What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[Righttruth]

I believe One God the Father who is supreme. He has His manifestations in the Son and the Holy Spirit. Only Jesus Christ is Person in the usual sense but begotten by the Father. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are personified in the Bible though They are Spirit. Godhead is Father, Son and Holy Spirit with Father being God. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible. I accept Apostles Creed, not Nicene Creed.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is the definition I have been giving you. Economic Trinity deals with how the Divine Persons relate to each other, and how that is reflected in salvation HISTORY.




Look all I can do, and all you can do is go off of that Thomas himself wrote. You may think that what he is proposing isn't really omnipresence, but Thomas believed what he was proposing was omnipresence. Those are two different points. We aren't arguing whether or not that Thomas' position is your understanding of omnipresence, but whether or not Thomas believed and taught that God is omnipresent, which is exactly what he believed.

I agree that Thomas did not teach pantheism, which is an impossible proposition for God as Christianity teaches. God isn't part of creation, because He created creation. And one doesn't have to be part of something to be present, in it. God has to be present in His creation because all of creation exists and is actively sustained by God.

The issue here has nothi9ng to do with panenthiesm or the like. The issue is whether or not Thomas claimed God was omnipresent. I and many others feel, as I said, that he is claiming God's power or God's created grace is present, not God. I have shown you specific statements he makes that support this notion. If you wish to disagree you can, but you need to go back and look at the evidence I presented and then present a solid rebuttal. If, for example, he assumes God is omnipresent, why does he use the metaphor of a king ruling from afar, for example?
If you now agree with what I said about the economic trinity, why didn't your earlier, when I said exactly the same thing?

 

[Righttruth]

None of the terms in our Bibles were in the original Bible. It was written in a different language and translated.

So certainly it must all be incorrect unless we read it in the original languages? The translation turned it into the doctrines of men?

Or does "trinity" describe a teaching in the Bible, even though, the Bible does not contain the word. That's personally why I don't esteem the word too highly, and prefer the teaching. But just because men came up with a word to describe a teaching from scripture, does that then mean the teaching is false?

So if we create a word to describe something in scripture, what we're then describing becomes false because a word was invented?

The word 'Trinity' is found in Apocryphal books

 

[Hoghead1]

I believe One God the Father who is supreme. He has His manifestations in the Son and the Holy Spirit. Only Jesus Christ is Person in the usual sense but begotten by the Father. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are personified in the Bible though They are Spirit. Godhead is Father, Son and Holy Spirit with Father being God. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible. I accept Apostles Creed, not Nicene Creed.

I find you statements somewhat confusing. Are you saying that teh trinity represents three separate, unique personalities?

 

[Righttruth]

The problem is how to interpret Isa. here. Is the passage referring to Christ, or is it referring to a purely earthly king. The appellations here are also appropriate to describe an earthly king. So the passage is ambiguous.

Isaiah indicates that Jesus will be called 'mighty god', not that He was. Many people christen themselves as Jesus and called so; it doesn't mean they are Jesus!

 

[Righttruth]

I find you statements somewhat confusing. Are you saying that teh trinity represents three separate, unique personalities?

One God with other two manifestations in the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hoghead1]

The word 'Trinity' is found in Apocryphal books

Evidence, please. Can you show specific passages from the Apocrypha that use the term "trinity'?

 

[Hoghead1]

Isaiah indicates that Jesus will be called 'mighty god', not that He was. Many people christen themselves as Jesus and called so; it doesn't mean they are Jesus!

You don't understand. The Pharaohs were also called gods. It was customary in the ancient world to view kings as gods or use language appropriate to the Deity to express their role and power.

 

[Hoghead1]

One God with other two manifestations in the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, I'm still confused. Could you be yet more specific?

 

[Hoghead1]

The best explanation for the Trinity is found in the Athenasian creed. When trying to come up with analogies, it is easy to fall into a heresy.

I think the term "heresy" is way outmoded. Often, the heretics were the ones proven right. All heresy really means is that you disagree with the doctrines of a certain church. it is absolutely nothing to do with the validity of your ideas. We should rise about that today and examine how feasible these analogies are.

 

[ScottA]

The problem is how to interpret Isa. here. Is the passage referring to Christ, or is it referring to a purely earthly king. The appellations here are also appropriate to describe an earthly king. So the passage is ambiguous.

The words are not words only but spirit. Interpretation is for the ungodly, but the word of God must be discerned spiritually.

When the learned disagree on the word of God...it is because they are babes, or not of the same spirit.

 

[Hoghead1]

The words are not words only but spirit. Interpretation is for the ungodly, but the word of God must be discerned spiritually.

When the learned disagree on the word of God...it is because they are babes, or not of the same spirit.

It's not that simple. The question is, What is the Bible actually claiming here? A divine king, or an earthly king? As I said, the appellations used here have also been applied to earthly kings in ancient times.

 

[Colter]

I guess I don't get your point.

The prophecies are who was all that and more..."For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

The fulfillment of prophecy...

The witnesses...

Etc., etc.

My point could not be any more simple, the religion of Judaism did not have a theology wherein God had a Son who was also God. The concept of a Jewish Messiah, based on parts and pieces of scripture such as you provided, lead to the anticipation of a kind of human priest/prophet/king figure who would take up David's seat, fight off Israel's oppressors and establish an earthly kingdom. But the Son of God, who incarnate within a religion with such a distorted concept of the function and identity of the anticipated deliverer, had no choice but to work with (keep in touch with) their erroneous ideas and henceforth stretch their minds as far as he could into the truth before returning to his real throne on high.

 

[Colter]

I'm afraid the Urantian ideas are not going to be respected or welcomed here. Remember that this is a Christian forum.

LOL! I believe Jesus was the Christ, I am Christian. However it is funny, Christians disagree on all sorts of things.....but have the only right way to think. Jesus is the way, but beyond that Jesus was necessarily vague about a lot of things.

Jesus' advanced truth wasn't welcomed in Judaism either, it still isn't. Religious pride does that to people. That's why I stick with what Jesus said, and even more importantly, what Jesus did not say in the Bible compared to the common speculation of men that evolved after Jesus left which was hardened into divisive doctrine.

 

[Righttruth]

Evidence, please. Can you show specific passages from the Apocrypha that use the term "trinity'?

I had read that book long back borrowed from a theological college library. I don't remember the details regarding translation and publisher.

 

[Righttruth]

You don't understand. The Pharaohs were also called gods. It was customary in the ancient world to view kings as gods or use language appropriate to the Deity to express their role and power.

Their understanding is definitely different from Judaism. The word 'gods' is used Psalms also.

 

[Righttruth]

Sorry, I'm still confused. Could you be yet more specific?

The Trinity is indicated in the first three verses of Genesis chapter 1. Verse 1 on God, 2 on the Holy Spirit and 3 on the Son as light.

 

[mikpat]

St. Thomas taught if God is infinite it would be impossible to conceive of reality where this God is not, other wise there would be limits to His existence. He is in all-things. To say God is everywhere, is a nice pious statement but for St. Thomas, it means God is present in all conceivable ways by His essence, by His pure act -of -being.

God is in all things by His power, exercising His absolute rule in all things.

God is in all things by His presence, as perfectly knowing all things and disposing them by His providence.

God is in all things by His essence as creator and preserver.

St. Thomas Aquinas


AMDG

 

[Erose]

The issue here has nothi9ng to do with panenthiesm or the like. The issue is whether or not Thomas claimed God was omnipresent. I and many others feel, as I said, that he is claiming God's power or God's created grace is present, not God.

And I have shown you from the very same article that Thomas says that God is present also by His PRESENCE and ESSENCE as well which you continue to ignore.

 

[Erose]

Well one thing this thread has taught me is that if someone claims to be Trinitarian on this forum, there is a good chance he/she isn't.