Problems understanding the Trinity

[drich0150]

Sorry, not playing this game. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and answered your questions. Now, it's become clear that you were not asking sincerely.

Wow I had really hoped I was turning my heretical cheek for some great effort or revelation that would help a doomed soul see and make sense of the confusion of the trinity. But all I see is a squandered exercise in personal pride. You have burned a bridge, so that you may quickly give up and light another one on fire?!? What is the purpose of "Sharing your faith" if you dis-fellowship with all who do not understand, or question what you believe in the specific way you would have them accept it?

You may truthfully believe that you are speak unto God's authority in these matters, but if you want to be effective in what it is you think you are doing, you are going to have to learn to peal enough of your personal righteousness back to realize it is not with the Authority of the Almighty you are Speaking. (That is why people ask questions and confront you with what they believe.) Simply identifying their/our oppositions does not give you authority nor the righteousness you believe it does. We do not live in the 12th century and most of us have grown up spiritually since then. If you want to be an effective teacher outside of the circle of believers that you grace with your presents on Sunday mornings, you will have to grow up too.

 

[John Jay]

Wow I had really hoped I was turning my heretical cheek for some great effort or revelation that would help a doomed soul see and make sense of the confusion of the trinity. But all I see is a squandered exercise in personal pride. You have burned a bridge, so that you may quickly give up and light another one on fire?!? What is the purpose of "Sharing your faith" if you dis-fellowship with all who do not understand, or question what you believe in the specific way you would have them accept it?

You may truthfully believe that you are speak unto God's authority in these matters, but if you want to be effective in what it is you think you are doing, you are going to have to learn to peal enough of your personal righteousness back to realize it is not with the Authority of the Almighty you are Speaking. (That is why people ask questions and confront you with what they believe.) Simply identifying their/our oppositions does not give you authority nor the righteousness you believe it does. We do not live in the 12th century and most of us have grown up spiritually since then. If you want to be an effective teacher outside of the circle of believers that you grace with your presents on Sunday mornings, you will have to grow up too.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I trust that anyone who goes back and reads my posts to him will see that I was very respectful to him, answering his questions clearly and succinctly, even when he chose to ignore my answers to him. I believe they will also see that I never claimed to speak with any authority or with the arrogance you claim I did.

I'm also sorry that you feel it is wrong for me to stop beating my head against the wall, but the Bible tells us that we're not to pursue foolish arguments or to argue with people who are not sincere about learning about our faith, but only want to mock and provoke.

So it looks like I'm left with the choice of pleasing you or following the Bible's admonition to not engage someone like Ken. I'm going to choose to be obedient to God's instruction and if I'm wrong, I'm sure He will judge me fairly.

Just to clarify three things before I go:

1. I'm not disfellowshipping with him because we were never in fellowship.
2. It's presence, not "presents".
3. Telling me to grow up might be considered a personal attack/flame by the mods. You might want to reconsider your choice of words.

 

[drich0150]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I trust that anyone who goes back and reads my posts to him will see that I was very respectful to him, answering his questions clearly and succinctly, even when he chose to ignore my answers to him. I believe they will also see that I never claimed to speak with any authority or with the arrogance you claim I did.

Your arrogance is repeatedly highlighted in the stand of authority in every position you have taken. Why not simply live and let live on a topic as complex as this one? We have no command nor is it a matter of salvation to understand or parrot back one specific view of the trinity, so why not show mercy or understanding when someone questions your views? Why not humbly say I don't know or I can not explain any further rather than (in my case) label me a heretic, or in the case of the OP label him or his efforts as foolish? Your actions do not represent the humility that we have been commanded to present, all so that you may represent a non-essential doctrine in a very specific way.

I'm also sorry that you feel it is wrong for me to stop beating my head against the wall, but the Bible tells us that we're not to pursue foolish arguments or to argue with people who are not sincere about learning about our faith, but only want to mock and provoke.

As I have already pointed out, one does not need to identify another as a fool, and publicly declare it, in order to not "pursue a foolish argument." You could have simply bowed out gracefully and humbly. I am aware that this would have been a slight against your pride, but that is my point. Why not take one for the Christianity you are representing? Why must all who do not agree or question your understandings be signaled out publicly identified as some type of spiritual defective and then discarded? Why can't you take the fault in not being able to explain your position in a way easy to understand and accept?

So it looks like I'm left with the choice of pleasing you or following the Bible's admonition to not engage someone like Ken. I'm going to choose to be obedient to God's instruction and if I'm wrong, I'm sure He will judge me fairly.

Indeed He will. However in light of the other options even someone like me is able to "present." you may not find his judgment to be "fair."

1. I'm not dis fellowshipping with him because we were never in fellowship.

"He" was not the only one I was speaking about.

2. It's presence, not "presents".

I often leave reminders of where I have come from, in my messages so that people like you can have something to use to help me remain humble.
Plus it gives me some indication of the level of content you are able to provide. In other words if all you are able to do with my work is correct grammatical or spelling errors then I know you have come to the point in the conversation where emotionally you feel you want to say more, but are having difficulty sourcing material. I know where the weak points in my posts are, and if you have not addressed them and yet have fallen back to "grading my paper" Then it helps me identify a more efficient way of tailoring a response to you. Their is a strength to be derived from voluntary humility and perceived weakness.

3. Telling me to grow up might be considered a personal attack/flame by the mods. You might want to reconsider your choice of words.

I am sure someone not emotionally invested in this conversation can make the distinction between what was said and flaming. I trust the Mods ability to discern and decipher my intent, and will stand by whatever decision they make. For now the comment/request stands.

You seem like someone new here. As such I wish to remind you that your version of "faith" will not be the only one represented in this forum. We can either learn to work together, to help those seeking to find answers, or you can oppose all who do not think as you do. I do ask that you take into consideration what you say because the person you are addressing and the mods are not the only ones reading. In this instance the OP may indeed be looking to tear down what it is you are saying or He maybe setting you up to be attacked by another, but the question he is using as a tool to tear you down could in earnest be a question keeping someone from a relationship with Christ. Not only is your answer being "judged" the way you present it, is as well.

 

[John Jay]

Since it's clear that drich isn't going to provide any substantiation for his accusations, if anyone here would be so kind as to show me where I have said any of the things he claims I said, I will be happy to apologize to the OP.

Also, if any of the moderators are reading this, would you please contact me if you can find any place I called drich a heretic or the OP "foolish"? I would have reported myself, as both of those statements would be against the rules, but I can't find any place where I said them.

 

[drich0150]

Since it's clear that drich isn't going to provide any substantiation for his accusations, if anyone here would be so kind as to show me where I have said any of the things he claims I said, I will be happy to apologize to the OP.

Also, if any of the moderators are reading this, would you please contact me if you can find any place I called drich a heretic or the OP "foolish"? I would have reported myself, as both of those statements would be against the rules, but I can't find any place where I said them.

You do not need a moderator to point out your identification of my heratical doctrine in post 31 nor your identification of the foolishness of the OP's efforts in post 43.

Believe it or not I am not consumed with emotion nor am I lashing out. I am pointing out your flawed doctrine and understandings like you have done with others up to this point. The only thing I have not done that you have modeled several times already is give up on the lost soul. (Not that I believe that your soul is lost)

If you have anymore questions feel free to direct them to me. I will respond responsibly.

 

[John Jay]

I'm praying for you, drich.

 

[drich0150]

I'm praying for you, drich.

Thank you John Jay!!

 

[Ken-1122]

Elopez (quote) “Care to elaborate how having the same essence, substance, attributes, and nature doesn't mean the persons of the Trinity are not one? Again each person is eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, benevolent. Seems like one to me.”

(reply) If I had a twin brother and we had the same essence, substance, attributes, and nature; meaning we share the same qualities and character, would you consider us the same person? Of course not! Having exact qualities does not make you the same person.

(quote) “You must remember what it means for the persons of the Trinity to be separate. It doesn't mean they have different natures, it means their roles are different and that is it. It would only mean there are three separate Gods if they had a different nature, and each a fraction of God only if each person is not fully God. However each person of the Trinity has the same nature and each is fully God, thus it is three persons in one God.”

(reply) I think you are using a flawed definition of the term “nature”. To have the same nature simply means you share the same qualities; that’s it! It doesn’t make you the same person. You might have the same nature as a person on the other side of the world whom you’ve never met before; does that make you guys the same? No.

Razontherock (quote) “Trinity is revealed throughout the OT. That's quite a bit before the Roman Catholic sect, which really had no place in history before 1054 AD.”

(reply) Really! Are you saying the Trinity is actually in the Bible? Would you mind sharing the verse where it is mentioned? I must have missed that part.

K

 

[elopez]

If I had a twin brother and we had the same essence, substance, attributes, and nature; meaning we share the same qualities and character, would you consider us the same person? Of course not! Having exact qualities does not make you the same person.

I've been acquainted with twins since my childhood, and even though they have the same substance, they definitely do not have the same attributes or nature. One was slightly stronger then the other. The one was more outgoing than the other, so they had different qualities and characteristics. They were not the same person but simply just looked alike. I am saying that your analogy about the twins doesn't compare at all to the persons of the Trinity for the following reasons:

1)The persons of the Trinity have the same attributes. Unlike the twin brothers I know were one is stronger than the other, each person is equal in power (omnipotence), knowledge, etc, so each person is equal in all other attributes. I would not consider the twins the same persons because they are different in attributes, whereas the persons of the Trinity are the same and have the same attributes so it would be more likely that they are the same God.

2)The twin brothers would always be bickering over the smallest of things, meaning that their nature and wills were not in unity. With the persons of the Trinity however, there is no such conflict and all are in accordance with the same divine nature and have the same will.

Just to clarify, I am not arguing that the persons of the Trinity are the same persons, as God the Father is not the Son Christ is not the Holy Spirit. I am arguing that each person is the same God, God the Father is God as Son Christ is God as the Holy Spirit is God.

I think you are using a flawed definition of the term “nature”. To have the same nature simply means you share the same qualities; that’s it! It doesn’t make you the same person. You might have the same nature as a person on the other side of the world whom you’ve never met before; does that make you guys the same? No.

What is my definition of "nature" since you believe it to be flawed? I agree that having the same nature simply means one share the same qualities as another, as indeed all three persons of the Trinity share the same qualities as one another. I am not saying that makes each person the same person, but each person the same God. God is omnipotent and each person is omnipotent, so each person is the same God.

 

[elopez]

Really! Are you saying the Trinity is actually in the Bible? Would you mind sharing the verse where it is mentioned? I must have missed that part.

Although the actual word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, Scripture does attest to a God that is to be understood in a Trinitarian manner. Take for example Matthew 28:19 which the disciples tell to baptize people "in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit." Another verse, 2 Corinthians 13:14, speaks of Christ, God, and the Spirit in words with connection to "grace" and "love."

The foundation of the doctrine are found in the pattern of divine activity that is littered throughout the NT. The Father is revealed in Christ through the Spirit. See for example these following passages: 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:20-22; Thessalonians 2:13-14; Titus 3:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.

 

[razeontherock]

Really! Are you saying the Trinity is actually in the Bible? Would you mind sharing the verse where it is mentioned? I must have missed that part

In addition to what Elopez posted, notice the very first mention of G-d is uni-plural, and "let US make man in OUR image." Thus, even His most basic elements are way beyond our real comprehension; but we are given glimpses:

Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us."

There's Trinity, unmistakably, and a good foundation for understanding.

 

[Ken-1122]

When I said: “If I had a twin brother and we had the same essence, substance, attributes, and nature; meaning we share the same qualities and character, would you consider us the same person? Of course not! Having exact qualities does not make you the same person.”

Elopez replied (qupte) “I've been acquainted with twins since my childhood, and even though they have the same substance, they definitely do not have the same attributes or nature. One was slightly stronger then the other. The one was more outgoing than the other, so they had different qualities and characteristics. They were not the same person but simply just looked alike. I am saying that your analogy about the twins doesn't compare at all to the persons of the Trinity for the following reasons:”

(reply) Whoa! Whoa! You’re going in the wrong direction my friend! My analogy is not about your personal experiences with a particular set of twins; my analogy is a hypothetical about me having a twin with the same nature as I.
Care to answer the question now?

(quote) “I agree that having the same nature simply means one share the same qualities as another, as indeed all three persons of the Trinity share the same qualities as one another. I am not saying that makes each person the same person, but each person the same God.”

(reply) How is that different from the Hindu Gods Shiva, Sita, and Vishnu having the same natures and all are God? Would you consider Hinduism as much as a monotheistic religion as Christianity?

(quote) “Although the actual word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, Scripture does attest to a God that is to be understood in a Trinitarian manner. Take for example Matthew 28:19 which the disciples tell to baptize people "in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit." Another verse, 2 Corinthians 13:14, speaks of Christ, God, and the Spirit in words with connection to "grace" and "love.”

(reply)Just because the disciples say to baptize in the name of the three doesn’t mean they are all equal, and referring to the three of them with words of love and grace doesn’t make them all God either.

Razontherock (quote) “In addition to what Elopez posted, notice the very first mention of G-d is uni-plural, and "let US make man in OUR image." Thus, even His most basic elements are way beyond our real comprehension; but we are given glimpses:
Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us."

(reply) Let us make man doesn’t mean they are all equal, and I just don’t see the claim that the lord will judge, make laws and save you means the Holy Spirit and Jesus are equal to God.

K

 

[elopez]

Whoa! Whoa! You’re going in the wrong direction my friend! My analogy is not about your personal experiences with a particular set of twins; my analogy is a hypothetical about me having a twin with the same nature as I.
Care to answer the question now?

I don't think you got it. I am saying that your analogy is weak as you and your hypothetical twin would not have the same nature. I was referring to actual twins I know where that is the case for further support in that one was stronger than the other and one more outgoing, so they did not have the same nature and attributes at all. That is incomparable to the persons of the Trinity because all three have the same nature in that they all are equal in power, knowledge, and so on. Again I am not saying each person is the same person but each person is the same God as each has the same nature and attributes.

How is that different from the Hindu Gods Shiva, Sita, and Vishnu having the same natures and all are God? Would you consider Hinduism as much as a monotheistic religion as Christianity?

Well Hinduism is definitely not polytheistic. The Hindu texts advocate more of a pantheistic view of reality, which can still be identified as monotheistic. The text to which I am referring to, the Upanishads, explains there is a single supreme reality called Brahman. Pantheism is the idea that God is identical with the universe, basically that God is the universe and the universe God. That is how most Hindu's seem to regard the concept of God and the universe. Monotheism states that God created the universe but is distinct from it, as in God is not actually the universe but exists apart from it. In that respect I do not think Hinduism is as monotheistic as Christianity but more pantheistic though it maintains there is one supreme God like monotheism.

The one supreme God is worshiped in various perspectives, but all perspectives are the same supreme God. I suppose that is similar to the Trinity in that all three persons are the same one God, though I think in Hinduism there are more than three perspectives of God that can be worshiped as God is quite literally the universe. Still not polytheistic, though.

Just because the disciples say to baptize in the name of the three doesn’t mean they are all equal, and referring to the three of them with words of love and grace doesn’t make them all God either.

Have you lost sight of what you were saying? You said you missed where in the Bible the Trinity is mentioned. I was pointing out to not only those two verses that make reference to the Trinity, but the other texts I mentioned as well that do describe them as the same God.

 

[Ken-1122]

Elopez (quote) "I don't think you got it. I am saying that your analogy is weak as you and your hypothetical twin would not have the same nature."
　
(reply)Sorry; but I am not going to allow you to change this to a question that is much easier for you to answer. Hypothetical's don't have to be based upon actual events; otherwise because I don't have a twin brother, I wouldn't be able to make up a hypothetical of me having one. Now this is MY hypothetical and I can make up what ever analogy I want to make my point. If you don't want to answer it, that's your option; but don't try to change it into something that doesn't answer my question. So let's try it again;
Hypothetically speaking; IF I had a twin brother, and IF this twin brother and I had the same nature, would you consider us the same?
　
(quote) "Again I am not saying each person is the same person but each person is the same God as each has the same nature and attributes"
　
(reply) How are you defining the difference between a person and a God?
　
(quote) "Have you lost sight of what you were saying? You said you missed where in the Bible the Trinity is mentioned. I was pointing out to not only those two verses that make reference to the Trinity, but the other texts I mentioned as well that do describe them as the same God."
　
(reply) I realize the Holy spirit, Jesus, and God the Father are all mentioned all over the bible, but I think it is a bit of a leap to assume when the Diciples say "Baptise in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit" to assume they are all equal, and all God without them saying so. I think it is a bit of a leap when God said: "let us make man" to assume anything other than he was not alone when he said it. He could have been with 2 others, 10 others or 100 others; if he didn't mention who he was talking to, it is a leap to assume he was talking to Jesus and the Holy spirit and that they are equal to him without him saying so.
I realize you have an agenda, so any mention suggests they are equal; and I'm not trying to take that away from you, but to me it just sounds like you are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole; and it isn't fitting.

Ken

 

[elopez]

Sorry; but I am not going to allow you to change this to a question that is much easier for you to answer. Hypothetical's don't have to be based upon actual events; otherwise because I don't have a twin brother, I wouldn't be able to make up a hypothetical of me having one. Now this is MY hypothetical and I can make up what ever analogy I want to make my point. If you don't want to answer it, that's your option; but don't try to change it into something that doesn't answer my question. So let's try it again;
Hypothetically speaking; IF I had a twin brother, and IF this twin brother and I had the same nature, would you consider us the same?

I'm not actually changing anything. I still have answered the question, so I don't understand why you think I haven't. I've already said I would not think you and your brothers the same and I've also said that is because it is incomparable to the Trinity. I understand this is your analogy and you can make whatever you want to up, but that doesn't mean the analogy is valid and shows your point, or that we should allow a fault to be accepted in the analogy. If there are relevant dissimilarities between the analogy and the actual thing or event, then the analogy doesn't really compare and thus isn't a very good analogy. I believe your analogy is dissimilar to the Trinity because you and your twin brother would not have the same nature or attributes, as being twin brothers doesn't automatically mean they have the same characteristics or equal in attributes.
　

How are you defining the difference between a person and a God?

Again, the person is God. For example, the Holy Spirit (person) is God, so there is no difference between the person and God. That is where your confusion is coming in. The only difference in the Trinity is that each person is not the same person and each person does something that the other doesn't. For instance Christ is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit not the Father, and Christ was crucified as the Holy Spirit wasn't, The Father established laws as the Holy Spirit convicts man of his sinfulness and has not established laws.

I realize the Holy spirit, Jesus, and God the Father are all mentioned all over the bible, but I think it is a bit of a leap to assume when the Diciples say "Baptise in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit" to assume they are all equal, and all God without them saying so. I think it is a bit of a leap when God said: "let us make man" to assume anything other than he was not alone when he said it. He could have been with 2 others, 10 others or 100 others; if he didn't mention who he was talking to, it is a leap to assume he was talking to Jesus and the Holy spirit and that they are equal to him without him saying so.
I realize you have an agenda, so any mention suggests they are equal; and I'm not trying to take that away from you, but to me it just sounds like you are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole; and it isn't fitting.

Each person of the Trinity is not only mentioned throughout the Bible but they are mentioned in connection to one another. They are accomplishing the same goal which is the salvation of man, and that is made evident in the verses I quoted. I am not saying that that one verse concludes anything about each person the same God, but saying they give a basis for the foundation of the Trinity. Have you even looked at the other verses I gave you? I'm betting not as you haven't brought those up yet. Colossians 2:9 says, "For in Him (Christ) all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form." And I haven't even brought up the other verse you are talking about.

 

[Ken-1122]

Elopez (quote) “I'm not actually changing anything. I still have answered the question, so I don't understand why you think I haven't. I've already said I would not think you and your brothers the same and I've also said that is because it is incomparable to the Trinity……I believe your analogy is dissimilar to the Trinity because you and your twin brother would not have the same nature or attributes”

(reply) Are you kidding me??? You did it again! You ignored the question I asked and answered a question I didn’t even ask. Dude if you don’t wanna answer the question, that’s fine! Just be straight-up about it and say so. Obviously you aren’t going to answer my question so let’s move on
Next when I asked;How are you defining the difference between a person and a God?

Elopez replied (quote) “so there is no difference between the person and God. That is where your confusion is coming in.”

(reply) You’ve got my question wrong again. Think of it as 3 questions; first give me a definition of “person” NEXT give me a definition of “God” (not a particular person or a particular God) then let’s see how those two definitions are different or similar.

(quote) “”I am not saying that that one verse concludes anything about each person the same God, but saying they give a basis for the foundation of the Trinity.

(reply) giving a foundation of the trinity is not the same as confirming all the claims of the trinity are true.

“Have you even looked at the other verses I gave you? I'm betting not as you haven't brought those up yet.”

(reply) No. How about if you look them up and give me a brief about what they say

K

 

[razeontherock]

Let us make man doesn’t mean they are all equal, and I just don’t see the claim that the lord will judge, make laws and save you means the Holy Spirit and Jesus are equal to God.[/B]

Isaiah refers to all 3 as a singular "He." the first one to come out and declare anything about any aspect of G-d being equal was Jesus. Don't you find that particularly fitting?

In any event it is entirely possible to have a good grasp on what Trinity refers to w/o bothering with the 'equality' concept.

 

[razeontherock]

] I realize the Holy spirit, Jesus, and God the Father are all mentioned all over the bible, but I think it is a bit of a leap to assume when the Diciples say "Baptise in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit" to assume they are all equal, and all God without them saying so.

But they do say so!

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Synonymous. At least to them. What difference are you imposing onto the text?

 

[razeontherock]

Think of it as 3 questions; first give me a definition of “person” NEXT give me a definition of “God” (not a particular person or a particular God) then let’s see how those two definitions are different or similar.

I think this might be the avenue you should pursue. I was never comfortable with the term "person" myself, so I will not opine. I understand Trinity more in terms of modes of interaction w/ mankind, and I'm not sure how that jibes with "person" either. One thing to understand here, is that Divine Truth is not human language. There always comes a point where our understanding must leave off linguistics, and this is why we have the same concepts expressed so many different ways in Scripture. IMHO.

 

[Ken-1122]

Razontherock (quote) "But they do say so!

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
　
(reply) I know many Catholics will pray to Mary and various saints; even though they don't worship them as God or claim them to be equal to God. do you suppose Peter may have considered Jesus and the Holy Ghost in the same way?
　
(quote) "I was never comfortable with the term "person" myself, so I will not opine. I understand Trinity more in terms of modes of interaction w/ mankind,"
　
(reply) Are you saying there is one God who reveals himself in various ways to mankind depending upon what he is doing? He may reveal himself as Jesus for this situation, as the Holy Spirit for another situation, etc. 1 God 3 different hats if you will; is that what you mean? If so that makes sence. If you mean something different, please explain.

Ken