Help on understanding the Trinity..

[StanJ]

Stan, I've told you Who I believe the "Word" is. Who (or what) do 'you' believe the Word is? I'm not sure what it is about my question that's difficult for you to understand
If you believe the "Word" is a little green man sitting by a campfire fixing grilled cheese sandwiches on the dark side of the Moon, fine, tell me that. If however, you believe He (or It) is someone or something else, tell me that. That's all.
Thank you
--David

Asked and answered 3 times now David so there is no use in continuing to repeat myself when you didn't understand it the first two times.
John 1:1-2 says the Word is God, not the son of God. John 1:14 says the Word became flesh. Hebrew 1:3 says what that incarnation is.
Please don't ask me again.

 

[StanJ]

The Son of God, the Word, took part in the creation of all things.
God the Father didn't become flesh, but the Son became flesh.

The word was not the Son of God until Jesus was conceived and it was the word that became flesh not the son of God. Matthew 1:20, John 1:14
Jesus was the only begotten Son of God which means he was conceived because of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 1:20 and born in the flesh, Jn 1:14

Now please show me anywhere in the New Testament or even the old for that matter where it says that the word was the son of God before he was incarnated in Jesus.

 

[StanJ]

I have found that among posters here on CF, Via Crucis' views are consistently those of orthodox Christianity -- by that I mean what is taught by the early ecumenical councils which are accepted by all the Christian churches. You may disagree with him, as is your right, but I do not see where you have the right to say his views are not orthodox.

And I'm sure you and I also both have a different view as to what Orthodox Christianity is as opposed to Orthodox Denominations.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So of course I believe in the Son, Father and Holy Ghost, but I believe that they are all in one. Some Christian's like the one's who are into the Trinity believe that they are all separate spirits. Trinity is found no where in the Bible though. So how does that even make sense at all? I also have another question concerning the matter. So how about Baptism? Are there really several ways to Baptiste or is there really only one real way?

Perhaps quoting the Athanasian Creed would help you...

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

 

[StanJ]

Is The Trinity True Or False - Is The Trinity Biblical
www.trinitytruth.org/

This has been reported for being anti trinitarian.

 

[St_Worm2]

Christ did say .......
John 10:271599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,

And no the Jews did not follow Him but in fact crucified Him and as of today are lost as a nation.

Hi BAC, when you say, "the Jews did not follow Him", you mean 'part' of the Jews, right, because from the First Century until today, there have always been a ton of Jews who have chosen to believe and follow Christ as their Lord and Savior. Although the Gentiles are not as 'directly' culpable for sending the Lord to the Cross as the 1st Century Jews were, He still chose to allow Himself to be crucified, both in obedience to His Father wishes, and for all of our sakes . The Jews initiated, the Romans executed, but we are ALL guilty of sending the Lord of Glory to the Cross. He died for all of us

So many of the Jews did follow Him. Many didn't, but can't the same be said of the Nations, both then and still today. He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him, and whether we are from the Jewish "fold" or the Gentile "fold", we are all one "flock" with one Shepherd

Yours and His,
David

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So many of the Jews did follow Him. Many didn't, but can't the same be said of the Nations, both then and still today. He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him, and whether we are from the Jewish "fold" or the Gentile "fold", we are all one "flock" with one Shepherd

Amein, baaaaa baaaaaa baaaaaa the Shepherd KNOWS who are HIS sheep.

He also knows and said that we are SURROUNDED by ravenous wolves

 

[StanJ]

Hi Stan, I also noticed your claim (that you held some of ViaCrucis' views to be UN-orthodox), and I meant to ask you why you said that. What, specifically, have you seen ViaCrucis post that you feel should be tagged as unorthodox?
It's a mystery to me because I agree with Open Heart, everything I can remember reading of his (and it has been a lot over the years I'm happy to say) always seems to line up with what the church teaches. In fact, he's helped me better understand what the church teaches in many cases How much more "orthodox" can you get than that
Thanks!
--David

This of course is not the time or the thread to be dealing with what is orthodox, but just because one calls himself orthodox and maintains membership in an Orthodox denomination doesn't really mean they are Orthodox in the true meaning of the word. All the writers of the New Testament taught Orthodoxy but Orthodox denominations do not teach the same Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy or Apostolic teaching is found in the New Testament. In my opinion anything that goes against the teachings clearly shown in the New Testament, are not orthodox. False teaching always has and will continue to follow the true teaching of God's word.

 

[St_Worm2]

This has been reported for being anti trinitarian.

You are correct, that site is anti-Trinitarian. I believe it must have been put up by one of the Adventist groups.

Thanks Stan

Here are a couple of examples from that website:

There is no mystery with the Biblical view of the Godhead which reveals there is but one true God the Father who is a literal Father, one Lord Jesus Christ being His literal* Son, and one Holy Spirit being the presence and power of God and not a separate being with a separate consciousness. As one Christian author wrote. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, not a son by creation as were the angels, nor a son by adoption as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person that is equal in authority and divine perfection.

Thus we have “God the Father,” (who is Christ's father) the “Son of God,” (who is God's Son) and the “Spirit of God,” which is His Spirit just as Scripture keeps telling us over and over again. The Bible does not say “god the son” or “god the spirit.”
​

*Not eternal (as the Father is)

 

[StanJ]

You are correct, that site is anti-Trinitarian. I believe it must have been put up by one of the Adventist groups.

Thanks Stan

Here are a couple of examples from that website:

There is no mystery with the Biblical view of the Godhead which reveals there is but one true God the Father who is a literal Father, one Lord Jesus Christ being His literal* Son, and one Holy Spirit being the presence and power of God and not a separate being with a separate consciousness. As one Christian author wrote. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, not a son by creation as were the angels, nor a son by adoption as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person that is equal in authority and divine perfection.

Thus we have “God the Father,” (who is Christ's father) the “Son of God,” (who is God's Son) and the “Spirit of God,” which is His Spirit just as Scripture keeps telling us over and over again. The Bible does not say “god the son” or “god the spirit.”
​

*Not eternal (as the Father is)

I did kind of speed read through it but as I am apt to do with long onerous articles, I also headed for the conclusion which was pretty telling in itself. The poster was a new member with only 14 post which I don't understand because you would think there should be a minimum of posts here before you can post a link?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry to hear you won't defend your family.

So you are saying Jesus was wrong for rebuking Peter in trying to defend Jesus?
So you are saying Jesus could not have called down a legion of angels to protect him as a part of his rebuke of Peter acting violently?
So you are saying that death is more powerful than God?
So you are saying that God is not in control of when a life dies?
So you are saying that God is totally incapable of protecting His people?
Have you ever read the story of how God protected the Israelites with the crossing of the red sea?
Have you ever read about how Paul brought back somebody from the dead?

If you doubt God can protect you and your family, then I would have to ask you, "Where is your faith?"


...

 

[civilwarbuff]

So you are saying Jesus was wrong for rebuking Peter in trying to defend Jesus?
So you are saying Jesus could not have called down a legion of angels to protect him as a part of his rebuke of Peter acting violently?
So you are saying that death is more powerful than God?
So you are saying that God is not in control of when a life dies?
So you are saying that God is totally incapable of protecting His people?
Have you ever read the story of how God protected the Israelites with the crossing of the red sea?
Have you ever read about how Paul brought back somebody from the dead?

If you doubt God can protect you and your family, then I would have to ask you, "Where is your faith?"


...

Maybe the 9 church members at the Emmauel AME Church in Charleston just didn't have enough faith for God to protect them......

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Hi BAC, when you say, "the Jews did not follow Him", you mean 'part' of the Jews, right, because from the First Century until today, there have always been a ton of Jews who have chosen to believe and follow Christ as their Lord and Savior. Although the Gentiles are not as 'directly' culpable for sending the Lord to the Cross as the 1st Century Jews were, He still chose to allow Himself to be crucified, both in obedience to His Father wishes, and for all of our sakes . The Jews initiated, the Romans executed, but we are ALL guilty of sending the Lord of Glory to the Cross. He died for all of us

So many of the Jews did follow Him. Many didn't, but can't the same be said of the Nations, both then and still today. He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him, and whether we are from the Jewish "fold" or the Gentile "fold", we are all one "flock" with one Shepherd

Yours and His,
David

But the fact remains the nation of Israel has rejected Christ and the bible states clearly only a remnant of Israel will be saved not "many".

Romans 9:27
Also Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the sea, yet shall but a remnant be saved. Just like in Noah's time.

Just to confirm that fact it states in the New Covenant several times few and not "many" will be saved.

Matthew 20:16
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many are called, but few chosen

Matthew 7:13-14
¶ Enter in at the strait gate: for it is the wide gate, and broad way that leadeth to destruction: and many there be which go in thereat. Because the gate is strait, and the way narrow that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few chosen.

Luke 13: 23-28
23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that shall be saved? And he said unto them,
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
25 When the good man of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye began to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us, and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are,
26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are: depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the Prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out at doors.

Romans 9:27-28
Also Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the sea, yet shall but a remnant be saved.
28 For he will make his account, and gather it into a short sum with righteousness: for the Lord will make a short count in the earth.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

So you are saying Jesus was wrong for rebuking Peter in trying to defend Jesus?
So you are saying Jesus could not have called down a legion of angels to protect him as a part of his rebuke of Peter acting violently?
So you are saying that death is more powerful than God?
So you are saying that God is not in control of when a life dies?
So you are saying that God is totally incapable of protecting His people?
Have you ever read the story of how God protected the Israelites with the crossing of the red sea?
Have you ever read about how Paul brought back somebody from the dead?

If you doubt God can protect you and your family, then I would have to ask you, "Where is your faith?"


...

• I asked a simple question and you compare apples to oranges. BTW as to your accusation that God protected the Jews well I guess you missed where God killed thousands of Jews at a time for breaking the law. Or perhaps you missed where God let the infidels kill thousands of Jews for again breaking His law.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why doesn't anyone (apparently) read Revelation ?
Very soon,
BILLIONS OF GENTILE sinners are KILLED BY WAR (sent by YHWH), FAMINE(sent by YHWH), PESTILENCE(sent by YHWH), ... ... ... ...
(oh, perhaps many of them are killed, because they hurt God's Chosen People - God says He curses anyone who hurts His people, and blesses anyone who blesses His people)
Yhwh is not prejudiced against Jews nor gentiles. He does whatever He pleases.

 

[Meowzltov]

And I'm sure you and I also both have a different view as to what Orthodox Christianity is as opposed to Orthodox Denominations.

I refer to the Eastern Church as Orthodox with a Capital O. Othodox with a small o refers to correct doctrine, and in the case of the Christian religion, it refers to those in harmony with the Scriptures and early ecumenical councils.

There is a standard definition of orthodoxy used by all Christian Churches. It is also used here on CF. If you are outside that norm, of course you feel that orthodoxy is the heresy. However, you must recognize that if you choose to say you are "orthodox" you are using the word in a way contrary to the standard usage of historians. You have to recognize that to do so is inevitably going to cause miscommunication.

In addition, you are in a Christians only section in the forum, and CF uses the Nicene Creed to define the boundaries of Christianity.

Keep in mind, I don't know what you actually DO believe, only that you have stated that orthodoxy is not correct.

 

[Meowzltov]

Matthew 15:30-39 Geneva Bible (GNV)
30 And great multitudes came unto him, having with them, halt, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down, at Jesus’ feet, and he healed them.

31 Insomuch that the multitude wondered, to see the dumb speak, the maimed whole, the halt to go, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.

32 Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on this multitude, because they have continued with me already three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not let them depart fasting, lest they faint in the way.

Who is "THEY" if it meant the Jews wouldn't t say and they glorified God? Because after all they were in Israel and KNEW who God was? To be honest "Christians" are the "they" of today and therefore we worship the God of Israel not the God that Israel now worships because that god has no son.

All it says is that the multitude was hungry and needed to be fed. How does that prove they were Gentiles? After following Jesus around for 3 days, NO they would not have the strength to be merrily glorifying God -- they would be exhausted. Yes, there were Romans in the Land in order to rule, but why would they be concerned with a Jewish teacher? No, the multitudes were Jews.

Now, I have to ask myself, why underlying psychological reason led you to go against all teaching and conclude that they were Gentiles? What need did it meet?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

All it says is that the multitude was hungry and needed to be fed. How does that prove they were Gentiles? After following Jesus around for 3 days, NO they would not have the strength to be merrily glorifying God -- they would be exhausted. Yes, there were Romans in the Land in order to rule, but why would they be concerned with a Jewish teacher? No, the multitudes were Jews.

Now, I have to ask myself, why underlying psychological reason led you to go against all teaching and conclude that they were Gentiles? What need did it meet?

Do your homework and yes I already provided a link.

 

[StanJ]

I refer to the Eastern Church as Orthodox with a Capital O. Othodox with a small o refers to correct doctrine, and in the case of the Christian religion, it refers to those in harmony with the Scriptures and early ecumenical councils.
There is a standard definition of orthodoxy used by all Christian Churches. It is also used here on CF. If you are outside that norm, of course you feel that orthodoxy is the heresy. However, you must recognize that if you choose to say you are "orthodox" you are using the word in a way contrary to the standard usage of historians. You have to recognize that to do so is inevitably going to cause miscommunication.
In addition, you are in a Christians only section in the forum, and CF uses the Nicene Creed to define the boundaries of Christianity.
Keep in mind, I don't know what you actually DO believe, only that you have stated that orthodoxy is not correct.

That still doesn't mean that the EO teaches Orthodox Christianity. The RCC is also considered Orthodox and they definitely don't teach Orthodox Christianity. My Orthodoxy comes from the Bible as it did for all those who started the church
Thanks for the info but I already know what CF uses, as I had to agree to it. I'm not stated that Orthodoxy is not correct I have stated that people's interpretation or what they think is orthodox is incorrect. That's a big difference which apparently you don't understand.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That still doesn't mean that the EO teaches Orthodox Christianity. The RCC is also considered Orthodox and they definitely don't teach Orthodox Christianity. My Orthodoxy comes from the Bible as it did for all those who started the church
Thanks for the info but I already know what CF uses, as I had to agree to it. I'm not stated that Orthodoxy is not correct I have stated that people's interpretation or what they think is orthodox is incorrect. That's a big difference which apparently you don't understand.

So far all you have done is state opinion. When people ask you questions, you tap dance around the anwers.....so yes, we understand.