A simple question with a simple answer.

[Imagican]

Actually by this line of thinking one has done much more than attempt to find "truth" about God - for example requiring God to be "seated" gives God physical attributes of a pagan god, something which the Church has not only never done but has strongly fought against where ever such thoughts arose in the Church.

Well Doc, guess you take the stance of the RCC in that the Bible isn't really capable of being understood and that the 'church itself' is more capable of determining the meaning of it than the congregation. All I KNOW is that the Bible STATES that the Son NOW sits at the right hand of the Father: GOD. How one chooses to interpret that? But what you have offered is like saying that the Bible is WRONG when it states that God RESTED from His word ont he seventh day. Does God NEED rest? I don't question such things. I simply accept them with whatever understanding revealed.

One cannot dismantle the doctrine which became titled the Trinity Doctrine without corrupting/cracking the solid foundations of truths it is built upon. God is Spirit, therefore the only Person that can have a "seat" in Heaven is the Person Who has a flesh, and that would be Jesus Christ the Son of God. By implying that "seated at the right" and that others put Jesus in "God's" seat means there are at least two chairs with God in the higher one, which means one has already put God in a box much like other faiths have done - like the Mormons. The One God the Church teaches about and the Trinity doctrine was developed to defend those teachings - is much bigger than one who requires a seat.

See, it is not ME who has built a box and place God inside of it. That is exactly what you are attempting to do. Who says that a 'spirit' cannot SIT or stand or run or jump or whatever? I have NEVER seen any sentence in the Bible that limits the ability of 'Spirit'. One day all who live will receive 'heavenly bodies'. Do you have any more insight into the attributes of these bodies than I? While it states that we will no longer thirst or hunger or suffer, what will we be able to DO with our 'new bodies'? I cannot tell. But I certainly cannot say what we CAN'T do other than what is stated.

Again, one can accuse me of speculating, but that is baseless and false claim when someone says all of this is clearly laid out online in the Catechism as well as other online historical documents describing how the Trinity Doctrine developed along with the various heretical teachings that arose which the doctrine defends against - preserving the Truth.

Heck, numerous individuals that were BISHOPS in the RCC were later accused of heresy and deemed heretics. including some who's writings ended up being instrumental in the creation of "TRINITY".

How does that work? Some of what a Priest wrote was considered inspired and then later what didn't agree with others was considered heresy by the SAME person?

Let me offer this: "Trinity" has NEVER been divinely revealed to ME. And I have NO reason to accept the teachings of men who openly admit that what they teach cannot be understood. The mystery of 'Godhead' is ENOUGH. And THAT 'mystery' was offered by God through the Bible. I have found NO indication of 'trinity' in any way shape or form IN the Bible. And if it were as important as the RCC has indicated over the centuries, I am quite sure that God would have inspired His Son or the apostles to REVEAL IT. I have found not a SINGLE line of scripture stating that 'trinity' exists much less how IMPORTANT it is to believe it. It is the CHURCH that has instituted this IDEA. It is the CHURCH that insists that one MUST believe in 'trinity'. It is the CHURCH that has insisted that it is SO IMPORTANT, not the Bible. I can quote scripture that STATES that certain aspects of the doctrine of 'trinity' are CONTRARY to the TRUTH. The very fact that Jesus revealed to us that He is the SON of God start with. Not: 'the Son that IS God'.

The confusion I believe stems from attempting to understand that which we cannot totally fathom - the Nature of God- beyond what He has revealed to us. Not that we cannot at least see dimly from what He has revealed of Himself. Speculation would be saying things like God needs a seat or God cannot become man then "not die" when that Man He became is put to death. The proper teaching is that Man has two natures, only one of which could be put to death after He entered this life. It is not possible then to ignore that part of the teaching to cast doubt on the whole teaching by speculating in asking how is it possible that God cannot die after becoming Man. So any "confusion" about that is removed if it is first understood that the proper teaching is that Man is both Fully human and Fully God, two natures - then it follows after His birth that only one of those natures can be put to death. No confusion there.

And exactly what determines each MOMENT that Jesus was "Fully God" verses "Fully man"? For it seems that 'trinity' dictates that ONE moment, Jesus was 'fully man', then a moment later, He was 'fully God'. But wouldn't fully God/fully Man DICTATE that the Son was fully God/fully man at ALL TIMES? If not, what is the determining factor that differentiates one moment to the next?

For when asking those that profess a belief in 'trinity', they often answer with: "Well, at THAT moment, Jesus was FULLY man". But when asked another question the answer is: "Well, at THAT moment Jesus was FULLY God".

I would offer that if Jesus was NOT 'fully God/fully MAN at ALL times throughout His life, then He was NEITHER at ANY time. What better explains the NATURE of Christ at ALL times: The Son of God. The ONLY begotten Son of God at ALL times. And I find NO confusion in this understanding.

In fact the very speculation one has entered into in attempting to "simplify" things (and diss a Doctrine) has already created a god that needs a seat and from my view also lessor gods (Jesus) "worthy" of praise/worship. So while one could look at such a view as simple - am lost at how such thoughts resemble Christianity.

Maybe that's because what you consider 'Christianity', to be something 'man made' that must be accepted even if impossible to understand.

And while tossing around SELECT scripture to paint the desired outcome we note this was ignored from my last post:
"And my KJV version of Saint John's Gospel includes this quote from God Himself "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." which is incompatible with any understanding of Who (it is that) spoke those Words besides the one given/taught by the Church."

Which as I mentioned before that verse, in the SIMPLEST understanding, rules out that the man speaking has NOT seen God. So the proper question should become how to understand all the other verses previously selected and presented to make your case together with this verse (which clearly opposes your case) and perhaps to reflect on what it really means for a human to "see" the invisible.

I think that this verse is perfectly CLEAR. NO man, other than the ONLY begotten Son of God who IS 'of God', has EVER seen God Himself. And when we take other scripture offered by 'The Son' stating that He did what He had SEEN the Father DO and SAID things given Him by His Father TO SAY, it becomes perfectly CLEAR that the Son of God, Jesus Christ has not only SEEN God, but previous to being born in the flesh, LIVED with God in Heaven as God's ONLY begotten Son. Unlike us who are forced to live by FAITH, The Son of God KNEW who He was and who His God was while living here in the flesh. He STATES that His God is OUR God and the apostles state this as well. In almost every opening of the epistles Paul STATES that God is OUR heavenly Father as well as the heavenly Father of Christ. That God is the GOD Of Christ as well as OUR God. And obvious distinction between Father and Son so far as Father=God and Son=Son. Just read them yourself......

Ephesians 1 [Full Chapter]
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: ...

The God and Father of Jesus Christ= THE GOD of Christ. NOT the God that IS Christ. and note the 'and' between God Our Father AND from the LORD Jesus Christ. A CLEAR distinction between God and His Son. Not between FATHER and Son, but between GOD and His Son. For God IS the Father of Jesus Christ. God IS The Father. Not the Father as merely ONE part of God. Was Paul TRULY that confused? Or was the confusion introduced about three hundred years later in 'trinity'?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well Doc, guess you take the stance of the RCC in that the Bible isn't really capable of being understood and that the 'church itself' is more capable of determining the meaning of it than the congregation. All I KNOW is that the Bible STATES that the Son NOW sits at the right hand of the Father: GOD. How one chooses to interpret that? But what you have offered is like saying that the Bible is WRONG when it states that God RESTED from His word ont he seventh day. Does God NEED rest? I don't question such things. I simply accept them with whatever understanding revealed.

No I don't take that stance and that is a rather anti-catholic distortion of the Catholic position.

"The key difference between Catholic and Protestant Scripture interpretation is that Catholics insist that the Bible can only be truly understood within the context of the living Church. The Bible was written within the Church and for the Church, and was compiled by the Church, so trying to understand it outside the Church is simply infeasible. The same Spirit that inspired the sacred writers and guided the Church to gather together those writings into one “Bible” also directs the Church in her interpretation of the Scriptures. - (part of summary of the Pope's thoughts (Verbum Domini) on this matter)
https://www.osv.com/Magazines/TheCa...proach-to-the-Bible.aspx#sthash.VFNHyaDR.dpuf

As far as what the Bible simply says, we could go there. OT says God is a like a big yellow chicken, why not call Him Big Bird?

I have not offered that the Bible is wrong. I have offered that an understanding of the Bible that claims God needs a chair or that He looks like Big Bird is wrong. For one thing, such an understanding creates a view of God that is incompatible with other statements the Bible makes about God - like that He is Spirit - which means invisible and of the spiritual realm - which means no Sesame Street and no chair for God. So no matter how simple one wants to take "sitting at the right hand of God" - it cannot therefore mean God has a physical form requiring or being able to use or need a chair. Neither would He require rest, man on the other does - which is more to the point of addressing that passage - but I digress.

I figure people way smarter than me went through all this thousands of years ago and am happy to trust and believe they got it right and as God promised the Apostles what the Church teaches remains true today. So no, it is not simply a matter of choosing what a particular verse means to me.

I know some folks believe they can read it and choose for themselves "as the Spirit leads them", but then I suspect that is one reason we have so many varied beliefs among all that we would call Christians. But a non-physical representation of God is pretty foundational among all Christians, so a rejection of any notion that God requires a seat is not really a matter of choice for Christians.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

See, it is not ME who has built a box and place God inside of it. That is exactly what you are attempting to do. Who says that a 'spirit' cannot SIT or stand or run or jump or whatever? I have NEVER seen any sentence in the Bible that limits the ability of 'Spirit'. One day all who live will receive 'heavenly bodies'. Do you have any more insight into the attributes of these bodies than I? While it states that we will no longer thirst or hunger or suffer, what will we be able to DO with our 'new bodies'? I cannot tell. But I certainly cannot say what we CAN'T do other than what is stated.

Claiming God has a physical form (needing a chair to sit on) limits Him from the aspect that He would no longer be limitless, but rather bounded by that physical form. Having such a form means He could be put in something, like a box - which is where such phrases originate. Am not the one here suggesting by my "chosen" understanding of particular verses that God has a physical form. So no, am not the one limiting God or putting Him in a box.

It is pretty basic actually. Two worlds, physical and spiritual. Christianity sprung as a branch out of God's Work on Israel, and He first revealed Himself to them - not all of mankind. And they first taught (and were ridiculed for claiming) there was not only just One God, but that He is invisible.

The spiritual is invisible to us unless a spirit chooses to manifest - which is not a true depiction of their nature - which is why it is called a manifestation. Powerful yes, physical beings - no - that is why they are called spiritual. That is why the distinction is made between what is our invisible spirit (our souls) and our physical flesh. Jumping, standing, running, sitting or "whatever" are actions taken in the physical realm.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Heck, numerous individuals that were BISHOPS in the RCC were later accused of heresy and deemed heretics. including some who's writings ended up being instrumental in the creation of "TRINITY".

How does that work? Some of what a Priest wrote was considered inspired and then later what didn't agree with others was considered heresy by the SAME person?

Not to digress further off topic to debate further anti-catholic drival but at no time has the Church not been filled with sinners. We are human, humans make mistakes - and believe it or not that includes writing things down that people can later read. So short answer - just because someone makes a mistake it does not follow that everything they ever wrote was wrong.

Let me offer this: "Trinity" has NEVER been divinely revealed to ME. And I have NO reason to accept the teachings of men who openly admit that what they teach cannot be understood. The mystery of 'Godhead' is ENOUGH. And THAT 'mystery' was offered by God through the Bible.

And if that brings one closer to God I say that is great. But realize the poor guy teaching God is Big Bird would be on the same foundation.

I have found NO indication of 'trinity' in any way shape or form IN the Bible.

So you keep saying. Apparently many others from long ago and until today do. Not sure what point this makes.

And if it were as important as the RCC has indicated over the centuries, I am quite sure that God would have inspired His Son or the apostles to REVEAL IT.

The Apostles did what they were told - go teach and Baptize - lead the flock. They were focused on spreading and building the Church, not recording the teachings of Jesus. It was not until the Church realized that those men were all that it became critical to attempt to preserve their writings as well as whatever they could of the "teachings" of Jesus.

The reason defining a Trinity Doctrine (it is a teaching not a thing) becomes important is that in leading the flock it would be important that the flock not be misled in any aspect of their faith, which would include defending against a person trying to teach them that God needs a chair. It does not get much simpler than that.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And exactly what determines each MOMENT that Jesus was "Fully God" verses "Fully man"? For it seems that 'trinity' dictates that ONE moment, Jesus was 'fully man', then a moment later, He was 'fully God'. But wouldn't fully God/fully Man DICTATE that the Son was fully God/fully man at ALL TIMES? If not, what is the determining factor that differentiates one moment to the next?

Unclear how this is derived from my comments. When God became Man, from that time and for eternity, Jesus is both fully God and fully Man, at all times. The "confusion" being addressed was directed at your statements regarding why, given the teaching, why God did not die on the Cross. That has nothing to do with Jesus "switching" between modes. It has everything to do with what it means to be both fully God and fully Man, two natures - only one of which could be put to death on a Cross. One does not have to imagine Jesus switching modes to understand that having a human nature, becoming one of us, meant that Man could be put death and naturally that death would not affect His other Nature.

For when asking those that profess a belief in 'trinity', they often answer with: "Well, at THAT moment, Jesus was FULLY man". But when asked another question the answer is: "Well, at THAT moment Jesus was FULLY God".

Since I did not do that am unclear why this entered our discourse. The proper teaching is that He is fully both.

I would offer that if Jesus was NOT 'fully God/fully MAN at ALL times throughout His life, then He was NEITHER at ANY time. What better explains the NATURE of Christ at ALL times: The Son of God. The ONLY begotten Son of God at ALL times.And I find NO confusion in this understanding.

just re-read - this is not correct and no need to offer - the proper teaching is that He is fully God and Fully Man at all times (after He became one of us).

And how does such an understanding fit with the idea that the Son of God is begotten no made?

I think that this verse is perfectly CLEAR. NO man, other than the ONLY begotten Son of God who IS 'of God', has EVER seen God Himself. And when we take other scripture offered by 'The Son' stating that He did what He had SEEN the Father DO and SAID things given Him by His Father TO SAY, it becomes perfectly CLEAR that the Son of God, Jesus Christ has not only SEEN God, but previous to being born in the flesh, LIVED with God in Heaven as God's ONLY begotten Son. Unlike us who are forced to live by FAITH, The Son of God KNEW who He was and who His God was while living here in the flesh. He STATES that His God is OUR God and the apostles state this as well. In almost every opening of the epistles Paul STATES that God is OUR heavenly Father as well as the heavenly Father of Christ. That God is the GOD Of Christ as well as OUR God. And obvious distinction between Father and Son so far as Father=God and Son=Son. Just read them yourself......

I have read myself and I see nothing wrong with accepting the orthodox view - or the idea that a person who is fully man and also in full alignment with His Father,that it would be perfectly proper and acceptable for that Man (or any such man like the all the Saints) to say His God is Our God.

 

[Imagican]

No I don't take that stance and that is a rather anti-catholic distortion of the Catholic position.

"The key difference between Catholic and Protestant Scripture interpretation is that Catholics insist that the Bible can only be truly understood within the context of the living Church. The Bible was written within the Church and for the Church, and was compiled by the Church, so trying to understand it outside the Church is simply infeasible. The same Spirit that inspired the sacred writers and guided the Church to gather together those writings into one “Bible” also directs the Church in her interpretation of the Scriptures. - (part of summary of the Pope's thoughts (Verbum Domini) on this matter)
https://www.osv.com/Magazines/TheCa...proach-to-the-Bible.aspx#sthash.VFNHyaDR.dpuf

As far as what the Bible simply says, we could go there. OT says God is a like a big yellow chicken, why not call Him Big Bird?

I have not offered that the Bible is wrong. I have offered that an understanding of the Bible that claims God needs a chair or that He looks like Big Bird is wrong. For one thing, such an understanding creates a view of God that is incompatible with other statements the Bible makes about God - like that He is Spirit - which means invisible and of the spiritual realm - which means no Sesame Street and no chair for God. So no matter how simple one wants to take "sitting at the right hand of God" - it cannot therefore mean God has a physical form requiring or being able to use or need a chair. Neither would He require rest, man on the other does - which is more to the point of addressing that passage - but I digress.

I figure people way smarter than me went through all this thousands of years ago and am happy to trust and believe they got it right and as God promised the Apostles what the Church teaches remains true today. So no, it is not simply a matter of choosing what a particular verse means to me.

I know some folks believe they can read it and choose for themselves "as the Spirit leads them", but then I suspect that is one reason we have so many varied beliefs among all that we would call Christians. But a non-physical representation of God is pretty foundational among all Christians, so a rejection of any notion that God requires a seat is not really a matter of choice for Christians.

Doc,

Don't claim to KNOW exactly what 'type', 'sort' or 'exact manner' of 'throne' Christ sits NEXT to. And I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "Hand" so far as the 'right hand of God' is concerned. But I DO understand the words. And for Christ to SIT at the RIGHT hand of God doesn't mean I have to understand exactly what that means to plainly SEE that for one to SIT NEXT to another is an obvious indication that they are NOT THE SAME.

And how confusing to offer that God HAS a God???? You say you have no problem accepting that. I find it LUDICROUS if there is but ONE God. And Christ being a THIRD part of that ONE God saying that God is HIS God as well as ours just makes NO sense.

Let me ask this: Do you suppose that God would desire for us to KNOW Him? Or do you rather support an idea that, we, the congregation aren't capable of KNOWING God and that it's up to the 'church' to KNOW God and for US, the congregation, to place our faith in IT, 'the church' rather than God or His Son?

And take this into consideration when you attempt to answer: NO WHERE in the entire Bible are we told that we are to BELIEVE that Jesus IS God. No where in the Bible are we told that Jesus is ONE person of THREE that make up GOD. No where in the Bible are we told that we MUST believe in 'trinity' in order to KNOW God.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

No I don't take that stance and that is a rather anti-catholic distortion of the Catholic position.

"The key difference between Catholic and Protestant Scripture interpretation is that Catholics insist that the Bible can only be truly understood within the context of the living Church. The Bible was written within the Church and for the Church, and was compiled by the Church, so trying to understand it outside the Church is simply infeasible. The same Spirit that inspired the sacred writers and guided the Church to gather together those writings into one “Bible” also directs the Church in her interpretation of the Scriptures. - (part of summary of the Pope's thoughts (Verbum Domini) on this matter)
https://www.osv.com/Magazines/TheCa...proach-to-the-Bible.aspx#sthash.VFNHyaDR.dpuf

As far as what the Bible simply says, we could go there. OT says God is a like a big yellow chicken, why not call Him Big Bird?

I have not offered that the Bible is wrong. I have offered that an understanding of the Bible that claims God needs a chair or that He looks like Big Bird is wrong. For one thing, such an understanding creates a view of God that is incompatible with other statements the Bible makes about God - like that He is Spirit - which means invisible and of the spiritual realm - which means no Sesame Street and no chair for God. So no matter how simple one wants to take "sitting at the right hand of God" - it cannot therefore mean God has a physical form requiring or being able to use or need a chair. Neither would He require rest, man on the other does - which is more to the point of addressing that passage - but I digress.

I figure people way smarter than me went through all this thousands of years ago and am happy to trust and believe they got it right and as God promised the Apostles what the Church teaches remains true today. So no, it is not simply a matter of choosing what a particular verse means to me.

I know some folks believe they can read it and choose for themselves "as the Spirit leads them", but then I suspect that is one reason we have so many varied beliefs among all that we would call Christians. But a non-physical representation of God is pretty foundational among all Christians, so a rejection of any notion that God requires a seat is not really a matter of choice for Christians.

Doc,

Do you suppose that it's possible that those people you referenced being smarter and having more understanding than you, MAY NOT have been as smart or as understanding as you have been led to BELIEVE they were?

I mean I have read some real DOOZIES when it comes to stories. Some that are so GOOD that many people actually believe them today. You know, like Robin Hood and The Knights of the Round Table. Or how about the movie: The Ten Commandments? Many BELIEVE these stories to be TRUE. For those that wrote them WROTE them as if they were TRUE.

So let me use this illustration:

Jesus came and taught forgiveness. THAT was His message in a nut shell. That we LOVE each other and that we must FIRST forgive in order to be forgiven. And forgiveness is obviously the FIRST step towards loving OTHERS. And it's the CRUCIAL means by which WE are able to GAIN a relationship with God through His Son.

Now, if this is TRUTH, how do YOU suppose those that created 'trinity' were able to torture and murder those that opposed it? Not people that opposed the Bible, but people that opposed the idea of 'trinity'? HOW could one that KNEW Christ and KNEW Christ's message torture and murder people to institute this IDEA that you say 'smarter people than us' created? If they were smarter and more understanding than us, HOW is it that they missed the message of forgiveness and chose to torture and murder people to institute 'trinity' into THEIR form of 'Christianity'?

You indicate a 'sinner here and there in the church'. It was the ENTIRE RCC that participated in the FORCING of the congregation to accept 'trinity' and enforced through the power of the EMPIRE. And the SAME 'church' that denied the congregation the Bible for well over a THOUSAND YEARS. Insisting that people place their faith in the CLERGY rather than God or His Son. Actually TAUGHT the congregation that there was NO salvation EXCEPT through the CLERGY. That the POPE could dictate WHO could be granted salvation and who could be DENIED salvation.

Now, HOW does ANY of this fit in with the TRUE message of Christ? Yet you accept what they created so far as a NEW God defined as a 'trinity'. NO ONE had ever had such an idea revealed to them BY GOD for thousands of years and then from what THEY teach, God revealed to those that actually NAILED his Son to the cross this idea of 'three persons/One God'. And then I suppose it was GOD'S will that they tortured and murdered those that opposed their 'creation'? I find this difficult to digest.

For you see, I wasn't TAUGHT 'trinity' FIRST. I was lost and found WITHOUT someone teaching me 'trinity'. I had KNOWN God for well over a YEAR before anyone ever even tried to explain to me what 'trinity' meant.

And Doc, I'm not ALONE. Throughout history there have been MANY MANY MANY men that could plainly see the truth behind 'trinity'. The 'church' murdered MANY saints who refused to accept their teachings concerning 'trinity'. And even today, the denominations that teach 'trinity' insist that one cannot be saved without acceptance of this 'doctrine of men'. WHY? It's not BIBLICAL. Whether one uses bits and pieces of the bible to support it, it does NOT exist IN the Bible. No mention of 'trinity'. Not once are we told that we MUST believe in 'trinity'. Yet the 'churches' that TEACH it insist that one MUST believe in 'trinity'. WHY?

But I can offer this: such a stance is very much akin to the pagan religions of the past. INSISTING that one MUST produce certain ritual and MUST believe in certain things in order to PLEASE God.

Whereas the Bible tells us that it's ALL about LOVE. And the first step is forgiveness. And as a matter of FACT, the Bible teaches us that we MUST believe that Jesus is the SON of God. Not God Himself. That the Son of God was SENT by God to die for our sins. Yet YOU say that it was GOD that died upon the cross. Even when we have the words of Christ Himself: "My God, my God, why hath THOU forsaken ME?" Hmmmm................fully God/fully man? Asking WHY God had abandoned Him, yet 'fully God/fully man'? Seems pretty IFFY to me.........

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Doc,

Don't claim to KNOW exactly what 'type', 'sort' or 'exact manner' of 'throne' Christ sits NEXT to. And I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "Hand" so far as the 'right hand of God' is concerned. But I DO understand the words. And for Christ to SIT at the RIGHT hand of God doesn't mean I have to understand exactly what that means to plainly SEE that for one to SIT NEXT to another is an obvious indication that they are NOT THE SAME.

And how confusing to offer that God HAS a God???? You say you have no problem accepting that. I find it LUDICROUS if there is but ONE God. And Christ being a THIRD part of that ONE God saying that God is HIS God as well as ours just makes NO sense.

Let me ask this: Do you suppose that God would desire for us to KNOW Him? Or do you rather support an idea that, we, the congregation aren't capable of KNOWING God and that it's up to the 'church' to KNOW God and for US, the congregation, to place our faith in IT, 'the church' rather than God or His Son?

And take this into consideration when you attempt to answer: NO WHERE in the entire Bible are we told that we are to BELIEVE that Jesus IS God. No where in the Bible are we told that Jesus is ONE person of THREE that make up GOD. No where in the Bible are we told that we MUST believe in 'trinity' in order to KNOW God.

Blessings,

MEC

And no proper understanding of the Trinity Doctrine has Father, Son and Holy Ghost being the same. You have a gift of side tracking a direct challenge to things you posted by deflecting it back on another topic. The point was about a declaration you made that God needed a seat, a chair and this apparently evident to you because His Son (after becoming Man) is said to "sit" at His RH. I never said that scripture did not mean anything regarding the relationship or status of either - the point was and is those verses do not mean God needs a chair for that would mean God is not Spirit and that clearly goes against multiple references in the Bible starting with the most ancient references (and no doubt historical jokes) regarding a tribe that had only One God and Him invisible.

John 1 says the Word was God, sounds pretty simple to me. God needing a chair and not being a Spirit are reason enough for me to say we can error greatly tossing out thousands of years of people obviously smarter than us by somehow leaving each to his own in reading the Bible and attempting to sort out for themselves "knowing" God.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Doc,

Do you suppose that it's possible that those people you referenced being smarter and having more understanding than you, MAY NOT have been as smart or as understanding as you have been led to BELIEVE they were?

I mean I have read some real DOOZIES when it comes to stories. Some that are so GOOD that many people actually believe them today. You know, like Robin Hood and The Knights of the Round Table. Or how about the movie: The Ten Commandments? Many BELIEVE these stories to be TRUE. For those that wrote them WROTE them as if they were TRUE.

So let me use this illustration:

Jesus came and taught forgiveness. THAT was His message in a nut shell. That we LOVE each other and that we must FIRST forgive in order to be forgiven. And forgiveness is obviously the FIRST step towards loving OTHERS. And it's the CRUCIAL means by which WE are able to GAIN a relationship with God through His Son.

Now, if this is TRUTH, how do YOU suppose those that created 'trinity' were able to torture and murder those that opposed it? Not people that opposed the Bible, but people that opposed the idea of 'trinity'? HOW could one that KNEW Christ and KNEW Christ's message torture and murder people to institute this IDEA that you say 'smarter people than us' created? If they were smarter and more understanding than us, HOW is it that they missed the message of forgiveness and chose to torture and murder people to institute 'trinity' into THEIR form of 'Christianity'?

You indicate a 'sinner here and there in the church'. It was the ENTIRE RCC that participated in the FORCING of the congregation to accept 'trinity' and enforced through the power of the EMPIRE. And the SAME 'church' that denied the congregation the Bible for well over a THOUSAND YEARS. Insisting that people place their faith in the CLERGY rather than God or His Son. Actually TAUGHT the congregation that there was NO salvation EXCEPT through the CLERGY. That the POPE could dictate WHO could be granted salvation and who could be DENIED salvation.

Now, HOW does ANY of this fit in with the TRUE message of Christ? Yet you accept what they created so far as a NEW God defined as a 'trinity'. NO ONE had ever had such an idea revealed to them BY GOD for thousands of years and then from what THEY teach, God revealed to those that actually NAILED his Son to the cross this idea of 'three persons/One God'. And then I suppose it was GOD'S will that they tortured and murdered those that opposed their 'creation'? I find this difficult to digest.

For you see, I wasn't TAUGHT 'trinity' FIRST. I was lost and found WITHOUT someone teaching me 'trinity'. I had KNOWN God for well over a YEAR before anyone ever even tried to explain to me what 'trinity' meant.

And Doc, I'm not ALONE. Throughout history there have been MANY MANY MANY men that could plainly see the truth behind 'trinity'. The 'church' murdered MANY saints who refused to accept their teachings concerning 'trinity'. And even today, the denominations that teach 'trinity' insist that one cannot be saved without acceptance of this 'doctrine of men'. WHY? It's not BIBLICAL. Whether one uses bits and pieces of the bible to support it, it does NOT exist IN the Bible. No mention of 'trinity'. Not once are we told that we MUST believe in 'trinity'. Yet the 'churches' that TEACH it insist that one MUST believe in 'trinity'. WHY?

But I can offer this: such a stance is very much akin to the pagan religions of the past. INSISTING that one MUST produce certain ritual and MUST believe in certain things in order to PLEASE God.

Whereas the Bible tells us that it's ALL about LOVE. And the first step is forgiveness. And as a matter of FACT, the Bible teaches us that we MUST believe that Jesus is the SON of God. Not God Himself. That the Son of God was SENT by God to die for our sins. Yet YOU say that it was GOD that died upon the cross. Even when we have the words of Christ Himself: "My God, my God, why hath THOU forsaken ME?" Hmmmm................fully God/fully man? Asking WHY God had abandoned Him, yet 'fully God/fully man'? Seems pretty IFFY to me.........

Blessings,

MEC

From the numerous errors posted here it is not evident to me that you were ever taught the Trinity Doctrine at all.

 

[Imagican]

From the numerous errors posted here it is not evident to me that you were ever taught the Trinity Doctrine at all.

Oh, I LIKE it. A serious challenge.

Hmmmm............. 'taught 'trinity' from WHO's perspective?' would be the proper question.

For to understand 'trinity', I went STRAIGHT to the source from the beginning of my understanding. That would be the RCC. Starting with the Council at Nicaea and then following the topic through it's evolution THROUGH the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, since I started studying the very nature and history of 'trinity' well over fifteen years ago, it is MY consensus that I have a much BETTER understanding of it than most that profess to believe in it. For I haven't learned what individuals TEACH, I studied what those that 'created it' taught and teach.

The basic doctrine states that the Son and God are COEQUAL. of the SAME essence. NO beginning, no end. ETERNAL.

And that there are THREE persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit that make up ONE God. Therefore, God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit. MAKING God a 'multi-part God'. Three in ONE.

According to the RCC, 'trinity' is a doctrine that MUST be 'divinely revealed'. That means that it cannot be fathomed through intellect or rationality. The ONLY means that one can come to an acceptance of 'trinity' is through it being DIVINELY revealed.

And even after being 'divinely revealed', it STILL remains a MYSTERY, unable to be fathomed by reason or intellect.

So, basically, once the 'church' created and instituted 'trinity', they insisted that one must simply 'take it upon FAITH' that it exists and that even when one comes to accept it, they will NEVER understand it. For even after being revealed, it STILL remains a mystery.

This is what the 'creators' of 'trinity' have laid out so far as doctrine is concerned.

Now, the tricky part: speak to ten different people about their BELIEFS in 'trinity' and one quickly realizes that they get TEN DIFFERENT interpretations.

Yet it was created by a definitive GROUP of people that plainly defined the doctrine to the best of their ability. Which begs the question: are there more than ONE "trinity"? Is it possible that 'trinity' can mean something DIFFERENT to ten different people and still lay claim to divine revelation? Would God REALLY reveal something DIFFERENTLY to ten different people? Or is the TRUTH more stable than this? For it is my FIRM belief that God CANNOT reveal something to one that contradicts what He has revealed to another. Otherwise, ONE of the revelations must be FALSE in order for the other to be TRUTH.

So WHICH 'trinity' is the TRUTH? the one followed by the Baptists? The one followed by the Catholic Church? Or the ones followed by the other denominations? For EACH seems to have found a DIFFERENT understanding of the doctrine.

And how does one approach 'trinity' when taking this scripture into consideration:

Acts 17:29 (KJV)
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Read it carefully.............'graven by art and man's device'.

Yet 'trinity' would fit nicely and perfectly into this very NATURE. For how MANY different 'graven images' exist that represent 'trinity'? And when one accepts the actual HISTORY of 'trinity', there can no longer be ANY doubt that it was DEVISED by MEN. Whether DIVINELY inspired remains the pertinent question?

But when studying history, we find that MOST ancient religions had 'multi-part Gods'. Hence, the importance of the God of the Hebrews declaring and signifying Himself ONE, like NO OTHER. No OTHER gods beside Him.

The Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, ALL had 'multi-part Gods' in their religions. Yet when revealing Himself to the Hebrews, God revealed Himself as SINGULAR, un-compounded. LIKE NO OTHER. And NO OTHER god/gods beside Him.

So my most important question is this: is the God that if formed by 'trinity' the SAME God revealed to the Hebrews as ONE, with NO OTHER gods beside Him? Or is the God of 'trinity' a DIFFERENT God. A 'multi part god' formed by those that couldn't help but see this concept due to their previous beliefs in 'multi part gods'?

Not only does history DICTATE that 'trinity' was a "man made concept", we can clearly SEE that they beliefs followed by those that created it and instituted it were DIFFERENT than the beliefs outlined in the Bible so far as the FOLLOWERS of Christ.

Christ's message was forgiveness. The message of those that introduced 'trinity' was 'profess to believe or suffer the consequences through OUR HANDS'. The RCC's message seemed to be 'follow what WE teach or DIE'. Not the 'forgiveness' taught by Christ.

And look at all the warning offered by Christ so far as following MEN. And then compare that to the teachings of those that 'created trinity'. Heck, those that created 'trinity' denied the congregation the very WORD of God until they lost their power. Taught the congregation that they couldn't understand it even if allowed to read it.

U are correct: NO ONE has 'taught me trinity'. What I KNOW of 'trinity' is what is written by those that 'created it'. And I KNOW that 'trinity' has NEVER been 'divinely' revealed to ME. Just the opposite in fact. Jesus is exactly who He stated He was/is: the Son of God. Not 'the Son that IS God'. That is NEVER offered in the Bible. Nor has it ever been revealed to me 'divinely'. Too much evidence offered directly through the Bible that contradicts 'trinity' for me to accept it's validity. Not the least of which is our warning to AVOID 'doctrines of men' and stick to the doctrines laid out by Christ and the apostles. "Trinity" NOT being one even MENTIONED by Christ or His apostles.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Albion]

The basic doctrine states that the Son and God are COEQUAL. of the SAME essence. NO beginning, no end. ETERNAL.

And that there are THREE persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit that make up ONE God. Therefore, God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit. MAKING God a 'multi-part God'. Three in ONE.

According to the RCC, 'trinity' is a doctrine that MUST be 'divinely revealed'. That means that it cannot be fathomed through intellect or rationality. The ONLY means that one can come to an acceptance of 'trinity' is through it being DIVINELY revealed.

And even after being 'divinely revealed', it STILL remains a MYSTERY, unable to be fathomed by reason or intellect.

So, basically, once the 'church' created and instituted 'trinity',

and you were doing so well until now.

The Council of Nicaea replied upon Scripture, but you simply state that it invented the Trinity.
Ho hum.

they insisted that one must simply 'take it upon FAITH' that it exists and that even when one comes to accept it

No. They did not.

they will NEVER understand it. For even after being revealed, it STILL remains a mystery.

KNOWING something to true, and knowing all about HOW it operates or is structured are two different things. I don't know how electricity works; it's a mystery to me! I still am convinced of what it does.

What's more, this is hardly the only mystery in Scripture. How God does anything we know him to do is a mystery. How he could become Man is a mystery. How Christ could rise from the dead is a mystery. And so on. Shall we, therefore, throw out everything in Scripture except the geographic and historic details that we can verify??

Now, the tricky part: speak to ten different people about their BELIEFS in 'trinity' and one quickly realizes that they get TEN DIFFERENT interpretations.

As we see every day here on CF, you get "TEN DIFFERENT" interpretations of political theory, climate change, and just about every doctrine in church history. There's no reason to single out the Trinitarian belief, and that doesn't prove anything except that people disagree on the meaning of all sorts of things.

 

[Imagican]

And Doc, let me add this:

When God and His Son were first revealed to me, I spent over an entire year completely engrossed in the Bible. I read it first page to last probably six or seven times not including all the study of individual topics I performed.

It was quite a while before anyone mentioned 'trinity' to me. I had NO idea what they were talking about. Some guy invited me to attend a 'church' and we started talking and he made some kind of comment referring to Jesus as God. I corrected him, "you mean Jesus, right"? He says,'well yeah, but Jesus IS God'. I started laughing and asked what he meant. He stated, "you know, trinity, the Father, Son and Spirit are GOD. EVERYBODY KNOWS that". I said, "I didn't".

So I started reading the Bible AGAIN, from the first page to the last, looking for this 'elusive trinity'. Didn't find it. Didn't find any INDICATION of it. I prayed and read and read and prayed and still couldn't find 'trinity' in the Bible.

A number of years later, for a college class, I did a 7500 word essay on Constantine and Christianity in the Roman Empire. No internet back then so it was hours and hours in the library reading everything I could about Constantine and the introduction of Christianity into the Roman Empire.

That began an indefinite study of 'trinity' that has yet to end. The more I have read, the more obvious it has become that 'trinity' was COMPLETELY and UTTERLY 'man made'. That it EVOLVED over HUNDREDS of years into it's present form that exists today.

But the most important understanding is that offered by the Roman Catholic Church itself, (those that created and instituted the doctrine). New Advent offers a pretty concise explanation offered BY those that 'created' the doctrine. So it ANYONE knows what it means, it should certainly be those that 'created' it.

I challenge YOU to read what is offered about the doctrine in 'New Advent', the Catholic Encyclopedia. Just go to New Advent and type 'trinity' in 'search'. I think you'll find it interesting. For it is offered in the same manner as just about everything else concerning the 'Catholic Church'.

You continually indicate that my truthfulness concerning the Catholic Church is somehow derogatory. Not meant to be. Simply offering the truth, in my opinion, isn't derogatory. And I only believe that it's possible to view it that way if one CHOOSES to see disagreement or details, derogatory.

But let me assure you, if my view of the Catholic Church is derogatory, my view of almost EVERY denomination is NO different. For it is MY firm belief from years of study that almost ALL mainstream denominations are nothing but 'offshoots' of the Catholic Church. While they call themselves Protestant, the truth is, the only MAJOR difference is allegiance to the POPE.

So please don't think that I am ignorant of the DEFINITION of 'trinity'. Nor it's history. Just because I refuse to accept it doesn't mean I don't KNOW what it's suppose to MEAN.

It has been MY experience that it is often those that profess to BELIEVE and FOLLOW 'trinity' that have the LEAST understanding of it. And THAT is why if you ask ten different people to explain 'trinity' you'll get ten DIFFERENT explanations.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Albion]

So please don't think that I am ignorant of the DEFINITION of 'trinity'. Nor it's history.

You've already convinced us of that.

It has been MY experience that it is often those that profess to BELIEVE and FOLLOW 'trinity' that have the LEAST understanding of it. And THAT is why if you ask ten different people to explain 'trinity' you'll get ten DIFFERENT explanations.

Which is it to be then--

As best as you understand it, you don't believe it

or

BECAUSE there is disagreement among those who profess to believe it, you won't?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And Doc, let me add this:

When God and His Son were first revealed to me, I spent over an entire year completely engrossed in the Bible. I read it first page to last probably six or seven times not including all the study of individual topics I performed.

It was quite a while before anyone mentioned 'trinity' to me. I had NO idea what they were talking about. Some guy invited me to attend a 'church' and we started talking and he made some kind of comment referring to Jesus as God. I corrected him, "you mean Jesus, right"? He says,'well yeah, but Jesus IS God'. I started laughing and asked what he meant. He stated, "you know, trinity, the Father, Son and Spirit are GOD. EVERYBODY KNOWS that". I said, "I didn't".

So I started reading the Bible AGAIN, from the first page to the last, looking for this 'elusive trinity'. Didn't find it. Didn't find any INDICATION of it. I prayed and read and read and prayed and still couldn't find 'trinity' in the Bible.

A number of years later, for a college class, I did a 7500 word essay on Constantine and Christianity in the Roman Empire. No internet back then so it was hours and hours in the library reading everything I could about Constantine and the introduction of Christianity into the Roman Empire.

That began an indefinite study of 'trinity' that has yet to end. The more I have read, the more obvious it has become that 'trinity' was COMPLETELY and UTTERLY 'man made'. That it EVOLVED over HUNDREDS of years into it's present form that exists today.

But the most important understanding is that offered by the Roman Catholic Church itself, (those that created and instituted the doctrine). New Advent offers a pretty concise explanation offered BY those that 'created' the doctrine. So it ANYONE knows what it means, it should certainly be those that 'created' it.

I challenge YOU to read what is offered about the doctrine in 'New Advent', the Catholic Encyclopedia. Just go to New Advent and type 'trinity' in 'search'. I think you'll find it interesting. For it is offered in the same manner as just about everything else concerning the 'Catholic Church'.

You continually indicate that my truthfulness concerning the Catholic Church is somehow derogatory. Not meant to be. Simply offering the truth, in my opinion, isn't derogatory. And I only believe that it's possible to view it that way if one CHOOSES to see disagreement or details, derogatory.

But let me assure you, if my view of the Catholic Church is derogatory, my view of almost EVERY denomination is NO different. For it is MY firm belief from years of study that almost ALL mainstream denominations are nothing but 'offshoots' of the Catholic Church. While they call themselves Protestant, the truth is, the only MAJOR difference is allegiance to the POPE.

So please don't think that I am ignorant of the DEFINITION of 'trinity'. Nor it's history. Just because I refuse to accept it doesn't mean I don't KNOW what it's suppose to MEAN.

It has been MY experience that it is often those that profess to BELIEVE and FOLLOW 'trinity' that have the LEAST understanding of it. And THAT is why if you ask ten different people to explain 'trinity' you'll get ten DIFFERENT explanations.

Blessings,

MEC

Again, the Catechism of the Church is online. It offers everything the Church teaches regarding the Trinity Doctrine. Anything else not included there written by Catholics or non-Catholics represents speculation, which even if true or believed to be true is not binding on a Catholic to accept [and not binding to reject unless it contradicts what is taught as binding].

Am not the one here claiming to have been taught the Trinity Doctrine by Catholics and then making statements/conclusions about the teaching that are non-sensical in a rather poor attempt to discredit it (such as God becoming Man, then that Man dying and God not dying; or God having a "god" or Jesus being a "part" of God with three "parts"). None of those statements make sense if the Trinity Doctrine as the Church teaches is assumed true (meaning one does not have to believe it to understand those statements are incompatible with assuming the teaching is true).

If the teaching one clams to have been taught was actually correct, then either one mis-understood, or never really understood or one understood and fails now to believe it and would rather mis-represent/mis-characterize it than accept that the non-sensical statements one spouts are actually non-sensical if one actually knows the teaching.

 

[BukiRob]

Over and over. Thread after thread. It seems that the 'schism' that Constantine feared may split HIS 'new religion' wasn't settled as some would assume. For the debate of 'trinity' has been rejected and debated ever since it's introduction into Christianity. This is NOT another 'trinity' debate.

It's a SIMPLE question that would appear few have EVER even contemplated. Yet it may be so profound as to answer this debate of 'trinity' once and for all. But ONLY if one comes to the PROPER answer to a SIMPLE question. Here goes:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Here we have the FIRST three verses of the Bible. In these three verses it STATES that IN THE BEGINNING, God FIRST created the heavens and the earth. And at that TIME of creation, the Earth had NO form and was VOID, (nothing ON it). And we are also informed that only darkness existed. Then in the third verse it states that God said, "Let there be light". God CREATED light.


Let's move ahead just a little:


Genesis 1:


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


It now becomes clear that in the Beginning, BEFORE the forth day, When God said, "Let there be light", that this usage of the term 'light' MUST have a different meaning than literal, physical LIGHT. For it isn't until the FORTH day that stars, the Sun, the moon were 'created'. So it wasn't until the FORTH day that PHYSICAL light was introduced.


So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?


Blessings,


MEC

Schroeder is a physicist who got his Phd at MIT and taught there for 8 years. This is about 45 mins but he walks through how the age of the universe as science see's it ~16 billion years is absolutely consistent with a 6 day creation found in Genesis. After watching this and listening to him explain the math behind it, I think he is 100% spot on

 

[Imagican]

Thanks BukiRob. Quite an interesting video. I have always offered that 'in the beginning' doesn't mean THE beginning, but "A" beginning. THAT beginning which pertains to those to whom the words were revealed or written to.
And I am a FIRM believer that the terms morning and evening: DAYS, were NOT meant LITERALLY, they were merely a figurative means of conveying 'time periods': beginning and ending. For the NT plainly illustrates that God is TIMELESS. A day to God could be like a BILLION years or a billion years as a DAY. So the 'days' of creation were offered merely to show ORDER, not literal "TIME".
We have absolutely NO idea from the Bible how old the Earth is. We have NO idea from the Bible when humans were created other than the ORDER of 'creation'. The earth was prepared FIRST and then humans were 'created'. And it may have taken BILLIONS of years for the earth to be prepared. God, being TIMELESS, could have quite possibly taken BILLIONS of years preparing the earth for 'man'. The Bible doesn't offer us this information. But science has pretty much proven that the earth is certainly MUCH older than the 6 thousand years traditionalists insist upon it's age.
Blessings,
MEC

 

[Chicken Little]

seems you have a Geni image for a god. You really might want to pray about that.

I believe that the light He is talking about here is the laws of thermodynamics. stuff like this

1. Zeroth law of thermodynamics – If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

He creates and proclaims the laws of EVERYTHING before He uses those laws to build and do every single thing ever . Because he is LAWFUL! and there in no nothing you will find in Gen that is going to unsay what John 1 says. and what Jesus says to his people in his culture when he was here with them .
Jesus created an eye with Spit and Dirt in their site.. just to prove he did it on the 4th , 5th and 6th day.

 

[2KnowHim]

Over and over. Thread after thread. It seems that the 'schism' that Constantine feared may split HIS 'new religion' wasn't settled as some would assume. For the debate of 'trinity' has been rejected and debated ever since it's introduction into Christianity. This is NOT another 'trinity' debate.

It's a SIMPLE question that would appear few have EVER even contemplated. Yet it may be so profound as to answer this debate of 'trinity' once and for all. But ONLY if one comes to the PROPER answer to a SIMPLE question. Here goes:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Here we have the FIRST three verses of the Bible. In these three verses it STATES that IN THE BEGINNING, God FIRST created the heavens and the earth. And at that TIME of creation, the Earth had NO form and was VOID, (nothing ON it). And we are also informed that only darkness existed. Then in the third verse it states that God said, "Let there be light". God CREATED light.


Let's move ahead just a little:


Genesis 1:


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


It now becomes clear that in the Beginning, BEFORE the forth day, When God said, "Let there be light", that this usage of the term 'light' MUST have a different meaning than literal, physical LIGHT. For it isn't until the FORTH day that stars, the Sun, the moon were 'created'. So it wasn't until the FORTH day that PHYSICAL light was introduced.


So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?


Blessings,


MEC

The Light in The beginning is God's Word (Jesus Christ)
That Light was not made manifest until The Forth day (or 4,000 yrs. later)

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Over and over. Thread after thread. It seems that the 'schism' that Constantine feared may split HIS 'new religion' wasn't settled as some would assume. For the debate of 'trinity' has been rejected and debated ever since it's introduction into Christianity. This is NOT another 'trinity' debate.

It's a SIMPLE question that would appear few have EVER even contemplated. Yet it may be so profound as to answer this debate of 'trinity' once and for all. But ONLY if one comes to the PROPER answer to a SIMPLE question. Here goes:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Here we have the FIRST three verses of the Bible. In these three verses it STATES that IN THE BEGINNING, God FIRST created the heavens and the earth. And at that TIME of creation, the Earth had NO form and was VOID, (nothing ON it). And we are also informed that only darkness existed. Then in the third verse it states that God said, "Let there be light". God CREATED light.


Let's move ahead just a little:


Genesis 1:


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


It now becomes clear that in the Beginning, BEFORE the forth day, When God said, "Let there be light", that this usage of the term 'light' MUST have a different meaning than literal, physical LIGHT. For it isn't until the FORTH day that stars, the Sun, the moon were 'created'. So it wasn't until the FORTH day that PHYSICAL light was introduced.


So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?


Blessings,


MEC

Well this light created in the beginning was just named "light" . that's it . the Psalms speak of a heaven above a heaven and of a time when God opened up the sky. The "firmament" of the fourth day is the sky, it is the heaven, when this "rolls up like a scroll" we will see the realm of God .. and the "Great sun" as another culture calls it.

 

[Imagican]

Doc,

If I have misrepresented or mis-characterized anyone or anything, I can assure you, it hasn't been intentional. I take my words pretty seriously and do my best to keep my opinions separate from the things I state as FACTS.
The history of the Catholic Church and it's doctrine of 'trinity' are pretty easy to find. While it may take a bit of patience and effort to come to a proper conclusion, the information is there for any and all willing to make the effort. I have.
The Catholic Churches record is pretty clear. So it's not a matter of speculation or derogatory to point it out as history dictates. As far as I'm concerned, the only people that would make such accusations are those unwilling to face the TRUTH. Obviously I'm not a Catholic for I don't find the truth concerning the CC offensive in the least. INTERESTING. But certainly not offensive. No more so than the history of the Roman Empire or that of the United States.
And what matters to ME more than finding something to agree or disagree with is THE TRUTH. Even when it's painful, I would rather have the TRUTH than wishful thinking or propaganda.
And Doc, I do NOT believe in 'evolution' so far as Christianity is concerned. I am a FIRM believer that by the time of Christ's death, the foundation for Christianity had ALREADY been laid. It didn't take another four hundred years AFTER His death for the truth to be revealed. And to believe in what the RCC teaches, that would be the case.
But back to the subject of this thread, I would still like to know what others THINK 'the light' was that was created IN the beginning. You know, before the sources for LITERAL 'light' were created on the FOURTH day: Sun, moon, stars, etc.
And I find it utterly compelling that the NT often refers to Christ as 'the LIGHT of this world', and 'in the beginning, God created 'light' FIRST. Just as the Bible states that Christ was the BEGINNING of God's creation. Just like the Bible states that ALL things were created THROUGH Christ. For this to be true, it would require that Christ exist PREVIOUS to everything else being 'created'. My belief is that the statement is in reference to ALL things pertaining to US: this earth and what exists directly ON IT and AROUND it pertaining to LIFE.
Blessings,
MEC