Oneness or Trinity

[Litos]

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?:eek:

[shunyadragon]

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?:eek:
Because, there is not one God and three (persons?). There is one and only one God, indivisible and undefinable by human comprehension, logic or reasoning.

[seer]

There is one and only one God, indivisible and undefinable by human comprehension, logic or reasoning.

So I guess that means that we can not know if God is loving or not? Sheesh Shuny - make up your mind.

[seer]

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?:eek:

Three persons, one essence. But I never had a real problem with oneness - I suspect that it is pretty close to the truth...

[shunyadragon]

There is one and only one God, indivisible and undefinable by human comprehension, logic or reasoning.

So I guess that means that we can not know if God is loving or not? Sheesh Shuny - make up your mind.Sheesh! Seer, you are misquoting me again. I have always said that one of God's attributes is love revealed to humanity through his revelation and created innately in humanity.

Yes, Seer God is a loving God. Our differences are worked out in detail in many threads.

[Jawa Man]

Really the idea of the Trinity, although only vaguely spoken of in the Bible (in fact, you could assume they're all just one from the Bible alone) is promoted in the traditions of the Church. Here is a weblink to the construction of the Athanasian Creed and its contents, which speaks of the Trinity: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

I believe the first person to actually use the word Trinity was Tertullian, back around the early 200s iirc. Tertullian also argues against those who believe the Trinity is one person, saying that they are three. I got the following stuff from catholic.com:

"While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 [A.D. 216]).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe, now, that I say the Father is other [distinct], and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other.
. . . I say this, however, out of necessity, since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame person" (ibid. 9:1).

I believe in the accuracy over generations of oral traditions of ancient society, and I believe that after only 170 years a tradition such as this would not be able to get in to replace a different version without a ton of conflict. I mean, how could these heretics be considered heretics unless they were branching from already established thought? This is evidence that Tertullian did not make it up, but rather fought for it.

The logic behind the Trinity, though, cannot be understood fully, because it is beyond logic. The Church believes that God exists in Three Persons, but Two of these Persons proceed from One for eternity, because God is beyond time. Here's an example. Look at fire, for example. Fire is always giving off heat and is always giving off light, and nothing can stop that unless the fire goes out. This is like the Trinity. The Father produces the Son and the Spirit, and will never stop doing so. So they are all One, but are all separate in a sense. This is still really deep, though, and I may even have said too much. If I did, I hope it wasn't against the doctrine.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=JawaMan]Really the idea of the Trinity, although only vaguely spoken of in the Bible (in fact, you could assume they're all just one from the Bible alone) . . .

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not as vague as your statement 'So they are all One, but are all separate in a sense.'. I, believing in the absolute Oneness of God, could hypothetically express the nature of God's relationship to humanity and creation in three ways in a sense, but that of course, does not reflect the claim of the Doctrine of the Trinity in traditional Christianity.

[seer]

Sheesh! Seer, you are misquoting me again. I have always said that one of God's attributes is love revealed to humanity through his revelation and created innately in humanity.

Yes, Seer God is a loving God. Our differences are worked out in detail in many threads.

But you are still making the same claim: "There is one and only one God, indivisible and undefinable by human comprehension, logic or reasoning."

If God is beyond human comprehension, then how can you say ANYTHING true about Him - like He is loving? It makes no sense...

[shunyadragon]

But you are still making the same claim: "There is one and only one God, indivisible and undefinable by human comprehension, logic or reasoning."

If God is beyond human comprehension, then how can you say ANYTHING true about Him - like He is loving? It makes no sense...No problem, God is unknowable and undefinable, but he reveals his love to humanity through his revelation, and like most reasonable people of all religions admit, God remains in part hidden. We have covered this turf many times.

Good analogy - When parents raise their children they show their love, compassion and caring attributes to their children, but they do not reveal their innerself to the children, the core remains hidden. This in no way detracts from the care and deep love the parents show their children, or make it less real. In fact, if even part of the inner core reality of the parents is revealed to the children it is often too much for them to bear.

[Jawa Man]

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not as vague as your statement 'So they are all One, but are all separate in a sense.'. I, believing in the absolute Oneness of God, could hypothetically express the nature of God's relationship to humanity and creation in three ways in a sense, but that of course, does not reflect the claim of the Doctrine of the Trinity in traditional Christianity.
I didn't claim to expound on more than a 'vague' statement on the Trinity. Since I never claimed that I was really prying into the doctrine beyond what is 'vague', I think you may be attacking a strawman. I explained the doctrine as simply as I could think of it.

[shunyadragon]

I didn't claim to expound on more than a 'vague' statement on the Trinity. Since I never claimed that I was really prying into the doctrine beyond what is 'vague', I think you may be attacking a strawman. I explained the doctrine as simply as I could think of it.
The strawman can be a legitimate challenge in logic. Your use of 'in a sense', opens the door and does conotate a vagueness that does not reflect the Doctrine of the Trinity regardless of what you were trying to do. Vagueness does not equate to simplicity.

Because of the historical lateness of the doctrine and the vaste disagreement among early church leaders (many of which lost their heads), the doctrine is weak at best.

[seer]

No problem, God is unknowable and undefinable, but he reveals his love to humanity through his revelation, and like most reasonable people of all religions admit, God remains in part hidden. We have covered this turf many times.

Good analogy - When parents raise their children they show their love, compassion and caring attributes to their children, but they do not reveal their innerself to the children, the core remains hidden. This in no way detracts from the care and deep love the parents show their children, or make it less real. In fact, if even part of the inner core reality of the parents is revealed to the children it is often too much for them to bear.

But the love and caring is part of the inner core of the parent. And that is knowable and definiable. Just as it is with God. You could say that all of God is not known or hidden, but you must also say that much of what God is, is quite known and understandable.

[shunyadragon]

No problem, God is unknowable and undefinable, but he reveals his love to humanity through his revelation, and like most reasonable people of all religions admit, God remains in part hidden. We have covered this turf many times.

Good analogy - When parents raise their children they show their love, compassion and caring attributes to their children, but they do not reveal their innerself to the children, the core remains hidden. This in no way detracts from the care and deep love the parents show their children, or make it less real. In fact, if even part of the inner core reality of the parents is revealed to the children it is often too much for them to bear.

But the love and caring is part of the inner core of the parent. And that is knowable and definiable. Just as it is with God. You could say that all of God is not known or hidden, but you must also say that much of what God is, is quite known and understandable.
The analogy flew right by your superficial thinking. It is knowable as I have said before, but onlly through the attributes revealed to humanity. God is not knowable, therefore we do not know what is God's core.

Check out Tomas Aquinas.

[seer]

The analogy flew right by your superficial thinking. It is knowable as I have said before, but onlly through the attributes revealed to humanity. God is not knowable, therefore we do not know what is God's core.

Check out Tomas Aquinas.

First you say that God is knowable then you say that He isn't. That makes NO sense Shuny. Is God loving or not? Is love at His core? Or is hate at His core? How would you know?

[ekklesias]

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?:eek:

This may sound simple to you but the way that I look at it there are things in this existance that I will never be able to understand, my not understanding does not change the truth of these things, if my little human brain could understand God would He even be worthy of my worship? Here is my best shot at understanding though, someone once explained it to me like this--if you have a apple (or cherry, or peach take your pick) pie and you slice it into three slices together it is one pie, seperate them and put them on different plates and what do you have? You still have apple pie but in a slightly different form, three different forms all containing elements of the whole.
Clearer? Probably not but this is the best my little blonde head can do.


[/QUOTE]
JawaMan Really the idea of the Trinity, although only vaguely spoken of in the Bible (in fact, you could assume they're all just one from the Bible alone) is promoted in the traditions of the Church. [/QUOTE]

In John 14:16 Jesus says " I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever."

I prefer to follow Jesus Himself then the traditions of the church for I feel that their are quite a few things that the traditions have gotten wrong. Jesus himself said not to hold to vain traditions over the truth of scripture and in the above verse we have Jesus recognizing not only God but also the holy spirit (helper, comforter) who had not been reveled yet, so no I can not assume from the Bible alone that they are one for He clearly reveals three personnas. As for understanding it all I must claim ignorance because no I don't necessarily understand it but I think with a little human brain and lets face it He is God. One day all will be explained and we will understand but until them I am comfortable in the knowledge that I can not understand all things (shoot I'm still trying to figure out how that 9 foot tall tomatoe plant came out of that itty bitty seed that I planted, that will keep me busy for a while!).

[Jawa Man]

In John 14:16 Jesus says " I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever."
If you read the text without any previous knowledge of the Trinity, you would probably not conclude that Jesus is claiming a Trinity here. You would conclude that Jesus would ask the Father to send the Helper; that's really it, because that's all the text tells us.

I prefer to follow Jesus Himself then the traditions of the church
Who can say that Jesus does not preserve these traditions through the Church?

for I feel that their are quite a few things that the traditions have gotten wrong.
I don't agree with you because I think to go against the collective mind of the Church, thinking we have it right 2000 years after Christ spoke, is kind of arrogant. That's why a huge plague in Protestantism is personal Papism.

Jesus himself said not to hold to vain traditions over the truth of scripture
Jesus never spoke against tradition, only tradition that was followed even if it meant violating the Law. The traditions of the Church, we believe, are not vain, but from the revelation of Jesus Christ.

and in the above verse we have Jesus recognizing not only God but also the holy spirit (helper, comforter) who had not been reveled yet, so no I can not assume from the Bible alone that they are one for He clearly reveals three personnas.
Don't you think that this isn't enough to show they are separated? In my opinion, I believe it is neither for nor against the Trinity.

[ekklesias]

[/QUOTE]JawaMan
If you read the text without any previous knowledge of the Trinity, you would probably not conclude that Jesus is claiming a Trinity here. You would conclude that Jesus would ask the Father to send the Helper; that's really it, because that's all the text tells us. [/QUOTE]


This is why we must study the Word in context and compare scripture to scritpture.

[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with you because I think to go against the collective mind of the Church, thinking we have it right 2000 years after Christ spoke, is kind of arrogant. That's why a huge plague in Protestantism is personal Papism.[/QUOTE]

You kinda lost me here because I clearly said that I think mankind has gotten a few things wrong in the past 2,000 years

[/QUOTE]Jesus never spoke against tradition, only tradition that was followed even if it meant violating the Law. The traditions of the Church, we believe, are not vain, but from the revelation of Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]

Mark7:7-9+13
And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.

13- making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.

Matthew 15:3
But He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of you tradition?"

The pharisees were constantly trying to find fault with Jesus and part of that fault was that He did not keep their traditions. These verses clearly show that Jesus did speak against tradition and it had nothing to do with violating the law for the pharisees were not breaking the laws of their time.

[/QUOTE]Don't you think that this isn't enough to show they are separated? In my opinion, I believe it is neither for nor against the Trinity.[/QUOTE]

But when studied in context Jesus clearly claimed to be God, He claimed to have been with God from the begining, He claimed to be one with God hence when all referances are put together you get the Trinity.

[Krusader]

JawaMan
If you read the text without any previous knowledge of the Trinity, you would probably not conclude that Jesus is claiming a Trinity here. You would conclude that Jesus would ask the Father to send the Helper; that's really it, because that's all the text tells us. [/QUOTE]

This is why we must study the Word in context and compare scripture to scritpture.

[/QUOTE]I don't agree with you because I think to go against the collective mind of the Church, thinking we have it right 2000 years after Christ spoke, is kind of arrogant. That's why a huge plague in Protestantism is personal Papism.[/QUOTE]
You kinda lost me here because I clearly said that I think mankind has gotten a few things wrong in the past 2,000 years

[/QUOTE]Jesus never spoke against tradition, only tradition that was followed even if it meant violating the Law. The traditions of the Church, we believe, are not vain, but from the revelation of Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]
Mark7:7-9+13
And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.

13- making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.

Matthew 15:3
But He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of you tradition?"

The pharisees were constantly trying to find fault with Jesus and part of that fault was that He did not keep their traditions. These verses clearly show that Jesus did speak against tradition and it had nothing to do with violating the law for the pharisees were not breaking the laws of their time.

[/QUOTE]Don't you think that this isn't enough to show they are separated? In my opinion, I believe it is neither for nor against the Trinity.[/QUOTE]
But when studied in context Jesus clearly claimed to be God, He claimed to have been with God from the begining, He claimed to be one with God hence when all referances are put together you get the Trinity.[/QUOTE]

The Oneness doctrine, which is held by some heterodox groups such as the United Pentecostals and Branhamites, denies the subject/object relationship within the Godhead.

Basically, it teaches that the Father became flesh in the Son. Thus, when Jesus prayed to His father, conversed with Him, or committed his spirit into his hands, it was all a sham, since Jesus was the Father incarnate - according to the Oneness sects.

Now, it appears, that Jesus has become the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is the non-personal effluence of the Father/Jesus. In any case, the Oneness doctrine is outside the pale of Christianity and has been rejected by the Assemblies of God (where it all began in the U.S.), and has been soundly refuted by the church councils of the Catholic branch of Christianity.

[shunyadragon]

ekklesia you need to write you quote codes properly. The first [ quote] does not have a back slash "/".

If you read the text without any previous knowledge of the Trinity, you would probably not conclude that Jesus is claiming a Trinity here. You would conclude that Jesus would ask the Father to send the Helper; that's really it, because that's all the text tells us.

This is why we must study the Word in context and compare scripture to scritpture. If reading the scripture does not conclude the Trinity, then how can comparing scripture to scripture do it? It does not make sense.


But when studied in context Jesus clearly claimed to be God, He claimed to have been with God from the begining, He claimed to be one with God hence when all referances are put together you get the Trinity.I believe that Jesus clearly stated he was not God but the intermediary between humans and God. John 5:19-32 is absolutely clear and appears in some form in every gospel.

[ekklesias]

ekklesia you need to write you quote codes properly. The first [ quote] does not have a back slash "/".

If reading the scripture does not conclude the Trinity, then how can comparing scripture to scripture do it? It does not make sense.


I believe that Jesus clearly stated he was not God but the intermediary between humans and God. John 5:19-32 is absolutely clear and appears in some form in every gospel.


I'm working on the quote thing--I'm a little computer illeterate but I am getting there!!!!

In John 10:30 Jesus says "I and My Father are one."
10:38 Jesus says "but id I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father IS IN Me, and I IN Him."
John 14:7 Jesus says "If you had known Me, yu would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."
John 14:9-11 Jesus says "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am IN THE Father and the Father IN Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I AM IN the Father and the Father IN Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves"

Maybe I misinterpreted something but in the first verse Jesus clearly says I and my Father are one. In Mark 2: 5-10 some scribes got upset with Jesus and accused Him of blasphemie saying "Who can forgive sins but God Alone".

If you gleen a different understanding from Jesus own claims please share them with me. To me it sounds like He claimed to be God and He certainly acted like He was God.

[endy]

I am new one in this forum to write. hello everybody.

As to the question asked firstly we have to ask what is trinity. Trinity is The father the Son & the Holy Ghost

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

There is no other same word written in the bible like this meaning the Father the Son & the Holy Ghost as one verse. So when we continue to ask

Who is the father

The father is the Spirit

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Who is the Son The Son is the manifestation of the father.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Who is Holy Ghost He the power of God

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Mic 3:8 But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.

So clearly when we see scripture the Father is the Son as well as the Holy Ghost. Are they 3 in person ? The answer is NO. It is the manfestation of one God. In the bible there is no single word God has/have 3 persons. So God is one. Is the Son The father also? Yes.

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

[D. Medvedev Fan]

Oneness or trinity? Both actually. There is one God and three forms in which He manifests Himself. It’s kind of like I am a student, a youth group counselor, and a web-mistress at my own site. I am a friend, a sister, and a fellow club member (this is just with my brother). I can have different roles and actions and ways of relating, but I am still one person. Similarly, God relates to us in three distinct ways, but it is still Him, the one and only God. God is Jesus our Lord and Savior, our Heavenly Father, and the Holy Spirit who works in us. These are three different roles in which God relates to us, but in each, He is still God.

God is Jesus.
God the Father called the Son "God." Heb. 1:8
Paul said Jesus was God "manifested in the flesh." 1 Tim. 3:16
Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." John 10:30
The Bible said God created all things and that Jesus created all things. Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16

Is. 7:14, Isa. 9:6, Isa. 44:6, Mic. 5:2, Mt. 1:23, John. 1:1, John 5:18, John. 20:28, Col. 2:8.9, Phil. 2:5,6, Titus 2:13, Rev. 1:2,8, 11,13

God is our Heavenly Father.
John. 8:41 "The only Father we have is God Himself."
Eph. 4:6 " … one God and Father of all …"

God is the Holy Spirit.
"… you have lied to the Holy Spirit … you have not lied to men, but to God." Acts 5:3,4

Acts 28:25,26 Referring to Isaiah 6:9,10, Peter said the "Holy Spirit" spoke to the prophet Isaiah. In the book of Isaiah, it says the "Lord" spoke to the prophet Isaiah.

1 Cor. 3:16"Don’t you know you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?"

God is one God

Isa. 45:5 "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God."
Mal. 2:10 "Did not one God create us?"
Mk. 12:29 "The Lord our God, the Lord is one."
1 Tim. 2:5 "For there is one God …"
James 2:19 "You believe there is one God. Good! …"

Deut. 6:4,5, Ps. 86:10, Isaiah 44:8, Isa. 45:18,21,22, Isa. 46:9, Mk. 12:32 , 1 Cor. 8:4, Gal. 3:20,

Reference: http://www.biblehelp.org/reference_1.htm

[shunyadragon]

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?:eek:
The trinity is Greco-Roman Myth, began by Paul.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

Trinity is a word used to describe a Biblical idea that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, God the Father is God, and that there is one God. Trinity is describes part of what is in the Bible in a more efficient way that saying the whole meaning. It is scripturally supported. If you believe the Bible is true

This thread already contains references to verses that show scriptural support to the fact that Jesus is God, that the father is God, Holy Spirit is God. These three make up the three parts of the trinity. This thread contains references to verses that show scriptural support to the fact that there is one God, not two Gods or three Gods but one God. This shows that the three forms of God are one God.

The trinity is Greco-Roman Myth, began by Paul.

References to at least part of the Trinity were made in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament making it a Judeo-Christian concept expressing what has long been true.

Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

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.

(Immanuel means God is with us.)

There are no references to God as our Father because that is something that Jesus introduced. Before Him and since Adam and Eve first sinned, men have been separated from God in such a way that would not allow that kind of closeness. There are references still to God that do not refer as much to the part of Jesus or the Holy Spirit as in Exodus 3:6 Moreover He said, "I am the God of your father--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

There are many verses in both Testaments saying that there is one God, yet we read
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

A friend of mine has described the trinity as an egg.
Look at an Egg. An egg is an egg. It's one thing.

But there are 3 parts to an egg though as well. You have the yolk, the egg white and the egg shell. You can seperate all 3 from each other. They each have their purpose. But we still know that an egg cannot be an egg without having all 3 parts. Therefore, it is 3 in 1. And it is a picture to us about the nature of the Trinity.
The egg is made of three parts each with their own purpose and those parts together make one egg just like the trinity is God made of three parts each with His own purpose and the three are one God. This is the essence of the trinity.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

There is one God and three forms in which He manifests Himself. I just found my copy of Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem and was reading the part about the trinity and its references to the individual personhood of the three parts. It appears that I misrepresented the trinity according to the error of Modelism or one God in three forms, not three persons. My apologies. Grudem mentions the errors of Arianism which denies the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit (And the verses that say they are God) and also tritheism which denies that there is one God (and accordingly the verses that say that there is one God).

I wish I could explain that more. Grudem mentions that each of the three parts have the same attributes [I would think because they are each God and all God] and that the difference is in how they relate.

God is three persons, each person is fully God, and there is one God.

[endy]

Joan of Arc where in the bible is written "God is three persons, each person is fully God, and there is one God."

But the bible says

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
God is not three persons. But One person.

Your explanation of God is good. But as you interpret the scripture you are mixing up by saying One & three. That is not true. God is one not three.

The egg is made of three parts each with their own purpose and those parts together make one egg just like the trinity is God made of three parts each with His own purpose and the three are one God. This is the essence of the trinity.
How can God be related to an egg?

[shunyadragon]

Trinity is a word used to describe a Biblical idea that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, God the Father is God, and that there is one God. Trinity is describes part of what is in the Bible in a more efficient way that saying the whole meaning. It is scripturally supported. If you believe the Bible is true

This thread already contains references to verses that show scriptural support to the fact that Jesus is God, that the father is God, Holy Spirit is God. These three make up the three parts of the trinity. This thread contains references to verses that show scriptural support to the fact that there is one God, not two Gods or three Gods but one God. This shows that the three forms of God are one God.



References to at least part of the Trinity were made in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament making it a Judeo-Christian concept expressing what has long been true.
These quotes are far too vague to lend any support for a trinity. 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.



There is plenty of support for God being manifest in different forms, but none to support and incarnate God on earth and a trinity as it is in Christianity.

[endy]

shunyadragon "There is plenty of support for God being manifest in different forms, but none to support and incarnate God on earth and a trinity as it is in Christianity."

Is the one written above not clear it contradicts with the bible.

What about this

1.Heb 1:1 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
2.1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

God was manifested in flesh. Isn`t this true? Shuny

[shunyadragon]

shunyadragon "There is plenty of support for God being manifest in different forms, but none to support and incarnate God on earth and a trinity as it is in Christianity."

Is the one written above not clear it contradicts with the bible.

What about this

1.Heb 1:1 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
2.1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

God was manifested in flesh. Isn`t this true? ShunyThe 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.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

The word of God was manifest in the flesh, not God.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

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.
Jesus was not God the Father incarnate, but that said, thank you for supporting what I said about the different personhood yet same being of God. :smile:

What Jesus said supposedly makes Him equal with God. Either He is a liar, all things that say that there is one God are wrong or lying, or Jesus is God. Since you say "you have to go back to Christ's own words," then I shall assume in this instance that the option of saying that Jesus is a liar is out. Now Jesus's disciples and Jesus Himself made reference to what they considered scripture. Now going back to Jesus's words as something to be trusted, as you implied, about whether He is God or not, we can consider what He said ws scripture which is what Jews of that time also considered scripture to be accurate. Jesus would be lying or insane to have said something that would make Him equal to God while acknowledging the truth of the scriptures that say that there is one God unless He was the truth and He is God.

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
Different personhood (the Father and the Son), both God.
Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

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:

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.

"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:

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



"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".

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

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.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text) was altered between the time it was written and the time it was transcribed in the 8th or 9th century A.D.

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?:eek:
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

[D. Medvedev Fan]

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.

paulI 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.

[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.

[shunyadragon]

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.
I believe that nothing and no one is left out from any one who is sincere in his or her time and place. Revelation is a matter of relationships between the Divine and creation, not doctrine, orthodox or difined from the human perspective as is the Doctrine of the Trinity. Revelation is both innate and revealed, and it is always with us, every human on the face of the earth in its fullness for that time and place.

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."
True, it is misleading

What you leave out is God, us.

"We all have the power to become the son of God."
As above no one is left out. All humanity represents the children of God, but not the Son of God, which is the station of the messiah.

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon you are referring to john 5:19 as the
father is speaking to another body but let us look
deeply to scriptures. This is Jesus speaking, not God the Father. Jesus Christ is not schizophrenic. There is not 'another body'.

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.Jesus Christ is the Son of god in the flesh, but not God incarnate. Jesus is the Messiah and the Christ. and God is the Father and the One and only God.

[endy]

This is Jesus speaking, not God the Father. Jesus Christ is not schizophrenic. There is not 'another body'.

Jesus Christ is the Son of god in the flesh, but not God incarnate. Jesus is the Messiah and the Christ. and God is the Father and the One and only God.
Shuny you are stressing that Jesus is the Son of god but look to this

1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

No one has ever seen Jesus with his power meaning it is the father the one who dwelled on the flesh

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

[Pythagoras]

Oneness or Trinity?

How about neither?... Just a thought.

[Zeluvia]

The oneness vs trinity discussion is one of the highlights of interpretation variances in Christianity. It is one of the first attempts to reconcile and explain apparent contradictions.

It is pretty interesting. Right up there with the explanation of the existance of evil.

[themuzicman]

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?:eek:


Oneness has a problem in that they make Jesus to be bearing false witness of Himself.

In John 5, Jesus says that if He testifies of Himself, His testimony is not valid. However, a couple of verses later, He calls upon the the testimony of the Father. So, the Father and Christ must not be the same person, or Christ has violated His own words.

Michael

[Pythagoras]

Hi themuzicman,

Oneness has a problem in that they make Jesus to be bearing false witness of Himself.

In John 5, Jesus says that if He testifies of Himself, His testimony is not valid. However, a couple of verses later, He calls upon the the testimony of the Father. So, the Father and Christ must not be the same person, or Christ has violated His own words.

MichaelDon't you(and others on this thread) understand?... If 'oneness' is false , then so is 'trinity' ; both concepts essentially stipulate the same thing,that Christ is God the 'Father'; whether God[the 'Father'] as a three in one being , or God[the 'Father'] as a one in one being. -- therein lies the logical fallacy of both ideas.

Also, If "the 'Father' and 'Christ' are not the same person",as you mantain, then we have at least two Gods.

In other words , either both trinity and oneness must be true or both must be false. Since both cannot be true at the same time, must we therefore conclude the two ideas false/defunct?

The trinity doctrine makes God[the 'Father'] to have Multiple Personality Disorder , the oneness theory makes God[the 'Father'] a Schizophreniac.


Good Luck,.

[themuzicman]

Hi themuzicman,

Don't you(and others on this thread) understand?... If 'oneness' is false , then so is 'trinity' ; both concepts essentially stipulate the same thing,that Christ is God the 'Father'; whether God[the 'Father'] as a three in one being , or God[the 'Father'] as a one in one being. -- therein lies the logical fallacy of both ideas.

Also, If "the 'Father' and 'Christ' are not the same person",as you mantain, then we have at least two Gods.

In other words , either both trinity and oneness must be true or both must be false. Since both cannot be true at the same time, must we therefore conclude the two ideas false/defunct?

The trinity doctrine makes God[the 'Father'] to have Multiple Personality Disorder , the oneness theory makes God[the 'Father'] a Schizophreniac.


Good Luck,.

I disagree entirely. You're trying to assign human and created attributes to the uncreated, infinite God. Were God finite, you might have a point, but He is not.

The clear understanding of the trinity is One God in essense, with three persons. We aren't going to fully understand what is clear from scripture, but what IS clear is that 'oneness' theology fails in John 5.

Michael

[shunyadragon]

Hi themuzicman,

Don't you(and others on this thread) understand?... If 'oneness' is false , then so is 'trinity' ; both concepts essentially stipulate the same thing,that Christ is God the 'Father'; whether God[the 'Father'] as a three in one being , or God[the 'Father'] as a one in one being. -- therein lies the logical fallacy of both ideas.

Also, If "the 'Father' and 'Christ' are not the same person",as you mantain, then we have at least two Gods.

In other words , either both trinity and oneness must be true or both must be false. Since both cannot be true at the same time, must we therefore conclude the two ideas false/defunct?

The trinity doctrine makes God[the 'Father'] to have Multiple Personality Disorder , the oneness theory makes God[the 'Father'] a Schizophreniac.


Good Luck,.
This only fails with the assumption the Jesus Christ is God. The consistent theology of the OT is that God is one and inseperable and unknowable except for what is revealed. God is manifest in different forms and one form is the Word of God, The messiah is the annointed one, the spokesperson for God's Word. The messiah is not God, and has no power or authority of Himself, except what God wills Him to do. This is consistent with the OT and John 5, and I believe consistent with other references to what Christ said in the NT. What is said by Paul and others must be interpreted in light of this.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny you are stressing that Jesus is the Son of god but look to this

1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

No one has ever seen Jesus with his power meaning it is the father the one who dwelled on the flesh

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.These are quotes from letters by Paul and they are not conclusive evidence to support your claim, because they must be interpreted in light of Christ's words. Christ's own words are a primary source, Paul is secondary. You are failing to address John 5 in important points brought up by themuzicman from the following post.

In John 5, Jesus says that if He testifies of Himself, His testimony is not valid. However, a couple of verses later, He calls upon the the testimony of the Father. So, the Father and Christ must not be the same person, or Christ has violated His own words.The only way this is not contradictory is if the whole Bible is considered as in the following I posted in responce to a post by Pythagoras.

"This only fails with the assumption the Jesus Christ is God. The consistent theology of the OT is that God is one and inseperable and unknowable except for what is revealed. God is manifest in different forms and one form is the Word of God, The messiah is the annointed one, the spokesperson for God's Word. The messiah is not God, and has no power or authority of Himself, except what God wills Him to do. This is consistent with the OT and John 5, and I believe consistent with other references to what Christ said in the NT. What is said by Paul and others must be interpreted in light of this."

The trinity also contradicts the scripture in that it considers the three as equal and this just does not work.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Shuny,



I disagree entirely. You're trying to assign human and created attributes to the uncreated, infinite God.
The bible describes Christ[God in your view] by assigning human and created attributes to him--it calls Christ bread of life, the true vine, the good shepherd, the light of the world etc. And even in the OT God is sometimes described using created attributes. Besides you yourself have been using logic[a created attribute] to prove your point of view.


Were God finite, you might have a point, but He is not.Why would God being infinite make my point null ?Infinity is after all a created attribute.


The clear understanding of the trinity is One God in essense, with three persons.But this trinity idea is full of logical inconsistencies..


We aren't going to fully understand what is clear from scriptureThe trinity is not clear . Infact many claim it does not even exist in scripture.


but what IS clear is that 'oneness' theology fails in John 5.
But the trinity fares no better.

[endy]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon]These are quotes from letters by Paul and they are not conclusive evidence to support your claim, because they must be interpreted in light of Christ's words. Christ's own words are a primary source, Paul is secondary. You are failing to address John 5 in important points brought up by themuzicman from the following post.

In the bible there is no word that says this is primary or this secondary. Scripture interprets scripture. I gave you verse that describe that Jesus has the power. You said He has no power. No answer.

Again I gave you God Is spirit & this God dwellth in the flesh. No answer.

As to John 5 the spirit is the witness of the flesh. No answer. Why don`t you bring God`s word? Make clear your position.

Your words must have confidence on the bible not of your understanding. Because philosophically you can interpret as your spirit leads you not as the bible says.

[endy]

Oneness has a problem in that they make Jesus to be bearing false witness of Himself.

In John 5, Jesus says that if He testifies of Himself, His testimony is not valid. However, a couple of verses later, He calls upon the the testimony of the Father. So, the Father and Christ must not be the same person, or Christ has violated His own words.

Michael Wrong thoughts. The Father dwells in his own flesh. Because bible says
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Again

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

In Christ the fullness of the Godhead bodily dwelleth. The Spirit of Jesus is in the flesh. One body.

Plus

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The Father of the child is Holy Ghost. Meaning the Spirit of the child is God`s spirit. Is this wrong understanding? I don`t think so.

[shunyadragon]

These are quotes from letters by Paul and they are not conclusive evidence to support your claim, because they must be interpreted in light of Christ's words. Christ's own words are a primary source, Paul is secondary. You are failing to address John 5 in important points brought up by themuzicman from the following post.
In the bible there is no word that says this is primary or this secondary. Scripture interprets scripture. I gave you verse that describe that Jesus has the power. You said He has no power. No answer.
I believe Christ's words take presidence over Paul. Yes I have answered. According to John 5 and Christ's own word he does not have the power, God does.

Again I gave you God Is spirit & this God dwellth in the flesh. No answer.

As to John 5 the spirit is the witness of the flesh. No answer. Why don`t you bring God`s word? Make clear your position.
God can dwellth where ever he choses, and manifest as He choses. There is still one and only one God, and Jesus Christ is not God.

My position is very clear Jesus Christ is the messiah the son of God. He is not God. He has no power or authority of His own he soeaks the Word of God, not His word. He has no power or authority of His own. If we bear witness to Him our witness is false.

Your words must have confidence on the bible not of your understanding. Because philosophically you can interpret as your spirit leads you not as the bible says.
If you take that attitude spirits can lead you and mislead you in many directions if you ignore the word of the Bible. That is one of the reason we have so many churches. Philisophically? Woooo! And not as the Bible says!! You are going far a field. I doubt few Christians would agree with you.

[endy]

I believe Christ's words take presidence over Paul. Yes I have answered. According to John 5 and Christ's own word he does not have the power, God does.


God can dwellth where ever he choses, and manifest as He choses. There is still one and only one God, and Jesus Christ is not God.

You have said God can dwellth whereever he chooses. Yes is the answer. But what you are denying is God dwelled in his own flesh that is Christ. Look at this verse.

Isa 59:15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
Isa 59:16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.
Isa 59:17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.
Isa 59:18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompense to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompense.
This is clearly pointing to Jesus. To his own Flesh. Because God cannot find an intercessor. So his arm brought salvation unto him that is to us. then He pays "fury to his adversaries, recompense to his enemies;"
Plus

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

What about now do you deny?

[shunyadragon]

You have said God can dwellth whereever he chooses. Yes is the answer. But what you are denying is God dwelled in his own flesh that is Christ. Look at this verse.

Isa 59:15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
Isa 59:16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.
Isa 59:17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.
Isa 59:18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompense to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompense.
This is clearly pointing to Jesus. To his own Flesh. Because God cannot find an intercessor. So his arm brought salvation unto him that is to us. then He pays "fury to his adversaries, recompense to his enemies;"
Plus

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

What about now do you deny?
I deny Jesus Christ is God, based Christ's own words. God choses to dwell within Christ, but Christ is not God.

[endy]

I deny Jesus Christ is God, based Christ's own words. God choses to dwell within Christ, but Christ is not God. Ok if you deny Jesus is not God. So the scripture says about denying

1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit who confesses that Yeshua the Messiah has come in the flesh is of God,
1Jo 4:3 and every spirit who doesn't confess that Yeshua the Messiah has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the anti-messiah, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.

From where does the Messiah comes in flesh. From heaven. THe one you don`t believe. How can God dwell in Christ unless & otherwise the Word of God become flesh which is the Son. May be you can say I believe in Messiah so that I do have God but the Messiah comes from above which is God.

Eph 4:10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.
This is Jesus Christ no other thing which you are denying.

[shunyadragon]

Ok if you deny Jesus is not God. So the scripture says about denying

1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit who confesses that Yeshua the Messiah has come in the flesh is of God,
1Jo 4:3 and every spirit who doesn't confess that Yeshua the Messiah has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the anti-messiah, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.

From where does the Messiah comes in flesh. From heaven. THe one you don`t believe. How can God dwell in Christ unless & otherwise the Word of God become flesh which is the Son. May be you can say I believe in Messiah so that I do have God but the Messiah comes from above which is God.

Eph 4:10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.
This is Jesus Christ no other thing which you are denying.Please not that the quote in John 4:2 says, 'is of God and not is God', which agrees with my belief and not the absurd Greco-Roman Doctrine of trinity.

Your quotes support my belief. 'Christ is of God', and most definitely not, 'is God.'

[stabalizer]

Please not that the quote in John 4:2 says, 'is of God and not is God', which agrees with my belief and not the absurd Greco-Roman Doctrine of trinity.

Your quotes support my belief. 'Christ is of God', and most definitely not, 'is God.'

I don't know if this helps but;

I believe God is triune, but not three people

1) Isa 43:10-12

2)Jn 14:21-23

Does the born-again person become three people upon receiving the Holy Spirit?

iow What is being applied to Jesus (Three in one) Can it be applied to self?

I am at peace understanding 1st Jn 5:7 as the definitive expression of the Godhead.

[sonofyah]

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?:eek:

First I would like to say the term "trinity" is not scriptural but there are three that are in heaven...

Mat 22:29- Yahoshua says that you do error NOT knowing the scriptures, nor the power of Elohim

Your problem starts with the word God. God is a terrible substitution for Elohim. Elohim means MIGHTY ONES. Gen 1:1 says In the begining ELOHIM created the heavens and the Earth...not God. We know that ALL three were there in the begining because scripture proves that nothing came into existance without Yahoshua (Emmanuel-means ELOHIM that is with us) and Gen 1:2 says the SPIRIT moved across the waters(thats the Ruach Hachodesh). John 1:1 says in the BEGINING was the "WORD"...verse 14 says the WORD was made flesh. Yahoshua was the word that became flesh that was here in the begining.

The problem is not in the choice of words people use today and we need to study more on our own instead of taking mans word for what goes on in the scriptures.

I believe that Jesus is God Manifested in the flesh, God became flesh.

There is nothing in scripture that confirms this. My advise to you is study. Read Rev. 5 CLEARLY lets you know that the father and the son are two different entities. Yahoshua is the Word made flesh not God made flesh. God is the name of a German Deity (look this up) know where in scripture does YHWH call himself GOD. YHWH appears 6823 times in scripture and the only correct transliteration is I AM THAT I AM not God. Everytime you see "LORD" YHWH was substituted and everytime you see God, ELOHIM is should be there. When you see LORD God there it should be writen YHWH Elohim.

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 NOT SCRIPTURAL...so whoever told you this is not your friend they are liars.

YHWH is Elohim the Father
Yahoshua is Emmanuel-Elohim that is with us
Ruach Hachodesh is the HOLY SPIRIT

[sonofyah]

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?:eek:

First I would like to say the term "trinity" is not scriptural but there are three that are in heaven...

Mat 22:29- Yahoshua says that you do error NOT knowing the scriptures, nor the power of Elohim

Your problem starts with the word God. God is a terrible substitution for Elohim. Elohim means MIGHTY ONES. Gen 1:1 says In the begining ELOHIM created the heavens and the Earth...not God. We know that ALL three were there in the begining because scripture proves that nothing came into existance without Yahoshua (Emmanuel-means ELOHIM that is with us) and Gen 1:2 says the SPIRIT moved across the waters(thats the Ruach Hachodesh). John 1:1 says in the BEGINING was the "WORD"...verse 14 says the WORD was made flesh. Yahoshua was the word that became flesh that was here in the begining.

The problem is in the choice of words people use today and we need to study more on our own instead of taking mans word for what goes on in the scriptures.

I believe that Jesus is God Manifested in the flesh, God became flesh.

There is nothing in scripture that confirms this. My advise to you is study. Read Rev. 5 CLEARLY lets you know that the father and the son are two different entities. Yahoshua is the Word made flesh not God made flesh. God is the name of a German Deity (look this up) know where in scripture does YHWH call himself GOD. YHWH appears 6823 times in scripture and the only correct transliteration is I AM THAT I AM not God. Everytime you see "LORD" YHWH was substituted and everytime you see God, ELOHIM is should be there. When you see LORD God there it should be writen YHWH Elohim.

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 NOT SCRIPTURAL...so whoever told you this is not your friend they are liars.

YHWH is Elohim the Father
Yahoshua is Emmanuel-Elohim that is with us
Ruach Hachodesh is the HOLY SPIRIT

[Krusader]

Sonofyah: I agree with you, the Trinity is taught in Scripture. However, can't you just use English, or are you posting from Israel?

You said:

"YHWH is Elohim the Father
Yahoshua is Emmanuel-Elohim that is with us
Ruach Hachodesh is the HOLY SPIRIT"

Let me tell you, friend, the use of Hebrew doesn't make you a better Christian, nor is it expected of Gentiles. Are you a Hebrew Christian? If not, why post in Hebrew?

[shunyadragon]

I don't know if this helps but;

I believe God is triune, but not three people

1) Isa 43:10-12

2)Jn 14:21-23

Does the born-again person become three people upon receiving the Holy Spirit?

iow What is being applied to Jesus (Three in one) Can it be applied to self?

I am at peace understanding 1st Jn 5:7 as the definitive expression of the Godhead.

I do not think God is a person, therefore it would not be 'three people', or Jesus Christ is God, but traditional it is; God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son. A belief in a triune nature, who not necessarily refer to three Gods in One as above. A triune nature could refer to how God is manifest as God, the Spirit and the Word.

[freelight]

I do not think God is a person, therefore it would not be 'three people', or Jesus Christ is God, but traditional it is; God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son. A belief in a triune nature, who not necessarily refer to three Gods in One as above. A triune nature could refer to how God is manifest as God, the Spirit and the Word.


Indeed that God is One is the Original State/Nature/Being of Deity - this Unity of Being precedes all duality or multiplicity and maintains Itself in their appearance.




paul

[stabalizer]

I do not think God is a person, therefore it would not be 'three people', or Jesus Christ is God, but traditional it is; God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son. A belief in a triune nature, who not necessarily refer to three Gods in One as above. A triune nature could refer to how God is manifest as God, the Spirit and the Word.

1st Jn 5:7 There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one. (inseparable)

It's comparative to 1st Jn 5:8. (three in earth agree)

Jn 14:23 Do you become three people when the Father and I take up residence in you? Also does the, "us" in vs 22 mean, "me".?

Isa 43 speaks for itself.

It's a divisive issue at best, but God took up residence in the ressurrected body of Jesus that saw no corruption. God 's new temple, made w/o hands.

God is a person. His name is Jesus.

[shunyadragon]

First I would like to say the term "trinity" is not scriptural but there are three that are in heaven...

Mat 22:29- Yahoshua says that you do error NOT knowing the scriptures, nor the power of Elohim

Your problem starts with the word God. God is a terrible substitution for Elohim. Elohim means MIGHTY ONES. Gen 1:1 says In the begining ELOHIM created the heavens and the Earth...not God. We know that ALL three were there in the begining because scripture proves that nothing came into existance without Yahoshua (Emmanuel-means ELOHIM that is with us) and Gen 1:2 says the SPIRIT moved across the waters(thats the Ruach Hachodesh). John 1:1 says in the BEGINING was the "WORD"...verse 14 says the WORD was made flesh. Yahoshua was the word that became flesh that was here in the begining.

The problem is in the choice of words people use today and we need to study more on our own instead of taking mans word for what goes on in the scriptures.



There is nothing in scripture that confirms this. My advise to you is study. Read Rev. 5 CLEARLY lets you know that the father and the son are two different entities. Yahoshua is the Word made flesh not God made flesh. God is the name of a German Deity (look this up) know where in scripture does YHWH call himself GOD. YHWH appears 6823 times in scripture and the only correct transliteration is I AM THAT I AM not God. Everytime you see "LORD" YHWH was substituted and everytime you see God, ELOHIM is should be there. When you see LORD God there it should be writen YHWH Elohim.



THIS IS NOT SCRIPTURAL...so whoever told you this is not your friend they are liars.

YHWH is Elohim the Father
Yahoshua is Emmanuel-Elohim that is with us
Ruach Hachodesh is the HOLY SPIRIT

I do not believe Elohim should be translated to MIGHTY ONES. It is a plural form of a noun used with singular verbs and adjective to signify something eternal, grand, mighty, extensive in extent. The use is with different nouns as with English. Both the Hebrew and English words for heavens and waters are used in a similar matter as in English - the waters of the Atlantic, and the heavens above.