The Trinity
- Thread starter JustHisKid
- Start date
donfish06
May The Lord Richly Bless You
This is where your trinity understanding fails you. You view the Son of God as Jesus. Jesus was the created body that the Father dwelt in, making Jesus God. Jesus was not God eternal. The spirit IN Jesus upon his Baptism was the Eternal God. I have already explained the relationship of the Father and the Son, which you said you agree with, but you show here that you do not. There is no such thing as an eternal son, or an eternal word. A son had to come from a father, and a word has to come from a thought. Trinitarians make use English words but give them different meanings.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
hum...so now we are using more semantics to make an issue of eternal even though eternal is the word used in scripture to describe the children of God? I John 5:13 and many others....
Eternal is like a line, it has no beginning or end and yet we are described as being eternal when in fact, we are a ray, a starting point without an ending point. Buy you and some others, think that God is about semantics and therefore can't accept what scripture says because it would be counter to the intellect you come to the table with. How sad that you cannot just take scripture at it's word and instead rely on what the teachers have taught you.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
what????? We talked about this way way long ago, man is made up of three parts the body, soul, and spirit, the body being nothing more than dust, a house, a temporary dwelling. Now you are railing against trinity because Jesus had a body of dust, a temporary dwelling, a house for His soul and spirit...wow...the deception is amazing. The teaching of trinity relies on the fact that the flesh of Jesus was not the totality of Jesus but here you say the trinity teaching fails to understand that Jesus flesh was not the totality of His being....seriously dude, you would be well advised to listen more and speak less.
Jesus was and is eternal, His flesh was no more eternal than ours is...not as hard a concept as you are trying to make it out to be.
technically according to scripture it would be HIs spirit and HIs soul, but you haven't even figured out yet that the flesh is just dust, just a temporary home for the soul and spirit.
lol all I will say here since this is not directed at me, but your lack of understanding so amazed me I felt compelled to jump in. It is you and others like you that are trying to change the meaning of English words, for example, remember the discussion we had about what death means? You all tried to change the meaning of death from the common understanding of our flesh ceasing to pump blood and take in oxygen to something undefinable about God not dieing or something you all never did explain the new meaning you all wanted to go with. Like I said, it's all semantics at this point because you all refuse to hear anything even yourselves. But, back to the person this is directed at....geesh.
Upvote
0
I wasn't even going to bother to reply. I'm glad you did. At some point I just throw up my hands. I've had private discussions with this guy and was seriously disturbed by some of the stuff he was pushing.
Upvote
0
mountaindewbass
Member
Someone's trolling on this forum, and y'all are just feeding into it. Welcome to the internets
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
it always amazes me the number of people who try to argue the historical origins of specific doctrines they do not hold to, while clearly not grasping the history at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
http://www.christian-history.org/the-trinity.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
Ah well, I guess when one wants to be uninformed as to who the living God really is, they will in fact hold to the traditions and teachings of men rather than to study the word of God for themselves and in that, discover the God they don't know.
Upvote
0
x141
...
- Sep 25, 2011
- 5,138
- 466
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
God through perception speaks to us in a form we can relate to. Father, mother (spirit, or one who births a), son (the first mother/help meet being feminine, the second (without sin) masculine, or when he is come.
(To us) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; three, the truth of perception in scripture, found in things such as Abraham's three men, or the three feasts one is called up to Jerusalem (or the mother of us all) or the earthly of this that leads into bondage, which refers to our own soul, where the law goes out from in the form of perception) to keep.
We are mostly bound over this truth because we attempt to define (him) what he alone can (running off with every epiphany as if it was the sole truth of God (which is a measureless truth), and are not obedient to the one who alone has life in himself, and who alone grants it (much like the scroll in the right hand of him who sits on the throne (Jesus' whomsoever I will being granted of the Father as the inheritance of every son whom those who are taught by come to (through both a Father and a Spirit (that like a woman out of a man) proceeds from him).
(To us) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; three, the truth of perception in scripture, found in things such as Abraham's three men, or the three feasts one is called up to Jerusalem (or the mother of us all) or the earthly of this that leads into bondage, which refers to our own soul, where the law goes out from in the form of perception) to keep.
We are mostly bound over this truth because we attempt to define (him) what he alone can (running off with every epiphany as if it was the sole truth of God (which is a measureless truth), and are not obedient to the one who alone has life in himself, and who alone grants it (much like the scroll in the right hand of him who sits on the throne (Jesus' whomsoever I will being granted of the Father as the inheritance of every son whom those who are taught by come to (through both a Father and a Spirit (that like a woman out of a man) proceeds from him).
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
not a clue in all this world what you are trying to say here...care to clarify?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
razzelflabben
Contributor
not any clearer...we already talked about how some here are trying to use the flesh to describe something only the spirit can know and understand...is that what you are trying to say?
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
we are talking about trinity, and you are talking about manna...not seeing any connection that makes sense
Upvote
0
x141
...
- Sep 25, 2011
- 5,138
- 466
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Is it ... is God divided ... Jesus said he was the manna, and that if you seen him you seen the father, and before Abraham was I am and that he would not leave us comfortless (speaking of the spirit that proceeds from the father which would not come unless he went), yet that he would come to us, (as well as his father).
It is divided to the one who perceives it to be.
It is divided to the one who perceives it to be.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
razzelflabben
Contributor
I don't know what passage you are referring to where Jesus says He is manna...Manna was the food God gave to the children in the wilderness and it was sweet like honey. now, as to Jesus being God, we agree, that has never been questioned by me. And again, we agree that the HS is God as well...thus three in 1 just like I have been saying all along. But the closest I know of that would come close to what you claim about Jesus saying He is the manna, would be the bread of life, which is a totally different thing then manna. In fact, let's do a scripture search...closest passage I can find in a concordance search is found in John 6 ...in which Jesus says HE is NOT like the manna 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the manna your fathers ate—and they died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.” In fact, the distinction is made that those who ate the manna died, but those who eat of the Christ never die.
So again, where are you getting this claim that Jesus is manna?
Upvote
0
x141
...
- Sep 25, 2011
- 5,138
- 466
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Poor choice of words on my part, I see manna as the hidden truth (Revelation) that he gives us to eat of, which connects with himself (true bread) in symbolism (just as these promises speak to the feast of tabernacles as the cross spoke to Passover) just as the manna that came down from the wilderness was the shadow of (as a cutting seed or something that divides (which Jesus spoke of himself as to one reason why he came) no less than the rock that is said to have followed them around (which one drink of did not quench their thirst forever, being that it was Moses (in picture) that gave it to them) I don't think linear, it is not the mind of Christ, or a mind of steps).
Jesus spoke to those who could not understand spiritual things (in the confines of the ones he was sent to), let alone the earthly pictures of the same.
The entire scriptures testified of him, though the scriptures have no life in them, which life Jesus said was granted to be in him; but there is no need to be granted what one already possess (which must be differentiated between what was before all things were and the process of coming to this truth of self he was restored to (which is where we are whether one has beheld his glory in them or not).
Jesus spoke to those who could not understand spiritual things (in the confines of the ones he was sent to), let alone the earthly pictures of the same.
The entire scriptures testified of him, though the scriptures have no life in them, which life Jesus said was granted to be in him; but there is no need to be granted what one already possess (which must be differentiated between what was before all things were and the process of coming to this truth of self he was restored to (which is where we are whether one has beheld his glory in them or not).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
donfish06
May The Lord Richly Bless You
All of the sources you read from below are Trinitarians. The thing that is striking to me is that they are being honest about the origins of the Trinity of three persons in one essence. You cannot simply go to the Bible and extract this theological position. The prophets, Jesus and the apostles were all believers that God is one single person. As the church tried to explain the relationship between Jesus Christ and God they began to draw from philosophy to arrive at a proper explanation. However, they failed to stay with the simple truth of Scripture that God is one, he is a Spirit that is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the express image of the invisible God. The fulness of the invisible God was manifested through the Son of God.
It is not heresy to question doctrines that are not contained directly in Scripture. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate persons that exist eternally side by side next to each other in fellowship. This is tri-theism not the biblical one true God. Father, Son and Spirit are three different manifestations of the one God. The Father is the source, the invisible one, the creator and the sustainer of all things. The Son is the visible expression and manifestation of the Father. The Son is the visible of the Father. All that the Father is is displayed through the Son. The Holy Spirit is what God is, God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and is the very presence, nature and power of God working in his people. Father, Son and Spirit are not three persons, but three manifestations of the one true and living God. Of course there is much more detail to the doctrine than this, but this is the most basic premise. Read for yourself what the various sources state about the Trinity.
James Hastings: “It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice to the Words of Christ in Matthew 28:19, but the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as textural grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, which so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into’ the Name of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, without any reference to the Father or the Spirit” (Dictionary of the Bible, p. 88).
Scribners: “The original form of words were into the Name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. Baptism into Trinity was a later development” (Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 241).
Canney Encyclopaedia: “The early church always baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity; afterward they were baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” (p. 53).
American Encyclopaedia, International Edition: “The term Trinity was used by Theophilus of Antioch in AD 180? (Vol. 27, p. 116).
Encyclopaedia Britannica: “The triune and Trinity formula was not uniformly used from the beginning, and up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ was valid. But Catholic missionaries, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were anathematized by the Roman church. Now the formula of Rome is, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost” (11th Ed., Vol. 3, p. 365-366).
Encyclopedia of Religions: “Persons were baptized at first in the Name of Jesus Christ, or ‘in the Name of the Lord Jesus.’ Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (p. 53).
New International Encyclopaedia: “The Trinity doctrine. The Catholic faith is this: ‘We worship one in Trinity, but there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. The glory equal—the majesty co-eternal.’ The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination” (Vol. 22, p. 476).
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion: “Christian baptism was administered by using the words ‘in the Name of Jesus.’ The use of a Trinity formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when the Triune formula was used” (Vol. 2, p. 377-378, 389. )
“NAME was an ancient synonym for “Person.” Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus’ Name became His personal property. “Ye are Christ’s.” (Acts 1:15; Revelation 3:4; I Corinthians 3:23).
LIFE Magazine: “The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary in an article by Graham Green: ‘Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in the Scripture but the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogma as the Trinity for which there exists no such authority in the Gospels’” (October 30, 1950, Vol. 29, Number 18, p. 51).
Catholic Encyclopaedia: “The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman church. Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the church performs, is not true baptism” (Vol. 2, p. 259).
New Catholic Encyclopedia: “With regard to the form used for Baptism in the early church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew (28:19) speaks of the Trinitarian formula, which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) speak only of Baptism ‘in the Name of Jesus.’ Baptism in titles cannot be found in the first centuries. . .” (McGraw Hill Publishing, p. 59).
William Phillips Hall: “In this very ancient version (Syriac Peschito Version) which is believed by good authorities (Gwilliam, Boners, and others) to represent a text much older that of the Greek manuscript from which our English Old Testament was largely derived, ‘The Name of the Lord Jesus Messiah or Christ’ appears in all four readings given (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5)” (A Remarkable Discovery, p. 70).
International Encyclopaedia: “The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the Apostles’ preachings, as this is reported in the New Testament” (First Edition, Vol. 18, p. 226).
New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “The term ‘Trinity’ was originated by . . . Tertulian, a Roman Catholic church father. No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the Apostles. . . At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination” (Vol. 1, p. 396).
“Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.” “Trinity,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 782.
“The adoption of a non-biblical phrase at Nicea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma; the Trinity is true, since the Church — the universal Church speaking by its Bishops — says so, though the Bible does not! We have a formula, but what does that formula contain? No child of the Church dare seek to answer.” “Dogma, Dogmatic Theology,” in Encyclopedia
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
yet we are told to have the mind of Christ...thus it seems to me that when you were asked to clarify, you might want to dismiss with all the symbolism that is not consistent with scripture and stick with either the symbolism that is consistent, or simply speak clearly on the matter.
I have no problem with symbolism, I do have a problem with 1. symbolism that is contrary to scripture, like Jesus is manna when He clearly said He wasn't, and/or 2. when asked for clarity none is given.
Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the ideas and thoughts of the heart.
seems to disagree with you on the matter of the word of God being alive, but back to point....you are right (If I am understanding you right) that Jesus is the only one that can give life, scripture cannot give us life, only point us to life, even though it is alive.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
razzelflabben
Contributor
hum...did you read the articles? Every one talked about how the idea of the triune God goes all the way back to the disciples...and yet you insist that it cannot be found in scripture. How odd that something that cannot be found in scripture, would be taught by those who penned scripture....which was in fact, the point of what I posted those articles to show and you just dismissed it because it wasn't from people that support your view, which is even more odd to me. I mean, what kind of logic assumes that only information from people who agree with me can be accurate information? That is insanity as best I can tell.
lol and yet Jesus Himself declared that He and the FAther were ONE...seems highly unlikely that Jesus would say He was the same as the Father if He didn't believe He and the Father were one, but we add to this with the understanding of His claim to be the I AM.. You see, the Jews believed and the text supports the idea that "I AM" was the name God gave Himself, thus for the claim to be made that Jesus was the "I AM" is to be using one of God's proper names. Like if I said I am Sally Jones...
So, your claim here that the Jesus and the disciples (who btw, called Him their teacher) did not believe Jesus and God to be one, is just plain wrong. To add insult to injury (sorry but I have to point it out even though it makes you look uninformed) it was this claim of deity that caused Jesus to be accused of blasphemy and passages like I John 4:2 This is how you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
and II John 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
further confirm that the early church and Jesus and the disciples and apostles specifically did teach trinity....sorry dude, you lose, just because you can find people who agree with you or teach a false doctrine, doesn't change what scripture clearly teaches.
amen, but it is heresy to dismiss the doctrines clearly taught in scripture which is my problem with you and some other posters who try to claim that Jesus is not the Christ, God in flesh. And what is very puzzling to me, is why you all would have a problem understanding that if the flesh is just dirt, a temporary house, why you don't get that God could slip on a body, a suit of clothes and in that, dwell on this earth, just like a man. Add to this, that angles are recorded in scripture as taking on the appearance of a man and it boggles my mind to try to figure out how you CANNOT figure out that they are one and the same. It is just mind boggling how you can't figure this out.
well, since only you non trinitarians are describing trinity this way, it would seem that you all are either 1. hard of hearing and thus have no clue what trinitarians believe, or 2. you are simply trying to change the teaching into something it isn't so that you can troll the forums and insight anger by trying to paint false ideas and inflammatory responses, like another poster with similar views to yours tried to do with me. Either way, it is disturbing and sinful behavior and should as such be apauling to every true believer here.
here is the disturbing thing, that is what was described to you as to the trinity, and far from what you describe when talking to trinitarians. Which makes me curious why you are changing your claims now that you have been caught?
Since none of the rest of this addressed the truth of trinity, I just ignored it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
