Oneness or Trinity

[Dracula Girl]

The quote stating a virgin will concieve and give birth to a son called Immanuel is one of the impossible prophecies due to the context of the verse and the word used is not a virgin, but simply a young woman. It has never been interpreted as referring to a virgin giving birth to a divinely conceived messiah by any Jewish Hebrew scholar.

To quote from my LaHaye Prophecy Bible:

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

7:14The unusual birth will indeed be a sign (see also Gen. 16.11; Judg. 13:5). The Hebrew word for “virgin” is the unique Hebrew term almah. Comparing six other instances of the word in the Old Testament (Gen 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8) it is evident that almah is the most precise term Isaiah could have used to indicate that the young woman in view would indeed be a virgin. The more common Hebrew term for virgin, bethulah, is not as precise as almah. On at least two occasions, bethulah is used of a young married woman or a young widow (Deut. 22:19; Joel 1:8). The prophet envisions the miraculous sign of a pregnant virgin who is about to bear a Son. That this prophecy must refer to the virgin birth of Christ is made clear in Matthew 1:23, where the Greek word parthenos (“virgins”) is used to quote this verse and to declare its fulfillment in the conception of Jesus. See the note on Matthew 1:23.

Matthew 1:23-25

"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,"[a] which is translated, "God with us."

24Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

1:23-26 the virgin. This relates Mary, the mother of Jesus t the prediction found in Isaiah 7:14. Matthew used the Greek word parthenos to translate the Hebrew word almah. The quotation of Isaiah 7:14 follows the Septoagint (LXX) rendering where parthenos is also used to treanslate the Hebrew almah. There can be no doubt that the Greek term parthenos is always to be translated “virgin.” The Hebrew almah is the most accurate and precise twem for virgin used in the Old Testament. Therefore, Matthew is clearly correct in quoting Isaiah 7:14 as being fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ. “Immanuel: is a title describing the deity of the person of the Son of God rather than a name actually used by Him. It asserts that god will come to dwell among His own people, which He did in the person of Christ.

[shunyadragon]

To quote from my LaHaye Prophecy Bible:

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23-25

"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,"[a] which is translated, "God with us."

24Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

Quoting the NT and references like the LaHaye prophecy Bible do not support Isaiah in the OT. Your references suporting the translation as meaning 'virgin' are not correct. The word most defintely means 'young woman' and not a 'virgin' as debated on other threads on Tweb. It is used in the context of a young women that is definitely not a virgin elsewhere in the OT and traditionally in Hebrew. I will come back with more on this, and refer you to a thread that deals with this in detail.

The other problem, like the impossible Micah prophecy, is the context of the verse. It is pulled form a chapter that deals with a totally different situation than the prophecy for a messiah.

I am not disagreeing with what the NT says. I am saying there is absolutely no suport in OT for interpreting the verses in this manner.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Joan of Arc]

It depends on who you quote concerning the Bible.

Many modern translations concede that the word in the Hebrew does not mean "virgin".

wikipedia

The Revised Standard Version says:
Behold a young woman shall conceive... The New Jerusalem Bible says:

the young woman is with child The Revised English Bible says:

A young woman is with child The Good News Bible says:

a young woman who is pregnant The New Revised Standard Version says:

the young woman is with child

© source where applicable

The statement that the Greek word 'parthenos' always means virgin is misleading. See the following. I realize the church fathers who determined orthodoxy later intended Mary to be a virgin that that Christ was divinely conceived, but that is not my point. My point is the weak link to chapter 7 of Isaiah.

wikipedia

There is also archaeological evidence that Jewish speakers of Greek used the word "parthenos" elastically; Jewish catacombs in Rome identify married men and women as "virgins," and some have suggested that in this case the word was used to call attention to the fact that the deceased was someone's first spouse. Nevertheless, it remains true that Jews stopped using the more explicit Septuagint translation as Christianity spread, and that post-Christian Jewish translations into Greek use νεανις, neanis, meaning "young woman" rather than "virgin". The Septuagint does not use parthenos very precisely and translates at least three different Hebrew words by it: bethulah, "maiden/virgin"; `almah, "maiden/virgin"; and נערה, na`arah, "maiden, young woman, servant". When we look at parthenos in the Septuagint, we discover that its meaning is sometimes expanded in a way not seen in Isaiah:

Genesis 24:16 And the damsel [parthenos = Hebrew na`arah] was very fair to look upon, a virgin [parthenos = Hebrew bethulah], neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. Judges 21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins [parthenous = Hebrew bethulah], that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. If the traditional Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is correct, the meaning of parthenos is obviously far more important in Isaiah than it is in Genesis 24:16 and Judges 21:12, and yet it is only in Genesis 24:16 and Judges 21:12 that the meaning of parthenos is expanded to remove any possible misunderstanding. Furthermore, even the use of a completely unambiguous word for "virgin" in the Hebrew or Greek text would not necessarily have settled the matter: "a virgin shall conceive..." might mean "a virgin shall lie with a man and conceive...". Every woman who conceives was originally a virgin, and a woman can actually conceive without a penis penetrating her vagina. Two thousand years of controversy might have been saved if Isaiah had added a few words to the original prophecy:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, עלמה (an `almah) shall conceive without lying with any man, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. This may suggest that Isaiah did not intend `almah to mean "virgin", and certainly suggests that he did not make his meaning as clear as he might very easily have done. Alternatively, it may suggest that the Masoretic Text was altered between the time it was written and the time it was transcribed in the 8th or 9th century A.D.

© source where applicable

There is another issue here, the context of chapter 7 of Isaiah. Christians basically fail to put this prophecy in context of the whole chapter. Could you?

[freelight]

I believe in the Oneness of God. To me God is One and by himself created all things and through we have salvation. I believe that Jesus is God Manifested in the flesh, God became flesh. What I can not understand is how can theie be one God and yet be 3 persons in the God. How can the father be God and the Son as well and the Holy be God but each person is not one another yet they are one God. This is very confusing to me. Can someone explain?

I like to begin my most primal understanding of God as ONE...and see this as the original and eternal view - the premise of the Unity of Life and all Being. This One Deity Being existed as an Undifferentiated Reality(before creation/multiplication/emanation) and this oneness of Being is preconceptional - it is merely existant as the ground and matrix of all Existence.

If we move out to further conceptualize this Deity into being 3 persons....we enter into differentiation and multiplicity. The Trinity-doctrine is a conceptual model used to satisfy the apparent diversity of beings or personages within Deity-hood while still maintaining the underlying spiritual premise of the Unity of divine Being. While a trinitization of God may be entertained, conceptualized and seemingly appropriated in good logic within coherent dimensions of reconciling the personalities of Father, Son and Spirit......a secure foundational rooting in the eternal Oneness of God should pose no controversy over the trinity-concept....as one may see such as servicable in its respective domains of theology and tradition.

As I am rooted in the Oneness of God......as a primal eternal Reality....further conceptualizations/personalities of this Reality are merely employed to enjoy a greater variety, multiplicity of the One Deity Being. All things/beings serve the ONE.

As God IS.........this Unity of divine Being is Existential here and Now. In this Being...there is no division/differentiation/confusion. As our logics are further expanded in creative insights into the multiplicity of creation and the diversity existing in divine Being....a trinity-concept is merely an employable mystery, however transcendent or beyond human logic.

So....there is no reason to be confused - confusion exists within the differentiation/divisions which appear to manifest within the ONE. It is natural for some to be confused over the issue of the Oneness and tri-unity of God. In fact, the Trinity is a kind of con-fusion! There is an aspect of the meaning of this word that actually means to mix or assemble together. But this is resolved when one sees from the primal and transcendent View of the ONE.

Abide in the One....as there is in truth no Other.

paul

[shunyadragon]

I like to begin my most primal understanding of God as ONE...and see this as the original and eternal view - the premise of the Unity of Life and all Being. This One Deity Being existed as an Undifferentiated Reality(before creation/multiplication/emanation) and this oneness of Being is preconceptional - it is merely existant as the ground and matrix of all Existence.

If we move out to further conceptualize this Deity into being 3 persons....we enter into differentiation and multiplicity. The Trinity-doctrine is a conceptual model used to satisfy the apparent diversity of beings or personages within Deity-hood while still maintaining the underlying spiritual premise of the Unity of divine Being. While a trinitization of God may be entertained, conceptualized and seemingly appropriated in good logic within coherent dimensions of reconciling the personalities of Father, Son and Spirit......a secure foundational rooting in the eternal Oneness of God should pose no controversy over the trinity-concept....as one may see such as servicable in its respective domains of theology and tradition.

As I am rooted in the Oneness of God......as a primal eternal Reality....further conceptualizations/personalities of this Reality are merely employed to enjoy a greater variety, multiplicity of the One Deity Being. All things/beings serve the ONE.

As God IS.........this Unity of divine Being is Existential here and Now. In this Being...there is no division/differentiation/confusion. As our logics are further expanded in creative insights into the multiplicity of creation and the diversity existing in divine Being....a trinity-concept is merely an employable mystery, however transcendent or beyond human logic.

So....there is no reason to be confused - confusion exists within the differentiation/divisions which appear to manifest within the ONE. It is natural for some to be confused over the issue of the Oneness and tri-unity of God. In fact, the Trinity is a kind of con-fusion! There is an aspect of the meaning of this word that actually means to mix or assemble together. But this is resolved when one sees from the primal and transcendent View of the ONE.

Abide in the One....as there is in truth no Other.

paul

This post side steps much of the real issue. Statements like '. . . may be entertained, conceptualized and seemingly appropriated in good logic within coherent dimensions of reconciling the personalities of Father, Son and Spirit......a secure foundational rooting in the eternal Oneness of God should pose no controversy over the trinity-concept. . .' offer contradictions as to how Christianity actually believes in the doctrine of the trinity.

A 'conceptualized' analogy of God's relationship to humanity would be acceptable ot many religions that do not accept the doctrine.

The trinity should not be viewed as 'good logic within coherent dimensions of reconciling the personalities of Father, Son and Spirit. . .', because religious doctrine should not appeal to logic or reconciliation, especially when it involves internal conflicts within scripture, which are not logical.

The contradictions are very clear as the doctrine is stated as three seperate entities 'God the Son', 'God the Spirit' and 'God the Father' considered as One. The conflicts in Bible between Christ's own words in John 5, and the later doctrine as developed by the church, cannot be so easilly shmoozed over.

[freelight]

This post side steps much of the real issue. Statements like '. . . may be entertained, conceptualized and seemingly appropriated in good logic within coherent dimensions of reconciling the personalities of Father, Son and Spirit......a secure foundational rooting in the eternal Oneness of God should pose no controversy over the trinity-concept. . .' offer contradictions as to how Christianity actually believes in the doctrine of the trinity.

A 'conceptualized' analogy of God's relationship to humanity would be acceptable ot many religions that do not accept the doctrine.

The trinity should not be viewed as 'good logic within coherent dimensions of reconciling the personalities of Father, Son and Spirit. . .', because religious doctrine should not appeal to logic or reconciliation, especially when it involves internal conflicts within scripture, which are not logical.

The contradictions are very clear as the doctrine is stated as three seperate entities 'God the Son', 'God the Spirit' and 'God the Father' considered as One. The conflicts in Bible between Christ's own words in John 5, and the later doctrine as developed by the church, cannot be so easilly shmoozed over.

The previous commentary actually approached and assessed this issue from an inherent and transcendent view of the ONE. No matter how one chooses to trinitize Deity or seperate the divine Essense into 3, 7, 12 or 144,000 parts....there is still only One Deity Being. That was the primary theme of this entities discourse.

If we choose to explore further.....I can worship the ONE thru 3 aspects of Deity...and still maintain a pure and holy worship to the true God. I addressed this directly concerning our fellow posters 'confusion' by opening the perspective to a higher more all-inclusion dimension. I see the 3 'persons' as 'aspects' of the ONE...as respresentations of the Unified Being.

In traditional light of the Trinity doctrine....one can debate and dissect what is meant by 'persons' and how 3 can be 1...and 1 can be 3 - I simply proposed that a metaphysical understanding of the primal inherent Oneness of Deity would allow for such an apparent anomoly to exist....for there is a plurality within divine UNITY. This plurality/multiplicity does not undo or jeopardize the essential Unity which is ever-being.

As far as 'persons' in the Trinity go.........we would have to define 'persons'. My understanding of the Oneness of God assume that God is divine Being...and the Reality is in and of itself ONE essential Entirety. One may assume that this God is constituted as one Supernal Person,...however...even to apply a person-al aspect to God is trying to define the Undefinable/unexplainable. If I maintain that God is the Only Deity Being - then a conceptual View of this God as 3 aspects or respresentations may be servicable as they may apply in their own domain and contextual reference.

So,......that is my over-view....and presents another view wherein pluralities may exist in a divine Unity. In this purview a Trinity may exist and be suitable regardless of the criticisms of others....as such has already existed for centuries. If you would like to pursue a logical debate over how 3 'persons' cannot be 1 God...you may elaborate your arguments....and definitions.

En-joy,


paul

[shunyadragon]

The previous commentary actually approached and assessed this issue from an inherent and transcendent view of the ONE. No matter how one chooses to trinitize Deity or seperate the divine Essense into 3, 7, 12 or 144,000 parts....there is still only One Deity Being. That was the primary theme of this entities discourse.

Manifestations in different forms of the One God, whether 3 to 144,000, occurs throughout the OT and many religions with no problem, but three seperate entities including and incarnate God, that is a unique Christian doctrine, though it has similarities and paralells in other Roman and Greek religious beliefs.

If we choose to explore further.....I can worship the ONE thru 3 aspects of Deity...and still maintain a pure and holy worship to the true God. I addressed this directly concerning our fellow posters 'confusion' by opening the perspective to a higher more all-inclusion dimension. I see the 3 'persons' as 'aspects' of the ONE...as respresentations of the Unified Being.

You surely may chose to do this as tradional Christians do, but it has no consistent coherent foundation in the OT.

In traditional light of the Trinity doctrine....one can debate and dissect what is meant by 'persons' and how 3 can be 1...and 1 can be 3 - I simply proposed that a metaphysical understanding of the primal inherent Oneness of Deity would allow for such an apparent anomoly to exist....for there is a plurality within divine UNITY. This plurality/multiplicity does not undo or jeopardize the essential Unity which is ever-being.

This is self-defining doctrine within traditional Christianity by Rome and Paulist beliefs, without a foundation in the OT. It indeed does jeoperdize the essential Unity of God when a Human being is considered a perfect God on earth.

As far as 'persons' in the Trinity go.........we would have to define 'persons'. My understanding of the Oneness of God assume that God is divine Being...and the Reality is in and of itself ONE essential Entirety. One may assume that this God is constituted as one Supernal Person,...however...even to apply a person-al aspect to God is trying to define the Undefinable/unexplainable. If I maintain that God is the Only Deity Being - then a conceptual View of this God as 3 aspects or respresentations may be servicable as they may apply in their own domain and contextual reference.

As far as 'persons' in the Trinity go . . . they are defined as three seperate entities or persons, God the Son, God the Spirit and God the Father. This is not a conceptual view, it is a doctrinal view.

So,......that is my over-view....and presents another view wherein pluralities may exist in a divine Unity. In this purview a Trinity may exist and be suitable regardless of the criticisms of others....as such has already existed for centuries. If you would like to pursue a logical debate over how 3 'persons' cannot be 1 God...you may elaborate your arguments....and definitions.

'. . . as such has already existed for centuries.', does not lend credence to the doctrine of the trinity. The concept of God or the 'Source' being One and absolutely indivisible, and manifest in different forms has been around for thousands of years longer in both the east and the west.

[freelight]

shunya,

You appear to have 'issues' with 3 entities/persons making up one Deity. Also it appears you do not hold that Jesus is God, or the God-Man. Yes, these are very wonderful and curious doctrines within Christianity.

I shared my view that the Trinity is conceptual; of course its doctrinal to whoever considers it doctrine, or 'orthodox' or whatever. Because I see this as more a conceptual purview of Deity or a God-head organization....I can better see the 3 as manifestations/aspects/ementations..... without so much stressing them as being 3 persons or entities. I would see the concept of there being manifestations of God as opposed to persons who are each a god or God within a Godhead or Trinity.....as being more kin to your own traditional views. With this in mind....Jesus may have been a manifestation of God in his generation/dispensation. Likewise...Baha'u'llah was a manifestation of God in his generation. I gather however that in your view....these manifestations were not God Himself in fullness or perfection...but only radiant stars of his divine light/wisdom/love. As we view God and contemplate His glory....we come into the enormity of His Infinite Fullness....a divine UNITY of eternal BEING and LIGHT. It is in this depth of infinite wonder that we realize that God is ONE. As I shared before.....an infinity of multiplicity exists within the divine Unity.

The OT does present a plurality of Deity-majesty in the name of 'Elohim' and so even though God is always ONE Deity-Being....even within Him...there may exist a heirarchy of celestial/divine beings who make up a holy community or reigning godhood. It is this higher collective that is referred to as 'us' in certain passages in the OT. ex: 'let us make man in our own image and likeness', 'who will go for us?', etc. Jews have their own understanding/interpretation of these verses relating to Elohim...and of course many christians attribute these references to the Trinity. Just perspectives.

paul

paul

[shunyadragon]

shunya,

You appear to have 'issues' with 3 entities/persons making up one Deity. Also it appears you do not hold that Jesus is God, or the God-Man. Yes, these are very wonderful and curious doctrines within Christianity.

I shared my view that the Trinity is conceptual; of course its doctrinal to whoever considers it doctrine, or 'orthodox' or whatever. Because I see this as more a conceptual purview of Deity or a God-head organization....I can better see the 3 as manifestations/aspects/ementations..... without so much stressing them as being 3 persons or entities. I would see the concept of there being manifestations of God as opposed to persons who are each a god or God within a Godhead or Trinity.....as being more kin to your own traditional views. With this in mind....Jesus may have been a manifestation of God in his generation/dispensation. Likewise...Baha'u'llah was a manifestation of God in his generation. I gather however that in your view....these manifestations were not God Himself in fullness or perfection...but only radiant stars of his divine light/wisdom/love. As we view God and contemplate His glory....we come into the enormity of His Infinite Fullness....a divine UNITY of eternal BEING and LIGHT. It is in this depth of infinite wonder that we realize that God is ONE. As I shared before.....an infinity of multiplicity exists within the divine Unity.

You are correct on my my views and objections. The fullness of perfect is in the word and the manifestation of God of BEING and LIGHT reflected in the messiah, not the flesh. There is a not so subtle line between the doctrinal and conceptual belief in the trinity. At times in the past, and even now in some churches, you would be condemned or worse for making such statements, as have people been in the past.

A few simple words do change the doctrinal to the conceptual, as in ' . . . an infinity of manifestation of multiplicity exist within the DIVINE UNITY.' The conceptual becomes universally acceptable to many outside Christianity. I have discussed this with Jews, Moslems and others, and found that they do not object to this conceptual worldview of the trinity presented in the Baha'i Faith. On the other hand it is rejected outright by most Christians, because it does not meet the test of doctrine, orthodoxy, or whatever.

The OT does present a plurality of Deity-majesty in the name of 'Elohim' and so even though God is always ONE Deity-Being....even within Him...there may exist a heirarchy of celestial/divine beings who make up a holy community or reigning godhood. It is this higher collective that is referred to as 'us' in certain passages in the OT. ex: 'let us make man in our own image and likeness', 'who will go for us?', etc. Jews have their own understanding/interpretation of these verses relating to Elohim...and of course many christians attribute these references to the Trinity. Just perspectives.

I realize that many Christians interpret these to mean the Trinity, but they are far from the original text meaning of the Hebrew. I do not believe that Elohim and 'us' should be used to refer to Gods. This has been debated many times in detail on this site and others, and most scholars in Hebrew disagree. The plural interpretation has another trap. If other statments, like the wording of the ten commandments, could then could be directly interpreted as polytheism.

[freelight]

shenya,

havent looked around,...but am curious how Jews view the Elohim. Even men were called elohim and it appears to denote a plurality. Some even view Elohim as being the Father/Mother God - this represents a duality or the masculine/feminine aspects of the ONE - so,...why does a text speaking for God use terms like 'us'? - This clearly implies a collective or plurality of being. no? If so...how is this reconciled within a monotheistic purview? There are some who conjecture that some ancient hebrews were originally henotheistic or even more expressly polytheistic at particularly times in their history.

paul

[Dracula Girl]

Quoting the NT and references like the LaHaye prophecy Bible do not support Isaiah in the OT. Your references suporting the translation as meaning 'virgin' are not correct. The word most defintely means 'young woman' and not a 'virgin' as debated on other threads on Tweb. It is used in the context of a young women that is definitely not a virgin elsewhere in the OT and traditionally in Hebrew. I will come back with more on this, and refer you to a thread that deals with this in detail.

I'm working on more of a reply. Is the young woman that you were referring to Dinah? The one who was raped?

[shunyadragon]

I'm working on more of a reply. Is the young woman that you were referring to Dinah? The one who was raped?

I believe Dinah is one reference, but there are two problems. The first is the interpretation of the passage to refer to a 'virgin'. The second, which is equally important is the interpretation of the meaning of the whole chapter, which most definitely is not messianic.

[shunyadragon]

shenya,

havent looked around,...but am curious how Jews view the Elohim. Even men were called elohim and it appears to denote a plurality. Some even view Elohim as being the Father/Mother God - this represents a duality or the masculine/feminine aspects of the ONE - so,...why does a text speaking for God use terms like 'us'? - This clearly implies a collective or plurality of being. no? If so...how is this reconciled within a monotheistic purview? There are some who conjecture that some ancient hebrews were originally henotheistic or even more expressly polytheistic at particularly times in their history.

paul

I checked out the following website Jewish Encyclopedia.com and found a rather long and very good section on God. I found it difficult to try and take out one part and answer the questions. I made a file on it in my computer so that I could study it in more detail. You may wish to take a look.

In summary the file depicts an evolving concept of God in Judaic traditions and scripture citing different influences. It basically rejects the polytheistic view of Elohim, but seems to acknowledge early polytheistic influences in Judaic history. I agree with this description for the most part.

There are indeed two major different views of the history of God. One religious and one from the view of the anthropologist. In a way from the Baha'i point of view find them compatable. All cultures of the world evolve spiritually and culturally, independently by the archeological evidence. The evidence indicates the following factors in this evolution.

(1) From animism, nature worship to polytheism to monotheism.
(2) From animist to Human Gods as Kings and anthropomorphic God or Gods to the unknowable God without form that in someway reveals and relates to human and worldly destiny.
(3) Animal and human sacrifice to cerimonial and symbolic sacrifice.
(4) Polygamy (polygyny?) to monogamy.
(5) Nomadic communalism to agricultural tribalism to Kingdoms to Empires to Nations and then to maybe Globalism and beyond?
(6) Some cultures evolved into slave owning cultures and later give up slavery. Some cultures like the Vedic-Buddhist cultures never owned slaves.

From the Baha'i worldview humanity evolves and matures spiritually, culturally and physically as a natural part of the cyclic evolution of creation and revelation which in turns is reflected in the evolution of our world and existence. There is a birth, life and death of everything in this cyclic Divine nature of existence. The evolution we see in the evidence is Divinely directed in the Baha'i worldview.

[kofh2u]

Manifestations in different forms of the One God, whether 3 to 144,000, occurs throughout the OT and many religions with no problem, but three seperate entities including and incarnate God, that is a unique Christian doctrine, though it has similarities and paralells in other Roman and Greek religious beliefs.


You surely may chose to do this as tradional Christians do, but it has no consistent coherent foundation in the OT.


This is self-defining doctrine within traditional Christianity by Rome and Paulist beliefs, without a foundation in the OT. It indeed does jeoperdize the essential Unity of God when a Human being is considered a perfect God on earth.


As far as 'persons' in the Trinity go . . . they are defined as three seperate entities or persons, God the Son, God the Spirit and God the Father. This is not a conceptual view, it is a doctrinal view.


'. . . as such has already existed for centuries.', does not lend credence to the doctrine of the trinity. The concept of God or the 'Source' being One and absolutely indivisible, and manifest in different forms has been around for thousands of years longer in both the east and the west.

Shuny...

What is left out, not addressed in this idea of Triniy is the promise of Christ.

What all other teachings, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, etc, leave out and only the Hebrew Scriptures bring to the world you miss.

What is circumvented by Christianity, traditionally and in Middle Ages Orthodoxy is beyond the weak, the insignificant, and the misleading limited idea of Trinity as it is preached.

You emphasize this by what you sayelow:
"As far as 'PERSONS' in the Trinity go . . . they are defined as three seperate entities or PERSONS, God the Son, God the Spirit and God the Father."

What you leave out is God, us.

"We all have the power to become the son of God."


NOW before indignation confuses everyone with a little explanation, the overview, the big picture IS that the right dpirit, the correct personal attitude, the Holy Spirit enter into each of us and we become by such conversion new creatures who are, who have the power to change, in a twinkling into sons of God.

God, the Father of all, is Theistic in his transcendence of the material universe, God, the invisible hand, is Spirit, pantheistically apparent in his actions in the materially Universe, and God, the Son, is Immanent, within the mind of men who are his evolving sons.

YHVH is becoming spiritually within the kingdom of man's mind.

[endy]

The word of God was manifest in the flesh, not God. Read chapter 5 of John. Jesus Christ was not God incarnate. What ever you quote of Paul or interpreted descriptions you have to go back to Christ's own words in chapter 5 of John.

Shunyadragon you are referring to john 5:19 as the
father is speaking to another body but let us look
deeply to scriptures

Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath;
I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of
this world.
Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die
in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye
shall die in your sins.
Joh 8:25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And
Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto
you from the beginning.
Joh 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of
you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the
world those things which I have heard of him.
Joh 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of
the Father.

Here we can see when Jesus spoke to them that He is
the father so that they didn`t understand. He is also
from above but you & me are from dust.

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the
Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long
time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how
sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Joh 14:10 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, he doeth the works.

What was speaking when He said?Have I been so long
time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?


A question arises in that How can be the Son as well
as the father?

The Son mean the one they see at the time of his
ministry & the father is the spirit which we can not
touch, see etc

So The Son is the Flesh & the father is the spirit
which dwells in the flesh.

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily.

Rev 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
you all. Amen.