Trinity is wrong.

[Bananna]

I can't tell what your view is catagorized without the concluding print out. I disagreed with most of the questions too, I'm presuming it to be from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective that has gone through repeated phases of division over the centuries. I don't even remember when the first form of the concept Trinity was formed.

I agree with the point that Yeshua was making and believe idiomatically He was saying He and God are one, We are to be one and God, He and Us are to be one. If he meant to say He and God would be one person, he would have said one person rather than a form of Echad (unity) oneness.

It is neither a statment for or against a Trinity in and of itsself.
bananna

 

[hybrid]

oneness is a wonderful idea whose time has come

 

[Bananna]

I think oneness has always been here for a remnant of God's People.

 

[2ducklow]

all models are false, you ought to know that by now. so to say metaphor is unreal is correct but not a convincing argument to make a conclusion that the triune god is unreal . it does not follow. it only means that the metaphor is poor.although.it always fascinates me to see people destroy a metaphor as if it is the real thing. hehe

1 X 1 X 1 = 1 is suppose to explain how the father and the son and the holy spirit add up to one. What you are saying then is it doesn't explain it. You are correct.

that is not what trinity is saying.

that is not what trinity is saying.

have you heard about the principle " the whole in every part"?
take holograms for example, you can cut the holographic film of the original image into parts and still the part will reflect the whole image

ain't that something?.

I guess theres no way of convincing you that 3 individuals each of which is god all by his lonesome add up to 3 gods. Cause of holograms.

The hologram is not an image, but an encoding system which enables the scattered waves to be reconstructed in the form of a “virtual” 3-D image. Another definition of a hologram implies the process of recording and recreating complex three-dimensional wave fronts in space.
The whole scene can, in principle, be re-constructed from a single point in the recorded hologram. To demonstrate this concept, the hologram can be broken into small pieces and the entire object can still be seen from each small piece. If one envisions the hologram as a “window” on the object, then each small piece of hologram is just a part of the window from which it can still be viewed, even if the rest of the window is blocked off.

http://bioholography.org/blog/?page_id=120
So a hologram is just a windeow looking into an encoded picture , thus breaking the hologram up is equivalent to breaking up a window into tiny windows. you still see the whole through a tiny window just as you did through a large plate glass window. that doesn't equate to 3 beings are one b eing, which is trinity.

your hologram arguement reminds me of the triple point of water trinity arguement. which is also false. kBut thanks i'm wise to the hologram misanalogy now.

 

[Bananna]

Have we defined person yet?

We are still having the definition of 1 turned into a number rather than a unity... which really won't work in the long run anyway.

bananna

 

[ContraMundum]

..and still no one has proven that the Trinity is "wrong" as the rather haughty thread title claims. Instead, we have on this thread just a bunch of speculation and opinion. Sounds like a lot of confusion among those who reject the highly logical and well proven beliefs of orthodoxy.

 

[Bananna]

Yah not a nice title to begin with. I agree. I think we've moved past that though.


bananna

 

[ContraMundum]

Yah not a nice title to begin with. I agree. I think we've moved past that though.


bananna

I hope so.....but it doesn't look like it to me. Still.....not a big deal either way for me- people are people and the internet is just a sampler. I don't think we can expect cohesive theology in an world where very little Christian discipleship is done in churches and catechesis is a dirty word. Modern day people like to think that the Christian religion is a personal smorgasbord rather than a community of faith with certain doctrines that take years or decades to think through, and that sometimes orthodoxy needs as fair a hearing as the personal opinions of the rest.

 

[Bananna]

So start simple and build it up. You are one of the few people I've encountered that understands the subject well enough to actually discuss it.

A lot of people don't know their own definitions well enough to really communicate well much less learn what another is trying to communicate. I've seem some hot debates about no differences based on misunderstanding of theological terms on the part of both parties.

So how do you define person a of the Godhead?
bananna

 

[&Abel]

Because "us" is used in Genesis does not infer, nor require a trinity or duality of being.

For example, Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge. He learned from the OT. He said that it speaks of him. A perfectly sensible view would be that his father is writing to his son...in the future.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Note that God DID NOT create man in his LIKENESS. Read carefully. It was Jesus job, through obedience, to the word to create a model for men to follow that we may be LIKE him.

God in foreknowledge always knew what Jesus would do. All creation was planned around it. Jesus was the reason for creation. He did not have to pre-exist....only the idea of him was in God's heart.

very insightful

I actually questioned the trinity recently myself

I'm still undecided but I have a gut feeling that something about it is wrong

I'm not saying god does not exist in 3 parts cause he does

but god also refers to himself as the word and says the word became flesh

possibly this has something to do with the idea of jesus being brought forth through his words...as if upon realization he put it into action

now since the word played a huge role in not only things unraveling the way they did but also in jesus realizing who he was and how he must conduct himself you could make an argument that the word is god in that it reveals himself and is required for jesus to exist as he did

 

[Bananna]

The uniqueness of Christ and the separateness of Christ are a hard enough concept. Add to that the Seven spirits at he foot of the thrown or the seven spirits prophesied to be over Jesus and arguments of whether the spirits are one seven fold or seven spirits.

Is God three fold also? Then we must separate out the idiomatic use of spirit. example, "He is in high spirits today" which also occurs.

Questions we all have. I accept that the term must some times be used to convey a message but object to a lot of extrabiblical terms and definitions that could lead us down the wrong path. Divisiveness for one. God is a Unity. We are a thought in the mind of the one true God as is Yeshua. And when God speaks things become. The word and law became flesh as Christ walked them out perfectly.

Bananna

 

[gort]

This is how I see it. You obviously see it as a trinitarian. That is your choice. I am sorry if I seem to childish here but:

I see it trinitarian because there is no other option as to who the Logos/ Christ is without addition of my opinon in the matter.

Word..that is something that is spoken or a thought to be spoken.

God speaks...things happen, like creation.

Yes, God speaks, things happen.

God can have words or thoughts for quite a while before he uses them.

This is where you impinge your opinion on the matter and to me appears to be your reasoning as to Christ being a thought in the heart/mind of God. Yet God is God, eternal, unchanging. His thoughts/words are therefore also eternal, unchanging.

Since both God and his words are spirit...God and his words existed forever.

ok.

God and his words are inseparable. Since both are spirit, and his words express him...Both God and his words are God.

By speaking, God created everything. He used words...expression.

ok

Jesus was born and grew, and came to see that God's words cannot be broken. If anyone disobeys God's words, he is a sinner.

...Jesus, the man was born and grew.

Jesus never disobeyed. Every breath, every action was in obedience to his Father's words. He chose to do that of free will. He was tempted to not follow God's words, but stood fast.

At the point of death, he chose to obey even though his will was not to go through with it. Not my will, but thy will...

no arguement here...

If Jesus was "the Word" in some way by nature, he would not have had the option to disobey. His will would be captive to his nature.

Difficult to say, He was a man after all. Luk 22:42

If Jesus was "the Word" by the actions that he chose to do, having free will, he would be a man in obedience to his Father, and the only one to have done the opposite of what Adam chose by free will. He obeyed to the death.

But the scriptures speak far more than just actions that he chose to do. Actions by choice are not inclusive of having life in Him and being the light of men (Joh 1:4) as one example, much less being the Logos and all of creation made by, through and for Him just to name a couple examples.

His life was God manifest. His life was the Word, manifest. When we see Jesus, we see God, not because Jesus was God in Nature, but because Jesus became the living Word of God in action. When we see Jesus, we see the Father....yet Jesus is a man that died and rose again.

Yes, Jesus was a man who died and rose again. Who also thought being equal to God not robbery (Php 2:6), made himself of no reputation, took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. (Php 2:7). One who shared glory with the Father, created all things, has life in him, gives eternal life, judges all men, has a name higher than all others, etc.

Mat 15:18 But the things which come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies;

While Jesus denotes that what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart and gives evil men as examples in these scriptures, what comes from the heart of God and how can something from the heart of God not contain and fully express the nature of God Himself?

logos

In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

Thayers

 

[hybrid]

Questions we all have. I accept that the term must some times be used to convey a message but object to a lot of extrabiblical terms and definitions that could lead us down the wrong path. divisiveness for one.

i agree in principle that it is the distilled essence of the message that must be understood if we are to be in the right path of unity. ironically it is our beliefs that causes divisions and disunity.

God is a Unity. We are a thought in the mind of the one true God as is Yeshua. And when God speaks things become. The word and law became flesh as Christ walked them out perfectly.

zactly.

 

[Bananna]

Since I attend and teach in a trinitarian congregation that.... doesn't use the term trinity, just the discriptions... It is a balancing act at all times to choose materials that I can honestly profess and still avoid issues of conflict. Their parents can teach them those issues that I know they disagree with me on. I'm not usually afforded the same curtesy, but I don't bring it up in Church I just point the kids to the scripture and say, this is why I disagree with what the taught.

It is easier to be unified when we focus on what we agree on. Besides with Children, it is basic morality I'm teaching from the Parsha studies. Ten commandments, Love and obey God. Be kind... etc. We only have conflict when one person comes in insisting on having it their own way.

Bananna

 

[hybrid]

We only have conflict when one person comes in insisting on having it their own way.

well maybe not our beliefs per se but our overly attachments to our beliefs. hehe

 

[Bananna]

Well everyone thinks they have it correct. They insist it be taught according to their diffinition and done their way.
Kosher only
Biblical Clean foods
all foods

We said, the goal is Kosher in assembly because they have a greater restriction - but we don't ask people to keep Kosher homes. The same would go if one had a conviction on music style or wine. We know that people have differing convictions and therefore we should heed that we don't cause them to stumble.

We had one teacher who always offended people because he always chose controversial subjects that were way to deep to be understood by most new comers. I think the basics for Weekly Sabbath are best. Meat is for those that go during the week for further study. JMO
bananna

 

[Clifford B]

Jn 1:4 ...the light of men? In this case, I believe the scripture is referring to the Father, not Jesus.

Why...because in the KJV, it is closer to the greek than the NIV and other versions:
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

The word is what God spoke...not a being, specifically Christ. What he thought and spoke was always with him, and is spirit...the same nature as God...the word is God...has nothing to do with Christ in this verse.



All the way until verse 4 is only about God, not Jesus.




Consider Rev 21:22-23
I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

God is the light. Christ HOLDS the light ...he is the lamp.

Col 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

God dwells in Christ....God is not Christ in essence.
When Christ did all that his father wanted, in every way, he was the word of God manifest to the world. But he still had free will...to do it, or not.

If he was the WORD by intrinsic nature, he could not disobey the word. He could not be tempted. He could ot have a will different from his father. He had to be the word by free will deed and thought. Only by doing that all the way to his death could he be forsaken by his father to take sin for us, and be able to say it is finished at the end....total obedience, regardless of cost.

Cliff

 

[ContraMundum]

So start simple and build it up. You are one of the few people I've encountered that understands the subject well enough to actually discuss it.

A lot of people don't know their own definitions well enough to really communicate well much less learn what another is trying to communicate. I've seem some hot debates about no differences based on misunderstanding of theological terms on the part of both parties.

So how do you define person a of the Godhead?
bananna

Hiya Bananna.

Thanks for the vote of confidence but this thread seems like one that would take a lot of effort to be involved in any further. I'm not sure I should invest that kind of time here because I have a feeling it won't make a lot of difference in the end.

But, to answer your question, the term "person" is not to be understood in human terms (eg. a rational being existing by itself) but in the sense of a rational being of the One Divine essence. The term fails on a human level to properly define the concept for the obvious reason that it is beyond our reasoning. What it does mean is that the idea of three seperate energies or qualities is rejected in favor of one essence who have one and the same "power" if you like. I don't know if the Greek and Latin terms will be of use but it is important to grasp them to really get a handle on this. There is an old axiom about humans: As many men, so many essences. A different doctrine applies to God, three persons, one essence.

The idea of "essence" (ousia) is not to be understood in the generic or abstract sence of the word (as in Greek philosophy) but in the concrete sense of the word meaning as something that actually exists. From this point we assess all the Divine attributes as something real, and one of those attributes being unique (one) and separate from all other things (holy). In this understanding of essence we come to know what is shared by all three persons of the Godhead. Yet, they are not persons in the human sense, but the very one and the very same God. How we establish the distinction in persons is based on how their actions are recorded in scripture.

Ultimately, it comes down to how we understand the basics of scripture teaching about God. It has been said that anyone approaching the whole context of scripture, seeing that Divine attributes are shared by three persons, must come to one of three conclusions- Unitarianism, Tritheism or Trinitarianism. Unitarianism (and its logical and historic derivatives) denies the three persons, and Tritheism (and its logical and historical derivatives like subordinationism) denies the one essence. Only Trinitarianism holds to all at once. It is taught (and this is important) that a Christian theologian would be in error if he or she taught the Trinity in such a way as to make it comprehensible to human reason, for to do so would be evidence of missing the mark on one point or another. Nevertheless, while it is beyond reason it is not unreasonable or self-contradictory. Knowing that God is only One in nature and "ousia" yet that He is seen in the Son and the Holy Spirit is something that must be affirmed regardless of human shortcomings in grasping it rationally. We cannot lose one point or reason away portions of scripture at the expense of another portion because we don't have the capacity to make head or tail of it. Rather, by faith we embrace all that scripture says even in points of intellectual tension, and allow God to teach us His truths by faith. One theologian put it best- "From this it is clear the term Trinity has not been coined to satisfy reason, but only to express the doctrine of scripture concerning the true God" (J. T. Mueller)

 

[ContraMundum]

Jn 1:4 ...the light of men? In this case, I believe the scripture is referring to the Father, not Jesus.

Why...because in the KJV, it is closer to the greek than the NIV and other versions:
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

The word is what God spoke...not a being, specifically Christ. What he thought and spoke was always with him, and is spirit...the same nature as God...the word is God...has nothing to do with Christ in this verse.



All the way until verse 4 is only about God, not Jesus.

Doesn't work with Hebrews 4. The Word of God is rational and discerning as well as powerful and active- the context in that passage is Jesus.

I could go on, but I've said enough here.

 

[2ducklow]

Hiya Bananna.

Thanks for the vote of confidence but this thread seems like one that would take a lot of effort to be involved in any further. I'm not sure I should invest that kind of time here because I have a feeling it won't make a lot of difference in the end.

But, to answer your question, the term "person" is not to be understood in human terms (eg. a rational being existing by itself) but in the sense of a rational being of the One Divine essence.

So God the father is a being of one divine essence. What is a being of an essence?

The term fails on a human level to properly define the concept for the obvious reason that it is beyond our reasoning.

so what you are saying is that a being of an essence is a term beyond our ability to understand.

What it does mean is that the idea of three seperate energies or qualities is rejected in favor of one essence who have one and the same "power" if you like.

so now you say person means essence of the same power. Or are you saying that essence of the same power = being of an essence? whcih we cannot understand according to your previous statement.

I don't know if the Greek and Latin terms will be of use but it is important to grasp them to really get a handle on this.

they are of no use but we must grasp them?

There is an old axiom about humans: As many men, so many essences. A different doctrine applies to God, three persons, one essence.

so God is an essence. and a person of God is a being of essence which is a power of essence, whcih we can't understand. WHat is the difference in a being who is an essence(god) and a being of essence(person of God)?
the b ible says god is a spirit so is a spirit an essence? Or should we throw out what the bible says god is in favor of powerof essence, being of essence, and essence? Doesn't essence mean essential characteristics? If so that would mean god is just the essential characteristics and persons of god are power of essential characteristics, and persons of god are beings of essential characteristics, I'll stick with what the bible says which is that God is a spirit.

The idea of "essence" (ousia) is not to be understood in the generic or abstract sence of the word (as in Greek philosophy) but in the concrete sense of the word meaning as something that actually exists.

so now you are saying that essence means being. Something that exists is the definition of a being. So what we got is a person is being of divine essence but since essence means being you are saying that a person is a being of divine being. which means 3 beings of one divine being. Unless you use your other definition of person which is essence of the same power, in which case , since essence means being according to your def., 3 beings of power are one being.

From this point we assess all the Divine attributes as something real, and one of those attributes being unique (one) and separate from all other things (holy). In this understanding of essence we come to know what is shared by all three persons of the Godhead.

So now you are defining essence as the divine attributes. so that would mean that essence= divine attributes = being of power = being of divine essence= something that exists which is a being.

Yet, they are not persons in the human sense, but the very one and the very same God. How we establish the distinction in persons is based on how their actions are recorded in scripture.

Ultimately, it comes down to how we understand the basics of scripture teaching about God. It has been said that anyone approaching the whole context of scripture, seeing that Divine attributes are shared by three persons,

you assume the bible is saying that.

must come to one of three conclusions- Unitarianism, Tritheism or Trinitarianism. Unitarianism (and its logical and historic derivatives) denies the three persons,

no it doesn't. it denies that the person of Jesus is God. it deinies that god the father and the holy spirit are two beings.

and Tritheism (and its logical and historical derivatives like subordinationism) denies the one essence. Only Trinitarianism holds to all at once. It is taught (and this is important) that a Christian theologian would be in error if he or she taught the Trinity in such a way as to make it comprehensible to human reason, for to do so would be evidence of missing the mark on one point or another. Nevertheless, while it is beyond reason it is not unreasonable or self-contradictory.

beyond reason but not unreasonable?
How do you know it isn't unreasonable if it is beyond your reason? god never said anything you have said above.

Knowing that God is only One in nature and "ousia" yet that He is seen in the Son and the Holy Spirit is something that must be affirmed regardless of human shortcomings in grasping it rationally.

I have no difficulty in grasping it rationally. God is in Christ. one being inside another being. and the holy spirit is the spirit of God the Father.

We cannot lose one point or reason away portions of scripture at the expense of another portion because we don't have the capacity to make head or tail of it.

by the same token if you can't make head or tail of what you say there is no reason to accept it.

Rather, by faith we embrace all that scripture says even in points of intellectual tension, and allow God to teach us His truths by faith.

why should i accept by faith your essence=being of power=divine attributes=being of divine essence?

One theologian put it best- "From this it is clear the term Trinity has not been coined to satisfy reason, but only to express the doctrine of scripture concerning the true God" (J. T. Mueller)

Why should I approach scripture from the standpoint of it being unreasonable, irrational and nonsensical? why whould god speak to us that way?If that is God's way, then it is pointless to read scripture if there is no reason or rational to it.

and still no one has proven that the Trinity is "wrong" as the rather haughty thread title claims. Instead, we have on this thread just a bunch of speculation and opinion. Sounds like a lot of confusion among those who reject the highly logical and well proven beliefs of orthodoxy.

So the highly logical non confusing belief of orthodoxy is that God =essence= divine attributes = person= being of power = being of divine essence = person = something that exists which is a being. And the belief that God the Father is the one and only true God who indwellls the man Christ Jesus, and the Holy spirit is the spirit of the one and only true god, which is God the Father is a lot of confusion according to your statement here.