What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[Righttruth]

No, no. As t3eh Bible makes plain, the ancient Israelites were subject to falling into polytheism.

Quite possible.

 

[Righttruth]

Yes, from what I know about the Apocrypha , they are ignorant assumptions. Also, arguing that such-and-such is the cases , because you think you read something about it in some source you can't remember is a not a solid way to make a point. It's like arguing "they say." "Who are the they?" I ask.

My point is that the word 'Trinity' is found in an apocryphal book which is not accepted for the canon, but the term has been accepted in the belief of most of the Christendom! Isn't strange?

 

[Righttruth]

Oh, c'mon. They wrote the OT.

What is the use when they couldn't recognize Him?

 

[hedrick]

So let me clear this up somewhat as to your beliefs on this particular topic. You'all are saying that other Gods existed according to what the one true God expresses in the OT writings? I beg to differ that is not His meaning at all. And to say that the language did not extend to the NT seems bizzarre too since that is the one place where emphasis is placed on gods of this word, where gods are not meant at all but are actually fallen angels.

Of course not. His official spokesmen, the prophets, always rejected that. However many in Israel still gave some credence to multiple Gods. Portions of the OT are worded consistently with that.

Sorry, but I don't accept that God dictated the Bible. The authors of the Bible show development in their ideas of God.

 

[BryanMaloney]

My point is that the word 'Trinity' is found in an apocryphal book which is not accepted for the canon, but the term has been accepted in the belief of most of the Christendom! Isn't strange?

Claiming that the Bible is the Word of God isn't found in the Bible, either, but people do it. The Word of God is God, not the Bible. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Of course not. His official spokesmen, the prophets, always rejected that. However many in Israel still gave some credence to multiple Gods. Portions of the OT are worded consistently with that.

Sorry, but I don't accept that God dictated the Bible. The authors of the Bible show development in their ideas of God.

Well thanks for clarifying that. His prophets, God's spokesmen were inspired to speak God's words as He developed revelations about Himself that is true. Hebrews 1:1-2
while the NT is in a further revealed way thru JC and the HS also thru His prophets.
My belief is that God also allowed mankind and the spiritual enemy's thoughts and ways to be revealed also in the contents of the bible.
And I have to say I'm getting completely disgusted with the waterdowned plastic intellectualism that's passing for Christianity these days

 

[BobRyan]

I say philosophical concession because John uses the term "in the beginning" but there was no beginning of God, howerver there would be a beginning of the creator Son.

Not according to the Bible - just Urantia.

Micah 5
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

Ps 90:1-2
LORD, You have been our dwelling place in all generations.
Before the mountains were brought forth,
Or ever You had formed the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

 

[BobRyan]

Claiming that the Bible is the Word of God isn't found in the Bible, either, but people do it. The Word of God is God, not the Bible.

Mark 7:6-13 -- Christ differs with you on that one.

 

[Colter]

Not according to the Bible - just Urantia.

Micah 5
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

Ps 90:1-2
LORD, You have been our dwelling place in all generations.
Before the mountains were brought forth,
Or ever You had formed the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

According to John1 in the Bible.

'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

 

[hedrick]

Not according to the Bible - just Urantia.

...
From everlasting.”

I don't think he was saying that God has a beginning. Rather he notes (correctly, I guess) that in John 1:2 it says that the Word was with God in the beginning. Hence he suggested that this was speaking of a beginning to the Word.

I don't think that's a reasonable reading of John 1:2. That passage is speaking of the role of the Word in creation, so of course it refers to the beginning (creation). Nothing is said in this passage about the Word's eternity, one way or the other.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

According to John1 in the Bible.

'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Are you implying that the plan of the gospel was from eternity?

 

[Job8]

John 1 makes a philosophical concession for purposes of illustration of the ancestral relatedness of Jesus and his Paradise parents.

You have conjured up this idea in place of what is actually stated in John 1. "The Word was God", means that the Word was God. "The Word became flesh" means that God took human form as Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Colter]

You have conjured up this idea in place of what is actually stated in John 1. "The Word was God", means that the Word was God. "The Word became flesh" means that God took human form as Jesus of Nazareth.

What I'm saying is consistent with God the Father in heaven and Jesus on earth being two different divine persons. Jesus clearly referred to his father in heaven, he also referred to being divine himself. In the theoretical beginning God the Father was with the Son who incarnate on our world

 

[BobRyan]

According to John1 in the Bible.

'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Neither the Father nor the Son - (the Word nor God) - has a beginning themselves. One could argue that "In the beginning" is a reference to Genesis 1:1 where matter/this-universe has a beginning.

Speaking of this building - "in the beginning was the Architect" does not mean the Architect is born the same day the building project begins.

 

[Colter]

Are you implying that the plan of the gospel was from eternity?

Well, the plan of God is from God. We would have to say that the gospel as Jesus presented it was conditioned by events that took place in time and space, events which could be said to have delayed and or been in opposition to Gods will, but eventually the plan will come to fruition.

 

[BobRyan]

What I'm saying is consistent with God the Father in heaven and Jesus on earth being two different divine persons. Jesus clearly referred to his father in heaven, he also referred to being divine himself. In the theoretical beginning God the Father was with the Son

That much is true - and neither were themselves "begun" in "the beginning" -- because that phrase is a reference to the beginning of life in the universe, matter in the universe. "All things that have been made" - but not to the 'maker beginning' at that same time.

 

[Colter]

Neither the Father nor the Son - (the Word nor God) - has a beginning themselves. One could argue that "In the beginning" is a reference to Genesis 1:1 where matter/this-universe has a beginning.

Speaking of this building - "in the beginning was the Architect" does not mean the Architect is born the same day the building project begins.

That much is true - and neither were themselves "begun" in "the beginning" -- because that phrase is a reference to the beginning of life in the universe, matter in the universe. "All things that have been made" - but not to the 'maker beginning' at that same time.

We agree, this discussion comes from my initial point that John was making a philosophical concession because, God has no beginning, he is from eternity. Johns purpose seems to be to show a sequential relationship between the Father and Son from eternity. We don't know if any of the original apostles understood or were taught a Trinity.

 

[Robert Lindstrom]

If there is a trinity Gods in heaven then explain Joh_8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Joh 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

According to those 2 verses, JESUS is the Father revealed in Flesh and blood.

People always say: Why did JESUS have to pray to the Father?

Because He had to fulfill the Law in every point. He had to make Himself of NO reputuation.

He had to become like one of us.

Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

 

[Robert Lindstrom]

You have conjured up this idea in place of what is actually stated in John 1. "The Word was God", means that the Word was God. "The Word became flesh" means that God took human form as Jesus of Nazareth.

Where did the name JESUS come from? Was it not the name of the Father?

Joh_17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.


Was it not inherited to the Son of God in the days of His flesh?

Heb_1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

 

[BobRyan]

According to John1 in the Bible.

'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Neither the Father nor the Son - (the Word nor God) - has a beginning themselves. One could argue that "In the beginning" is a reference to Genesis 1:1 where matter/this-universe has a beginning.

Speaking of this building - "in the beginning was the Architect" does not mean the Architect is born the same day the building project begins.

What I'm saying is consistent with God the Father in heaven and Jesus on earth being two different divine persons. Jesus clearly referred to his father in heaven, he also referred to being divine himself. In the theoretical beginning God the Father was with the Son

That much is true - and neither of them were themselves "begun" in "the beginning" -- because that phrase is a reference to the beginning of life in the universe, matter in the universe. "All things that have been made" John 1 - but not to the 'maker beginning' at that same time.

We agree, this discussion comes from my initial point that John was making a philosophical concession because, God has no beginning, he is from eternity. Johns purpose seems to be to show a sequential relationship between the Father and Son from eternity.

I don't think concession is the right term. John is not saying that either of them had a beginning only that they were both already there at the beginning of all the "created things" that John speaks about in John 1.

Genesis 1 makes the same point.

We don't know if any of the original apostles understood or were taught a Trinity.

They would have known about "The NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" from Matt 28 discussion that Christ had with them.

in Christ,

Bob