Debating the Trinity

[Geralt]

A) you seemed to have missed gospel 101, how come ?

Isa 53:6 ..and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
​

Christ was punished for the reason that HE BECAME A SIN BEARER (2Cor15:21) -not that he sinned, but the sins of his people imputed (transferred) to him. this has always been the idea behind the sin-sacrifice ritual in the old testament. it is justice to punish CHRIST in this case, who willingly took upon him the penalty of death on the cross.

B) God is not 3 people and one person. Where in blazes did you get such idea ? The Trinity has been defined as one God in 3 persons, not 3 people one persons. It is the most accurate representation of how God presented himself in scripture. The problem with Unitarians or Arianism is that it looks at God in a human model, one person=one being. But that is humanizing God to a convenient description that appeals to human logic, and not letting scripture speak for itself.

What is certain is that God is both defined in singular and plural tense in the OT. (ex. Gen 1:26, "Then God said, "Let US make man in our image, after our likeness.", etc..)

And that in the NT, The Son is God, The Father is God, The Holy Spirit is God, but they are NOT 3 Gods, they are ONE.

And thus to be incorporate and represent accurately in one word this definition of God, and to differentiate against the heresies of Arianism, etc.. that time, the word Trinity was invented. In one word, you already know what it means to differentiate from what others believe. The word is NOT in scripture, but the meaning is presented in scripture.

The word 'God' is like the word 'doctor', different people understand the word depending on their need. However if you call it in specific one word say, ophthalmologist, or psychiatrist, or orthopedic, you already know what KIND of doctor it is.​

As I pointed out (A) if one person is punished for another it is not justice. Man is the one who sinned. If there is to be justice the man must suffer the punishment. God, the Father, didn't die, Jesus did. So God didn't take the wages of sin on Himself. If you say it was Jesus as God then you have Modalism which was refuted very early on in the Christian faith.

What is this punishment that you're talking about?

But they're not three cells making up one cell. They are not three presidents making up one president. You're comparing apples to oranges. The administrative and legislative branches are two different branches that are a part of the government. You don't have three administrative branches making up one administrative branch. (B) Three different people cannot be one person, it is a logical contradiction.[/QUOTE]

 

[miknik5]

Nah.

Got all caught up in "gender of God" stuff...

And as far as "are WE all gods?"

Yeah.

Says so in Psalms, and Jesus quoted it:

YE ARE GODS

...,To whom the WORD of God has come

Not because we are "gods" but because of and by and through THE WORD we have eternal life

By the way I know that you know this. It's just that many leave out that portion of the scriptures and THE WORD of GOD has not been received by all which is why there are differences in understanding and which is why the council at Nicea had to come to order to discuss tSPIRITUAL TRUTHS (which can only be known and revealed by HIS SPIRIT (that is THE WORD MADE FLESH)are not known to all for the secrets of the KINGDOM have not been given to all

 

[Anto9us]

Yeah, I'm sorry, miknik5; I cant copy/paste from this phone, but I will try to get both the Psalms passage and the Gospel passage about YE ARE GODS up here later

I know we are not REALLY gods, but we do get a chance to become "partakers of the divine nature" through Christ

 

[miknik5]

The same here. Hence the many "auto corrects and typos"

I am discovering the phone is really not a good device to use on these forums

 

[Butch5]

Please reread my earlier posts, I have already explained this and see no need to do it ad nauseam.

I know you have. The problem is it doesn't work. The only way you can have that view is to hold to Modalism. However, that idea was refuted very early on in the Christian faith.

The passion and Crucifixion of our Lord.

This creates another problem. If death is the punishment and Christ suffered it, why do Christians die? Why is the punishment twofold?

Please explain your view of the Atonement for I cannot see how you could possibly maintain justice.

I hold the Ransom view not the Penal view. Justice is served. Man sins and man dies. He was threatened with death if he sins. He sins and he dies. That is justice.

You missed the point. They aren't exact analogies, merely ways to show you that such use of language is not inconsistent nor illogical nor uncommon. Multiples are often spoken of as one thing or thought individually to contain the rest.

Yes, but one thing isn't made of multiples of the same thing. You don't have one car consisting of three cars.

Besides three different Persons being One is not a logical contradiction - Personae and Hypostasis, the actual terms used, are not exactly equivalent to English person in the first place and have a far more metaphysical bent.
Secondly, what does 'Person' mean? In human terms, Psychology and Neuroscience has largely done away with the idea of a Self as one entity. We are a corporatist complex of multiple thoughts and processes, some conscious and some not. If anything, all persons are composed of multiple 'selves' interdependant upon one another.

And men can also come up with the idea that there is a God that consists of three persons. You can't have a conscious being that consist of three other conscious beings.

I'd ask you to give some evidence, however, I know that it's not possible. I'll ask you the same question I asked newlight. This idea is illogical, has not evidence to back it up and is later in church history. Why would believe a bunch of guys from the 5th century that you don't even know? Why not consider the evidence and say, hey, maybe there's another way this could be understood that wasn't illogical and made sense?

When you think about it there's no logical reason to believe it.


Please provide evidence for this statement.[/QUOTE]

Just read the Nicene Creed. It opens with, 'We believe in one God the Father'. It's practically a verbatim quote of the apostle Paul.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor. 8:5-6 KJV)

 

[Butch5]

Are you talking about the early church fathers at the council of Nicene?

Or. Are you wanting to know where the "idea" of the trinity was Hidden in the Word of God

I'm talking about the Nicene Creed which is markedly different than that Athanasian Creed.

 

[Butch5]

A) you seemed to have missed gospel 101, how come ?

Isa 53:6 ..and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
​

Christ was punished for the reason that HE BECAME A SIN BEARER (2Cor15:21) -not that he sinned, but the sins of his people imputed (transferred) to him. this has always been the idea behind the sin-sacrifice ritual in the old testament. it is justice to punish CHRIST in this case, who willingly took upon him the penalty of death on the cross.​

That's not gospel 101. It may be Evangelicalism 101.

The Septuagint reads differently.

6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins. (Isa. 53:6 LXE)

It doesn't say Christ was punished for our sins, it says, 'the Lord gave him up for our sins.' That's big difference. It fits perfectly with the Ransom theory of the Atonement. Christ was a ransom to redeem mankind from the kingdom of darkness because man sinned.

I reject the idea of imputed righteousness also as it's not in the
Scriptures.

B)

God is not 3 people and one person. Where in blazes did you get such idea ? The Trinity has been defined as one God in 3 persons, not 3 people one persons. It is the most accurate representation of how God presented himself in scripture. The problem with Unitarians or Arianism is that it looks at God in a human model, one person=one being. But that is humanizing God to a convenient description that appeals to human logic, and not letting scripture speak for itself.

What is certain is that God is both defined in singular and plural tense in the OT. (ex. Gen 1:26, "Then God said, "Let US make man in our image, after our likeness.", etc..)

And that in the NT, The Son is God, The Father is God, The Holy Spirit is God, but they are NOT 3 Gods, they are ONE.

And thus to be incorporate and represent accurately in one word this definition of God, and to differentiate against the heresies of Arianism, etc.. that time, the word Trinity was invented. In one word, you already know what it means to differentiate from what others believe. The word is NOT in scripture, but the meaning is presented in scripture.

The word 'God' is like the word 'doctor', different people understand the word depending on their need. However if you call it in specific one word say, ophthalmologist, or psychiatrist, or orthopedic, you already know what KIND of doctor it is.

Not only is not the most accurate, it's wrong. Where did I get such and idea? From Christians saying that there is one God who consist of three persons and then they call that God "HE" using a singular pronoun. What that does is make one being that consists of three beings. For some reason they seem determined that they will not consider that their understanding could be wrong even though it is illogical and not found in Scripture.

The problem comes from people not realizing that distinct uses of the word God. The word "theos" means Deity. The Father is Deity, the Son, is Deity, and the Spirit is Deity. However, they are not one being. With a few exceptions when the Scriptures use the word God it is a reference to the Father. In a few places Jesus is referred to as God. However, that just means Deity. It doesn't mean He is the Father. They are two separate entities. However, they are both divine (Deity, God).

People don't make the distinction and when they see Jesus is God and the Father is God they try to make them into one being called God.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I know you have. The problem is it doesn't work. The only way you can have that view is to hold to Modalism. However, that idea was refuted very early on in the Christian faith.

I disagree that it is Modalistic. Please substantiate why you say it is modalism.

This creates another problem. If death is the punishment and Christ suffered it, why do Christians die? Why is the punishment twofold?

Because Christians don't really die.

I hold the Ransom view not the Penal view. Justice is served. Man sins and man dies. He was threatened with death if he sins. He sins and he dies. That is justice.

I already discussed Ransom as well and why it also requires a Trinity.

Yes, but one thing isn't made of multiples of the same thing. You don't have one car consisting of three cars.

It often is, as in my examples. To try and make analogies where this is not so does not alter this fact.

And men can also come up with the idea that there is a God that consists of three persons. You can't have a conscious being that consist of three other conscious beings.

I'd ask you to give some evidence, however, I know that it's not possible. I'll ask you the same question I asked newlight. This idea is illogical, has not evidence to back it up and is later in church history. Why would believe a bunch of guys from the 5th century that you don't even know? Why not consider the evidence and say, hey, maybe there's another way this could be understood that wasn't illogical and made sense?

When you think about it there's no logical reason to believe it.

As I said, the Trinity is quite logical. I used to be an Atheist and when I converted I investigated the Trinity and came to the conclusion that only Trinitarian Christianity is not mired in contradiction and inconsistency.

Just read the Nicene Creed. It opens with, 'We believe in one God the Father'. It's practically a verbatim quote of the apostle Paul.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor. 8:5-6 KJV)

This is just your interpretation of the Creed, not proof that they interpreted in this manner. If you read the actual history of the period and the explanations of the Council of Nicaea, you will see you are mistaken on this point.

 

[miknik5]

That's not gospel 101. It may be Evangelicalism 101.

The Septuagint reads differently.

6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins. (Isa. 53:6 LXE)

It doesn't say Christ was punished for our sins, it says, 'the Lord gave him up for our sins.' That's big difference. It fits perfectly with the Ransom theory of the Atonement. Christ was a ransom to redeem mankind from the kingdom of darkness because man sinned.

I reject the idea of imputed righteousness also as it's not in the
Scriptures.

​

Not only is not the most accurate, it's wrong. Where did I get such and idea? From Christians saying that there is one God who consist of three persons and then they call that God "HE" using a singular pronoun. What that does is make one being that consists of three beings. For some reason they seem determined that they will not consider that their understanding could be wrong even though it is illogical and not found in Scripture.

The problem comes from people not realizing that distinct uses of the word God. The word "theos" means Deity. The Father is Deity, the Son, is Deity, and the Spirit is Deity. However, they are not one being. With a few exceptions when the Scriptures use the word God it is a reference to the Father. In a few places Jesus is referred to as God. However, that just means Deity. It doesn't mean He is the Father. They are two separate entities. However, they are both divine (Deity, God).

People don't make the distinction and when they see Jesus is God and the Father is God they try to make them into one being called God.

So then you must believe there are two Holy Spirits in Heaven? Since Jesus is separate from the Father (though HE clearly said HE isn't)

 

[Root of Jesse]

When God said that He used what is known as a Majestic Plural. If you Google "Majestic Plural" you'll see that other languages also use it. It's also used in the Bible if false gods, yet that are said to be triune.

That's an interpretation, not Biblical at all.

Just because there is mentioned the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, does not necessitate they are three persons in one being called God. As I said, that is a logical contradiction.

And yet the Holy Spirit revealed this Truth to us.

 

[miknik5]

And it is only through Jesus that we have access to the Father by ONE SPIRIT

 

[Butch5]

I disagree that it is Modalistic. Please substantiate why you say it is modalism.

Because, you said God took the punishment on Himself. If Jesus suffered the punishment then He and the Father are the very same being. That is Modalism. Modalism says that God reveals Himself in different modes, sometimes a the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Spirit.

Because Christians don't really die.

Sure they do. Do you believe the Scriptures? 'It is appoint man once to die.'

I already discussed Ransom as well and why it also requires a Trinity.

The Ransom theory doesn't require a Trinity. In the Ransom theory God gave His Son as a ransom to redeem mankind from Satan. There's nothing here that requires a ransom.

It often is, as in my examples. To try and make analogies where this is not so does not alter this fact.

It doesn't. Show me anyone who consists of three other persons. Even the Bible doesn't say that God consists of three persons. That is an "Inference", a wrong one, that people have drawn from reading different passages of Scripture. Just because someone draws and inference doesn't mean it's correct, especially when it's illogical.

As I said, the Trinity is quite logical. I used to be an Atheist and when I converted I investigated the Trinity and came to the conclusion that only Trinitarian Christianity is not mired in contradiction and inconsistency.

Trinity is logical. What is illogical is to say that the Trinity is one being who consists of three persons. That is illogical.


This is just your interpretation of the Creed, not proof that they interpreted in this manner. If you read the actual history of the period and the explanations of the Council of Nicaea, you will see you are mistaken on this point.[/QUOTE]

It's my interpretation of the creed? The Creed opens with almost a verbatim quote of the apostle Paul who said, "to us there is one God, the Father.' The creed says nothing about one God in three persons.

Regarding the history of the period, I'm quite familiar with what they believed.

Here is Justin Martyr from his First Apology.

What sober-minded man, then, will not acknowledge that we are not atheists, worshipping as we do the Maker of this universe, and declaring, as we have been taught, that He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns for our creation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons; and to present before Him petitions for our existing again in incorruption through faith in Him. Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

 

[Butch5]

So then you must believe there are two Holy Spirits in Heaven? Since Jesus is separate from the Father (though HE clearly said HE isn't)

No, I don't believe there are two Holy Spirits. Where did Jesus say He wasn't separate from the Father? If you're referring to Jesus' statement, "I and the Father are one", that statement can also be understand, and correctly I'd add, to mean the Father and the Son are in unity. However, Jesus said that the Father was in Him. We know Jesus had the Holy Spirit in Him which is a manifestation of the Father.

 

[Butch5]

That's an interpretation, not Biblical at all.

It's not an interpretation, it's a usage of language. If you do a Google search you'll find that it's not unusual.

And yet the Holy Spirit revealed this Truth to us.

The Holy Spirit has not revealed that there is one God consisting of three persons.

 

[Jack Terrence]

However, Jesus said that the Father was in Him.

How does this prove anything for you? Jesus said also that he was IN the Father.

We know Jesus had the Holy Spirit in Him which is a manifestation of the Father.

Where does the scripture say that the Holy Spirit was a manifestation of the Father? Jesus said, "He that has seen ME has seen the Father", not, "He that has seen the Holy Spirit has seen the Father."

 

[Butch5]

How does this prove anything for you? Jesus said also that he was IN the Father.

Where does the scripture say that the Holy Spirit was a manifestation of the Father? Jesus said, "He that has seen ME has seen the Father", not, "He that has seen the Holy Spirit has seen the Father."

What does any of this have to do with what I said?

 

[miknik5]

No, I don't believe there are two Holy Spirits. Where did Jesus say He wasn't separate from the Father? If you're referring to Jesus' statement, "I and the Father are one", that statement can also be understand, and correctly I'd add, to mean the Father and the Son are in unity. However, Jesus said that the Father was in Him. We know Jesus had the Holy Spirit in Him which is a manifestation of the Father.

So what did Christ mean that He would send The Spirit from the Father/The Father will send The Spirit in my Name...that all that us the fathers is His that He will take from what is His and give to us..I will not leave you as orphans I will come to you

Christ came to manifest The Fathers name....The name which the Father had given Him

Christ IS The visible manifestation of The invisible God and there is no other manifestation nor will there be but The Son alone who came to "show us The Father"

 

[miknik5]

It's not an interpretation, it's a usage of language. If you do a Google search you'll find that it's not unusual.



The Holy Spirit has not revealed that there is one God consisting of three persons.

do you know the Work of the Holy Spirit? It isn't to speak of Himself sir

You will find the work of the Holy Spirit as claimed by the precrucified Christ in John 16


Did the Lord have the right to say this? By whose spirit did the precrucified Lord have the right to say all these things? And what He said is it just as the Father had given Him to say?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Because, you said God took the punishment on Himself. If Jesus suffered the punishment then He and the Father are the very same being. That is Modalism. Modalism says that God reveals Himself in different modes, sometimes a the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Spirit.

I fail to see how you reached this conclusion. It does not follow that different modes are at play here.

The Ransom theory doesn't require a Trinity. In the Ransom theory God gave His Son as a ransom to redeem mankind from Satan. There's nothing here that requires a ransom.

My response to you from earlier in the thread which you for some reason did not read.

Debatable to say Ransom Atonement was the 'original'. People say that of Christus Victor and Moral Influence theories as well. Ransom is associated with Origen though and quite common in the Church Fathers.

Ransom still requires a trinity, for to buy humanity from Satan or Death's bondage to maintain Justice - the essence of the theory - only works because God or Life itself, cannot die or be held in Hades. The Unity of the Father and Son allows the Son as a perfect Man to transcend the limitation of men and Man can then also defeat death via our unity of God via Christ.
If Jesus had been a separate entity handed over in Ransom for our debts incurred, not only would this impinge Justice - as God would be condemning the innocent for others' crimes - it would also require an explanation of how Jesus could have overcome death. For if the Father raised him, then the Father cheated and acted unjustly in the arrangement, breaking contract as it were. Likewise if Jesus raised himself somehow, he is not a willing ransom and therefore it is also unjust.
Only if Jesus is innately incapable of dying - if He is Life itself, God Himself - can justice be maintained in Ransom theory. A created being cannot do this without leaving an Unjust Father.

It doesn't. Show me anyone who consists of three other persons. Even the Bible doesn't say that God consists of three persons. That is an "Inference", a wrong one, that people have drawn from reading different passages of Scripture. Just because someone draws and inference doesn't mean it's correct, especially when it's illogical.

I have given you examples. Please read my previous posts. I see no reason I need to repeat myself.

Trinity is logical. What is illogical is to say that the Trinity is one being who consists of three persons. That is illogical.

Not illogical at all. I explain why it is logical, then you just state it is illogical as if it is an axiomatic fact. It is growing tedious.

It's my interpretation of the creed? The Creed opens with almost a verbatim quote of the apostle Paul who said, "to us there is one God, the Father.' The creed says nothing about one God in three persons.

Regarding the history of the period, I'm quite familiar with what they believed.

Here is Justin Martyr from his First Apology.

What sober-minded man, then, will not acknowledge that we are not atheists, worshipping as we do the Maker of this universe, and declaring, as we have been taught, that He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns for our creation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons; and to present before Him petitions for our existing again in incorruption through faith in Him. Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Yes, merely your interpretation and an incorrect one according to the entire Church tradition and mainstream history.

 

[Butch5]

So what did Christ mean that He would send The Spirit from the Father/The Father will send The Spirit in my Name...that all that us the fathers is His that He will take from what is His and give to us..I will not leave you as orphans I will come to you

Christ came to manifest The Fathers name....The name which the Father had given Him

Christ IS The visible manifestation of The invisible God and there is no other manifestation nor will there be but The Son alone who came to "show us The Father"

The Scriptures say the Son is the representation of the invisible God, not the manifestation of Him.

Who is the Comforter?