Trinitarian question

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 18, 2007

R3quiem said:
He didn't even use the word "Trinity" in the Bible.

Christ did not write the Bible. In fact, Christ wrote nothing that we have today. What a glorious book that would have been!

Christ left us a Church... a community of believers whom he taught and sent the Holy Spirit to complete their knowledge.

That knowledge, once left to the Apostles is to be maintained in it's fullness by all Christians throughout the ages until the end. Handing down the Gospel (truth) from age to age.

Christ taught the Trinty and many other things too... that were never written down.

Modern people tend to doubt what they can not find in writing... Ancient peoples did not trust what they found in secular writing but rather trusted in people speaking verbally with conviction.

In the modern day scholastic approach everyone tends to define the written word as they see fit for themselves, instead of adhereing to the pilar of truth for these definintions. More is the pity.

Forgive me...

IgnatiusOfAntioch · Sep 18, 2007

The Gregorian said:
eherm... If you look... I wasn't saying people believe in all of those... .

.

ehem!! If you look... you said exactly that people believe thise things.

Here is exactly what you said:

The Gregorian said:
Some of you believe in three seperate dieties in one form, or one diety with three bodies, or just one diety who only exists in one place at a time, but has gone through three stages (i.e. before Christ came to earth, he was the Father, then was born on earth as the son... at which time there was no God in heaven... then God died as the Son, and is now the holy spirit).

That false statement is what makes it a fallacy.

God Bless.

humbledbyhim · Sep 18, 2007

I thought I'd chime in a little late:

1) The Lord, thy God is one Lord. (Look it up)
2) H20 your H20 is one molecule.
3) God has three forms or three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in which he operates and he can be them all simultaneously because he can.
4) H20 has three forms (Ice, Water, Steam) that have different properties and can do different things, and they can all exist and operate at the same time and in the same place.
5) That wasn't that hard. Was it?

Clearly this analogy isn't all encompassing, but what analogy is?

The Gregorian · Sep 18, 2007

GerTzedek said:
None of these is Trinitarian theology. They are all considered heresies.

In Trinitarian theology there is ONLY ONE GOD, not three gods, not three deities. This one God is three persons. Not three forms. Not three occasions or stages. These three persons are all the ONE GOD, but are not each other, for example, G-d the Son is not G-d the Father, never has been, never will be.

This is the ONLY "flavor" which can be said to be Trinitarianism. Modalism, Arianism, and all the rest, as I said, are heresies.

I'll keep that in mind.

Space is space. We experience space as a unified kind of thing; it is simply there. (Two dimensional and one dimensional sorts of ideas exist only as abstractions -- they are not real.) Yet Space consists of three dimensions: length, width and height. Each dimension is unique and not to be confused with the other two -- length is not width or height, etc. Each dimension IS Space--length fully occupies space, yes? Take away any ONE dimension, and space ceases to exist. Take away, i.e., length, and you no longer have space. You don't have, for example, 2/3 of space left. Or space in a different form left. It is NOT SPACE. There are three dimensions, or there is no space at all.

So they are three "persons" but not three beings... They're not the same being at three different times... They're always three different persons with separate forms (while the Son was on earth, the Father was still in heaven doing his thing.) So... How are they one again?

As far as space... you said, if once dimension stops working, you can't have 2/3 of space left... it doesn't work without all three aspects... So... when Jesus was dead for three days... could you clarify that for me?

oblio said:
You have missed the point of the Incarnation. That is exactly what it means, that two different things mystically came together and were united without mixture or confusion. Jesus is 100% God, Jesus is 100% man. It is this fact that allows us to be saved.

Can you phrase that in any way that can be understood? That's just not how those words work... You can be something new that's both God and Man... i.e. a man who is God... but you can't be 100% something and 100% not that thing.

When you say he's "fully God" do you mean in physical make up? God is both a title and a function and a type of being... you have to pick one. You could say he still has the title he always has... but his form has changed? You could even say that he's still God in heaven, but Jesus exists two places at once and he had a 100% human form on earth (but that would mean only part of him died... which constitutes injury, not death).

Can you see why I'd be confused about "He is both 100% man, and 100% something other than man." There's nothing wrong with saying he was a hybrid.... Remember the nephilim? Angels came to earth and had children with human women, breeding a new race of giants (such as goliath)... this corruption was so wide spread, it was a major factor in God having to flood the earth to get rid of such half breeds?

Where, in the bible, does it say something as incomprehensible as "Jesus was both 100% God and 100% Man?" You say it's a sin to believe anything other than that... but is it a sin to believe Jesus when he directly says "The Father is Greater than I?" You can't be greater than and the same as... it's a binary statement... you're either the same... or not the same?

I'm sorry... this is getting too close to a debate... I apologize for that. I'm trying really hard not to make it such...

Just... someone tell me:

According to the idea that God is three persons "in one" .... what is the "in one" part? Not one body, because that's modalism and a sin. Not one mind because the bible says God knows things Jesus doesn't. And not three separate but equal people, because that's tritheism... So I know what it's not... so what is it? And how was it effected for the three days that Jesus was dead?

The Gregorian · Sep 18, 2007

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:
ehem!! If you look... you said exactly that people believe thise things.
That false statement is what makes it a fallacy.

... "Some of" meaning "not all" ... I have been told by people claiming that the true definition of the trinity is that there is one physical God, who has taken three roles... Obviously some people believe that. The "you" does not mean "only the people I knew ahead of time that would join this thread"... but rather the generic "you" as in "trinitarians." I've been told each of those things, so "some trinitarians (you guys)" believe each of those things. Notice how I said one possibility, then used the word "or" ... as in "not 'and.'" I.e. you may believe one OR another, OR another.

If it doesn't apply to YOU doesn't mean it's a fallacy. A fallacy is an inherently false statement because the reasoning behind it makes it false. Even if NO ONE believes any of the suggestions I made... it would be a "false" statement... not a fallacy... because the reasoning is still "some (people who claim trinitarianism) may believe one of the following" ... that statement could be either true, or false... but it doesn't use circular reasoning, nor any other sort of fallacy. In fact, direct statements cannot be fallacies. What makes something a fallacy is when it's a statement justified by faulty reasoning, or a statement upon which a faulty assumption is made... it's what you stack onto said statement that makes it a fallacy.

For example: If I say "Spaghetti is good for you." That statement may be either true or false depending on the person's dietary needs. But it's not a fallacy, even if it's false.

However, if I say: "Spaghetti is good for you because I eat spaghetti and I'm healthy, therefore spaghetti must be good." It's the REASONING that makes that statement a fallacy. Even if spaghetti IS good for you, the reasoning is faulty because not everyone has the same dietary needs as I do.

SO... again... I request you please stop interrupting the conversation. If you post again on this thread, I request that you post something -on topic-.

(note, I'm not claiming authority to tell people what to post or not post... I'm simply requesting people not derail the thread, which, I believe is a CF rule... the "no thread hijacking" one.)

The Gregorian · Sep 18, 2007

humbledbyhim said:
1) The Lord, thy God is one Lord. (Look it up)
2) H20 your H20 is one molecule.
3) God has three forms or three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in which he operates and he can be them all simultaneously because he can.
4) H20 has three forms (Ice, Water, Steam) that have different properties and can do different things, and they can all exist and operate at the same time and in the same place.
5) That wasn't that hard. Was it?

I appreciate your input, however, this only raises more questions:

A: Yes, H2O is one molecule... but made of three separate atoms. Hydrogen and oxygen are not co-dependent... they simply form a bond there. This illustration could be used to state that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are three individuals who form a TEAM... ala "with your powers combine, I am captain planet." ... but again, what about when Jesus died? Was there no God when 1/3 of "team God" was dead?" Also, Oblio says it's heresy to split them into three... separate beings on a team. (by the way, this is my personal belief I find very simple and backed by scripture... that there are three spiritual beings... the Father is God, the Son is "on a team" with him... I believe the Son is our lord, and the most faithful servant of God... but I believe "for us, there is one God, the Father." [1 Corinthians 8:6, I believe]. It's simple... logical... scripturally supported... I'm fervently TRYING to understand what reason there is to go against such a simple statement to believe in something more complicated, that no one really understands, or at least no one can explain.)
B: The example of water/ice/steam... water cannot be in two states at once... water molecules right next to each other can be in different states... hense slush, being a semi-solid.... but semi-solids are just solids in a transitional stage, where some molecules are solid and some are liquid. Similar to clouds on the verge of rainfall... a semi-gaseous stage. Again, however, if you say that it's one God with three forms... that sounds like what has been described here as modalism.

So... as far as that not being hard... Turns out it's not that easy.

humbledbyhim · Sep 18, 2007

The Gregorian said:
I appreciate your input, however, this only raises more questions:

A: Yes, H2O is one molecule... but made of three separate atoms. Hydrogen and oxygen are not co-dependent... they simply form a bond there. This illustration could be used to state that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are three individuals who form a TEAM... ala "with your powers combine, I am captain planet." ... but again, what about when Jesus died? Was there no God when 1/3 of "team God" was dead?" Also, Oblio says it's heresy to split them into three... separate beings on a team. (by the way, this is my personal belief I find very simple and backed by scripture... that there are three spiritual beings... the Father is God, the Son is "on a team" with him... I believe the Son is our lord, and the most faithful servant of God... but I believe "for us, there is one God, the Father." [1 Corinthians 8:6, I believe]. It's simple... logical... scripturally supported... I'm fervently TRYING to understand what reason there is to go against such a simple statement to believe in something more complicated, that no one really understands, or at least no one can explain.)
B: The example of water/ice/steam... water cannot be in two states at once... water molecules right next to each other can be in different states... hense slush, being a semi-solid.... but semi-solids are just solids in a transitional stage, where some molecules are solid and some are liquid. Similar to clouds on the verge of rainfall... a semi-gaseous stage. Again, however, if you say that it's one God with three forms... that sounds like what has been described here as modalism.

So... as far as that not being hard... Turns out it's not that easy.

Basically, you pointed out all of the things that made me write the disclaimer at the bottom. However, the point is that the molecule h20 remains the same denominator between the three states just as the fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same denominator of being God. The fact of the matter is that people are trying to explain something that can't be fully explained by the human mind. While it may be fun to do this, the best that we can do is come to answers that most accurately reflect scripture (and not mere opinion) and stick to them. God Bless.

Let Scripture spell it out:

Deuteronomy 6
4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

John 10
30 I and my Father are one.

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14And the Word [which is God and was with God at the beginning, see verse 1] was made flesh [Jesus], and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

2Corinthians 3
3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart
17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

The Gregorian · Sep 19, 2007

humbledbyhim said:
The fact of the matter is that people are trying to explain something that can't be fully explained by the human mind.

Which is where most trinitarian conversations usually end up... "no finite mind could possibly comprehend... but it's heresy to believe anything other than what we can't explain."

I... see a problem with that.

Let Scripture spell it out:

Click to expand...

I agree.

Deuteronomy 6

Click to expand...

4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Click to expand...

First: the term "lord" is very misused, unfortunately. Yes... Jesus has been given authority, i.e. lordship. So it is fine to say "Jesus is lord"... but lord does not mean God. People are referred to as "lords" all the time. When you see "lord," don't think "God." Think "one with authority." Anywho... that's not the important part... yes... "Our" God is one... same as in Matthew 12:29 when "Jesus said in answer, The first is, Give ear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" Note how Jesus still refers to God as "our" God... is in his God as well as ours? Specifically how he didn't say "I am one lord"... but "our God is one"...?

John 10

Click to expand...

30 I and my Father are one.

Click to expand...

I love that passage.... where people tried to stone Jesus because he claimed to be God's son... and they assumed that to mean he would be equal to God... but he corrected them saying "38 But if I am doing them, then have belief in the works even if you have no belief in me; so that you may see clearly and be certain that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." ("doing them" being "doing the works of his Father"). Jesus didn't want to be portrayed as a God... in fact he didn't care if people even believed in him... only the works he was doing in service to his Father... but they tried to stone him again anyway, so Jesus escaped with his ninja-like skill. Both humble, and 1337 ninja action at the same time...

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Click to expand...

Of course you've heard the rebuttal to that?

2The same was in the beginning with God.

Click to expand...

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14And the Word [which is God and was with God at the beginning, see verse 1] was made flesh [Jesus], and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Click to expand...

Please, no personal footnotes in the middle of verse? Yes... the word was made flesh... and we beheld his glory... the glory of the only begotten of the father. Note... not the full glory of the father... but the glory of the only begotten of him. What's the point here?

2Corinthians 3

Click to expand...

3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart
17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Click to expand...

And? how does... that support the idea that the Son is indivisible from the Father? That they aren't interchangable, but that it's a sin to distinguish them as not the same?

I'm not trying to argue the point to be wrong... only to understand... how is it that these can be understood to mean something no finite mind could possibly understand? In other words: If you don't understand what you think it says (that there is a trinity)... couldn't it be POSSIBLE, you may not understand what you believe to mean something you don't understand?

That make sense?

Click to expand...

GeratTzedek · Sep 19, 2007

Gregorian:

You are asking for more clarification than you can really have. A G-d you can fully understand would not be G-d at all. Even if there were no trinity, there would HAVE to be other things beyond your understanding. You have to accept the fact that the Divine is beyond your comprehension -- we are only creation. It is amazing that we can even know what little we know.

There is a story of Augustine walking along the beach, and he saw a child playing in the sand. The boy had dug a hole, and was trying to fill it with water. Of course, no matter how much water he poured into his hole, he could not fill it up! And the Lord spoke to Augustine's heart and said, "This how you are when you seek to understand the Trinity."

The idea is to do the best we can with what we DO know, and then let the rest of it REST in the Lord.

So what do we know?

There is only ONE G_D, Creator of all things.

The Father is G-d, ever existing
The Son is G-d, ever existing
The Spirit is G-d, ever existing

The Father is not the Son or the Spirit
The Son is not the Father or the Spirit
The Spirit is not the Father or the Son

The Father, Son, and Spirit are persons, and not modes or different times or roles.

"Father" and "Son" expresses the relationship of the first and second persons to each other, the second being eternally begotten of the first, and subordinate in role, but equal in nature and being.

These things are what we know. Are they easy to understand? Are you kidding! They are counter-intuitive! But lets look at the alternatives:

1. There are three gods. WRONGO: polytheism.

2. Yeshua is a demi-god -- you still end up in a form of polytheistic paganism

3. Yeshua is an angel, or some sort of spiritual being, "first born of creation." You are pretty much still within polytheism with gods, demigods, and substrata of spiritual beings to worship, BECAUSE at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow....

4. Yeshua is a prophet. At least we are in a new category. You sure you want to be here though? Thinking that Yeshua is just a very nice man? Because I can tell you right off, apart from the claims he made about himself, nothing he preached was new. He taught people to observe Torah, and although the Pharisees that controlled the Sanhedron during his ministry were bet Shammai, that he himself pretty much taught straight bet Hillel!!!!!! Guess what? Bet Hillel is also the foundation for Rabbinical Judaism! Unless there is something different about WHO HE WAS and WHAT HE DID on the cross, he's pretty worthless.

5. Yeshua and the Father and the Spirit are all really the same person. Are you kidding me? Do you realize how schizophrenic that would make Yeshua, praying to himself?

Well, those are short comments. Each of those heresies has entire books refuting it, both books written back in the centuries when they were first invented, and books written by modern scholars. Curious minds are free to investigate further. Enjoy.

The Gregorian · Sep 20, 2007

GerTzedek said:
You are asking for more clarification than you can really have. A G-d you can fully understand would not be G-d at all.

Not asking to fully understand everything about him... just a general... is there one God, or are there three? As I read: "There is for us one God, the Father."... I see the one part... I don't see the three part. And I certainly don't see the "three, yet one. Fully three, yet indivisible in oneness." I'm not asking for a how or a why... just a what?

Even if there were no trinity, there would HAVE to be other things beyond your understanding. You have to accept the fact that the Divine is beyond your comprehension -- we are only creation. It is amazing that we can even know what little we know.

Is God incapable of teaching us? Are we not made in his image? We cannot be infinite, but what leads you to believe he can't be God if we can at least know what he is? Didn't Jesus say he came to teach us of his Father, so we might know him? Why would he bother if he's beyond our comprehension?

We could never know all that he knows... we just don't have the capacity. But... any one particular part should be possible to understand... for example... "what is he?" That's pretty basic. There's the simple... logical statement of "there is for us one God, the Father." and there's the statement which no one could possibly understand of "there is one God, who is fully one, yet three persons in one divinity." Why can it not be God if it makes sense?

There is a story of Augustine walking along the beach, and he saw a child playing in the sand. The boy had dug a hole, and was trying to fill it with water. Of course, no matter how much water he poured into his hole, he could not fill it up! And the Lord spoke to Augustine's heart and said, "This how you are when you seek to understand the Trinity."

who told you that story? Because... I can assure you... it's very possible to fill a hole with water.

"Father" and "Son" expresses the relationship of the first and second persons to each other, the second being eternally begotten of the first, and subordinate in role, but equal in nature and being.

I see "begotton" in the bible... is in one begot the other, which means one came first. Where do you see "eternally begotton?" "Begotten" makes sense... what do you even mean by "eternally begotten?" And... if they established a role of first and second, father and son. If the son calls the Father his God, and specifies that the Father is greater than he is... where do you get that they're equal? What part of "Son" is equal to "Father?" moreover, what part of "greater than" is "equal to?"

These things are what we know. Are they easy to understand? Are you kidding! They are counter-intuitive! But lets look at the alternatives:

1. There are three gods. WRONGO: polytheism.

2. Yeshua is a demi-god -- you still end up in a form of polytheistic paganism

3. Yeshua is an angel, or some sort of spiritual being, "first born of creation." You are pretty much still within polytheism with gods, demigods, and substrata of spiritual beings to worship, BECAUSE at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow....

4. Yeshua is a prophet. At least we are in a new category. You sure you want to be here though? Thinking that Yeshua is just a very nice man? Because I can tell you right off, apart from the claims he made about himself, nothing he preached was new. He taught people to observe Torah, and although the Pharisees that controlled the Sanhedron during his ministry were bet Shammai, that he himself pretty much taught straight bet Hillel!!!!!! Guess what? Bet Hillel is also the foundation for Rabbinical Judaism! Unless there is something different about WHO HE WAS and WHAT HE DID on the cross, he's pretty worthless.

5. Yeshua and the Father and the Spirit are all really the same person. Are you kidding me? Do you realize how schizophrenic that would make Yeshua, praying to himself?

Or 6: There is one God. And his spiritual son, yeshua, his first born of creation, only begotten, and most faithful servant was picked out to come to earth and make the sacrifice needed to pay for adam's sin. Adam's sin doesn't require God's life to make up for it... only the life of a perfect being... And the Son of God is the most perfect being in existence capable of death. Therefore the Son, once again faithfully served the Father, and sacrificed his life. For such service, he's given authority beyond any human for 1,000 years. Not a replacement for God... but authority over human kind.

This does not make Jesus a demigod... Jesus is to have authority and be respected as any great king... but religious worship would still go to the one God. It's simple... logical... biblically sound. Of course... this is only my interpretation, I'm not arguing against the trinity here... just saying... there is an option other than "Jesus is (equal to) God" and "Jesus was nothing more than a man."

The Gregorian · Sep 20, 2007

back to the difference between 3 and 6...

If you were in your car, and an angel came to you... physically. Wings and all. And he had a message for you... you wouldn't praise him as a God, that'd be heresy... but you would show him GREAT respect? If he asked for a ride in your car while he spoke to you, you'd make sure to clean the seat off significantly extra and open the door for him.

There are varying degrees of authority. The bible specifically says to give to God what is Gods, and give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Even humans can be lords and kings... and they are to be respected. Not worshiped, but respected. If you're greeting a woman, it's perfectly polite to give her a little bow. You're not worshipping her... just showing respect. Likewise, if Jesus weren't a God or DemiGod... but another celestial being given great authority, comparable to an earthly king... on a bigger scale... yes... every knee would bow to him... he would have authority over all the earth... That doesn't mean we would worship him as a replacement for the one who gave him that authority.

Also, remember all the times Jesus directly said that he did nothing of his own will, but only does what God directs him to do. That doesn't sound like an equal... that sounds like a very faithful servant. Maybe even a Son.

The Gregorian · Sep 21, 2007

SO.... it slowed down, then nothing for the last couple days...

Anyone else want to take a crack at explaining it to me? In what ways are the Father and Son "one" and in what ways are they "not one" (I.e. three). If they're "Three, yet one"... I'd imagine there are some ways they are each?

Search

Search

Trinitarian question

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member

More options

IgnatiusOfAntioch

Contributor

More options

humbledbyhim

Senior Member

More options

The Gregorian

Troll

More options

The Gregorian

Troll

More options

The Gregorian

Troll

More options

humbledbyhim

Senior Member

More options

The Gregorian

Troll

More options

GeratTzedek

Meaning Righteous Proselyte to Judaism

More options

The Gregorian

Troll

More options

The Gregorian

Troll

More options

The Gregorian

Troll

More options

Similar threads