the Trinity

[SummaScriptura]

Heres a few verses

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ~ask me nothing~. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.


John 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I ~say not~ unto you, that ~I will pray~ the Father for you:


John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came ~out from~ God.

John 20:17 I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater ~than I~.


John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;


Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.



John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.


1Cr 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.


1Cr 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

As He and the Father are one in the same he also wanted us to be one as He and Him were one.


John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 7:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, andI in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.


I'll wake up in the morning and post more Im beat lol

Night

Peace

Fireinfolding

All of the verses you cite in this post emphasize the differences between the Father and the Son. You'll have to realize that Trinitarians do not have a problem with those distinctions. We do not blur them. Jesus did not pray to Himself. Jesus did not abandon Himself. We agree on the distinctions, so by restating them no Trinitarian will properly oppose those truths.

The mistake I see anti-Trinitarians who deny the deity of Christ make is to restate the distinctions to undo the unity. Other anti-Trinitrarians that believe in the deity of Christ restate God's essential union in order to blur the distinctions. Neither tact gets anywhere with Trinitarians because we hold distcintions within God's union as a paradox. We hold both as true. Restate the distinctions again and we read them and go, "yes, yes, yes".

 

[boodle]

Define "archetype" when used in literature.



Wrong. Completely wrong.

Here's what Constantine did for Christianity: ended persecutions, build a number of churches in Israel and called the First Ecumenical Council together at Nicaea.

Roman Catholic Church spawned from the Great Schism of 1054. The Church in the West became the Roman Catholic Church. The Church in the East became the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Not really. He only wished for the problem within Christianity to cease. He did not really care whether the Arians had won or not.


Show me some piece of real historical evidence that says he was a high priest.


Show me a piece of real historical evidence that states he was a sun worshiper.



I can not continue. There is too much heresy and stupidity. Obviously the book was written by a man who did whatever he could to discredit Catholicism and in the process discredited Christianity.

Waca Waca Waca ------- So what. I eally do not care about your interpretation of history. It makes little difference if you believe Constantine was a saint or not. I do not care if you revise history or not.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The bible does teach that Jesus is God.

Let's look at one such place.

Isa 40:3 NET.
(3) A voice cries out,
"In the wilderness clear a way for the LORD;
construct in the desert a road for our God.

Now we should be clear here, "LORD" represents "YHWH" the personal name of God.

This verse is so important, it is referenced in all four Gospels. See Mat 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23.

Now who is YHWH who is the one that John the Baptist is preparing the way for? Jesus, that's who. So Jesus=YHWH. The Gospel of John really spells this out.

Joh 1:22-31 NET.
(22) Then they said to him, "Who are you? Tell us so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
(23) John said, "I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way for the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said."
(24) (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. )
(25) So they asked John, "Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
(26) John answered them, "I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize,
(27) who is coming after me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal!"
(28) These things happened in Bethany across the Jordan River where John was baptizing.
(29) On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
(30) This is the one about whom I said, 'After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because he existed before me.'
(31) I did not recognize him, but I came baptizing with water so that he could be revealed to Israel."

See John prepared the way for Jesus, YHWH.

Marv

Nice as unusual BigNorsk.

 

[boodle]

All of the verses you cite in this post emphasize the differences between the Father and the Son. You'll have to realize that Trinitarians do not have a problem with those distinctions. We do not blur them. Jesus did not pray to Himself. Jesus did not abandon Himself. We agree on the distinctions, so by restating them no Trinitarian will properly oppose those truths.

The mistake I see anti-Trinitarians who deny the deity of Christ make is to restate the distinctions to undo the unity. Other anti-Trinitrarians that believe in the deity of Christ restate God's essential union in order to blur the distinctions. Neither tact gets anywhere with Trinitarians because we hold distcintions within God's union as a paradox. We hold both as true. Restate the distinctions again and we read them and go, "yes, yes, yes".

The trinity is not a paradox. A paradox is something that seems impossible yet proves itself to be true. This does not hold true with the laws of logic and reason. Two oposites cannot exist within the same person. A person cannot be temptable and non temptable at the same time. Neither can a person be nortal and immortal, all knowing and yet not know, failable and yet infailable. The two natured Christ would have to be all of these things.
Seondly - If you change Christ from completely human he can no longer be the perfect example for us.

There is no getting around these two things without contradicting logic, reason, the plan of God and scripture.

 

[armyman_83]

All of the verses you cite in this post emphasize the differences between the Father and the Son. You'll have to realize that Trinitarians do not have a problem with those distinctions. We do not blur them. Jesus did not pray to Himself. Jesus did not abandon Himself. We agree on the distinctions, so by restating them no Trinitarian will properly oppose those truths.

The mistake I see anti-Trinitarians who deny the deity of Christ make is to restate the distinctions to undo the unity. Other anti-Trinitrarians that believe in the deity of Christ restate God's essential union in order to blur the distinctions. Neither tact gets anywhere with Trinitarians because we hold distcintions within God's union as a paradox. We hold both as true. Restate the distinctions again and we read them and go, "yes, yes, yes".

So in other words--When a Trinitarian reads about differences between Christ and Yahweh its ok, because they are not the same.
But when you see things that state Jesus the Christ is not Yahweh you merely say that is the freedom of each "person" within the Trinity?

Are each person in the Trinity equal?

 

[boodle]

Man does not become God.

Man becomes like God.

Theosis. Communion with God the Father.

At least this part you have correect. Phil 2 Jesus is in the form of God unlike the first Adam. Jesus became like God in character heart motives and intentions. That is why He is the perfect example of perfected humanity.

 

[boodle]

Nice as unusual BigNorsk.

I for ione am not saying that God was not in Christ. That is the source of the deity that resided in Christ. The same deity that is supposed to reside in us. He was the perfect temple for the Lord to reside in as we are to also be.

 

[nestoj]

Waca Waca Waca ------- So what. I eally do not care about your interpretation of history. It makes little difference if you believe Constantine was a saint or not. I do not care if you revise history or not.

Actually, it seams that you don’t care about history at all. Looks like you care only about your interpretation of history which you’ve picked from someone’s, who has equally distorted viewing prism and same interest in truth (that would be none), book, and respond to what others think with “waca waca waca” – really scientific position, congrats.

nestoj
God helps

 

[SummaScriptura]

Without a God-man, there is no bridge between God and man. God remains utterly transcendent, and we might as well be agnostics.

Agreed.

 

[SummaScriptura]

THANK YOU!....*standing ovation*...the fact that you are Catholic and understand that the emphasis isnt necessary just makes me leap with hope (um, that may not sound right, but anyway) I think there are soooo many things that Jesus just did not have time to explain fully and that means that they were not necessary for our success in Him. Jesus repeats sooo often that the truth is for the childlike....kids can take logical value and not try to interprete between the lines. Thanks for your view!

The understanding of the Trinity isn't necessary. The understanding of Jesus being God is not necessary either. What is necessary (and we will not be able to compromise on this) is the accepting that Jesus is God. Denying that presents a critical problem.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>

Is it so wrong to say that "the Son has a beginning, and the Father does not?"

<snip>

Yes it is. There has not been nor will there ever be a middle ground for compromise on that point.

Salvation is in Christ. If we are wrong on who Christ is, we impede the effecting of God's salvation for ourselves.

 

[Dorothea]

Let me start by saying I am trinitarian. By His grace, I enjoy the ineffable richness of fellowship with the Three-In-One. I must say however, I wish the church had taken a different tact in ancient times. Rather than taking a rationalist deductive theoogical appraoch to the doctrine, I would have preferred had we stayed with a biblically incuctive appraoch to this truth. It is my conviction that such an approach would have prevented many from stumbling over the term "Trinity".

Here is the results of my initial research on this question:
http://www.thebookofenoch.info/triune/

I believe if we allow the scripture to speak for themselves, we come up with a richer picture of God's nature, which is more immediate and accessible to folks. I beleive such a study will reveal God's essential nature is sevenfold.

The Sevenfold Truth About God
1. There is one God.
2. The Father, He is God.
3. The Son, He is God.
4. The Holy Spirit, He is God.
5. The Son is sent by the Father.
6. The Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son.
7. The Father is sent by no one.

I'm content to leave this subject there. I do not think there is a benefit derived by coloring in the details furhter.

BobB

I believe your #6 is incorrect. Through my faith and Church's long-standing belief, the Holy Spirit comes through God the Father only. The statement you have there was of the Catholic belief of the filioque which they changed to say such. Here's some information on it:

In Christian theology the filioque clause (filioque meaning "and [from] the son" in Latin) is a heavily disputed clause added to the Nicene Creed, that forms a divisive difference in particular between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the place where the original Nicene Creed reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father", the amended version reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The addition is accepted by Roman Catholic Christians but rejected by Eastern Orthodox Christians. Many Eastern Catholic churches do not use the clause in their creed, but profess the doctrine it represents, as it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith. Insofar as Protestant churches take a position on the doctrine, acceptance of the filioque is normative. The clause is most often referred to as simply "filioque" or "the filioque."

You'll find that in the wikipedia.


Also this from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website:

...Equally disturbing to the Christian East was the western interpretation of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Like the primacy, this too developed gradually and entered the Creed in the West almost unnoticed. This theologically complex issue involved the addition by the West of the Latin phrase filioque ("and from the Son") to the Creed. The original Creed sanctioned by the councils and still used by the Orthodox Church did not contain this phrase; the text simply states "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeds from the Father." Theologically, the Latin interpolation was unacceptable to the Byzantines since it implied that the Spirit now had two sources of procession, the Father and the Son, rather than the Father alone. In short, the balance between the three persons of the Trinity was altered. The result, the Orthodox Church believed, then and now, was theologically indefensible. But in addition to the dogmatic issue raised by the filioque, the Byzantines argued that the phrase had been added unilaterally and, therefore, illegitimately, since the East had never been consulted. In the final analysis, only another ecumenical council could introduce such an alteration. Indeed the councils, which drew up the original Creed, had expressly forbidden any subtraction or addition to the text. The West's tampering with the major creedal formula of the Church was, all in all, inadmissible.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Bread Alone, I appreciate the references but I am not doubting that Jesus is not God's son...I am saying Jesus is not GOD himself

Icxn, That is a poetic reference by John..he also says Jesus is the Light but I dont think he meant he was going to be the world's light bulb. Jesus himself nevers tells anyone that he is also God, he repeats 'Son of Man' for a long time then admits to some as God's Son. They are one in Spirit just as I beleive in the joining of two people in marriage. Does this explain better?

I'm not trying to be mean or the negative advocate. I just want people to REALLY sit and listen to the scriptures and not a doctrine that was not invented until over a hunded years after Jesus accended.

Um . . . John 8:58 is pretty clear . . . Jesus claims to be YHWH of the burning bush in Exodus 3.

Not to mention historical evidence and internal Biblical evidence too.

 

[boodle]

Actually, it seams that you don&#8217;t care about history at all. Looks like you care only about your interpretation of history which you&#8217;ve picked from someone&#8217;s, who has equally distorted viewing prism and same interest in truth (that would be none), book, and respond to what others think with &#8220;waca waca waca&#8221; &#8211; really scientific position, congrats.

nestoj
God helps

Well my friend, as I posted before, I am not interested in what everyones opinions are on history. I have partici8pated on several different boards. I have heard the same argument over history and the same scriptures thrown back and forth for years. Nothing is accomplished. What I have never heard is one trinitarian tell me how Christ being a God helps me to be like Him or how it makes Him a more appropriate example for me.
I klnow that my Father who is a just and fair God would not send a God to be my example and then expect me to live up to that standard of perfection. I am not sure what the Trinitarians think God would do. I know that there are very very clear scriptures that declare Jesus to be human. I know that he is the pattern and yet if He is a God then He is really no pattern for humanity.
I know that the only real clear scriptures in which Jesus denotes the deity that was in Him, He names the Father not a second person but God Himself. The same Father that indwells me. This is why Jesus could pray for us to be one even as He and the Father are one. Certainly we are not going to be part of the trinity, but we can have the same relationship with God as His only begotten human son Jesus.

 

[Shubunkin]

I believe your #6 is incorrect. Through my faith and Church's long-standing belief, the Holy Spirit comes through God the Father only. The statement you have there was of the Catholic belief of the filioque which they changed to say such. Here's some information on it:

In Christian theology the filioque clause (filioque meaning "and [from] the son" in Latin) is a heavily disputed clause added to the Nicene Creed, that forms a divisive difference in particular between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the place where the original Nicene Creed reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father", the amended version reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The addition is accepted by Roman Catholic Christians but rejected by Eastern Orthodox Christians. Many Eastern Catholic churches do not use the clause in their creed, but profess the doctrine it represents, as it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith. Insofar as Protestant churches take a position on the doctrine, acceptance of the filioque is normative. The clause is most often referred to as simply "filioque" or "the filioque."

You'll find that in the wikipedia.


Also this from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website:

...Equally disturbing to the Christian East was the western interpretation of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Like the primacy, this too developed gradually and entered the Creed in the West almost unnoticed. This theologically complex issue involved the addition by the West of the Latin phrase filioque ("and from the Son") to the Creed. The original Creed sanctioned by the councils and still used by the Orthodox Church did not contain this phrase; the text simply states "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeds from the Father." Theologically, the Latin interpolation was unacceptable to the Byzantines since it implied that the Spirit now had two sources of procession, the Father and the Son, rather than the Father alone. In short, the balance between the three persons of the Trinity was altered. The result, the Orthodox Church believed, then and now, was theologically indefensible. But in addition to the dogmatic issue raised by the filioque, the Byzantines argued that the phrase had been added unilaterally and, therefore, illegitimately, since the East had never been consulted. In the final analysis, only another ecumenical council could introduce such an alteration. Indeed the councils, which drew up the original Creed, had expressly forbidden any subtraction or addition to the text. The West's tampering with the major creedal formula of the Church was, all in all, inadmissible.

Excellent post! With that imbalance they have a wrong view of the Trinity. Yes.

 

[Dorothea]

Excellent post! With that imbalance they have a wrong view of the Trinity. Yes.

*blush* Thank you!

 

[Shubunkin]

Well my friend, as I posted before, I am not interested in what everyones opinions are on history. I have partici8pated on several different boards. I have heard the same argument over history and the same scriptures thrown back and forth for years. Nothing is accomplished. What I have never heard is one trinitarian tell me how Christ being a God helps me to be like Him or how it makes Him a more appropriate example for me.
I klnow that my Father who is a just and fair God would not send a God to be my example and then expect me to live up to that standard of perfection. I am not sure what the Trinitarians think God would do. I know that there are very very clear scriptures that declare Jesus to be human. I know that he is the pattern and yet if He is a God then He is really no pattern for humanity.
I know that the only real clear scriptures in which Jesus denotes the deity that was in Him, He names the Father not a second person but God Himself. The same Father that indwells me. This is why Jesus could pray for us to be one even as He and the Father are one. Certainly we are not going to be part of the trinity, but we can have the same relationship with God as His only begotten human son Jesus.

Not understanding or caring about the history of the Church is not understanding how it developed, or what it is today. Anyone can make up a church with no foundation. The first century Christians, and the second century Christians, and the third century Christian, etc., etc., etc., are important to us, as they should be. They are a part of us.

 

[boodle]

Not understanding or caring about the history of the Church is not understanding how it developed, or what it is today. Anyone can make up a church with no foundation. The first century Christians, and the second century Christians, and the third century Christian, etc., etc., etc., are important to us, as they should be. They are a part of us.

The problem is that arguing the history of the church does nothing to help me become like Christ. It does nothing to show Christ to me as a more viable example.
All these debates are endless chatter with no significant fruitand no logical conclusion that benifits the kingdom. Even if you convince someone that your history is correct -- So what! Does that help me be like christ.

 

[Melethiel]

From the Theology forums rules:

1. These forums are for discussion of orthodox Christian theology, as defined by the Nicene Creed. Topics which are ruled upon by the Creed (ie., the Trinitarian nature of God) are not up for discussion. While everyone is welcome to participate, and questions are fine, all debates should come from a Nicene perspective. There is to be no promotion of non-Nicene doctrines.

Non-Nicene doctrines can be discussed in the Unorthodox Theology forum.