the Trinity

[skywatching]

It has been believed that Jesus Christ is God from the beginning.

The doctrine of the Trinity, something believed since the beginning, only had to be "officialized" due to the Arian heresy. Arius was a man who claimed that Christ was not the Son of God, but instead a created creature. Fights, arguments and debates ensued.

In the end, the Trinity doctrine was formulated. The debate was solved when people asked "What do we believe? What have we believed?" and they realized that Arius' thought did not jive because Arius said that Christ was a created creature yet it had been believed for three centuries that Christ was the Son of God. Christ is God.

that is exactly what it is DOCTRINE...and not even sure what u mean by 'always' it was not what Jesus ever said...here are 5 translations for you

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 14:9-11;&version=51;31;50;16;77


he said IN...

*stubborn theology gets us no where*

 

[E.C.]

The persons of the Trinity are of one essence.

Read "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius who is credited with helping refute Arianism.

 

[R3quiem]

Why do people insist that the Trinity is a true doctrine? I just don't see why or where it came from. Jesus never said He was also God. He calls God 'Father' and often went into seclusion to pray...why would he pray 'to Himself?"
I have heard this my whole life but I just can't equate Jesus with God....The HS is the Spirit that God gifts to his true followers so that I have no prob with. I just can not believe that Jesus and God are one and the same, just part of God that took human form....I think the early century churches wanted to implement this and there is no true basis for it.

Why do you beleive it?

I understand your viewpoint.

You are in agreement that Jesus is God's son, but are skeptical that Jesus IS God.

Well, some people have already posted some biblical references, so I won't repeat them. It is true that Jesus said some things that may be taken to mean that he is God.

But, there are also some biblical references that show he might not be in unison with God.

John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

John 14:28
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

To me it is ambiguous. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Catholic and I don't reject the trinity, but I don't think that people have a good of a grasp on what God is as well as they think they do. The trinity may be a good tool to trying to understand it, but I don't put much emphasis on it as being entirely accurate.

The way I look at it, it may not be meant to be known in this life. If we were supposed to understand the nature of God perfectly in this life, Jesus would have told us in a plainer manner what the truth is. It is said that in the afterlife we have a better understanding of God and are in His presense- perhaps we'll understand Him better then and have more of the answers. In this life, I think it's best just to try to focus on doing what Jesus said to do- to love God and love one another and try to do good things, instead of getting bogged down by the details in scripture.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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

 

[skywatching]

The way I look at it, it may not be meant to be known in this life. If we were supposed to understand the nature of God perfectly in this life, Jesus would have told us in a plainer manner what the truth is. It is said that in the afterlife we have a better understanding of God and are in His presense- perhaps we'll understand Him better then and have more of the answers. In this life, I think it's best just to try to focus on doing what Jesus said to do- to love God and love one another and try to do good things, instead of getting bogged down by the details in scripture.

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!

 

[skywatching]

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

*sigh*

 

[armyman_83]

Jesus is also called God elsewhere.

Joh 1:1 NET.
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

Rom 9:5 NET.
(5) To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.

Wow, never seen it like that before, I guess it would be hard to post the KJV since they say things a little differently.

Joh 1:18 NET.
(18) No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

1Ti 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Are some of the others.

Marv

No one has ever seen God at any time? That totally goes against what Christ said--"If ye have seen me ye have also seen the Father". So who do we belive? John or Christ? (John 14:9)

Too bad Paul never said that God is three persons in one, I mean why wouldn't he say that? I mean it was taught to all the Jews in History past...oh wait, it wasn't.

Christ cannot be Yahweh, as the Christ doesn't even know the time of his own return.
There was a time when Christ was not. If indeed it is truely written "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (Colossians 1:15)

Jesus is not eternally begotten of the Father, thus Yahweh was before Jesus and had to create him, making him not Yahweh. (Unless of course Yahweh could clone himself?)

"Here O Israel, the LORD our God is One Lord in Three persons."
--thats not a verse!

"Here O Israel, The LORD our God is One Lord."
--Deut. 6:4 (Oh and Jesus said it too in Mark 12:29)

We Non-Trinitarians (well at least myself) do not believe that many gods make up One. We believe there is Yahweh, who is above all. Then Yahweh made Jesus, "Before Abraham". Jesus is the Son, not his own Father. This shows a lack of scripture, history, and logic. If faith in a Tirune God was so important, then why do the Apostles never clearly state that God was in fact, One in Three? Peter nor any of the Apostles said "Jesus is God, Yahweh is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but they are all the same." Why would they? Why use the word "God" three times to explain him, if :
"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 Corinthians 8:6)

 

[armyman_83]

Sky Watching, I thought I would help you out a little. I hate to see you on your own in such a way.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

*sigh*

No, seriously. Wrestle with the philosophical implications of that for a moment.

What can we say of God that is not idolatry? That does not impinge on his transcendence? 'God is love.' Verywell. We have just placed God is a box of love which we know only through our flawed human experience. 'God exists.' Verywell. We have just confined God to a spatiotemporal state. 'God.' Still, no go.

The second commandment implores us not to put a face on God through a graven image, at any Near Easterner worshiping Baal or Molech or Asherah was wont to do.

Why?

Because God is utterly transcendent. In the end, any attempt to even think about God is to misrepresent God. It is to commit idolatry with our own self-conceptions.

Unless God himself sends us his image, speaking to us in the language of our own humanity.

Apart from the incarnation of Jesus Christ, there is not way to bridge the gulf between the utterly transcendent God and our own spatio-temporal existence. No God-man, no men of God.

 

[armyman_83]

It has been believed that Jesus Christ is God from the beginning.

The doctrine of the Trinity, something believed since the beginning, only had to be "officialized" due to the Arian heresy. Arius was a man who claimed that Christ was not the Son of God, but instead a created creature. Fights, arguments and debates ensued.

In the end, the Trinity doctrine was formulated. The debate was solved when people asked "What do we believe? What have we believed?" and they realized that Arius' thought did not jive because Arius said that Christ was a created creature yet it had been believed for three centuries that Christ was the Son of God. Christ is God.

From the beginning? As in the beginning of time? Where does it say in the Bible Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father?

Did you know that Arius had a very strong following, and that Constantine's son (I believe) accepted Airus after he was Emperor? This "Heresy" was so strong that it lasted well into the 5th century, and even today.

Arius was a man who claimed that Christ was not the Son of God, but instead a created creature. Fights, arguments and debates ensued.

I believe you are wrong there, Arius stated that Christ was a created creature of God, True----BUT---he also said that he was the Son of God. Only Arius said that "There was a time when the son was not." Is it so wrong to say that "the Son has a beginning, and the Father does not?" Arius believed that Jesus was the Son of God, but not that Jesus was Yahweh (or the Father), and thus should not be worshipped, as Yahweh alone should be worshipped.

In the end, the Trinity doctrine was formulated.

But I thought it was:

The doctrine of the Trinity, something believed since the beginning...

Arius believed that Jesus was the Son of God, just not Yahweh. His "Heresy" was sadly defeated...

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:"
--Acts 24:14

 

[skywatching]

Sky Watching, I thought I would help you out a little. I hate to see you on your own in such a way.

Thank you, I guess I am getting frustrated with the views and emphatic stance on something that really was not outlined in a way that to otherwise believe will condemn us to hell.
As I have said in this or other threads (mind boggling at teh moment), I feel that putting Jesus in equation as God in full Deity is not right. He is One God and His spirit lives in his truly chosen annointed ones...He and jesus are One in essence of bonding Spirit.
I just have a heavy heart that has me screaming, God is telling me..."Believe in ME, obey MY commandments, not the rules and laws of man...abide in ME and I will abide in YOU."

 

[]RiSeN[]

Boodle's posted info is historical fact. The trinity doctrine is pagan in origin. To deny this is to deny reality as it happened. And if you think "but this verse says this, and that verse says that..", you're only seeing the bible through biased preconceived notions.

Try reading all the verses you ascribe to trinity as Jesus being God's son, a seperate entity and being. Then see which one is more of a stretch.

 

[GenemZ]

I understand your viewpoint.

You are in agreement that Jesus is God's son, but are skeptical that Jesus IS God.

Well, some people have already posted some biblical references, so I won't repeat them. It is true that Jesus said some things that may be taken to mean that he is God.

But, there are also some biblical references that show he might not be in unison with God.

John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

John 14:28
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

To me it is ambiguous. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Catholic and I don't reject the trinity, but I don't think that people have a good of a grasp on what God is as well as they think they do. The trinity may be a good tool to trying to understand it, but I don't put much emphasis on it as being entirely accurate.

The way I look at it, it may not be meant to be known in this life. If we were supposed to understand the nature of God perfectly in this life, Jesus would have told us in a plainer manner what the truth is. It is said that in the afterlife we have a better understanding of God and are in His presense- perhaps we'll understand Him better then and have more of the answers. In this life, I think it's best just to try to focus on doing what Jesus said to do- to love God and love one another and try to do good things, instead of getting bogged down by the details in scripture.

The problem was this...

Jesus was the Eternally existing Son of God, who came to earth and volunteered to stop functioning as God (Philippians 2:5-8).

So? That being the case? Certain remarks he made? Will make him out not to be God.

Yet? Jesus also remained objective in regards to knowing who he was as God. So? Some remarks were made in regards to his human condition. And, others, were made in regards to his understanding of who he truly was in the Divine sense.

It would be like Clark Kent speaking as if he were a man. Yet, he could fully express and accurately represent the thoughts, feelings, and attitude of Superman. Without manifesting Superman!

Jesus was God who, like Clark Kent, volunteered to always carry a controlled amount of Kreptonite around his neck where ever he may go. Just enough so he would be no stronger than a man. Yet, he could speak on behalf of Superman and be exactly knowing what he said first hand.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[E.C.]

Boodle's posted info is historical fact.

That one on the first page?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Boodle's posted info is historical fact. The trinity doctrine is pagan in origin. To deny this is to deny reality as it happened. And if you think "but this verse says this, and that verse says that..", you're only seeing the bible through biased preconceived notions.

Try reading all the verses you ascribe to trinity as Jesus being God's son, a seperate entity and being. Then see which one is more of a stretch.

Who?

 

[skywatching]

The problem was this...

Jesus was the Eternally existing Son of God, who came to earth and volunteered to stop functioning as God (Philippians 2:5-8).

So? That being the case? Certain remarks he made? Will make him out not to be God.

Yet? Jesus also remained objective in regards to knowing who he was as God. So? Some remarks were made in regards to his human condition. And, others, were made in regards to his understanding of who he truly was in the Divine sense.

It would be like Clark Kent speaking as if he were a man. Yet, he could fully express and accurately represent the thoughts, feelings, and attitude of Superman. Without manifesting Superman!

Jesus was God who, like Clark Kent, volunteered to always carry a controlled amount of Kreptonite around his neck where ever he may go. Just enough so he would be no stronger than a man. Yet, he could speak on behalf of Superman and be exactly knowing what he said first hand.

Grace and peace, GeneZ​

​

and those ideals and thoughts come from someone 'thinking they have great wisdom in discering real meaning of scriptures'...God wants childlike, not theologians who prove depth of thought and interpretation. I will say this....God did not say...'This is Me in whom I am well pleased'...Jesus did not say, 'I am really God the Father too but as human I'm leaving that to my split personality in heaven'

I am convicted to say something on this thread.
I do believe in the Trinity...God is supreme, Jesus is His Son under Him and in authority of the earth, Holy Spirit is the 'in his likeness' part that is One in us as believers. He is the part of them that leads, comforts and counsels. Does that cause you to put your swords and stones down, or does that cause more contention?

 

[]RiSeN[]

That one on the first page?

Yes sir.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Boodle's posted info is historical fact. The trinity doctrine is pagan in origin. To deny this is to deny reality as it happened. And if you think "but this verse says this, and that verse says that..", you're only seeing the bible through biased preconceived notions.

Try reading all the verses you ascribe to trinity as Jesus being God's son, a seperate entity and being. Then see which one is more of a stretch.

Sorry, I stopped reading when the passage suggested that Christianity adopted the Trinity from pagan beliefs in Japan and Siberia and subsequently vomited.

Bad history, very bad history. No treat.

Can somebody actually provide a primary source document or some scholarly model? Somebody, please somebody, to explain how within eighty years (death of John to the writings of Tertullian) the Christian Church went from unitarian monotheism to Trinitarianism?

 

[skywatching]

Sorry, I stopped reading when the passage suggested that Christianity adopted the Trinity from pagan beliefs in Japan and Siberia and subsequently vomited.

Bad history, very bad history. No treat.

Can somebody actually provide a primary source document or some scholarly model? Somebody, please somebody, to explain how within eighty years (death of John to the writings of Tertullian) the Christian Church went from unitarian monotheism to Trinitarianism?

Don't feel bad, I stopped after the first sentance...A.D.D. can't take that kind of text...lol
I have a headache now and need my vacation on the west indies beaches to engage....LOL

 

[GenemZ]

and those ideals and thoughts come from someone 'thinking they have great wisdom in discering real meaning of scriptures'...God wants childlike, not theologians who prove depth of thought and interpretation. I will say this....God did not say...'This is Me in whom I am well pleased'...Jesus did not say, 'I am really God the Father too but as human I'm leaving that to my split personality in heaven'

I am convicted to say something on this thread.
I do believe in the Trinity...God is supreme, Jesus is His Son under Him and in authority of the earth, Holy Spirit is the 'in his likeness' part that is One in us as believers. He is the part of them that leads, comforts and counsels. Does that cause you to put your swords and stones down, or does that cause more contention?

Did you simply randomly choose to click the Reply button to my post? And, then rant on a different point made by some others in this thread?

I am at a loss to make a connection between what you quoted of my post, and what your response was. It makes no sense.

Were you responding to my post? In what way? You failed to make your intentions clear.

GeneZ