the guidebook to eternal life."

This flies in the face of your doctrinal laziness.

[ANNODOMINI2000]

smilax:
"So what?" indeed.

1. God is knowable through Scripture.
2. Human language can explain God.
3. God wants us to grow in the knowledge of Him.
4. The Bible is more than "the guidebook to eternal life."

This flies in the face of your doctrinal laziness.

1. "Knowable through Scripture" - I disagree. Knowing about someone and KNOWING them are two different things. If you mean "Knowaboutable" then I agree

2. Words cannot explain God. They can only describe some of what He is and what He does.

3. That is true. But knowledge is not information in this reference. It is KNOWING. Having a real relationship with God as your Father.

4. The Bible is the guidebook to eternal life. It tells us that Jesus is the Way to this life. It is also an historical account of human history, but unless this leads the reader to belief in God and Christ, it is mostly meaningless for them.

This flies in the face (I jest) of your rude arrogance and unchristian attitude towards those with a different viewpoint.
:argue:

[smilax]

ANNODOMINI2000:
1. "Knowable through Scripture" - I disagree. Knowing about someone and KNOWING them are two different things. If you mean "Knowaboutable" then I agreeFine, then, Scripture plus the testimony of the Holy Spirit. As it says, the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.2. Words cannot explain God. They can only describe some of what He is and what He does.Tell me where you got this idea?3. That is true. But knowledge is not information in this reference. It is KNOWING. Having a real relationship with God as your Father.Information is the basis of this relationship. They can't be separated.4. The Bible is the guidebook to eternal life. It tells us that Jesus is the Way to this life. It is also an historical account of human history, but unless this leads the reader to belief in God and Christ, it is mostly meaningless for them.Salvation is not the end in itself, which was what I intended to prove back there. It is the means by which people serve God, which is what this relationship is really all about.This flies in the face (I jest) of your rude arrogance and unchristian attitude towards those with a different viewpoint.
:argue:Well, let's see. The American Heritage Dictionary says arrogance is "the state or quality of being arrogant; overbearing pride." So where do you find that? As for the harshness, explain to me why you feel it to be un-Christian.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey annodomini, you're wrong on the basis of Jn. 1:18. doctrinal statements about the Trinity are not meant to fly in the face of apophatic theology, rather, they are meant as correctives to heresies which arose in the course of history which impeded the faithful's ability to worship.
scripture tells us that the way to eternal life is "to KNOW YOU, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom you have sent". (Jn. 17:3) by "know" i here understand "participate in", and not merely head knowledge. yet the point remains that you aren't allowing enough to be affirmed. try and find Gregory of Nyssa's _against eunomius_ or Pseudo Dionysius' _On the Divine Names_ for some excellent essays on how we can talk about the unknowable God.
peace in Christ.

[Gavin]

AD2000:

You say that the Bible is a handbook to eternal life, but yet God is unknowable.

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

You need to rethink your theology.

[AVmetro]

Good post, Gavin :thumb:

[George Blaisdell]

Gray Pilgrim writes:

> Generally the orthodox Trinitarian presentation has been:

> God is one. God is made up of three distinct persons. God has always existed as three distinct persons. Thus we have the teaching that these three distinct persons are not different modes of existence of the One God, but three distinct persons [Father, Son and Holy Spirit]. And to quote the phrase from the Arian controversy "There is not when he was not., which was to counter Arius's teaching that the Son is a later creation of the Father with his phrase, "There is when he was not."<

That sounds about right. and the term for the three Persons is not personna, but hupostasis, for personna is the mask, of the Greek theatre, and hupostasis is that which stands under the mask. The history of the emergence of this term, from the Eastern Orthodox fathers, is an awesome exercise in theology.

One implication is that God is not an individual, but that the Three are in fact One, and in fact Three, and the only way to make sense out of it at all, from a human perspective, is to understand God as communion, as ontological communion. of the three Persons. The "Father of Lights" is the source, the ontological source, of the other two Lights, which are all one Light. ["And the Light (phos) in the darkness skotia) is shining...(John 1)]

As Paul says, those who have made it to the 'third heaven' see things of which it is 'unlawful to speak', but they can say a very little, and they come back describing the lights, and even this is but metaphor, so profound and deep are the mysteries therein. If someone starts to visualize, for instance, three flashlights shining in the dark, pointing their beams into one beam, the understanding needed is immediately lost in the visualization... The vision is noetic, and the Greek term used for it is 'theoria'...

This is why communion is so important, and the Cup of communion of our Lord...

> So I would argue that the eternal subordination of the Son teaches us that within the God head there is equal value, but a definite hierarchy.<

The creed spells it out really well - I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible - The other Two are related to Him by begottenness [the Son] and by procession [the Holy Spirit]... [And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father." This is the Orthodox confession, from the beginnings, and was the confession of Rome up until the split...

> This gets us into the filioque clause of the clause, which split the church between teh East and West in the Middle Ages (1033 if I recall).

1054 - The Pope sent a couple of bishops to Constantinople who slapped a Papal Bull of Excommunication directly upon the altar of the Hagia Sophia during a liturgical service - It was ugly, and the Patriarch in Constantinople returned the favor...

> In which it states that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father [i]and the Son[/].

Yes. And the problem has been, ever since, the raising of the Son, almost to a par with the Father, and the degrading of the Holy Spirit. In practice, this would seem to have a tendency to subordinate the Holy Spirit to the authority of the Church, [because it is the body of the Son, whose head is the See of Peter, the Pope]... The Orthodox, on the other hand, kept to the understanding that the head of the body of Christ, the Church, is Christ, Who sends the Holy Spirit, and not the current patriarch. The Church fathers are holy, but the Patriarch may or may not be...

geo

[George Blaisdell]

Gray Pilgrim writes:

> I agree that the Bible is not a theological debating tool, and most of us here are not of the opinion that we can comprehend God completely, we are just desirous to have some understanding of our Great God. To quote Augustine, it is "faith seeking understanding."<

Orthodoxy claims that in Himself, in His Essence, we cannot know God at all, so far above and beyond us is He... But we can know Him through his actions and operations and energies [energia], that it is indeed the energies vs essence distinction that avoids much of the difficulty we inevitably incur when we start talking about God as if we are going to define Him. [That would be like a couple of broken down model T's discussing Henry Ford's emotional feelings for the color purple:cheers: They first off cannot have discussions, being not only automobiles but broken down ones to boot, and the problems compound from there! Gimme anudder bier!]

Nor do the Orthodox seek understanding with their faith. They seek God with their faith, and Him through prayer, turned from the world in a holy and repentive life of prayer and fasting and worship in His body... They are given understandings, and indeed many of them from the Bible directly, bur these are given to point us toward where they are to be placed outside the door of the prayer closet, and beyond language, in the noetic prayer of the heart, we come to know God in the silence and stillness of our repentant souls.

The understandings given by words are crucial, for they keep us from error that leads to falling away from God, but the knowledge that is verbal is but a preliminary step in the right direction. This is knowledge that one person can convey to another in words. There is knowledge far beyond this... And it involves direct apprehension of God in His divine energies by a person with a purified [by repentance] heart... "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God..." The Orthodox understand the Beatitudes as commandments...

This is how the early Christian martyrs went so joyously to their horrific deaths, earnestly desiring not to be cheated of their heavenly crowns, for they had, with Christ, "overcome the world" in Him, and looked for ways to give their lives an expression in action that would bear witness to others of the sacred treasure that was theirs, for they had, together with Paul, the mind, the nous, of Christ, having been perfected in the faith... And of these, he writes:
1Co 2:16 - "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ."

geo

[ANNODOMINI2000]

Gavin:
AD2000:

You say that the Bible is a handbook to eternal life, but yet God is unknowable.

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

You need to rethink your theology.

Know as is in to know and have a full relationship with, not theological speculation and theory.

[George Blaisdell]

AD2K writes:

>>>Gavin:
You say that the Bible is a handbook to eternal life, but yet God is unknowable.

>>>John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

>>You need to rethink your theology.

>Know as is in to know and have a full relationship with, not theological speculation and theory.

The word in John 17 is ginwskwsi [w=oo], ["they should be knowing"] and you are right, it does not refer to propositionally languaged human affirmations! It is the same word used in the lxx when it was said "And Adam knew Eve..." So it is fair to understand it to be a term of relationality, as indeed it is...

Yet when applied to mans relationship with God, how much more intimate it is than man's relationship to his fellow humans! Indeed, the whole of John 17, our Lord's great prayer of intercession for us all to the Father, is directed toward the holy and divine meaning of this knowing that we should be having, and it is a prayer that all should belong one to another in love in Christ in the Father as ONE... [17:11] And this in the world...[17:15] Which is why purification of the heart in repentance is so important, and this within the holy Body of Christ, in unity with it, Christ's Church....

God is known not in words, which are common to all men, but in Truth [Christ] and Spirit...

Any half way decent athiest, and probably most all the JWs and Mormons, can pass any multiple choice theological exam we might devise for them, so that they can say that they "know" God propositionally. But such knowledge is episthmh [h=ay], or epistemic, not ontws, ontological, as gnosis is...

Walking the earth yet not being of it, being in fact and truely one with one another within God, is the goal of Christians, yes? And the only thing standing in our way is our fouled hearts, for Christ is risen!

geo

[Jaltus]

I Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

I'd recommend knowing God and knowing about God. The lack of either is a serious problem.

II Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

If you do not know true doctrine, you could end up straying!

Titus 2:1
You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

This is a command, not a request.

[Ezraarah]

In this thread I woudl like to discuss both the importance of the Trinity and the nature of the Trinity. As a starter-- I would say that the Trinity is an essential doctrine as it has many implications not only on other theological postions but on our actions. If one holds to an Arian vew [i.e. the Son and the Holy Spirit are seperate/jr. beings] then it will lead to abuse of power and de-huminization of women. If one holds to a mutual submission view then itwill lead to a break down in the social order. It is for that reason that I beleive the only appropriate view is the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father and the eternal subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son.



[I have intentionally been dogmatic in this post with no Biblical citations to start the debate, not as a defense of my position]

Let the debating begin!
If you ask any Christian who are these Verse pertaining to they would Answer
( WithOut A Doubt In Their Minds ) . that these Verse are Speaking of The Messiah Yashua , Also Take A LQQk At The Many Titles Which Are Attributed To Him . < Biblical Names Attributed To The Messiah Yashua >
The seed of woman < Genesis 3 ; 15 > The caption of Savation < Job 5 ; 13 - 14 > Wonderful < Isaiah 9 ; 6 ; Judge 13 ; 8 > I am that I am < Ex odus 3 ; 14 > The mighty God < Isaiah 9 ; 6 > Emmanuel < Isaiah 7; 14 > The Rose of Sharon lilly of the valley < Song of Solomon 2 ; 1 > Theprince of pace < Isaiah 9- 6 > The Mediator < 1Timothy 2 ; 5 > The helper < Hebrew 13 ; 6> The Rewarder of Faith < Hebrew11 ; 6 > The Branch < Zachariah 6 ; 12 > A Man of sorrows < Isaiah 53 ; 3 > The Bringer of Good Tidings < Isaiah 41 ; 27 > The Chief Cornerstone < Isaiah 28 ; 16 > The Redeemer < Job 19 ; 25 >
This is only a small list of the different names that are Attributed to The Messiah Yashua Without Even His Name Being Mentioned . I Repeat The Name '' Yashua / Jesus '' IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THESE VERSE . HowEver , You Have Christian Will Undoubtedly Tell You That These Verse Are In Fact Speaking About The Messiah Yashua < NOT >
I Again Repeat The Name '' Yashua / Jesus '' IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THESE VERSE .. OverStand SomeThing Ok I Deal Only In Facts Ok
Ans. There is a distinction made between the father , And the son John 5 ; 19 ''Then Answered Jesus And Said Unto Them , Verity , Verily , I Say Unto You The Son ( Hwee - Os ) . Can Do Nothing Of Himself , But What He Seeth The Father ( Pat - Ayr ) Notice Greek Word For Son is Spell ( Hwee - Os )
Bible - New Testament , 2John 1 - 3 ( With Greek Insert ) states , Grace be with you , mercy , and peace , from God the Father , and from the Lord Jesus Christ , theSon of the Father , in truth and love , '' .... Then when you go to 1John 4 ;14 - New Testament ( With Greek Insert ) A Letter To His Girl Friend Cyria , You Read ;... And We Have Seen And Do Testify That The Father Sent The Son To Be The Saviour Of The World '' And In 1John 2 ; 22 - New Testament ( With Greek Insert ) You Read , '' Who Is A Liar But He That Denieth That Jesus Is The Christ ? He Is Antichrist , That Denieth The Father And The Son '' These quotes above aremaking it clear that Jesus and God are not the same being or person , NoMore Then You And Your Father Are TheSame Person . LQQking at these quotes from Your King James Version of the Bible , Jesus could not have possibly been The Son And The Father . He has to be Either one or the other , And it is very clear which one is The Son That's All Just like all of Us are Children Of God ( John 10 ; 34 - 36 ) . So now as far as when They say in The Greek Translation John 1 ; 1 - New Testament ( With Greek Insert ) , It States ... '' In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God and the Word was God , <> They are really saying '' In The Beginning Their Was An Oath And That Oath Was The Word , ;....The Greek Word For In Is
'' En '' Which is also The Sumerian Word '' En '' or An '' Name Of The Highest And It Denotes A Position '' In Place , Time Or States Thus God Must Have Been At A Specific Place , At A Specific Time '' In The Beginning '' And Was God The Word ( Logos ) or Was The World ( Logos ) With God . Because It Couldn't Be With God And Be God . < Statement In Itself Would Contradict Itself ; The Word In Greek Log -Os Was A '' Speech , Saying , Decree '' From the Root Word Leg - O meaning '' Say , Speak '' Which In Hebrew would be Daw - Bar '' Word , Saying , Speech , Utterance '' Genesis 15 ; 1 , 4 , And The Greek Word Used For Beginning Is Ar - Khay Meaning '' Chief ( Order , Time , Place , Or Rank ) ;....Beginning , Corner ( At The , The ) First ( Estate ) Magistrate . Power , Principality . Principle , Rule ''
American Heritage Dictionary Defines Arch . As ;
Chief , Principal . From Middle English . Arche From , Old English , Arce , Erce , From Latin , Archi - Arch - , Fr Greek Arci . Are , Meaning '' Leader , Chief Ruler ' From The Stem Of Arceiv , To Begin , Rule '
In Serveral Quotes In The New Testament Jesus Made It Clear That You Are To Worship God And Not Him When He Made Reference To God He Used The Third Person Singular '' Him '' Not The First Person Singular Me In Luke 4; 8 Jesus Says And I Quote He Said Worship Him Not Me
In John 4 ; 23 - 24 Jesus States Againt In The Red Letter Writting Of Your Bible And I Quote He Said Worship Him And Not Me .
And In John 14 ; 10 Jesus Gives All Praise And Gratitude To His Heavenly Father And I Quote He Used The Word He Not Me
The ( Trinity ) Is Of ( Pagan ) Origion And Every ( Pholytheistic ) Culture Has Their Own Reprentation Of It ... Common Sense Should Tell You That Three Person Yet One God Theory Is Impossible ..
( 1 ) Plus ( 1) Plus 1
God The Father God The Son God The Holy Ghost
Three Cannot Go Into One , With Yashu'a Was God How Could He Forsaken Himself (Matthew 27 ; 46 ... Mark 15; 34 ) And If He Was God Who Was He Calling Out To Himself ? I Thought God So Loved The World , That He Sent His Son To Die For You .. If That's True As John 3; 16 Says , Then Jesus Had Nothing To Do With It It Was That Father That Sent Him . In Matthew 6 ; 9 As Jesus Say '' Our Father Who Art In Heaven '' Because Jesus Say In John 13 ; 16 '' I Am Not Greater Than He Who Sent Me '' And In John 5; 30 He Says Again That '' I On My Own Accord Can Do Nothing '' Call No Man Father , Because There Is One Father Who Art In Heaven And Jesus Says Clearly In Matthew 23; 9 '' And Call No Man Your Father Upon The Earth
Truth Is Truth And If It Was About His Father's Will Then Why Did Jesus SAy In Matthew 26; 38 >> If Be Possible Let This Cup Pass By Me ; Nevertheless Not As I Will , But As Thou Wilt ''
Let Me Point Out A Few Points From Your Bible Stating That Jesus Couldn't Possibly Be God ..
Mark 15 ; 34 >> Jesus cried out with a loud voice My God , My God Why have thou Forsaken Me . <<< If Jesus was God who could he be praying to if he is the only God , and to cry is a human Weakness .
Mathew 4; 1 >>Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil << If Jesus was God how could the devil Possibly be able to tempt him without him knowing >> And What Could The Devil Possibly Offer The Creator Of Everything .
Luke 14 ; 26 >> If anyman come to me , and hate not his Father And Mother And Wife And Chrildren And Brethren And Sister , Yea And His Own Life Also , He Cannot Be My Disciple . <<< If Jesus was God and he so loved the world why would you have to hate your family And even yourself , when it say in Leviticus 19 ; 1 That Hatred Is A Sin
John 14 ; 2 >> In My Father House Are Many Mansions .>>> Jesus Said In My Father's House , He [ Didsn't Say In My House ] Would It Have Made Sense To Say In My House [ If He Was God ? ]
Luke 2; 49 >> That I Must Be About My Father's Business '>> If Jesus Was God Why Did He Say I Must Be Of My Fathers Business , He Indicated . [ The Distinction Between Him And His Father .
I'm Should You Can Find More If You Open Your Eyes , Thoughout Your Bible It Speak About Jesus Being The Son Of God , And Not God Himself
What Other Proof Do I Have That Jesus And The Father Are Two Separate Beings ..?
Was Only A Man >> Matthew 1 ; 25 ...... Was Baptized >>>> Matthew 3; 13
Was Tempted >>>> Matthew 4; 1 ...... Slept >>>> Matthew 8 ; 24
Ate >>> Luke 24 ; 42 ...... Hungered >>>> Matthew 21 ; 18
Weakened >>> John 4; 6 .... Said Something He Shouldn't Have John 20; 17
Cried At Lazarus Grave >> John 20; 17
What Is A Trinity ?
The Word For Trinity In Aramic / Hebrew Is Shelesh , And ;; Triad '' It Is Mentioned Only In 1Chronicles 7; 35 And Thalaathatin In Ashuric / Syriac / Arabic Found ; Trinity , Triad , Triple , The Greek Word For Trinity Is Triad ( 1John 5 ; 7 ) . Triad Simply Means Tri Which Means Three ( 3 ) . When You Take Any Three Things And Say They Make Up Any One Thing That Would Be A Trinty , There Is No Way To Have A Trinity Without First Separating Each Of The Three Things Indivdually To Declare Then A Trinity . By That I Mean , You Have To First Establish That There Is A Father One Thing And A Son Another Thing And A Holy Ghost The Thrid Thing , In order For These Things To Totally Mix And Become One Thing . They Would Have To Start Off Equal In Rank , Quantity . Space , Density , Authority , Or Existence . In Admitting That The Son Came From The Father , Time Make The Difference , The Father Would Have To Had Been First , Before The Son . This Would Make Them Unequal And Incapable Of Becoming A Balanced Triad . No It Did Not Mean That When It Said God The Father ,,, God The Son , And God The Holy Ghost = One God .. Because Three Cannot Go Into One .
The Prophet Messiah Yashu'a / Jesus Is Not Alive And The Father Is God Not The Son .. The Prophet Messiah Yashu'a / Jesus Accodring To The Christian Teaching Die At The Age Of 33 , By Saying That He Is '' Alive Again '' Mean God Died Before ????? !!!!!! < Mrs. Nancy > Smileing >> That Make Absolutely No Sense . You Stated Now That He Is Alive Again Forever He Is God . So What You're Saying Is That God Died And Came Back To Life , And At Some Point He Stopped Being God God Is All Existing . And Made It Possible For All Things To Exist . If He '' Dies '' What Do You Think Would Happen To The Rest Of Us . Exactly . We Would All Cease To Exist As Well Because We Are All Apart Of The Heavenly Father . Also , If The Prophet Messiah Yashu'a / Jesus Is God The Who Was He Praying To In Matthew 6 ; 9 - 13 He Says Our Father Who Art In Heaven '' , So He's Not God Or Otherwise He Would've Been Praying To Himself . Let Me Point Out To You That The Prophet Messiah Yashu'a / Jesus Was And Israelite . It Is Common Sense That The Prophet Messiah Yashu'a / Jesus Would Not Violate Such A Powerful Israelite Judaic Command As The Worship Of God Alone ( Exodus 20; 3 - 4 ) By Claiming To Be That Very God Whom He Pray To In Matthew 26 ; 39 .
'' AND HE WENT A LITTLE FARTHER
AND FELL ON HIS FACE AND PRAYED
( SAYING , O FATHER MY FATHER )
Think About It . It Doesn't Make Much Sense For Jesus To Pray To Himself . If Jesus Was God , He Wouldn't Have No Need To PRAY . In Several Quotes In The New Tesament The Prophet Messiah Yashu'a / Jesus Made It Clear That Your Are To Worship God AndNot Him . When He Made Reference To God , He Used The THIRD Person Singular '' Him '' Not The First Person Singular '' Me '' In Luke 4 ; 8 JesusSaysAnd I Quote ;
AND JESUS ANSWER AND SAID
UNTO HIM GET THEE BEHIND ME
SATAN ; FOR IT IS WRITTEN , THOU
SHALT WORSHIP THE LORD THY GOD
AND HIM ONLY SHALT THOU SERVE ''
He Said Worship Him Not Me
In John 4 ; 23 - 24 Jesus States Again In The Red Letter Writting Of Your Bible And I Quote
'' BUT THE HOUR COMETH AND NOW IS WHEN THE TRUE WORSHIPPERS SHALL WORSHIP THE FATHER IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH ; FOR THE FATHER SEEKETH SUCH TO WORSHIP HIM MUST WORSHIP HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH . < He Said Worship Him And Not Me .
And In John 14 ; 10 JesusGive All Praise AndGratitude To His Heavenlt Father And I Quote ;
BELIEVEST THOU NOT THAT I AM IN
THE FATHER , AND THE FATHER IN ME ?
THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU I
SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF ; BUT THE FATHER
THAT DWELLETH IN ME , HEDOETH THE WORKS
He Used The Word He Not Me
No Man's Body Can Contain God , Not If You Mean That He Has The Essence Of His Father In Him , Then All Man Are God's Son And Daughter , Read Genesis 2 ;7 When God Breathe Into Man The Breath Of Life '' And The Lord God Formed Man From The Dust Of The Ground , And Breathed Into His Nostrils The Breath Of Life ; And Man Became A Living Soul . .. However , Getting Back To The Point Whether He Incarnated Or Came Himself There Still Wouldn't Be Any Need For Him To Pray Or Ask For Assistance From Anyone If He Was God , The Creator . Can't You See That ?Not Only Would He Not Need To Pray He Would Have No Desire To Eat Meat
Luke 24 ; 41 , Beg That Death Passes Him Matthew 26 ; 39 , Feared AndRan For His Life John 18 ; 3 Which Means That '' God Has To Run From His Creation . It Seems Like You Totally Ignored All Of These Scriptures And Found One That Sound Good To You , And Built A Whole Doctrine From It . Another Quality That The Prophet Messiah Yashu'a / Jesus Did Not Possess According To Roman 13 ; 1 And
2Corinthians 1 ; 23 Is The Power To Assign The Soul Their Positions In The Hereafter According To The Author Of These 2 Books Which Was Paul . Only The Heavenly Father Possess Such Power . Exalting Jesus Beyond The Truth Is Shown To Be A Form Of Idolatry . Once Again In Matthew 7 ; 21 Jesus Tells People To Do The Will Of The Father . ... In Both Luke 4 ; 8 And Mathew 4; 10 We Come Across An Incident That Clearly Contradicts The Concept Of Jesus Claining Absolute Divinity . According To These Two References Matthew 27 ; 46 And Mark 15 ;34 Jesus Was Put On The Cross Left To Die . Then According To Those Who Believe The Crucifixion Story , At That Time Jesus Cried In A Loud Voice . If Jesus Was God He Would Not Have To Say Any Of These Things In The First Place . How Could You Possibly Forsake Your Ownself ? If HeWas God Or Eli As It Is Used In This Quote , He Would Not Need Consent From Anyone . Overstand ... This Could Not Possibly Be The Words Of A person Who Saw Himself As The The Controller Of All Life And Death Because He Cried Out '' My God '' It Simply Isn't Logical . The Prophet Messiah Yashu'a / Jesus Never Encouraged Anyone To Worship Him Instead , He Taught Others To Worship His Father .. As I Have Just Shown You By Useing The Scripture .

.





Stop spamming the forum. If you continue this practice you will be placed on moderation.

[truthman]

...this is stuff that we will never get our heads around, we're just too small.Why do you believe that? What in God's word led you to believe that we couldn't understand Him?

truthman

[kofh2u]

Why do you believe that? What in God's word led you to believe that we couldn't understand Him?

truthman


John 1:1?
The Word = God? True or metaphor?

The Word made flesh = Jesus?

Jesus = Word

If not Trinity, is this at least Duplicity?

[Sparko]

I recently found this analogy of the Trinity that I find very enlightening:

In his book The Secret Of The Universe Dr. Nathan Wood devised a geometric analogy between the characteristics of time and the Godhead of the Trinity.

The future is the source. The future is unseen, unknown except as it continually embodies itself and makes itself visible in the present. The present is what we see, hear and know. It is ceaselessly embodying the future day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment. It is perpetually revealing the future, hitherto invisible. The future is logically first, but not chronologically first. For the present exists as long as time exists and was in the absolute beginning of time. The present has existed as long as time has existed. Time acts through and in the present. It makes itself visible only in the present. It is through the present that the future enters into union with human life. Time and humanity meet and unite in the present. It is in the present that time, the future becomes a part of human life, and so is born and lives and dies in human life. The present, therefore, comes out from the invisible future. The present perpetually and ever newly embodies the future in visible, audible, livable form, and returns again into the invisible time in the past. The past acts invisibly. it continually influences us with regard to the present. it casts light upon the present. That is it's great function. It helps us live in the present, which we know, and with reference to the future, which we expect to see.

Now substitute God for Time, The Father for the future, The Son for the Present and The Holy Spirit for the past.

THE TRINITY

The Father is the source. The Father is unseen, unknown except as He continually embodies Himself and makes Himself visible in the Son. The Son is what we see, hear and know. He is ceaselessly embodying the Father day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment. He is perpetually revealing the Father, hitherto invisible. The Father is logically first, but not chronologically first. For the Son exists as long as God exists and was in the absolute beginning of God. The Son has existed as long as God has existed. God acts through and in the Son. He makes Himself visible only in the Son. It is through the Son that the Father enters into union with human life. God and humanity meet and unite in the Son. It is in the Son that God, the Father becomes a part of human life, and so is born and lives and dies in human life. The Son, therefor, comes out from the invisible Father. The Son perpetually and ever newly embodies the Father in visible, audible, livable form, and returns again into the invisible God in the Spirit. The Spirit acts invisibly. He continually influences us with regard to the Son. He casts light upon the Son. That is His great function. He helps us to live in the Son, which we know, and with reference to the Father, which we expect to see....."

Dr. Nathan Wood, "The Secret Of The Universe "

To me, this analogy really helps me to picture how God can be one God, yet three persons. Just as there is only one "Time" but revealed in three forms, future, present, and past.

[Ron Macy]

John Sparks,

Dr. Wood’s presentation is a very interesting journey into philosophy. I, personally, have trouble with the concept of the future being the source of time.

What I find interesting about the Bible is God provides us with analogies of His own about the concepts He wants to teach man. The sacrifices command in the Law were analogies of the sacrifice Jesus would make.

Segments of history have become analogies for the teaching of doctrine. Noah and the ark were analogous to baptism. The Israelites passing through the Red Sea were also analogous to baptism.

This brings us to at least two problems with the teaching of the trinity.
1. There are no texts in the Bible which explicitly describe God as existing as a multi-person being.
2. There are no analogies which the Bible uses to illustrate God as a multi-person being.

With these facts in mind, I conclude the Bible does not teach God as a multi-person being. I also conclude that those who wish to see God as a multi-person being, a trinity, are simply engaging in philosophy. Man’s philosophy. Paul’s warning about man’s philosophy is found in Colossians 2:8


8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.


So, while Dr. Wood’s presentation is interesting, it is attempting to illustrate man’s philosophy and not Bible teaching. I recommend for all who read this that they stick to what the Bible teaches and leave man’s philosophy behind.

Ron

[Sparko]

John Sparks,

Dr. Wood’s presentation is a very interesting journey into philosophy. I, personally, have trouble with the concept of the future being the source of time.

What I find interesting about the Bible is God provides us with analogies of His own about the concepts He wants to teach man. The sacrifices command in the Law were analogies of the sacrifice Jesus would make.

Segments of history have become analogies for the teaching of doctrine. Noah and the ark were analogous to baptism. The Israelites passing through the Red Sea were also analogous to baptism.

This brings us to at least two problems with the teaching of the trinity.
1. There are no texts in the Bible which explicitly describe God as existing as a multi-person being.
2. There are no analogies which the Bible uses to illustrate God as a multi-person being.

With these facts in mind, I conclude the Bible does not teach God as a multi-person being. I also conclude that those who wish to see God as a multi-person being, a trinity, are simply engaging in philosophy. Man’s philosophy. Paul’s warning about man’s philosophy is found in Colossians 2:8


8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.


So, while Dr. Wood’s presentation is interesting, it is attempting to illustrate man’s philosophy and not Bible teaching. I recommend for all who read this that they stick to what the Bible teaches and leave man’s philosophy behind.

Ron
Hi Ron,

May I ask you:

1. If there were verses in the Bible that showed that Jesus was God.

2. If there were verses that showed that the Father was God.

3. If there were verses that showed there was only ONE God.

4. If there were verses that showed that the Father and Jesus were not the same person.

***IF*** you found such verses in the bible, what conclusion would you come to if you accepted the bible as true?

(I am leaving out the Holy Spirit for simplicity at this point)

[Ron Macy]

John,


1. If there were verses in the Bible that showed that Jesus was God.


The discussion of whether or not the Bible calls Jesus, God, ultimately boils down to what sense of ‘god’ is intended. This dicussion is nothing but a constant circle. All references to the term, theos, god, are filtered through the eyes of the reader. Those with a trinitarian bias always see theos (when refered to Jesus) as referring to Almighty God. Those without a trinitarian bias see other possibilities in the usage of god when directed toward Jesus.

So to answer this question, no, I don’t believe going down this logic path is valuable.


2. If there were verses that showed that the Father was God.


This is stating an unargued point. I believe it is better stated as God is the Father, though. The Bible never describes the Son as God, i.e. using the same terminology. Because Jesus is the Son and people believe Jesus is God, it is extrapolated that the Son is God, but the Bible never makes such a statement.

There is no point to discuss this statement because it is agreed.



3. If there were verses that showed there was only ONE God.


Again, this is an unargued point. There is only one God.



4. If there were verses that showed that the Father and Jesus were not the same person.


This is where the “smoke and mirrors” of the trinity begin to show. The Bible shows God and Jesus are not the same person, not just the Father and Jesus.

The Bible knows nothing of multi-person beings. Therefore, to state the distinction of person is to state the distinction of being. If you want to prove the trinity to me or anyone else, you need to provide proof from the scripture, i.e. explicit statements that God is multi-person. Without that, there is no reason to even consider how logic can be used to prove a multi-person being exists. The potential for flawed logic is universal and it becomes one person’s philosophy versus another’s.

My conclusion is: If you can’t provide explicit Bible statements which describe God as being multi-person, you have no reason to conclude God is multi-person and you have no reason to conclude God is a trinity.

Ron

[Sparko]

John,



The discussion of whether or not the Bible calls Jesus, God, ultimately boils down to what sense of ‘god’ is intended. This dicussion is nothing but a constant circle. So to answer this question, no, I don’t believe going down this logic path is valuable.

RonSorry Ron, but that sounds like a dodge to me. Let's worry about whether the bible really says that Jesus is God later in the discussion, please?

IF (that means conditionally on my being able to later show you it is true to *your* satisfaction)...

IF the bible shows that Jesus is God...

and you already accepted that the Father is God (or that God is the Father) and that Jesus is not the Father, and that there is only one God....

IF that is all shown to be true according to the bible (let me worry about proving it to you later, OK?)

If it is true what is claimed above, What would be your conclusion of the nature of God? How would you explain the the points supposed above?

[Ron Macy]

John,



Sorry Ron, but that sounds like a dodge to me. Let's worry about whether the bible really says that Jesus is God later in the discussion, please?

IF (that means conditionally on my being able to later show you it is true to *your* satisfaction)...

IF the bible shows that Jesus is God...

and you already accepted that the Father is God (or that God is the Father) and that Jesus is not the Father, and that there is only one God....

IF that is all shown to be true according to the bible (let me worry about proving it to you later, OK?)

If it is true what is claimed above, What would be your conclusion of the nature of God? How would you explain the the points supposed above?



That’s me, the Artful Dodger.

Let’s worry first about whether or not the Bible describes God as being multi-person.

I don’t want logic. I want explicit definition, description. If the Bible doesn’t describe God as being multi-person, all your logical conclusions are potentially faulty. Bible doctrine shouldn’t have to be dependent upon logic, but upon clear presentation of the facts. Please present the facts.

Ron

[Sparko]

But your insistance that the Bible must state specifically and explicitly that God is multi personal before it is true is not a logical statement in itself. Just because it doesn't have a verse that says "God is a multipersonal being" does not mean it is not so, that is just your arbitrary "rule." The bible wasn't written as some sort of instructional text book. It is a collection of history and doctrinal letters and books from all of recorded history. Things can be proven to be true by using traditional logic and internal evidence too.

But then if you won't play along with my little thought experiment, then that is fine, too.

Have a nice day and God Bless.

[Ron Macy]

John,



But your insistance that the Bible must state specifically and explicitly that God is multi personal before it is true is not a logical statement in itself. Just because it doesn't have a verse that says "God is a multipersonal being" does not mean it is not so, that is just your arbitrary "rule." The bible wasn't written as some sort of instructional text book. It is a collection of history and doctrinal letters and books from all of recorded history. Things can be proven to be true by using traditional logic and internal evidence too.


Asking for explicit, specific statements that God is multi-person is more logical than simply believing that it is possible. Simply believing it is possible is philosophy at it’s best. I have always been taught to believe what the Bible teaches and not what it might teach according to someone’s philosophy. Remember I mentioned Colossians 2:8 in the first place.


8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.


It is a shame you aren’t willing to play along with my little thought experiment. I believe we could come to understand the Bible doesn’t teach the trinity after all.

Ron