trinity question

[hybrid]

Here are some examples of NT scriptures that use the word "one," the same word used two posts ago to justify the doctrine of the Trinity.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have
given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Matthew 19:17 And [Jesus] said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

1 Corinthians 8:6 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.

Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all onein Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

As you can see, Just because Jesus said He was one with the Father doesn't mean He is the same person as the Father. And just because the Nicene Creed says so doesn't make a Triune God reality.

Here are some keys to understanding the relationship between Jesus and the Heavenly Father:

1) Jesus and His Father are separate individuals (John 20:17, 1 Cor 8:6, John 3:16, Rom 15:6).
2) God the Father made Jesus God (Acts 2:36, Heb 1:2, 1 Cor 15:28, John 3:35, John 5:26, Rev 3:14).
3) Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament (see post #13 & #17)
4) Jesus represents His Father and His Father's will in all things. Jesus is the mediator of dealings between the Heavenly Father and man. (Col 1:19, Col 2:9, 1 Cor 11:3, 1 Jn 2:1)

Despite 1600 years of tradition, the conclusions of the Nicene Creed are not Biblical, nor do they represent what most Christians believed about God for 250 years after Jesus' mission. Nor does the Nicene Creed reflect what all Christians today believe about the Godhead.

but what you posted (with little refinement on the # 2 item) are essentially stated in the nicene creed.

so what's your objection with it?

 

[jeffC]

but what you posted (with little refinement on the # 2 item) are essentially stated in the nicene creed.

so what's your objection with it?

You are correct. There is really very little in the Nicene creed that I actually disagree with. I thank you for reminding me of that, since usually when I think of the Nicene Creed I think of it as the beginning of trinitarian dogmas because of the following line:

Jesus Christ, "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father,"

With that line the stage was set for Jesus to lose His identity, although it didn't fully happen until Augustine. The Athanasian Creed is, i believe, the most extreme example of how this one line bred future incomprehensibles.

There have also been some articles written questioning whether this creed actually snuffed out subordinationism. The term homoousion can signify equality of essence or community of nature among several beings, rather than numerical identity. So although most denominations today take the creed to mean numerical identity, there is a good chance this was not the original meaning in many of the Nicene Bishop's minds. In this case, LDS might be able to accept the Nicene creed fully

How do you see my #1 as compatible with the above line I quoted?

 

[hybrid]

hi jeffC

what was in the mind of the nicene councillors was Jesus was god in the flesh. this was the belief of the christians before and the nicene creed made that belief a universal christian confession of faith.

so they used words like begotten, one substance, homoousian only to denote and pointed out to the deity of christ.

How do you see my #1 as compatible with the above line I quoted?

i can live with that.

 

[jeffC]

Hybrid,

I'm still not sure what you are saying - Are you describing Jesus as a seperate manifestatino of the same God, or as an individual subordinate to the Father? Someone with either interpretation could still look at Jesus as God in the Flesh. From your other post, I would assume the latter, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[hybrid]

hi jeffC,

if the word of god can be considered as a separate manifestation of the same god, yes.

if the word of god can be considered as subordinate to the god who spoke, yes.

I subscribe to god's divine economy.


.

 

[wingsoflight]

Here is the best description of the Trinity in the Revelation Bible, Nexus 3:9-14.

9 In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with our Heavenly Father and Mother.

10 And the Father and the Mother are God and the Son is God, and these three are the Elohim, the Trinity of Light, with immortal bodies of flesh and bone as tangible as mans but glorified and perfected in every way.

11 And the light of the Elohim issues forth in spirit and essence from their presence to fill the immensity of space. It illuminates all the suns in the Heavens and gives life to all things, even as their Holy Spirit fills the hearts of all the Children of Light wherever they may dwell.

12 The power and will of the Father and the Mother focuses through the Son, and the Light of Yeshua illuminates and guides the faithful through the whisperings of the Holy Spirit, which is the united spirit of the Trinity of Light; of the Elohim.

13 When the Son speaks, he speaks for the Father and the Mother, and when prayers or words are spoken to the Father, so is the Mother also acknowledged, for they are but one God.

14 Even as a King and a Queen are both sovereigns, so the Son is also a sovereign, for he but does the will of his Father and Mother; and they are not three sovereigns but one, for they speak with one voice concerning the Kingdom, even as the Father and the Mother and the Son speak of one accord concerning the Kingdom of Light and Truth; whether on Earth or in Heaven, it is the same.

 

[wingsoflight]

Here is some more scripture from the Revelation Bible, Nexus, chapter 24, verses 4-12 that gives greater understanding of the Tinity:

4 In ignorance, some will say it is blasphemy to speak of God in the plural, as a male and a female, a husband and a wife co-creating; to them I say, have you not heard of the creation of the world where it is written in the sacred scrolls, ‘let us make man in our image, after our likeness’; and of when man was cast out of the garden God said, ‘behold, the man has become as one of us’; and of when God confounded the languages at Babel and said, ‘let us go down and confound their language’?

5 The sacred texts teach that man was made in the image of God. How then do men claim that God is only a male, for does not the body of a man differ greatly from the body of a woman? Therefore, I say unto you, man is made in the image of the Father and woman is made in the image of the Mother.

6 In fullness, a man is not without woman, nor husband without wife, neither parents without a child. And the perfection of God is the Father and the Mother and the Son; three lights each to their own, but they are one God, united in perfect spirit, understanding and purpose.

7 Did not Isaiah see the parents speaking of the coming of the Son unto the children of men and of the rejection of the truth thereof? For it is written, ‘I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall I send and who will go for us?’

8 ‘Then said I, here I am, send me.’

9 And he said, ‘Go and tell this to the people: hear you indeed, but understand not; and see you indeed but perceive not.

10 The hearts of this people are fat; they make their ears heavy and shut their eyes; lest they hear with their ears and see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and convert, and be healed.’

11 Again did Isaiah speak of the Father that is Lord, and of the Mother, the spirit that touches the hearts of men, and of the Son, who redeems the righteous, for it is written, ‘from the beginning, from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God and his spirit has sent me.’”

12 And Yeshua said unto them, “He who has ears to hear and eyes to see; let him hear and see."

 

[jeffC]

Here is some more scripture from the Revelation Bible, Nexus, chapter 24, verses 4-12 that gives greater understanding of the Tinity:

Wings,

could you or someone else describe the origins of the Revelation Bible? I have been unable to locate a concise definition of its sources from a web search.

thanks

jeff

 

[buddy mack]

Here is some more scripture from the Revelation Bible, Nexus, chapter 24, verses 4-12 that gives greater understanding of the Tinity:

Wow, do we have a mother in law god too?

 

[wingsoflight]

Wings,

could you or someone else describe the origins of the Revelation Bible? I have been unable to locate a concise definition of its sources from a web search.

thanks

jeff

Hi Jeff,

The Revelation Bible is the foundational doctrine of the Church of Celestine Light. To read about the origin go to the Church of Celestine Light site to the "Introduction" in the Book of Nexus in the Revelation Bible. Sorry, I don't have link privileges yet, but the address is: celestinelight.org/Introduction.htm

 

[buddy mack]

Hi Jeff,

The Revelation Bible is the foundational doctrine of the Church of Celestine Light. To read about the origin go to the Church of Celestine Light site to the "Introduction" in the Book of Nexus in the Revelation Bible. Sorry, I don't have link privileges yet, but the address is: celestinelight.org/Introduction.htm

by the way your founder isn't a guy name smith too?
anyway, kinda like the name celestine light, but in todays way of promoting something new, i would have called it, 'the church of celestine lite.' kinda like bud-lite.
or is it miller-lite? can't remember. anyhoo, good luck with this new one, there is plenty of room for more religions

 

[wingsoflight]

by the way your founder isn't a guy name smith too?
anyway, kinda like the name celestine light, but in todays way of promoting something new, i would have called it, 'the church of celestine lite.' kinda like bud-lite.
or is it miller-lite? can't remember. anyhoo, good luck with this new one, there is plenty of room for more religions

Hi Buddy Mack,

I don't know much about beer so can't answer your question but "lite" as it is used with the beer means you get less, as in calories, which definitely does not fit the Revelation Bible as you get more "light" as in knowledge. Thanks for your good wishes.

 

[The Gregorian]

I've seen a lot of people explaining other verses... but still no direct comments on the verse the thread is questioning.

there is, for us, one God, the Father.

I understand that there are other verses which hint both ways... but in what way can this verse be taken other than exactly what it says: there is one God: the Father.

 

[buddy mack]

I've seen a lot of people explaining other verses... but still no direct comments on the verse the thread is questioning.



I understand that there are other verses which hint both ways... but in what way can this verse be taken other than exactly what it says: there is one God: the Father.

As someone who hates to get technical and pull out my Greek I see it is time to do so.

Just look up the Greek word Kurios and Theos, in st John 1;1 and 1 Cor 8;6 and you should find your answer.

 

[jinkazama]

For the sake of the argument, how is it possible for a being to be earth, heaven and in spiritual dimension the same time?

 

[buddy mack]

For the sake of the argument, how is it possible for a being to be earth, heaven and in spiritual dimension the same time?

a person of flesh can't, as for God i don't put limits on what he can do. Now if we say, we have Heavenly Father in Heaven, Jesus our Lord by his right hand, and the Holy Ghost his eartly representative and these three are ONE God, then we see the Trinity.

 

[jinkazama]

a person of flesh can't, as for God i don't put limits on what he can do. Now if we say, we have Heavenly Father in Heaven, Jesus our Lord by his right hand, and the Holy Ghost his eartly representative and these three are ONE God, then we see the Trinity.

Yes, I know pretty darn amazing, don't you think?

 

[The Gregorian]

As someone who hates to get technical and pull out my Greek I see it is time to do so.

Just look up the Greek word Kurios and Theos, in st John 1;1 and 1 Cor 8;6 and you should find your answer.

Thank you very much... you've strengthened my point significantly. For a long time I've had a difficult time explaining the difference between the word "lord/Lord" and the word "God" because the two have become synonymous in modern English due to pushing the idea that the two are the same.

However... look back in time. Any big SCA buff will be glad to give you a lesson on hierarchy of the different stations in the old times. Peasants worked the fields, owning small homes under the rule of a lord of the land. Each lord ruled over sections of a kingdom, answering to the king. Kingdoms often part of an empire, therefore kings answer to emperors. As you can see ‘lord’ IS a noble station… but not a station of absolute rule.

So kurios means lord? You’re right. I did some research and got ahold of some people actually fluent in Hebrew, who explained that kurios can also be translated as Adoni (note, not Adonai)... Both words translate into master. As in every slave serves their adoni/kurios. However, Theos (YHVH, HaShem, Adonai) is referring to God.

True… there are times when God is referred to as ‘lord God.’ But that is because he is the master of our master (our lord/adoni/kurios/Jesus). However, this is similar to old days again... yes, peasants served the lord of their land... but beyond that they served their king. Their king is their master as much as their lord is their master... even more so their emporer (should they be in an empire) would be their master as much as their lord/king are their masters... this doesn't mean every lord is an emporer.

For a more common discription for today... you work at... a job. You have a boss... but your boss has a boss too. And he probably has a boss, who has another boss. They are all your boss. But the one you work directly under isn't the boss of the whole company if he also has a boss.

(this raises another question: what is meant by the illustration saying a slave can't have two masters, nore can a guest eat at two tables... But then again, to relate that to the 'boss' discription... you work at ONE job, having a hiararchy of bosses... this wouldn't count as 'eating at too tables' IMO. To do that you'd have to have two seperate jobs, like working at two competing radio stations or being on two baseball teams.)

 

[Bananna]

As someone who hates to get technical and pull out my Greek I see it is time to do so.

Just look up the Greek word Kurios and Theos, in st John 1;1 and 1 Cor 8;6 and you should find your answer.

I have, in great detail and your point is what? In greek those words are not capitalized and in English they pick and choose when they want to capitalize them.

I think it is more educational to read what the Jewish thought on the word of God and Unity are.

It is clear in all Jesus says and does (at least in the Greek it is) that Jesus worshiped the one true God and taught us to do the same.

My comment on the text:

There is ONE GOD and father, we worship him alone. How then can Chirst accept worship in the name of the Father? How can people bow down and worship kings, like David. In English they play this little game of translating worship when they want to denote God and Diety then just honor when it is a human.

We give honor to whom honor is due. It is that simple. It is the translators that made it difficult.

Why change the uniqueness of Yehoshuah into 'only Begotten' it is not like they could not say that in Greek, they just didn't. Jews did not believe in an only begotten. They believed we are all begotten of God, not to be confused with the procreating of humans. We live in a world where words don't always mean the same to all.

JMO

Bananna

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1][...]So kurios means lord? You’re right. I did some research and got ahold of some people actually fluent in Hebrew, who explained that kurios can also be translated as Adoni (note, not Adonai)... Both words translate into master. As in every slave serves their adoni/kurios. However, Theos (YHVH, HaShem, Adonai) is referring to God.[...][/SIZE]

I have omitted the rest of the irrelevant bloviation.

Your so-called "people actually fluent in Hebrew," are irrelevant unless they are also fluent in Greek. Because [size=+1]κυριος[/size]/kurios is Greek and [size=+1]אדני[/size]/adonai" is Hebrew.

And FYI, in Hebrew,"adonai" is written, [size=+1]אדני[/size] and "adoni" is written,[size=+1]אדני[/size]. In ancient Hebrew there was only one spelling. The vowel points and different pronunciation were not added until after the time of Christ. The pronunciation "adoni" cannot be documented in any way prior to the Christian era.

And, I am so glad that you mentioned that Theos refers to God. Because "[size=+1]θεος[/size]/theos" is applied to Jesus several times in the N.T.

John 1:1, for example, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, [[size=+1]θεος[/size]] and the Word was God [[size=+1]θεος[/size]]."

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God [[size=+1]θεος[/size]] at any time; the only begotten God [[size=+1]θεος[/size]] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

And before you even think about arguing that the second [size=+1]θεος[/size]/theos in John 1:1 does not have the definite article. Read John 1:18, carefully, the first theos" does not have the definite article but the second one does.

Then of course we can discuss the 40 or so verses which are addressed to [size=+1]יהוה[/size]/YHWH” in the O.T. applied to Jesus in the N.T.

Now going back to your original question about Jesus referring to God the father in the third person. What exactly was your point? Do you think that proves something?

It doesn't! It is just the same old, same old, same old, anti-Trinity nonsense that can be found on any anti-Trinity website. It is supposed to be the, "One verse that absolutely, completely, utterly, totally destroys the Trinity, and no Trinitarian can answer it."

But if we use the same logic then all the verses where Jesus refers to "the Son of God," and "the Son of Man," in the third person, must mean Jesus is not "the Son of God," and "the Son of Man," either.

There are 31,172 (or 3, depending on who's count you accept) verses in the Bible. This one out-of-context verse does not prove what you think it does.