Trinity

[StanJ]

No need to argue back and fro guys. Lets keep things on track

I'd love to. Maybe we should ask a moderator to step in?

 

[Colter]

Not at all. In fact the old adage holds true that there's nothing new under the sun and that these concepts that come from the Bible have been around every since the Bible has. The point is that there is a majority consensus and opinion that is paramount in all these issues and what I express is that consensus of opinion based on my own 45 years having studied the Bible.

Biblically speaking, there is a Father, there is a divine Son revealed in Christ, and there is the spirit of truth poured out upon all flesh after the Son returned to heaven. The teaching that these 3 constitute The Trinity is an assumption not an actual fact. There is a majority consensus in Judaism that Jesus wasn't the Son of God but that doesn't make their opinion a fact. None of the Bible books ever taught or explained a Trinity before, so borrowing the Greeks concept of a trinity and applying it to the 3 aforementioned units doesn't make it so.

 

[Radagast]

Does the bible teach the trinity?

Yes. All Christians accept the Trinity.

 

[Nym]

How is this a response to my post?

Let's go through the motions, in my first reply I talked about the number three, you replied with what you heard, in the second about three again, and now your not quite sure what I am getting at which should get you thinking what was it i meant by my first reply, which is exactly my point, how God relates to us by what we, with our soul percieve.

In the OT God is quoted as saying "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" but there is also reference to God's soul, God's spirit, an ancient of days that sits, a son, many sons, God's dwelling place, his kingdom, a throne. Fast forward to Jesus' quote about what was to them (or in their minds) unbreakable (or without error), "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

They were defending what they thought was the truth, or were willing to kill for it.

They could have taken (because they were already under the assumption that to say you were the son makes you equal with the father) what he said as meaning something like, oh now your saying that we are all gods, and now there's a bunch of gods; and all of this is over what they (like it is for everyone else) perceived to be the truth.

Rhetorically, how many forms of three can you find in scripture, or in nature for that matter, maybe we are only in the infant stages of understanding the language of God as he defines it.

When the Pharisees said we see, Jesus said their sin remained.

 

[Goatee]

Who can know and understand God?

So many 'religions', so many Biblical interpretations!!

Best thing is to 'believe' in God with all of your heart and soul. Trinity? Why argue about it? father, Son and Holy Spirit are real, yes. Explaining them is another matter!!!

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON


In order to not have to report a bunch of you for posting non-Trinitarian views, I've moved the thread from the Christian Apologetics Center to Controversial Christian Theology.

Plus, this is the last part of our Statement of Faith:

Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Nicene and Trinitarian beliefs. Christian non-Nicene and non-Trinitarian topics may only be discussed in the Controversial Theology forum. The Controversial Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). These unorthodox topics include (but are not limited to):
● Universalism
● Open Theism
● Full Preterism
● Non-Trinitarianism
● Annihilationism
● Gnosticism


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[Cappadocious]

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 was responding to your post:

arguing that there are three Persons and that they represent one God because they are all of the same nature, Deity, reduces God to an abstract principle., just as is human nature, in the case of human persons.

My response is, as you can see, quite relevant.

I then simply pointed out, this still gives us three gods, which is precisely what it does.

You have only secured three gods re: same common nature (i.e. Divinity). You have not secured three gods re: same particular nature (i.e. this God).

 

[StanJ]

Biblically speaking, there is a Father, there is a divine Son revealed in Christ, and there is the spirit of truth poured out upon all flesh after the Son returned to heaven. The teaching that these 3 constitute The Trinity is an assumption not an actual fact. There is a majority consensus in Judaism that Jesus wasn't the Son of God but that doesn't make their opinion a fact. None of the Bible books ever taught or explained a Trinity before, so borrowing the Greeks concept of a trinity and applying it to the 3 aforementioned units doesn't make it so.

First of all this is a Christian form not a Jewish forum. One of the great things about becoming a completed Jew is that you see how the New Testament brings into clarity the Old Testament, thus revealing our Triune God. The teaching is throughout the Old and New Testament but of course if you refuse to acknowledge it then that's on your shoulders. The Trinity is not a Greek concept it is a Christian reality.

 

[Hoghead1]

First of all this is a Christian form not a Jewish forum. One of the great things about becoming a completed Jew is that you see how the New Testament brings into clarity the Old Testament, thus revealing our Triune God. The teaching is throughout the Old and New Testament but of course if you refuse to acknowledge it then that's on your shoulders. The Trinity is not a Greek concept it is a Christian reality.

The actual Trinitarian formulations re in fact centered on Greek concepts. For example, substance metaphysics. Also the concept of God as a wholly immaterial, simple, immutable, nonrelational being comes from Greek philosophy, not Scripture.

 

[Job8]

Does the bible teach the trinity? Many seem to deny the trinity since the word is not found

It does not matter whether the Bible has the word "Trinity" in it.

Does the Bible teach that the Father is God? Absolutely.
Does the Bible teach that the Son is God? Absolutely.
Does the Bible leach that the Holy Spirit is God? Absolutely.

Those who falsely allege that this is not a Bible doctrine do their utmost to dodge the plain meaning of verses and passages. That is called wilful blindness, and those who are wilfully blind are ultimately blinded to the truth by God.

 

[StanJ]

The actual Trinitarian formulations re in fact centered on Greek concepts. For example, substance metaphysics. Also the concept of God as a wholly immaterial, simple, immutable, nonrelational being comes from Greek philosophy, not Scripture.

They may be depicted in the Greek language but they are not of a Greek origin, they are from God himself, as He was the one who inspired the Bible. In fact if you read Acts 17 you'll realize that Paul had already addressed this issue with the Greeks in terms of their 'Unknown God'.
It seems some people still have a lot to learn about what Paul said of God in Acts 17, and although the Greeks had already recognized Our God as their unknown God it was not a Greek concept that they recognized, but something from outside of their own culture. Paul connected the dots for them.

 

[Winter_Rose]

Well, I think there are two parts in the New Testament that show this:

Matthew 3:13-17 (NIV)
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Matthew 28:19 (NIV)
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hoghead1]

Let's go through the motions, in my first reply I talked about the number three, you replied with what you heard, in the second about three again, and now your not quite sure what I am getting at which should get you thinking what was it i meant by my first reply, which is exactly my point, how God relates to us by what we, with our soul percieve.

In the OT God is quoted as saying "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" but there is also reference to God's soul, God's spirit, an ancient of days that sits, a son, many sons, God's dwelling place, his kingdom, a throne. Fast forward to Jesus' quote about what was to them (or in their minds) unbreakable (or without error), "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

They were defending what they thought was the truth, or were willing to kill for it.

They could have taken (because they were already under the assumption that to say you were the son makes you equal with the father) what he said as meaning something like, oh now your saying that we are all gods, and now there's a bunch of gods; and all of this is over what they (like it is for everyone else) perceived to be the truth.

Rhetorically, how many forms of three can you find in scripture, or in nature for that matter, maybe we are only in the infant stages of understanding the language of God as he defines it.

When the Pharisees said we see, Jesus said their sin remained.

Wait a sec. Neither the Bible nor God said one substance, three persons. That's all coming from the later fathers. And no, we are not in the infant stages of learning God's language. What we are pondering over is how the fathers and creeds present us with a three-in0one combination. Again, the problem I ma having with what you are saying is that you appear to be suggesting that there are two separate, unique personalities involved here. Well, common sense alone should tell you that you then have at least two gods. How many forms of three can I find in nature? What dos this have to do with anything? The question should be, Can we find a formation of three in nature that equals one? Also note carefully that the use of the term "person" in many Trinitarian formulations can very much confuse modern readers, who tend to read in the modern definition of a person, which the fathers definitely did not intend.

 

[Hoghead1]

Who can know and understand God?

So many 'religions', so many Biblical interpretations!!

Best thing is to 'believe' in God with all of your heart and soul. Trinity? Why argue about it? father, Son and Holy Spirit are real, yes. Explaining them is another matter!!!

Why argue about it? You have to ask? Because the Trinity is a central Christian teaching and has presented some real problems down through the ages. It has led to many rejecting Christianity on the basis that it is a polytheistic religion, for example.

 

[StanJ]

Why argue about it? You have to ask? Because the Trinity is a central Christian teaching and has presented some real problems down through the ages. It has led to many rejecting Christianity on the basis that it is a polytheistic religion, for example.

That is your assertion and you've done nothing to support it with any well-documented corroboration.

 

[StanJ]

Here is what John Shore said on Patheos.com;

I believe that what John is expressing there is that God exists in three ever-present simultaneous modes: Absolute and unchanging, exuberantly creative, and within the heart and soul of every person. He uses the word God to refer to the absolute and unchanging aspect of God’s reality, Word to refer to the exuberantly creative aspect of God’s existence (by which, as we shall see, he means Jesus), and light of men to refer to God as the Holy Spirit.
Badda-bing, badda-triune nature of God.

Now how many of you following this thread have a problem with this statement

 

[Winter_Rose]

Wait a sec. Neither the Bible nor God said one substance, three persons. That's all coming from the later fathers. And no, we are not in the infant stages of learning God's language. What we are pondering over is how the fathers and creeds present us with a three-in0one combination. Again, the problem I ma having with what you are saying is that you appear to be suggesting that there are two separate, unique personalities involved here. Well, common sense alone should tell you that you then have at least two gods. How many forms of three can I find in nature? What dos this have to do with anything? The question should be, Can we find a formation of three in nature that equals one? Also note carefully that the use of the term "person" in many Trinitarian formulations can very much confuse modern readers, who tend to read in the modern definition of a person, which the fathers definitely did not intend.

Well, there's three parts of us. Our body (what you can see), our soul (how we feel etc) and our spirit (inner being that is sensitive to God through worship and Praise).

I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow (body), and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12).

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

If your post is missing it's because it was flaming, off-topic from the OP, or quoting someone who was doing this.

Please do not discuss each other.

Help the OP by answering the OP's question.

 

[StanJ]

I'm not sure what this "diversity of concepts" means here. I do know the Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is actually built. We get snap shots that often conflict. For example, in many passages God is presented as immutable, whereas many others speak of God as changing. It's up to us, the readers, to piece all this together.

God is not built he just IS. He told Moses to tell pharaoh that he was I AM. From our current perspective this shouldn't be much of a problem to understand given all that we see that transpired afterwards. It may not have impressed Pharaoh, but we see what happens when Pharaoh turns that lack of respect into contempt. The immutability of God is clearly taught in the Bible just as his omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and Triune attributes are taught.
In Malachi 3:6 God affirms, "I the Lord do not change.", as does Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Isaiah 46:9-11; and Ezekiel 24:14.
It's a matter of recognizing God's immutability as opposed to God's merciful nature. In the important things God does not change. That he may be swayed by our sincere requests only indicates that he wants us to know just how sincere we are so we can learn. God has nothing to learn and nothing to prove. He is after all the great I AM!

 

[Hoghead1]

God is not built he just IS. He told Moses to tell pharaoh that he was I AM. From our current perspective this shouldn't be much of a problem to understand given all that we see that transpired afterwards. It may not have impressed Pharaoh, but we see what happens when Pharaoh turns that lack of respect into contempt. The immutability of God is clearly taught in the Bible just as his omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and Triune attributes are taught.
In Malachi 3:6 God affirms, "I the Lord do not change.", as does Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Isaiah 46:9-11; and Ezekiel 24:14.
It's a matter of recognizing God's immutability as opposed to God's merciful nature. In the important things God does not change. That he may be swayed by our sincere requests only indicates that he wants us to know just how sincere we are so we can learn. God has nothing to learn and nothing to prove. He is after all the great I AM!

As I said in a previous post, the Bible presents snap shots that often conflict. In around 100 passages, God is said to change. Malachi 3:5-7 is a favorite example of mine. It begins by saying God does not change. So it might be easy to assume this passage is dealing excusive with the immutability of God. However, that is not at all the case. Rather than denying change in God, the passage insists on change due to the immutability of God's goads. "Return to me, that I might return to you" means that if we change in such-and-such a way, God will also change accordingly. God is a synthesis of both consistency and change. It just depends upon which aspects of God you are talking about.