What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[BobRyan]

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

No it is not the name of the Father - it is the Old Testament name Joshua.

 

[Robert Lindstrom]

No it is not the name of the Father - it is the Old Testament name Joshua.[/QUOTE

According to the Word of God, JESUS manifested the Father's name.

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.

Joh_17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Peter, who had the keys of the Kingdom baptized them in the Name of JESUS Christ because he had the revelation of the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Otherwise why didn't he just quote what JESUS said?

 

[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 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.



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.



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

Mathew 28 wasn't a discussion, it was a statement, the first and only time Jesus ever mentioned the three paradise deities together.

 

[Erose]

Look, I don't think you understanding the church's understanding, either. I never said that person and being are the same. I said that persons are in fact beings. You claimed that persons are not beings and that makes absolutely no sense. The church never claimed that.

Ok. In one single case, I.e, the Trinity you have three Persons who are one Being. That is what the Church has claimed. One God (I AM) and three Persons who are I AM.

 

[Hoghead1]

Ok. In one single case, I.e, the Trinity you have three Persons who are one Being. That is what the Church has claimed. One God (I AM) and three Persons who are I AM.

I would strongly suggest you study this matter further. You are way, way off. You claim that "being" and "person" are separate concepts, for example. But that was never the case in theology. If you go back and read Thomas, you will find he affirms "person" as the highest form of "being." Also, you should look carefully at this concept of teh Trinity. He makes it very clear the Trinity refers to internal relationships within the mind or personality of God, not three separate individuals or persons in our sense of the terms. The Father stands for God. The Son stands for God's self-knowledge. The Spirit stands for God's love of his self-knowledge. Read or reread Ques. 33 and 34 in his "Summa."

 

[Erose]

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.

Do you not think that the Son was there before creation?

 

[Hoghead1]

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

They didn't accept Christ because he did not fulfill teh OT prophecy about a Messiah, a coming king who would kick butt, drive out the Romans, etc.

 

[Hoghead1]

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?

What book? I sure don't know of any. Yu need to provide evidence to back your statement. I have extensively studied the Apocrypha and I know that the term "Trinity" is not used. Fort one thing, it is a Greco-Latin term in origin.

 

[Hoghead1]

Quite possible.

It isn't just possible. The Bible claims that they definitely did.

 

[BobRyan]

Mathew 28 wasn't a discussion, it was a statement, the first and only time Jesus ever mentioned the three paradise deities together.

It is the launching point of the apostolic ministry of the 11 - they new of Jesus as the Son of God - in Matt 16 - and they knew of the name of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" as He told them in Matt 28 after being raised from the dead.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok. In one single case, I.e, the Trinity you have three Persons who are one Being. That is what the Church has claimed. One God (I AM) and three Persons who are I AM.

One God -- three persons

 

[BobRyan]

13 votes for "one God in three persons"

 

[Albion]

I would strongly suggest you study this matter further. You are way, way off. You claim that "being" and "person" are separate concepts, for example. But that was never the case in theology. If you go back and read Thomas, you will find he affirms "person" as the highest form of "being." Also, you should look carefully at this concept of teh Trinity. He makes it very clear the Trinity refers to internal relationships within the mind or personality of God, not three separate individuals or persons in our sense of the terms. The Father stands for God. The Son stands for God's self-knowledge. The Spirit stands for God's love of his self-knowledge. Read or reread Ques. 33 and 34 in his "Summa."

You have a point....up to a point. The part in red is not well worded. The persons of God are not simply different attributes of God.

 

[Hoghead1]

Rather than "define Trinity" we can go directly to Scripture and confirm that:

THE FATHER IS GOD
THE SON IS GOD
THE HOLY SPIRIT (HOLY GHOST) IS GOD

THE FATHER IS GOD
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 1:3).

THE SON IS GOD
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (Heb 1:8-10).

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:3-4).

So, because all three Divine Persons are God, we have the triune Godhead (or Trinity). WE could list numerous other passages to establish this doctrine.

Yes, Scripture doe affirm they are all God. But it doesn't say how. That is the big problem. If you go on the modern definition of "person," then you end up positing three subjectivities within the Godhead, which is essentially tritheism.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

I am saying the OT is ambiguous here. The Commandments did not deny the existence of other gods. It just says they shouldn't be followed. The OT also makes it plain that the ancient Israelites could be very polytheistic. There is archaeological evidence that the official state religion worshipped YHWH and also a female consort. That is supported by the prophets continually complaining about following other gods. It was probably centuries before the Israelites become officially and thoroughly monotheistic.

 

[Job8]

Yes, Scripture doe affirm they are all God. But it doesn't say how. That is the big problem. If you go on the modern definition of "person," then you end up positing three subjectivities within the Godhead, which is essentially tritheism.

You would get Tritheism only by looking at this with human logic. When all the Scriptures are compared, then we find that this is the Mystery of God. Hence beyond human logic. Can water be ice and vapor at the same time in the same container? Absolutely. That is simply an analogy.

 

[Hoghead1]

You have a point....up to a point. The part in red is not well worded. The persons of God are not simply different attributes of God.

The part in red refers precisely to what Thomas had to say on the matter, however. Go and read the "Summa."

 

[Job8]

One could argue that "In the beginning" is a reference to Genesis 1:1 where matter/this-universe has a beginning.

This "in the beginning" (John 1:1) would be the same as saying "before time and space began" -- eternity past. Before anything was created, the un-created God existed as three Divine Persons. That is why they said "Let US make man in OUR image." Elohim (God) is a uni-plural word which already reveals the Trinity in Gen 1:1.

 

[Hoghead1]

No need. I see from another thread that you do not believe that the scriptures are the word of God. So, then, if it is all men's nonsense to you - there is nothing to discuss: your word against mine in a godless exchange. No thank you.

Do not out words into my mouth or interpret my beliefs for me. Ask first. I did not say Scripture as all nonsense. I said that it is not all inerrant. The fact that something is not all inerrant does not mean it is nonsense. I reject either-or thinking. Either Scripture is all inerrant or it is worthless. Such either-or thinking is unrealistic and actually what underlies neurotic behavior, by the way. Reality is a shade of grey.

 

[Albion]

The part in red refers precisely to what Thomas had to say on the matter, however. Go and read the "Summa."

You've paraphrased Thomas there so, no, it's not "precisely" what Thomas had to say.