Trinity

[StanJ]

Due to the diversity of concepts within the current book list that comprises the Bible, it can be used to support all of the competing concepts among people who say their theology can be defended by a proper reading. Doctrines are overlaid onto the Bible for authoritative sourcing.

There's no diversity of concepts within the book. The diversity of concepts come from outside the book while not properly exegeting the book.

 

[faroukfarouk]

hi colter. i see no reason whatsoever to dispute the biblical teaching regarding the three in one nature of our Lord. it is not merely a concept, but a grounded biblical teaching. i do not understand how it has been such a topic for debate when the bible passages are clear about this teaching. father, son and holy spirit.

I agree completely.

 

[Hoghead1]

I believe it has more to to do with the significance to us of the number three then it does with a trinity; as something relational to us.

The Bible implies a Trinity, but does not work it out an any real detail. The later Trinitarian formulations are extra-biblical in nature.

 

[Hoghead1]

hoghead1,

1. The trinity which is triune in nature and the number of unity. The bible teaches compound unity and the Father and the Son did not come into reality until the messiah was born.

2. This means that either one believes like the Christadelphian and that the messiah is not divine and was and is human.

3. If one believes strict monotheism then most would believe in three offices and believe the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the father. However, the father was not present as the father in the old testament and the Spirit was present executing different operations.
Jehovah is used in many compound names of Deity and all three are called God. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

4. The Hebrew word for "Lord" in Deuteronomy 6:4 and 7600 times in the Old Testament means the self-existent, Eternal and Immutable One, Or unity. It doesn't say how many persons are in the One {unified} Lord, but the scriptures mention three persons who are called Lord and who are self-existent and Eternal and can be all be called Jehovah. There are scriptures to show that all three are called Lord.

5. The reason the Godhead are called one God is because they have always been, always are and always will be one in unity that cannot be broken. God used this one God especially to combat the polytheism of God that the heathens worshipped and they were all false Gods who had there own agenda and were never always in unity with each other. So while the false Gods may be poly as in plural and more than one they are not one in unbroken unity.

6. The biggest obstacle of the trinity is the number one in one person which makes no real sense. God could be unified with himself and is but his desire is to be one in spirit, mind and soul with his family. There is one body of Christ but many members in the one body of Christ. God is all about desiring a family which deals with relationship. To have a relationship deals with more than one. In this context of logic there should be no problem in believing in a trinity.
I actually believe because there are spirit bodies and God is a spirit they each have a separate body which would be a spirit body and of higher substance than man. Now I understand there are objections to this but why?
The objection seems to be if one believes in three separate beings in God the belief is that God is lowered down to polytheism which would contradict monotheism or being one.
The other objection would be that God being a spirit cannot have a body because he would occupy space and time like a material body and this is supposedly impossible because he created time and space.
I will stop here for you to think about it and if you would like to talk more about it then I would be glad to. Thanks, Jerry kelso

I always enjoy discussing theology. The Bible implies a Trinity, but does not clearly work it out. Hence, the later, Trinitarian formulations are all extra-biblical in nature.
Yes, saying the Trinity represents three separate, unique personalities is tritheistic in nature. That's the problem I have with many of the posts here. Also, it is overlooked that the term "persona" did not necessarily mean "person" in our sense of the term. Rather, it was referring to a mask worn by an actor, the role one plays.
Yes, it was traditionally assumed that God has no body. No, it was not because he created time and space. It was because the physical order was deemed inferior, a mere illusion. God couldn't have a body, because a body changes, and God does not change. However, since the 40's, theologians, such as myself, have been questioning the classical model of God.

 

[Hoghead1]

Do you have a rational response to my post? It's quite clear and reasonable.

No, it isn't. What you seem to be arguing is that 1+1+1= 1.

 

[Nym]

The Bible implies a Trinity, but does not work it out an any real detail. The later Trinitarian formulations are extra-biblical in nature.

The Bible implies a great many things, one such example would be, that God creates his own adversary, if we reason to a consensus with this word.

We can relate to a father, a mother, a child, but God is not confined to our perception of what this is, we are.

One would almost think that when Moses had asked God who he was, that he had never considered the question before, of course how could it ever be a question.

Circular logic, in type and on every level weaved into to our very existence.

 

[StanJ]

No, it isn't. What you seem to be arguing is that 1+1+1= 1.

Actually it's 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, but that is your conclusion not the reality. Again read the Shema.

Already did. That's why I said what I did.

 

[StanJ]

Already did. That's why I said what I did.

That's pretty contradictory because you disagree that the Trinity is three in one, but then you agree with the Shema that says God IS one?
So is it that you don't agree with what Jesus says about himself and the Holy Spirit being one with God? You seem to have a real problem articulating your actual belief?

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually it's 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

No, see, that really does not work, either.

 

[Hoghead1]

That's pretty contradictory because you disagree that the Trinity is three in one, but then you agree with the Shema that says God IS one?
So is it that you don't agree with what Jesus says about himself and the Holy Spirit being one with God? You seem to have a real problem articulating your actual belief?

<staff edit>Again, my argument is that if you assume the Trinity represents three separate, unique personalities, then you are into polytheism, you have three gods. So, where is the "one" God? One answer is that they all share the same nature, divinity or Deity. But that still gives us three gods. Three men have in common human nature, but are still three me. Another is that they all work in perfect harmony. OK, but that still gives us three gods working in harmony. So it is not a question of disagreeing or agreeing with Jesus, it is a question of responding to what other members have said here and showing why the social theory of the trinity is not monotheistic.

 

[Cappadocious]

No, it isn't. What you seem to be arguing is that 1+1+1= 1.

Not at all. I am rather saying that if x is z in virtue of y, this does not entail that y is what x really is.

You say that if the unity of God is in virtue of essence or nature, then God is really essence or nature. What is the demonstration for this?

 

[Hoghead1]

There are passages in the Bible, showing Yahweh is the one and only real God, the heavenly Father is certainly this God, Christ the Son is the incarnation of Logos, the Word with God who is God, and who is in prophecies speaking of Yahweh God, and the Spirit of God is spoken of in the role of God, and is listed in unity with the Father and the Son.

Yes, true. The Bible certainly doss imply a trinity, but it does not work it out in any detail. For example, is the Bible saying there are three separate, unique personalities here? Is th3e Bible saying that the Father is Christ as well?

 

[Colter]

There's no diversity of concepts within the book. The diversity of concepts come from outside the book while not properly exegeting the book.

As you see it, your way is the only right way. Their are many other people with many other ways who see their way as the only right way.

 

[Hoghead1]

Not at all. I am rather saying that if x is z in virtue of y, this does not entail that y is what x really is.

You say that if the unity of God is in virtue of essence or nature, then God is really essence or nature. What is the demonstration for this?

You have yet to explain clearly what your x-z argument above has to do with the Trinity.Your question shows you have not paid attention to what I posted. I think maybe you are touching on a point I made that some argue the "one" God is due to the fact all three persons share the same nature, divinity or Deity. I then simply pointed out, this still gives us three gods, which is precisely what it does.

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, but that is your conclusion not the reality. Again read the Shema.

Sorry, but you have failed to address my points and show me where ins the "one" God. You have simply proposed a lay version of teh social theory of teh Trinity and then said well, but there is only one God, without explaining how that is anything other than contradictory.

 

[Hoghead1]

Humans will never be able to fathom out the Trinity

Why not? The Trinitarian formulations are all extra-biblical human thoughts on the matter. If they don't work well, and some don't, the problem is in some form of muddled thinking along the way, not the mystery of God.

 

[Hoghead1]

Maybe not totally but we have a good enough working idea from the scriptures that will suffice for anybody that walks by faith.

No, we don't have a solid description of the Trinity from Scripture. That is why the Trinitarian formulations are extra-biblical in nature. The problem is that the Bible implies a Trinity, but does not work it out. Because of ambiguities in the biblical accounts, anti-Trinitarian people also use Scripture.

 

[Hoghead1]

It's a thoroughly Biblical truth underlying the term Trinity. John 13 thru 17 has so many references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as does John's First Epistle. This truth is at the end of Matthew 28 and in Romans 8, also.

If you are talking about 1Jn., you are referring to the johannie comma, which is not at all found in early Bibles. It is a later insert by later Trinitarian thinkers. Also, In Paul, Son and Spirit appear to be used the exact, same way. So, how are they different?

 

[Hoghead1]

wow. having at least attempted to read and follow the preceding conversation, i thank the Lord that i am relatively stupid and i am SO thankful that my salvation does not depend upon my intelligence.

Aren't we all.