PDA

View Full Version : How well can you explain the Trinity?



Steve509
Jun 20th 2008, 04:28 PM
the general confussion in regards to the Trinity is a tool used by the J. witness' & the lds when trying to convert others. they will ask, "does your church believe in the Trinity?" when you answer "yes," they will ask you to explain it. if you cannot, or have trouble doing so, they will say, "that is because the doctrine of the Trinity is false". and they will provides verses to support that. make no mistake, they are very good at what they do.

it is so much easier to understand three separate beings than 3 as part of one.

acacia_gold
Jun 20th 2008, 04:32 PM
:D I feel compelled to answer this, I don't know why

This is the best explaination I've found and it's all contained in one biblical verse.

The Trinity (http://teachtheyoungwoman.blogspot.com/2008/04/trinity.html)


Ephesians 1:3-14 can be seen as one sentence in which the 3-fold purpose of God is seen in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
In 3-6 is the Father's plan, 7-12 is Jesus' accomplishments and 13-14 is the Spirit's application.


3-6
The Father's selection and Predestination, Speaking forth God's Eternal Purpose


3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved;


7-12
The Son's Redemption, Speaking Forth the Accomplishment of God's Eternal Purpose


7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself,
10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.
11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory;



13-14
The Spirit's Sealing and Pledging, Speaking forth the application of God's Accomplished Purpose



13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
(The Spirit applies ownership)
14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

alethos
Jun 20th 2008, 04:47 PM
the general confussion in regards to the Trinity is a tool used by the J. witness & the lds when trying to convert others. they will ask, "does your church believe in the Trinity?" when you answer yes, they will ask you to explain in. if you cannot or have trouble doing so, they will say that is because the doctrine of the Trinity is false. and they will provides verses to support that. make no mistake, they are very good at what they do.

it is so much easier to understand three separate beings than 3 as part of one.

The Trinity consists of
the Father,
the Son,
the Holy Spiriit.
They are one.

As a person,
I am a father (to my children),
I am also a son to my father,
I am a husband to my wife.
Nevertheless I am only one.

Likewise H2O is
a solid when frozen
a liquid when melted,
a vapor when heated,
Yet it remains one substance.

An egg has
A shell
A yoke
A egg white
Yet it is one egg

That's the best way for me to illustrate the Trinity

watchinginawe
Jun 20th 2008, 04:54 PM
I recently made this post (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1662168&postcount=64) on the subject. Actually, the whole thread has some very good replies by others. Check it out (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=127362)!

God Bless!

jayne
Jun 20th 2008, 04:58 PM
I like the explanation with the three relationships to other people, yet you are one person and the explanation with water being solid, liquid, gas, yet one unalterable substance.

I've used those explanations before with children.

To think about this a little further.....why do we HAVE to explain it? I know that we are to study to show ourselves approved according to 2 Timothy 2:15 and that we should be able to discuss biblical and spiritual matters on a more and more mature basis as we grow in Christ.

But here's my answer.

I can't explain to the satisfaction of people like JW's and such. I can't explain it to unbelievers and give them an answer that they want to hear.

I can't even completely wrap my entire brain around it myself. But what's important is that I believe it. I believe there is a Holy Father God and that His Son, Jesus died for me and God turned His back on His Son while on the cross, yet they are one in the same.

And I believe that God's Holy Spirit is one with Him, too. Any attempt on my part to dissect all of that and explain it is moot to my believing it.

But this is a good question to discuss anyway.....

Frances
Jun 20th 2008, 05:11 PM
Explain the Trinity? How can anyone explain the complex nature of God?
I suggest:-

Water, Steam and Ice are all H2O - all the same but different functions.

the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God - all the same with different functions.

Gulah Papyrus
Jun 20th 2008, 05:18 PM
Here's a clip of Ravi Zacharias on the Trinity during a Q&A at Penn State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdejhQeAPUk

theleast
Jun 20th 2008, 05:20 PM
1 John 5:7 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 John+5:7&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 John+5&version=9)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

fewarechosen
Jun 20th 2008, 05:35 PM
1 John 5:7 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 John+5:7&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 John+5&version=9)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

AMEN,


i am having a hard time finding the word trinity in scripture, could somone post the verse or verses that mention it.

acacia_gold
Jun 20th 2008, 06:26 PM
I'm having a hard time believing that when a 3 wheel bike was talked about that anyone would believe that it wasn't a tricycle being refered to. ;)

trin·i·ty (trhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif) n. pl. trin·i·ties 1. A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.
2. Trinity Theology In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God. Also called Trine.
3. Trinity Trinity Sunday.

[Middle English trinite, from Old French, from Latin trhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gifnithttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifs, from trhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gifnus, trine; see trine.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.
trinity
Noun
pl -ties a group of three people or things [Latin trinus triple]
Trinity
Noun
Christianity the union of three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God
Collins Essential English Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
Trinity any combination or set of three persons; three things united into one, 1542.
Dictionary of Collective Nouns and Group Terms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun1.http://img.tfd.com/wn/AC/6C798-trinity.jpgtrinity - the cardinal number that is the sum of one and one and one 3 (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/3), deuce-ace (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deuce-ace), III (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/III), tercet (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tercet), ternary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ternary), ternion (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ternion), terzetto (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terzetto), three (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/three), threesome (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/threesome), trey (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trey), triad (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/triad), trine (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trine), trio (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trio), triplet (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/triplet), troika (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/troika), tierce (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tierce), leash (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/leash)
digit (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/digit), figure (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/figure) - one of the elements that collectively form a system of numeration; "0 and 1 are digits"
2.http://img.tfd.com/wn/15/68766-trinity.gifTrinity - the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead Blessed Trinity (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Blessed+Trinity), Holy Trinity (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Holy+Trinity), Sacred Trinity (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sacred+Trinity)
Almighty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Almighty), Creator (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Creator), Divine (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Divine), God Almighty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God+Almighty), Godhead (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Godhead), Lord (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lord), Maker (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Maker), Jehovah (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Jehovah) - terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God

hypostasis of Christ (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypostasis+of+Christ), hypostasis (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypostasis) - any of the three persons of the Godhead constituting the Trinity especially the person of Christ in which divine and human natures are united
3.http://img.tfd.com/wn/92/66FBC-trinity.giftrinity - three people considered as a unit threesome (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/threesome), triad (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/triad), trio (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trio)
assemblage (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assemblage), gathering (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gathering) - a group of persons together in one place

triumvirate (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/triumvirate) - a group of three men responsible for public administration or civil authority

jayne
Jun 20th 2008, 06:47 PM
AMEN,


i am having a hard time finding the word trinity in scripture, could somone post the verse or verses that mention it.

The word, trinity, is not found in the bible....but the biblical concept and the biblical doctrine of the man-made term is in the bible.

peace-
jayne

Sold Out
Jun 20th 2008, 09:34 PM
the general confussion in regards to the Trinity is a tool used by the J. witness' & the lds when trying to convert others. they will ask, "does your church believe in the Trinity?" when you answer "yes," they will ask you to explain it. if you cannot, or have trouble doing so, they will say, "that is because the doctrine of the Trinity is false". and they will provides verses to support that. make no mistake, they are very good at what they do.

it is so much easier to understand three separate beings than 3 as part of one.

I will always point a JW or LDS to the first verse of the bible. "In the beginning GOD" (Elohim)

Elohim is a plural word, and is always used with a singular verb. It could rightly say, "In the beginning GODS ....."

This word is used over 2500 times in the Old Testament.

Adrian Rogers once said, "Try to explain the trinity and you'll lose your mind; deny it and you'll lose your soul."

Athanasius
Jun 20th 2008, 11:06 PM
I've stolen my explanations from Ravi Zacharias and C.S. Lewis... Adding my own bit of insight, of course. C.S. Lewis explained the concept of the trinity quite well in Mere Christianity. Ravi Zacharias explaining his own view, of course, in the video linked above.

fewarechosen
Jun 21st 2008, 12:16 AM
so then if its not in scripture i say let the man who coined it define it.

why would someone want to make terms up that arent in the bible --- now dont freak out and say im denying the trinity or some nonsense -- im not at all

but what happens when you start making words up that arent in scripture -- you start to delve into the territory of man made doctrine.

its like just leave it as the bible explains it --then talk about it as scripture lays it out --dont start coining words.

all the words in scripture are laid out for a reason
if god wanted to use the term trinity dont you think he would have ?

i see all kinds of people get worked up here saying --YOUR DENYING THE TRINITY.

and i think wow simmer down its a man made word

now if you want to talk about the three being one and what it means that there are three that are one -- hey im all for it. that is what cant be denied

but at the end of the day , any way you want to slice it
trinity is a man made word, never spoken of in scripture. so someone could deny the term trinity all they wanted and be in the right, its a man made word not scripture at all.

but let me remind you im not doing that

and yes i think that of all man made words also ,like godhead and so on


waits to be punished lol

Athanasius
Jun 21st 2008, 04:22 AM
Trinity is a 'word' which corresponds to a biblical truth. Same with the word Godhead, or the words, 'personal relationship with Jesus'. I don't see how you can take issue with the word Trinity because it's 'man-made', when all it's doing is describing a biblical doctrine.

fewarechosen
Jun 21st 2008, 11:39 AM
Trinity is a 'word' which corresponds to a biblical truth. Same with the word Godhead, or the words, 'personal relationship with Jesus'. I don't see how you can take issue with the word Trinity because it's 'man-made', when all it's doing is describing a biblical doctrine.

because that is the first step down the road of man made doctrine and it confuses some people. for me personally it doesnt describe it at all --scripture already describes it

so again im not denying scripture in any way shape or form, just talking about a man made word

Athanasius
Jun 21st 2008, 01:53 PM
because that is the first step down the road of man made doctrine and it confuses some people. for me personally it doesnt describe it at all --scripture already describes it

so again im not denying scripture in any way shape or form, just talking about a man made word

Okay, but all you're doing is saying, "Hey, the word Trinity is man made, but... Whatever it describes still exists biblically, and we still have the problem of explaining it".

If scripture already described the Trinity in ways people could comprehend, you wouldn't be seeing questions about it. Unfortunately, you're seeing questions. Personally, I have no problem with the concept... But many people do. Taking issue with the word Trinity is almost like splitting hairs.

All the words in the Bible, of course, being man made.

Vhayes
Jun 21st 2008, 01:59 PM
Trinity is a 'word' which corresponds to a biblical truth. Same with the word Godhead, or the words, 'personal relationship with Jesus'. I don't see how you can take issue with the word Trinity because it's 'man-made', when all it's doing is describing a biblical doctrine.
I agree. We say that Israel of the Old Testament was a Theocracy because it was set up as a government to follow rules and regs set up by God. But the word Theocracy isn't found in the bible either.

Words are developed to convey fairly complex thoughts in an easier manner.

fewarechosen
Jun 21st 2008, 02:17 PM
Okay, but all you're doing is saying, "Hey, the word Trinity is man made, but... Whatever it describes still exists biblically, and we still have the problem of explaining it".

If scripture already described the Trinity in ways people could comprehend, you wouldn't be seeing questions about it. Unfortunately, you're seeing questions. Personally, I have no problem with the concept... But many people do. Taking issue with the word Trinity is almost like splitting hairs.

All the words in the Bible, of course, being man made.

actually im saying that scripture defines it perfectly.

you are saying that somehow scripture is lacking in its explination so man has to take over and describe it.

all the words in scripture are there because god wants them there -- if he wanted trinity to be used in it he would have put it in there.

when man starts to add its own explinations thats when error happens, it opens the door for all kinds of false doctrine. i hear all kinds of whacked out explinations for the trinity and god head.

and its all covered in one verse

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

very simple

what happens is people dont comprehend when they are trying to understand it with their minds failing to realise it is the holy spirit that discerns for us.

Crispus
Jun 21st 2008, 02:17 PM
The word, trinity, is not found in the bible....but the biblical concept and the biblical doctrine of the man-made term is in the bible.

peace-
jayne This is an argument given by the Watchtower and used by Jehovah's Witnesses. If they say this point out that the terms "paradise earth" and "organization" aren't in the bible.

Here is a list of terms besides trinity that aren't found in the bible:

Anointed Class
Assembly Hall
Auxiliary Pioneer
Baptized Publishers
Bible Chronology
Bible Student
Bible Study
Blood Transfusion
Book Study
Bound Volume
Branch Committee
Branch Coordinator
Branch Office
Branch Organization
Chairman’s Committee
Channel of Communication
Christendom
Circuit Assembly
Circuit Overseer
Circuit Work
Convention
District Assembly
District Convention
District Overseer
Door-to-Door
Earthly Class
Earthly Hope
Earthly Kingdom
Earthly Paradise
Elder Arrangement
Electricity
False Religion
Field Service
Field Service Report
Force Field
Fresh Territory
God’s Organization
Governing Body
Great Apostasy
Heavenly Class
Henotheism
Immortal Soul
Invisible Presence
Invisible Resurrection
Jehovah’s Memory
Jehovah’s Organization
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Jonadab Class
Judicial Committee
Kingdom Hall
Kingdom Interest
Kingdom Ministry
Life-Force
Materialize
Messianic Kingdom
Millennial Dawn
Millennial Reign
Ministerial Training School
Modalism
Monotheism
Neutrality
New Light
New System of Things
New World
New World Society
Nineteen Fourteen
Non-Existence
Old Light
Organization
Organized Religion
Orthodox
Paradise earth
Personality Pattern
Pioneer
Pioneering
Polytheism
Present Truth
Presiding Elder
Presiding Overseer
Publishers
Pure Language
Rapture
Recreated
Service Arrangement
Service Committee
Service Overseer
Soul Sleep
Special Pioneer
Special Talk
Spirit Anointed
Spiritual Credentials
Spiritual Israel
Spiritual Paradise
Study Article
Teaching Committee
Theocracy
Theocratic Government
Theocratic Ministry School
Theocratic Organization
Theocratic Warfare
Time Slip
Travelling Overseer
Trinitarian
True Religion
Two Hopes
Unassigned Territory
Unbaptized Publisher
Uninspired Prophet
Unipersonal God
Unitarian
Watchtower Society Inc.
Writing Committee
Zone Overseer

fewarechosen
Jun 21st 2008, 02:30 PM
wow see look at how a non scriptural word sparks so much debate --- i have no idea why the poster above is talking about JW's. see how it builds camps right away -- well you dont believe in trinity --

what i dont believe in is peoples understanding of what they call the trinity.

now if someone says i denounce the trinity -- yet i believe there are three that bear witness in heaven and these three are one ---- where does that leave you ?

if someone denies the father , word , holy ghost , or the fact that they are all one then they have issues

Athanasius
Jun 21st 2008, 02:32 PM
and its all covered in one verse

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

very simple

Alright, now pretend I'm not a believer in Christianity. All I've known is this existence; this reality. How can three things be one thing, and that one thing only be one thing, but at the same time be three things?

Pointing me to the Word, if I don't believe it, isn't going to help me understand. So, you can reference the word, but you have to explain in terms relative to me.

acacia_gold
Jun 21st 2008, 03:59 PM
Alright, now pretend I'm not a believer in Christianity. All I've known is this existence; this reality. How can three things be one thing, and that one thing only be one thing, but at the same time be three things?

Pointing me to the Word, if I don't believe it, isn't going to help me understand. So, you can reference the word, but you have to explain in terms relative to me.It is much harder to explain the word trinity than it is to explain the three in their functions, I agree, and it causes alot of strife where there shouldn't be any particularily to believers.
Explaining things in the language of today does make it easier for believers to see God as wind/ice/water, or a 3 leaf clover or other terms. It all depends on who your talking to. If it's unbelievers then it's much simplier to refer to God as God in all 3 instances; God in heaven, God on earth, God in mankind.

ServantofTruth
Jun 21st 2008, 10:31 PM
Can i recommend that the original poster looks at the whole of John's gospel chapter 8. Especially verses 24, 28 & 58. I have spent the last few weeks focusing on this, and the whole year on John's 'spiritual' gospel.

I admit that i spent a couple of years going to both a mainstream christian church and also JW meetings. So i'm aware of their mistranslations in their bible.

But what is interesting is that on these 3 verses in John chapter 8, they just can't avoid getting the translation right - which is so beautiful!

'I am' with he in italics to show it's NOT in the original text, they have added it. Actually if you add 'he' it doesn't really matter because it relates to Isaiah and the Messiah anyway.

Please don't waste time worrying about the JW's. They make a choice like all of us. Like this site, if a JW is a genuine 'seeker of truth', answer their questions, if they want to try to argue their position, be polite but firm - walk away/ shut the door and say i'm a Christian. Perhaps that firm witness and our Lord's Holy Spirit will bring them to true faith?

Love and God bless, Servant of Truth.:pray:

Athanasius
Jun 22nd 2008, 01:12 AM
It is much harder to explain the word trinity than it is to explain the three in their functions, I agree, and it causes alot of strife where there shouldn't be any particularily to believers.
Explaining things in the language of today does make it easier for believers to see God as wind/ice/water, or a 3 leaf clover or other terms. It all depends on who your talking to. If it's unbelievers then it's much simplier to refer to God as God in all 3 instances; God in heaven, God on earth, God in mankind.

To explain the word Trinity is to explain God in three aspects in one. Trinity... Three on one. Biblical image... Three in one. Same things ;\ I don't see explaining the word Trinity any harder than to explain the Biblical image that God is three in one; which is simply what the word 'trinity' is saying.

acacia_gold
Jun 22nd 2008, 01:31 AM
To explain the word Trinity is to explain God in three aspects in one. Trinity... Three on one. Biblical image... Three in one. Same things ;\ I don't see explaining the word Trinity any harder than to explain the Biblical image that God is three in one; which is simply what the word 'trinity' is saying.Except if your trying to explain to someone who refuses to accept the word Trinity as being a biblical word. For instance I'm not sure what the Oneness group believes exactly, but from what I could gather they believe in the 3 aspects of God, but don't believe in using the word Trinity. To me that's just confusion, because if the word Trinity wasn't there they couldn't argue any point of it because the 3 aspects everyone agrees on. BUT using the word Trinity makes it easier for everyone, except those who like to be different, I guess. Ya, like that made sense. :rolleyes:

acacia_gold
Jun 22nd 2008, 01:45 AM
Maybe it would be easier to ask those who don't use the word Trinity to explain how they can communicate the 3 aspects of God and not use the word trinity ( or 3 as a unit)

Athanasius
Jun 22nd 2008, 02:18 AM
Except if your trying to explain to someone who refuses to accept the word Trinity as being a biblical word. For instance I'm not sure what the Oneness group believes exactly, but from what I could gather they believe in the 3 aspects of God, but don't believe in using the word Trinity. To me that's just confusion, because if the word Trinity wasn't there they couldn't argue any point of it because the 3 aspects everyone agrees on. BUT using the word Trinity makes it easier for everyone, except those who like to be different, I guess. Ya, like that made sense. :rolleyes:

Oneness Pentecostals believe in Modalism (Jesus manifests Himself different at different times; 'Jesus only theology'), which, surprisingly is (1) a man made word, as it's not found in the Bible. And (2), contrary to Trinitarian belief, modalism is not supported scripturally, but rather, contradicts scripture.

In fact in scripture we see that this is not the case. Jesus constantly refers to His Father. The Holy Spirit is sent in place of Jesus. The Bible doesn't tell us to baptize in the name of Jesus. It tells us to...

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). A trinity, equal, as they are all God, but different in function.

So no, not everyone agrees on the 'three aspects' of God. Oneness Pentecostals don't believe in using the word Trinity not because it's not in the bible (though this is what they'll say), but because they deny the doctrine the word 'trinity' represents.

I'm sorry, but you're playing nonsensical word games.

acacia_gold
Jun 22nd 2008, 02:22 AM
I'm sorry, but you're playing nonsensical word games.
Isn't that what this thread is about is word games?

Athanasius
Jun 22nd 2008, 03:03 AM
Isn't that what this thread is about is word games?

No, it's not.
And that's not fifteen characters.

napsnsnacks
Jun 22nd 2008, 05:49 AM
the general confussion in regards to the Trinity is a tool used by the J. witness' & the lds when trying to convert others. they will ask, "does your church believe in the Trinity?" when you answer "yes," they will ask you to explain it. if you cannot, or have trouble doing so, they will say, "that is because the doctrine of the Trinity is false". and they will provides verses to support that. make no mistake, they are very good at what they do.

it is so much easier to understand three separate beings than 3 as part of one.

I don't bother to attempt to explain the Trinity to JW's because they are not sincere in their question. Actually it is malicious because they are not interested in any sincere explanation. It is a weapon they employ. It is a trap they use to tear down others belief in it. They don't believe in nor care about any Trinity before they ever asked you.

Don't fall for it.

I devised a response to it many moons ago and it goes thus:

JW: Do you believe in theTrinity?

ME/YOU: Yes I do.

JW: Can you explain it to me please?

ME/YOU: Do you agree that man is comprised of body, soul and spirit?

JW: Yes.

ME/YOU: OK, it's like that then.

Then they go silent. They cannot explain how man is comprised of body, soul and spirit but yet they want you to explain the Trinity.

FollowTheBanner
Jun 22nd 2008, 08:50 AM
God is one Essence expressed in three Persons.

Now ask me for the scriptures to back that up and I'm afraid I don't know off the top of my head. :no:

fewarechosen
Jun 22nd 2008, 01:58 PM
God is one Essence expressed in three Persons.

Now ask me for the scriptures to back that up and I'm afraid I don't know off the top of my head. :no:


see this i totally disagree with and its a result of the "trinity"

it makes it sound to some that its 3 different persons who all vote the same way or something --its just wrong

watchinginawe
Jun 22nd 2008, 02:15 PM
so then if its not in scripture i say let the man who coined it define it.

why would someone want to make terms up that arent in the bible --- now dont freak out and say im denying the trinity or some nonsense -- im not at allSeeking only to make a point by example, or to further your zelousness in the matter, whichever works, can I ask why you reference a "Bible" above?

God Bless!

Gillian
Jun 22nd 2008, 03:04 PM
the general confussion in regards to the Trinity is a tool used by the J. witness' & the lds when trying to convert others. they will ask, "does your church believe in the Trinity?" when you answer "yes," they will ask you to explain it. if you cannot, or have trouble doing so, they will say, "that is because the doctrine of the Trinity is false". and they will provides verses to support that. make no mistake, they are very good at what they do.

it is so much easier to understand three separate beings than 3 as part of one.

I find it easy to understand of three but not in partilcur of Holy Spirit in depth anyway.

God the Father like Jesus have literually bodies sit eat etc image them like a man of his fuctions, as God made man in his image, but unlike man fuctions that limited. just muplite all man fuctions and abilties thousnads times.that God. we mad ein his image and his likeness. think what that mean if u can accept that in man likeness and image shape etc of God then it be easier to understand of three. just fuctions and ablites are greater which is i impossible for man to do.

maybe the question should be why God said made man in his likeness and image? what eaxlty is that image and likness

Holy Spirit other person can unlike Jesus Father shape himself bodily compltle different, while Father and Jesus can manisfest their bodies in glory but not change bodies into different shape which holy spirit only he can do bodily. no wonder it make sense it the Holy Spirit we recive direactly inside us by aurthoity in faith of Father and Jesus.

Gillian

fewarechosen
Jun 22nd 2008, 03:04 PM
Seeking only to make a point by example, or to further your zelousness in the matter, whichever works, can I ask why you reference a "Bible" above?

God Bless!

i reference the bible because its holy scripture, with each word in it for a reason.


now dont mistake what im saying at all, its not like im saying "your all fools for using the term trinity"

but think about it from a non believers point of view,
they see the same bible and they see tons of different denominations and whatever slapping thier own words and terms to it, the man made terms turn into man made rituals, turns into man made doctrine.

its kind of like dont you think its best to sort of leave holy scripture alone and just discuss the terms and ideas expressed in it.

i cant tell you how many non believers who are trying to understand, quickly fall into camps based solely on the word trinity --with all sorts of whacked out explinations.

its like they are trying to force meat down a babes throat --- when someone just starts coming to god you dont sit them down infront of revelations. its our job to sort of guide them.

someone asked me about explaining the trinity to a nonbeliever or something earlier. you cannot explain spiritual things to carnal minds --you are in error if you try- people made up words to try and do just that, but there is a reason it does not work.

Crispus
Jun 22nd 2008, 06:19 PM
wow see look at how a non scriptural word sparks so much debate --- i have no idea why the poster above is talking about JW's. see how it builds camps right away -- well you dont believe in trinity --
For a couple of reasons. JW's use the argument that the word Trinity isn't in the bible though they're probably not the only ones who use it. Also, it's a nice list of words to have if a Christian encounters a JW and they use this argument. Paradise earth and God' organization are two of their major doctrines and, using their logic, neither of them are Scriptural.

markedward
Jun 22nd 2008, 07:06 PM
God is One
Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."

Jesus is God
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM."

The Holy Spirit is a Person
John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are Equal
Matthew 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."

Bam.

Gillian
Jun 22nd 2008, 07:23 PM
[quote=fewarechosen;1681158]i reference the bible because its holy scripture, with each word in it for a reason.


now dont mistake what im saying at all, its not like im saying "your all fools for using the term trinity"


tryying to understand where u coming from, Im not sure what your stand on trinity? u mean u reject that Father Jesus Holy Spirit is trinity?

Gillian

fewarechosen
Jun 22nd 2008, 07:45 PM
mark you posted this

The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are Equal


it never says equal anywhere it says they are one.

man made doctrine is saying equals


the father is called he in scripture, the son is called he in scripture, the holy spirit is called he in scripture.

do you know who all those he's are ? they are one--- GOD

the people who lack understanding think it is like three super powered people that put their rings in the air and form godhead man. its not voltron

look at it this way -- your mind, your body and your blood are all you and do nothing seperate ,even though they all have function and are all one.

your blood doesnt say, hi mind, hi body------ they are all one so there is nothing to be equal too they are all one.

see what happens when you use the word trinity people start to think its 3 people

Steve509
Jun 22nd 2008, 08:02 PM
For a couple of reasons. JW's use the argument that the word Trinity isn't in the bible though they're probably not the only ones who use it. Also, it's a nice list of words to have if a Christian encounters a JW and they use this argument. Paradise earth and God' organization are two of their major doctrines and, using their logic, neither of them are Scriptural.

is the word "Bible" IN the Bible?

Gillian
Jun 22nd 2008, 08:11 PM
Godhead of three bodies or natures , persons their roles etc Father the Head, Christ the messiah and Holy Spirit the comforter.

but of One Deity so they are equal persons in that Deity, God

no question on their deity here as one

Gillian

markedward
Jun 22nd 2008, 08:19 PM
it never says equal anywhere it says they are one.Only Jesus said He and the Father were "one." I'm not saying that all three aren't one being, but Scripture never explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is "one" with the Son and the Father.

To lead a JW or LDS to the idea that the Holy Spirit is one with the Son and Father, they must first be shown that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are on the same "level" so to speak.

What the verse I posted refutes is the idea that the Son is less than the Father or that the Holy Spirit is less than either of Them.

JW's and LDS' believe that the Son is lesser than the Father, and many non-"orthodox" denominations believe that the Spirit is lesser than either of them.

For them to be "one" they must also be "equal." The Son is not a lesser being than the Father. The Spirit is not a lesser being than the Son. They are on the same "level," or in a simple word, "equal."


see what happens when you use the word trinity people start to think its 3 peopleYes, you and I agree that they are One God. But the thing is, Scripture makes it explicitly clear that the Father is not the same "person" as the Son and neither of Them is the same "person" as the Holy Spirit. The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the Son is an independent "person" from the Father. Likewise, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit is an independent "person" from either the Son or the Father.

Hence "I will pray to the Father, and He will send another counselor."

Jesus is seen to be an independent "person" from the Father, in that He prays to Him. Likewise, Jesus says He is praying for the Father to send "another counselor," showing that this "counselor," whom we know is the Holy Spirit, is independent from the "person" of the Son and the "person" of the Father.

Likewise, the New Testament has numerous verses that refer to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate "persons" by the very fact that the verses mention all three of them distinctly.


do you know who all those he's are ? they are one--- GODI explictly quoted Scripture stating that God is One God, so why do you think I'm somehow ignorant of the fact that God is One God?

fewarechosen
Jun 22nd 2008, 09:10 PM
mark you said this

Yes, you and I agree that they are One God. But the thing is, Scripture makes it explicitly clear that the Father is not the same "person" as the Son and neither of Them is the same "person" as the Holy Spirit. The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the Son is an independent "person" from the Father. Likewise, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit is an independent "person" from either the Son or the Father.
----------------------------------------------------------
now to be independent , would make it not one.

think along the lines of blood , body and mind --making one. none of them are independent, thats how they can be one.

think of christ as beng the right hand of god -- your right hand does nothing without the mind telling it what to do -- yet it is seperate in function -- but you dont claim they are seperate from yourself .

god is ONE --not at all independent from eachother to make them independent is to make them not one.
your arm is not independent from your mind.

i assume you are of a denomination is that correct ?

and always remember the carnal mind cannot understand spiritual things.

may peace and understanding abound in you

acacia_gold
Jun 22nd 2008, 09:33 PM
Ephesians 1:3-14 can be seen as one sentence in which the 3-fold purpose of God is seen in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
In 3-6 is the Father's plan, 7-12 is Jesus' accomplishments and 13-14 is the Spirit's application.The new testement calls God "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" The 3 aspects of God can be seen in the way He deals with His people and also the way to experience the 3 different aspects of God in a Christian's life.



3-6

The Father's selection and Predestination, Speaking forth God's Eternal Purpose


3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved Abraham was the called out one who became a vessel to bring in God's will. The Father spent time with Abraham, was his friend and confidant.



7-12

The Son's Redemption, Speaking Forth the Accomplishment of God's Eternal Purpose


7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself,
10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.
11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory; Isaac never went outside of Canaan and merely enjoyed the riches of the inheritance as the son.




13-14

The Spirit's Sealing and Pledging, Speaking forth the application of God's Accomplished Purpose



13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
(The Spirit applies ownership)
14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Jacob learned the discipline of the Holy Spirit through suffering to become Israel.

So, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all work together to bring the believer to the point of maturity, first calling, then enjoying, then learning the discipline of becoming a nation of kingly priests.

It never says that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph but Joseph shows the results of dealing with the 3 aspects of God where he reigns in a kingdom not made with his own hands.

markedward
Jun 23rd 2008, 01:16 AM
now to be independent , would make it not one.

think along the lines of blood , body and mind --making one. none of them are independent, thats how they can be one.

think of christ as beng the right hand of god -- your right hand does nothing without the mind telling it what to do -- yet it is seperate in function -- but you dont claim they are seperate from yourself .

god is ONE --not at all independent from eachother to make them independent is to make them not one.
your arm is not independent from your mind.Each example you've provided only, I think furthers what I was saying.

The hand and the leg and the head make up one body, yes, but the hand is not the same thing as the leg, and the leg isn't the same thing as the head.

Again, Scripture explicitly refers to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit distinctly. The Father isn't the same as the Son, as should be obvious by the fact that Jesus prays to the Father, and the Father anoints the Son. The Father isn't the same as the Holy Spirit by the fact that the Father sends the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit isn't the same as the Son by the fact that the Son refers to Him as "another" counselor.

I would like to ask you a few questions, and request that you will answer them directly.

Is the Father the same as the Son?
Is the Son the same as the Holy Spirit?
Is the Father the same as the Holy Spirit?

And on a quick note: do you know how to use the "Quote" boxes, as others have been doing?


Like this?

Just a small tip: using the Quote boxes can really clarify when you're actually quoting someone.


i assume you are of a denomination is that correct ?No.

Forgiven Alaskan
Jun 23rd 2008, 02:33 AM
The Trinity is like water, but it has 3 different forms: liquid-ice-water. Although not quite because it is always in those 3 forms.

markedward
Jun 23rd 2008, 06:17 AM
Analogies will never give us a perfect look at the "trinity," but matter and time and space are probably the best we have on hand.

Time is past and present and future. Past is not present, and neither past nor present is future. But past and present and past are together Time. A "trinity."

Matter is solid and liquid and gas. Solid is not liquid, and neither solid nor liquid is gas. But solid and liquid and gas are together Matter. A "trinity."

Space is height and width and length. Height is not width, and neither height nor width is length. But height and width and length are together Space. A "trinity."

And the Universe is time and space and matter. Time is not space, and neither time nor space is matter. But time and space and matter are together the Universe. A "trinity" of "trinities," so to speak.

God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son, and neither the Father nor the Son is the Holy Spirit. But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit together are One God.

Steve509
Jun 23rd 2008, 06:50 AM
Is the Father the same as the Son?
Is the Son the same as the Holy Spirit?
Is the Father the same as the Holy Spirit?

yes to all. sort of. they are one, but not exactly the same.

Jesus said, "If you have seen the son you have seen the father."

and if you are very fortunate, you will feel the spirit. or at least feel the spirit working within you.

unfortunately, i lack the ability to fully understand or explain the trinity.
but since i can never understand or explain God, that's not surprising.

the pastor of my church said, "A God small enough for me to understand, isn't big enough to be God." (or something like that)

i do wish i could explain it better. not to a JW, but to someone they are trying to convert, or rather corrupt.

some of what has been written on this thread helps. and i thank you all for that.

FollowTheBanner
Jun 23rd 2008, 08:07 AM
see this i totally disagree with and its a result of the "trinity"

it makes it sound to some that its 3 different persons who all vote the same way or something --its just wrong

What do I mean when I say that there are three Persons?

Does the Father consider Himself distinct from the Son? Yes! "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." (Luke 3:22) He regards Himself as an "I," and the Son and the Holy Spirit as "You."

Each Person is fully God, and there is only one God. The Persons of the Godhead are not independent individuals in the sense that you and I are independent of each other, but are three forms of personal existence without a difference of Being.

watchinginawe
Jun 23rd 2008, 05:06 PM
i reference the bible because its holy scripture, with each word in it for a reason.
...
they see the same bible and they see tons of different denominations and whatever slapping thier own words and terms to it, the man made terms turn into man made rituals, turns into man made doctrine.I think you missed the point. I was wondering why you are using the term "Bible", not why you were referencing it. Does scripture ever mention "The Bible"? Does the scripture ever mention the 66 book canon, or any particular canon for that matter compiled and termed "The Holy Bible"?

Since your whole arguement is to rely on the scriptures, I don't believe you intend to discard the Bible in your discussions with non-believers. I would agree. But hopefully my point has been made by now.
someone asked me about explaining the trinity to a nonbeliever or something earlier. you cannot explain spiritual things to carnal minds --you are in error if you try- people made up words to try and do just that, but there is a reason it does not work.The same way that you don't intend to be disarmed regarding the Bible, I don't intend to be disarmed regarding the Trinity. Not the "term", but as you stated, my reference to it. We don't come up with something other than "three" do we? Also, I will not compromise on the deity of Jesus in conversations with unbelievers and will also emphasize the importance of the Holy Spirit. You seem to suggest that this is all just "too complicated", but whether one uses Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or Trinity they are one in the same. I don't know how to tell someone about God with mentioning all of these three.

God Bless!

Crispus
Jun 25th 2008, 10:59 PM
is the word "Bible" IN the Bible?No, the word bible isn't in the bible.

retiredsparky
Jun 30th 2008, 05:32 PM
I believe that the Scriptures speaks of "mysteries" and that Paul says he has revealed several of them in verious places.
The Mystery of the Trinity, or if you wish Godhead, will remain a Mystery until we who believe stand in God's presence. The analogies are good and apreciated, but one can not force those who oppose to the Scripture to believe. Even some "Christians" reject the teaching of the Trinity.
Just my two cents worth. God Bless.:P

ImmenseDisciple
Jun 30th 2008, 06:25 PM
The way I understand the trinity, and the way I explain it, is simply looking at the nature of infinity. We're so used to our limited, physical perspective that I completely understand how it can seem like the trinity doesn't make any sense - but it really does.

Imagine I cut my hand and my leg off. I'm now in three parts, the hand, which would be rather small, the leg, which would be pretty big, and the body, which would be considerably larger than the other two put together. Of course, none of them would be complete.

The difference with an infinite subject matter, on the other hand, is that any portion of infinity is infinity. 1% of infinity is infinity. 99% of infinity, likewise, is infinity. And, what's more - anything which is infinite must, by definition, be complete.

So, if I were infinite, I would be in the three "pieces" - the hand, the leg and the rest, but all of them would be infinite. And, being infinite - all of them complete.

The Father is the complete, infinite God.
The Son is the complete, infinite God.
The Spirit is the complete, infinite God.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 1st 2008, 04:22 AM
Whenever I have Jehovah Witnesses ask me about the Trinity, I generally explain it this way (this is the abridged version since I don't feel like typing out a thirty minute lecture on metaphysics and ontology ;) )

God has a different being than humanity (I mean 'being' in the philosophical sense of the word). This also means that His essence is different as well ('essence' is something that comes from the being of something so that if the essence did not exist, it would mean the being does not exist; i.e. the red ball, in order to have being as a red ball, must have the essence of both "redness" and "ballness"). This is important to put up front and I will show why later.

Secondly, we know that God exists and that Jesus exists. We both agree that Jesus came to forgive humans of sins. This, of course, causes a problem for the non-Trinitarian. The reason is because of one of the logical rules in ontology (Liebniz’s law of the indiscernible of identicals) that states:

(x)(y)[(x = y)→ (P)(Px ↔ Py)]

An example of what this means in normal language is:

Bob is the teacher of Mark. We know that "Bob" and "teacher" are in reference to the same person, but we also know that "Mark" is not linked to the two (ontologically speaking).

The reason this causes problems for the Trinitarians is that Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:6-12), but this is a role (essence) that is held exclusively for God (Psalm 32:5, Isaiah 43:25). Forgiveness is a unique attribute and part of God's essence - if unable to forgive sins, it means sins would be more powerful (or that His justice would override His love, meaning He would lose the essence of love and likewise fail to be God). Thus, forgiveness is part of God's essence.

However, because Jesus is partaking in the essence of God - something He could not do if He wasn't God - this leads us to the conclusion that Jesus is, in fact, God (though not God the Father).

Logically, the only way for Jesus to have both the essence of man and the essence of God is if there is a Trinity - that is, the being and essence of God is one, but distinct in three separate persons. Now, this doesn't make sense and is hard to understand, but it does not mean it is illogical. If we are to take the Bible at its word, the only logical conclusion we can draw from the text is that there is a Trinity and, though mysterious (because of our lower metaphysical existence and our inability to transcend our ontology to understand a being of higher ontology), it is completely logical to believe so.

Keep in mind I usually spend about 30-40 minutes explaining this. If they endure the entire lecture they almost always agree that they can't explain their position anymore and that the answer I gave was sufficient. This leads to some very interesting discussions and opens a vast pathway to the true Gospel.

I also refuse to use any analogy - all analogies are merely representations of some type of heresy. For instance -

I am a father, a son, and a brother. The thing is, I am not distinct in all three of those - they are merely modes of my existence. This is modalism, which teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely modes of God and not three distinct persons.

If I use H2O in that it can be gas, liquid, or solid I still run into the same problem as it can't be all three at once and all three are, again, different modes.

There is no adequate or non-heretical analogy for the Trinity simply because analogies rely on us to use things within our own metaphysical realm of existence and that are within our epistemic comprehension. God's ontology is outside of this qualification and thus the Trinity remains a mystery, free from analogies - though it can be shown to be logical, it cannot be explained.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 1st 2008, 04:33 AM
I don't bother to attempt to explain the Trinity to JW's because they are not sincere in their question. Actually it is malicious because they are not interested in any sincere explanation. It is a weapon they employ. It is a trap they use to tear down others belief in it. They don't believe in nor care about any Trinity before they ever asked you.

Don't fall for it.

I devised a response to it many moons ago and it goes thus:

JW: Do you believe in theTrinity?

ME/YOU: Yes I do.

JW: Can you explain it to me please?

ME/YOU: Do you agree that man is comprised of body, soul and spirit?

JW: Yes.

ME/YOU: OK, it's like that then.

Then they go silent. They cannot explain how man is comprised of body, soul and spirit but yet they want you to explain the Trinity.


Side note and feel free to start a separate topic:

You may not want to use that when talking to JW's. For one, man is only body and soul/spirit - we are not three things, merely two (with soul and spirit being used interchangeably and, when appearing in the same sentence, merely referring to different roles of the same object).

Secondly, it's a false analogy. Even if we had three functions, all three are not necessary for our existence (i.e. if our body dies, 'we' continue on in our spirit). The Trinity, however, necessitates that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all exist. Furthermore, the supposed three parts are not three distinct persons, but instead would all have to work together (even in a dualistic system this is true).

coffee cup
Jul 4th 2008, 10:17 PM
the general confussion in regards to the Trinity is a tool used by the J. witness' & the lds when trying to convert others. they will ask, "does your church believe in the Trinity?" when you answer "yes," they will ask you to explain it. if you cannot, or have trouble doing so, they will say, "that is because the doctrine of the Trinity is false". and they will provides verses to support that. make no mistake, they are very good at what they do.

it is so much easier to understand three separate beings than 3 as part of one.


A LUTHERAN PROFFESOR OF OURS .Puts it all in perspective this way.


Humans can understand false Gods because they easly fit into the huiman mind because they are smaller than the human mind and were conceived by the human mind there fore not God at all.

This is not so Of the true God the Trinity. THE GOD CHRISTIANS WORSHIP.
A GOD SO BIG THE HUMAN MIND IS UNABLE TO even grasp His Majesty
How could we mere men even come close to ever explaining such magnifacence hidden in his Triune nature.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 01:19 AM
A LUTHERAN PROFFESOR OF OURS .Puts it all in perspective this way.


Humans can understand false Gods because they easly fit into the huiman mind because they are smaller than the human mind and were conceived by the human mind there fore not God at all.

This is not so Of the true God the Trinity. THE GOD CHRISTIANS WORSHIP.
A GOD SO BIG THE HUMAN MIND IS UNABLE TO even grasp His Majesty
How could we mere men even come close to ever explaining such magnifacence hidden in his Triune nature.

This argument has been around since about the 11th century AD (via Anselm of Canterbury). It is called the "ontological argument" for the existence of God and goes something like this (don't have the direct quote in front of me): "God is a being that no other greater creature can be conceived."

In other words, because much of the theology about God is so confusing, there is no way humans could have possibly invented the concept of the Judeo-Christian God.

Though this argument has faced quite a bit of ridicule, I find it very sufficient for explaining the Trinity. Your Lutheran professor was correct - the concept of the Trinity is something no human mind could have conceived.

Thaddaeus
Jul 5th 2008, 01:53 AM
when I struggle with the trinity, I mean come on how can God be on the right hand of Himself? this is how God gave it to me and I will share this simply truth with you. a pie cut into three pieces is still a whole pie. unless I come by and take a piece of it, it will be a whole pie. so even God may be three parts as long as the three parts are together( and These three parts will always be together) they are still one God. the Trinity can be found in the three (TRINITY) first scriptures of the Holy Bible
Ge 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ge 1:2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.Ge 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
now the father created, the Spirit moved and The Son was the Light . now Jesus was not created here He also has always been but was made Light of the world here, isn't this the same as it is today God gives life the Spirit moves upon that Life, and the Son is the light of that life.

no this is not the SUN for it was not created until

Ge 1:16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
and how else can we explain Let's make man in our image

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 02:04 AM
when I struggle with the trinity, I mean come on how can God be on the right hand of Himself? this is how God gave it to me and I will share this simply truth with you. a pie cut into three pieces is still a whole pie. unless I come by and take a piece of it, it will be a whole pie. so even God may be three parts as long as the three parts are together( and These three parts will always be together) they are still one God. the Trinity can be found in the three (TRINITY) first scriptures of the Holy Bible
Ge 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ge 1:2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.Ge 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
now the father created, the Spirit moved and The Son was the Light . now Jesus was not created here He also has always been but was made Light of the world here, isn't this the same as it is today God gives life the Spirit moves upon that Life, and the Son is the light of that life.

no this is not the SUN for it was not created until

Ge 1:16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
and how else can we explain Let's make man in our image

The analogy still doesn't work though. In the Trinity each person has a different function and is distinctive. Presumably, there is no way to tell each piece of pie apart. Likewise, though having the appearance of togetherness, they are still separated. The analogy still teaches that there are three gods.

This is why we should simply jettison and avoid all analogies when describing the Trinity.

coffee cup
Jul 5th 2008, 02:19 AM
This argument has been around since about the 11th century AD (via Anselm of Canterbury). It is called the "ontological argument" for the existence of God and goes something like this (don't have the direct quote in front of me): "God is a being that no other greater creature can be conceived."

In other words, because much of the theology about God is so confusing, there is no way humans could have possibly invented the concept of the Judeo-Christian God.

Though this argument has faced quite a bit of ridicule, I find it very sufficient for explaining the Trinity. Your Lutheran professor was correct - the concept of the Trinity is something no human mind could have conceived.

of course it has been truth for ever and even before the 11th century also.

after all Lutherans never claimed they invented a new faith we just restored the old.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 02:39 AM
of course it has been truth for ever and even before the 11th century also.

after all Lutherans never claimed they invented a new faith we just restored the old.

No need to be offended mate, just making observations. Though it has eternally been truth, it wasn't recognized - or at least systematized in a logical manner by the father of scholasticism - until the 11th century.

Also never made any comment on Lutherans - personally, I like them. They've been able to avoid a lot of the problems that have plagued protestantism for a while.

Beantown
Jul 10th 2008, 03:25 AM
Positive Foundation of the Dogma of the Trinity



1. In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.


The Triple Personality of God


1. In God there are two Internal Divine Processions.
2. The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense).
3. The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to a Father.
4. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration.

Speculative Explanation



Speculative Explanation of the Internal Divine Processions


1. The Son proceeds from the Intellect of the Father by way of Generation.
2. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and of the Son.
3. The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration.


The Divine Relations and Persons


1. The Relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.
2. The Three Divine Persons are in One Another.
3. All the ad extra Activities of God are common to that Three Persons.
4. The Father sends the Son: the Father and the Son send the Holy Ghost.


The Relation of the Trinity to Reason


1. The Trinity of God can only be known through Divine Revelation.



Beantown

Friend of I AM
Jul 12th 2008, 03:59 PM
the general confussion in regards to the Trinity is a tool used by the J. witness' & the lds when trying to convert others. they will ask, "does your church believe in the Trinity?" when you answer "yes," they will ask you to explain it. if you cannot, or have trouble doing so, they will say, "that is because the doctrine of the Trinity is false". and they will provides verses to support that. make no mistake, they are very good at what they do.

it is so much easier to understand three separate beings than 3 as part of one.

Not well at all. Fortunately, it's a man-made concept, so it's not really necessary for the purpose of salvation. Having faith in Christ being the messiah is. That being said, I think many in here have explained it well enough for you and me adding anymore would probably just confuse. God luck to you regarding your study of this.

In Christ,

Stephen

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 04:04 PM
Not well at all. Fortunately, it's a man-made concept, so it's not really necessary for the purpose of salvation. Having faith in Christ being the messiah is. That being said, I think many in here have explained it well enough for you and me adding anymore would probably just confuse. God luck to you regarding your study of this.

In Christ,

Stephen

Whoa, it is not a man-made concept at all. It is absolutely necessary to believe in the Trinity to truly be saved (we may not know about the Trinity at the point of salvation, but when we come across it if we are truly saved we will accept it).

To deny the Trinity is to either deny the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, or the submissiveness of Christ - all of which are essential elements of who Christ is.

watchinginawe
Jul 12th 2008, 04:52 PM
Whoa, it is not a man-made concept at all. It is absolutely necessary to believe in the Trinity to truly be saved (we may not know about the Trinity at the point of salvation, but when we come across it if we are truly saved we will accept it).

To deny the Trinity is to either deny the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, or the submissiveness of Christ - all of which are essential elements of who Christ is.I'm not sure I agree with the whole of this. I am sympathetic to your comments ak, but am not sure of the litmus test you propose. Well, actually, I just diagree with you on that. I have known many "Jesus Only" folks who I feel confident put their faith in the divine Saviour Jesus and who do not put their "trust" in the Trinity. I believe thay are saved by the same grace that I am saved by.

When the Christian (or the mature seeker) begins to put together why and who Jesus is (claims to be) in order to be our Saviour, then IMO the distinction of the Trinity is very important. Getting it "right" is important to our understanding of what God reveals of His nature as you have offered. But adding the belief in the Trinity (acknowledgment or mental assent) as an evidence of salvation is adding to the word IMO.

God Bless!

Friend of I AM
Jul 12th 2008, 04:55 PM
Whoa, it is not a man-made concept at all. It is absolutely necessary to believe in the Trinity to truly be saved (we may not know about the Trinity at the point of salvation, but when we come across it if we are truly saved we will accept it).

To deny the Trinity is to either deny the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, or the submissiveness of Christ - all of which are essential elements of who Christ is.

Having faith in Christ is the only thing that is essential in salvation or as it is written:

Romans 10:9
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."


Still, it's interesting to talk about the "tri-une" nature of God(Father, son, Holy Spirit) As all of these aspects of God are referenced as being God within the scriptures.

I don't think one in this lifetime will ever have a complete understanding of all there is to know about God, and why he chooses to represent himself to us in this way. The important thing to remember is that even though we may not understanding everything about God, it is important that we still have faith in Jesus Christ being our Lord and savior.

In Christ,

Stephen

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 05:04 PM
I'm not sure I agree with the whole of this. I am sympathetic to your comments ak, but am not sure of the litmus test you propose. Well, actually, I just diagree with you on that. I have known many "Jesus Only" folks who I feel confident put their faith in the divine Saviour Jesus and who do not put their "trust" in the Trinity. I believe thay are saved by the same grace that I am saved by.

When the Christian (or the mature seeker) begins to put together why and who Jesus is (claims to be) in order to be our Saviour, then IMO the distinction of the Trinity is very important. Getting it "right" is important to our understanding of what God reveals of His nature as you have offered. But adding the belief in the Trinity (acknowledgment or mental assent) as an evidence of salvation is adding to the word IMO.

God Bless!

I don't see how it is adding to the Word really. What is the basic teaching of the Trinity? That Jesus is God, but not the Father. This would be a key element in believing in both the divinity and humanity of Christ (e.g. if He's just a different mode for God, how did He die?).

Here's an absolutely absurd analogy, but in its absurdity it gets the point across - you and I are walking in India one can and come across a group of people that claim to believe in Jesus. They believe, however, that Jesus actually grew up in Frankfurt, Germany, had 20 disciples, and wasn't really called Jesus; His name was Johann Dusseldorf. Do they really believe in Christ?

I would argue that they do not. Jesus said that He is the way, the truth, and the life. The essential element of this passage, however, is that the key is HIM. In order to go through Him, we have to know who He is. There is nothing in Scripture that says we have to affirm the humanity of Christ or even the deity of Christ in order to be saved - but we'd be hard pressed to find an orthodox believers that would say, "Those that deny the humanity of Christ are still saved." The reason is we can't just make up what we want about Christ and claim to love Him and know Him.

Another example:

Say a woman claims she is married to George W. Bush. However, she says that he was actually born in South Africa, doesn't speak English, and never ran for the president of the United States - would you accept her claim of marriage? To make it less absurd, say it is well known that GWB likes pepperoni pizza and in fact, he has said numerous times it's the only type of pizza he'll eat, but she claims that he actually prefers beef pizza. Can we accept her claim of marriage?

Likewise, if someone denies the Trinity - which means they have to either deny the deity or humanity of Christ (if we follow their logic to its natural conclusion) - can we honestly say the person knows who Jesus is? Can we say that they have honestly gone through Christ if they cannot state simple facts about Him?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 05:06 PM
Having faith in Christ is the only thing that is essential in salvation or as it is written:

Romans 10:9
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."


Still, it's interesting to talk about the "tri-une" nature of God(Father, son, Holy Spirit) As all of these aspects of God are referenced as being God within the scriptures.

I don't think one in this lifetime will ever have a complete understanding of all there is to know about God, and why he chooses to represent himself to us in this way. The important thing to remember is that even though we may not understanding everything about God, it is important that we still have faith in Jesus Christ being our Lord and savior.

In Christ,

Stephen

In theory then, I could say that Jesus was actually a literal lamb and the disciples merely personified the lamb, making up stories of what he said before he was slaughtered for our sins. Now, I can say this was the most perfect lamb ever, in dwelt by the Spirit of God, and was truly the Christ - this lamb was the final sacrifice for sins and we are only saved by accepting this sacrifice.

Under your interpretation of Romans I am confessing that Christ is Lord, but denying the character and being of Jesus.

When Paul wrote that passage, certainly he had in mind that the word "Jesus" was a loaded word with a certain context, not an empty or minimalist vassal to be filled at our whim.

Ta-An
Jul 12th 2008, 05:10 PM
the general confussion in regards to the Trinity is a tool used by the J. witness' & the lds when trying to convert others. they will ask, "does your church believe in the Trinity?" when you answer "yes," they will ask you to explain it. if you cannot, or have trouble doing so, they will say, "that is because the doctrine of the Trinity is false". and they will provides verses to support that. make no mistake, they are very good at what they do.

it is so much easier to understand three separate beings than 3 as part of one.You take out your Hebrew Bible and show them ;)

Third word = Elhohim. it is a plural word of El, yet the second word is 'bara' which means created, and that is a singular verb, which means that Elhohim, which is plural , is singular... ;)
Deut 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Friend of I AM
Jul 12th 2008, 05:15 PM
Likewise, if someone denies the Trinity - which means they have to either deny the deity or humanity of Christ (if we follow their logic to its natural conclusion) - can we honestly say the person knows who Jesus is? Can we say that they have honestly gone through Christ if they cannot state simple facts about Him?

They can deny the fact that they don't subscribe to all the beliefs referenced in the trinitarian doctrine, and simply state that they just have faith in Christ being Lord(what it says in Romans 19)

Once one has gotten to the point where they understand the believing in the trinity is not salvific, I think it's okay and enlightening to discuss topics like these. I've discussed many of them myself on other boards, and everyone has their own opinion about it.

In Christ,

Stephen

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 05:18 PM
They can deny the fact that they don't subscribe to all the beliefs referenced in the trinitarian doctrine, and simply state that they just have faith in Christ being Lord(what it says in Romans 19)

Once one has gotten to the point where they understand the believing in the trinity is not salvific, I think it's okay and enlightening to discuss topics like these. I've discussed many of them myself on other boards, and everyone has their own opinion about it.

In Christ,

Stephen


Then my previous analogy still stands - I believe whatever I want about Jesus so long as I say He is "Lord" (which of course, can only work within a Trinitarian view).

Friend of I AM
Jul 12th 2008, 05:34 PM
In theory then, I could say that Jesus was actually a literal lamb and the disciples merely personified the lamb, making up stories of what he said before he was slaughtered for our sins. Now, I can say this was the most perfect lamb ever, in dwelt by the Spirit of God, and was truly the Christ - this lamb was the final sacrifice for sins and we are only saved by accepting this sacrifice.


John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Yup. That's essentially what John the Baptist said above, and I'm sure he didn't have access to all of the historical texts we do today. We can also say "Jesus is God in the flesh" or "Jesus is the Everlasting Father" or Jesus is the "I AM" from the old texts or "Jesus is the son of God" - and wouldn't be wrong about it. I only thing I would have trouble accepting would be testimony from individuals stating that believing in these things is salvific, or those who deny any deity(or glory of the Father) in Christ himself.

In Christ,

Stephen

Edit: You can't make up stories of what he(Christ) said though. It's possible for one to make mistakes though in what he actually said when discussing scriptures with others. I'm sure God recognizes the difference between when people are making up stories, and have just accidently misquoted a verse.

Friend of I AM
Jul 12th 2008, 05:36 PM
Then my previous analogy still stands - I believe whatever I want about Jesus so long as I say He is "Lord" (which of course, can only work within a Trinitarian view).

I would say that one can(and should) believe what is written in the scripture about him, and is welcome(and encouraged) to believe any testimonies from men about him that don't conflict with what is written in the scripture.

In Christ,

Stephen

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 06:03 PM
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Yup. That's essentially what John the Baptist said above, and I'm sure he didn't have access to all of the historical texts we do today.

That's severely over-spiritualizing what I said in order to avoid the ramifications.

Are you seriously asserting that I can deny that Jesus was a human, but was really just a lamb that the authors personified in order to get the message across?


Edit: You can't make up stories of what he(Christ) said though. It's possible for one to make mistakes though in what he actually said when discussing scriptures with others. I'm sure God recognizes the difference between when people are making up stories, and have just accidently misquoted a verse.

Denying the Trinity is denying Scripture though.


I would say that one can(and should) believe what is written in the scripture about him, and is welcome(and encouraged) to believe any testimonies from men about him that don't conflict with what is written in the scripture.

Then the Trinity is essential, since it is Scriptural.

Are Hindus saved?

mcgyver
Jul 12th 2008, 07:04 PM
Romans 10:9
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Here is something that I find quite interesting (just as an aside): the word "Lord" used here is the Greek word "Kurios".

The Greeks used two words in expressing deity, each with a different connotation: "Despotes" and "Kurios".

"Despotes" expressed an absolute power and lordship over someone else without any restraint or regard for that person. Originally this word was ascribed solely as a term of deity to the gods. The picture is one of a master with no regard for his slaves.

"Kurios" expressed the same power and lordship, however the connotation was more gentle, in that "Kurios" expressed a regard or love that a master might have for his slaves.

However, by the time Paul wrote his epistle, the line had blurred to the point that "Kurios" and "Despotes" had become interchangeable as titles of deity (not always expressing the difference in connotation). In fact "Kurios" was the title ascribed by the Romans to Caesar, whom they held as a god, and was therefore a title reserved to deity.

In writing to the Romans, Paul uses the word "Kurios" in the full knowledge that the recipients of the letter will equate that word with God.

All this put together simply means: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is God...."

So then (at least in Greek) we see two persons of the Godhead, Son and Father. :)

As far as expressing the concept of the Trinity, I use the following:

"We hold that God in His good pleasure has chosen to reveal Himself to man in three persons: As God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; each with a different ministry, working harmoniously together to complete God’s redemptive plan for mankind; yet being of one essence and indivisibly one God."

(Matt. 28:19; John 15:26; 1 Cor. 12:4-6;John 10:30; 5:17; 14:23; 17:5, 10; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Phil. 2:5-6 Eph. 2:18; 2 Cor. 13:14; Rev. 1:4-5)

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 07:08 PM
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/COLOR]
Here is something that I find quite interesting (just as an aside): the word "Lord" used here is the Greek word "Kurios".

The Greeks used two words in expressing deity, each with a different connotation: "Despotes" and "Kurios".

"Despotes" expressed an absolute power and lordship over someone else without any restraint or regard for that person. Originally this word was ascribed solely as a term of deity to the gods. The picture is one of a master with no regard for his slaves.

"Kurios" expressed the same power and lordship, however the connotation was more gentle, in that "Kurios" expressed a regard or love that a master might have for his slaves.

However, by the time Paul wrote his epistle, the line had blurred to the point that "Kurios" and "Despotes" had become interchangeable as titles of deity (not always expressing the difference in connotation). In fact "Kurios" was the title ascribed by the Romans to Caesar, whom they held as a god, and was therefore a title reserved to deity.

In writing to the Romans, Paul uses the word "Kurios" in the full knowledge that the recipients of the letter will equate that word with God.

All this put together simply means: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is God...."

So then (at least in Greek) we see two persons of the Godhead, Son and Father. :)

As far as expressing the concept of the Trinity, I use the following:

"We hold that God in His good pleasure has chosen to reveal Himself to man in three persons: As God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; each with a different ministry, working harmoniously together to complete God’s redemptive plan for mankind; yet being of one essence and indivisibly one God."

(Matt. 28:19; John 15:26; 1 Cor. 12:4-6;John 10:30; 5:17; 14:23; 17:5, 10; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Phil. 2:5-6 Eph. 2:18; 2 Cor. 13:14; Rev. 1:4-5)


Exactly!

Without a context as to who Christ is, how can we properly confess Him?

The Hindus believe that Jesus is the Christ, a savior of sorts, and even a deity - they they deny the incarnation (which cannot occur without a Trinity). By many people's definitions of salvation, the Hindu's are saved.

watchinginawe
Jul 12th 2008, 07:26 PM
Unfortunately, this looks like it needs moved to Contro.

mcgyver
Jul 12th 2008, 07:28 PM
Exactly!

Without a context as to who Christ is, how can we properly confess Him?

The Hindus believe that Jesus is the Christ, a savior of sorts, and even a deity - they they deny the incarnation (which cannot occur without a Trinity). By many people's definitions of salvation, the Hindu's are saved.

Which of course brings us full circle to the Tri-unity (Trinity) of God!

In fact, if we set aside the chapter and verse divisions in the book of Romans for a moment, and simply read from (Romans 9:1 to 10:13) the context and declaration become clear.

Here Paul's heart is crying out for his people Israel...They have rejected Christ, and in fact in (Rom 9:5) he declares:

"of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

Therefore, there can be no other interpretation contextually except that when one confesses Jesus as "Lord", one is confessing that He is also God! :pp

mcgyver
Jul 12th 2008, 07:30 PM
Unfortunately, this looks like it needs moved to Contro.

How can we avoid that? :hug:

Alaska
Jul 12th 2008, 07:37 PM
It should not be called trinity. That alone causes me to question whether the person using that word is pro Catholic.
It is a mystery, a mystery of the Godhead; if we were to choose biblical terms. "The Great Mystery of the Godhead" should be an option to describe the topic as opposed to the inadequate "trinity".
Although describable, the scriptures give us limitations on how to describe this mystery, though impossible to fully describe this "great mystery".

One approach to explain it is to first delete what the scriptures do not allow for description. The term "persons" is not allowable when presenting an explanation unless the term is recognised as being inadequate and needing clarification as denoting offices as opposed to limiting that word to separate and individual "persons". Have Christians turned into polytheists?

What mystery is there when the great mystery is put into a neat little box where the three are separate persons?
Interesting, what is the name of the Holy Ghost if it is a "person".

Is your spirit a separate person to yourself? How about your word? How about your right arm?
Quite a mystery isn't it? Let us not desecrate it by a cheap simplistic explanation that cannot be reconciled to the many verses that show it to be very deep. Let us keep our descriptions within the parameters set forth by the Scriptures.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 07:52 PM
It should not be called trinity. That alone causes me to question whether the person using that word is pro Catholic.

I guess I'm pro-Catholic.


It is a mystery, a mystery of the Godhead; if we were to choose biblical terms. "The Great Mystery of the Godhead" should be an option to describe the topic as opposed to the inadequate "trinity".

Just because a term isn't in the Bible doesn't mean we can't use it. Technically, none of what we say is in the Bible because none of us speaks Koine Greek. We are all English speakers, reading English Bibles, speaking in English terms.

Trinity isn't inadequate at all. In the Latin it sums up exactly what the Trinity is - a threefold unity.


One approach to explain it is to first delete what the scriptures do not allow for description. The term "persons" is not allowable when presenting an explanation unless the term is recognised as being inadequate and needing clarification as denoting offices as opposed to limiting that word to separate and individual "persons". Have Christians turned into polytheists?

"Persons" does not denote three separate people. Instead, it refers to the different "modes" (and understand, I use that term VERY loosely and do not mean to dive into modalism) of the nature of God. It's a logical conclusion - how else could Christ both be God and pray to God unless there are at least two different persons (functions, natures) in the being of God?



What mystery is there when the great mystery is put into a neat little box where the three are separate persons?

It's far from being a neat little box. It's actually impossible to understand - the best we can hope for is to say, "This is the way it is." Now, how do I explain that or compare it to humanity? I can't.


Interesting, what is the name of the Holy Ghost if it is a "person".

HE is called "The Holy Spirit" or "God the Spirit."


Is your spirit a separate person to yourself? How about your word? How about your right arm?

We're not tri-part or trinitarian. We're not even in the same ontological field as God. The Trinity is an immutable attribute of God, meaning humans don't have it. Comparing it to humanity is actually - in traditional circles at least - blasphemy.

mcgyver
Jul 12th 2008, 07:56 PM
We have two great handicaps in expressing the triune nature of God: Our finite understanding and the English language! :P

Although (as was pointed out) it is a great "mystery", and one that can not be fully nor adequately explained...yet from an A & E viewpoint...as Christians seeking to "give defense in and out of season" of those things we hold dear, I believe that we must at least have some sort of concept of the Godhead, and a means to express what limited understanding we may have.

Understanding the "Trinity" is not a prerequisite for salvation, but yet is a foundational truth of orthodox Christianity and therefore worthy IMO of deeper study, that we "may be fully equipped" to do the work God has given us. :)

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 08:28 PM
We have two great handicaps in expressing the triune nature of God: Our finite understanding and the English language! :P

Although (as was pointed out) it is a great "mystery", and one that can not be fully nor adequately explained...yet from an A & E viewpoint...as Christians seeking to "give defense in and out of season" of those things we hold dear, I believe that we must at least have some sort of concept of the Godhead, and a means to express what limited understanding we may have.

Understanding the "Trinity" is not a prerequisite for salvation, but yet is a foundational truth of orthodox Christianity and therefore worthy IMO of deeper study, that we "may be fully equipped" to do the work God has given us. :)


Though I have not advocated that it's a prerequisite, would you believe that it is something that all true believers, once faced with it, will eventually come to accept? That is, one cannot constantly deny it even unto death and still be considered a believer?

mcgyver
Jul 12th 2008, 08:58 PM
Though I have not advocated that it's a prerequisite, would you believe that it is something that all true believers, once faced with it, will eventually come to accept? That is, one cannot constantly deny it even unto death and still be considered a believer?

That's a great question (reference the Trinity), and one that is difficult to answer by "painting with a broad brush"...but I do think that there is a principle and a "work" involved...

I'll try to explain (if I can :rolleyes:) what I mean.

In John chapter 16:12-15 it is written (Jesus speaking):

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."

and again in Philippians 1:6:

"being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ"

I think that one who has been Born-Again (regenerated Scripturally), having received the Holy Spirit; will be under His tutelage, and therefore will sooner or later come to understand the "deeper things" of God.

Having said that however, I think that we must acknowledge that there are many "baby Christians" out there who have been Christians (read:saved) for a number of years, yet have not grown in the faith. We can (I firmly believe) hinder the efforts of the Holy Spirit in our lives and in doing so we can reap 1 Cor. 3:12-15 and suffer loss.

But...if God extends our lives...then yes, sooner or later we would come to the truth of the Trinity.

Hope that made sense! :P

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 09:02 PM
That's a great question (reference the Trinity), and one that is difficult to answer by "painting with a broad brush"...but I do think that there is a principle and a "work" involved...

I'll try to explain (if I can :rolleyes:) what I mean.

In John chapter 16:12-15 it is written (Jesus speaking):

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."

and again in Philippians 1:6:

"being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ"

I think that one who has been Born-Again (regenerated Scripturally), having received the Holy Spirit; will be under His tutelage, and therefore will sooner or later come to understand the "deeper things" of God.

Having said that however, I think that we must acknowledge that there are many "baby Christians" out there who have been Christians (read:saved) for a number of years, yet have not grown in the faith. We can (I firmly believe) hinder the efforts of the Holy Spirit in our lives and in doing so we can reap 1 Cor. 3:12-15 and suffer loss.

But...if God extends our lives...then yes, sooner or later we would come to the truth of the Trinity.

Hope that made sense! :P



That actually made perfect sense. Just because someone denies the Trinity doesn't necessarily mean he or she isn't saved; but he or she will not be able to deny the Trinity forever - at some point the Holy Spirit will reveal this knowledge to him or her.

This approach, it would seem, is less abrasive than my own and provides for more clarification - which makes it superior to my original approach.

sarahgrace
Jul 12th 2008, 10:44 PM
Exactly!

Without a context as to who Christ is, how can we properly confess Him?

The Hindus believe that Jesus is the Christ, a savior of sorts, and even a deity - they they deny the incarnation (which cannot occur without a Trinity). By many people's definitions of salvation, the Hindu's are saved.


Well they're NOT! These must be people who don't read the Bible. :rolleyes:

Friend of I AM
Jul 12th 2008, 11:20 PM
That's severely over-spiritualizing what I said in order to avoid the ramifications.

Are you seriously asserting that I can deny that Jesus was a human, but was really just a lamb that the authors personified in order to get the message across?


Nope. That would be another one of those things to add to the list of no, no's in my previous post. Basically all of my no, no's consist of those things that go against scripture, or specifically conflict and contradict the word of God.




Denying the Trinity is denying Scripture though.


No it's not. Nothing in scripture mentions the doctrine of the trinity.



Then the Trinity is essential, since it is Scriptural.


Again. No it's not.



Are Hindus saved?


I don't know whose names are written in the book of life, so I can't give you a definite answer to that one.

Butch5
Jul 13th 2008, 02:03 AM
Which of course brings us full circle to the Tri-unity (Trinity) of God!

In fact, if we set aside the chapter and verse divisions in the book of Romans for a moment, and simply read from (Romans 9:1 to 10:13) the context and declaration become clear.

Here Paul's heart is crying out for his people Israel...They have rejected Christ, and in fact in (Rom 9:5) he declares:

"of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

Therefore, there can be no other interpretation contextually except that when one confesses Jesus as "Lord", one is confessing that He is also God! :pp

Are you saying that Jesus and God the Father, are in fact the same person?

Butch5
Jul 13th 2008, 02:15 AM
We have two great handicaps in expressing the triune nature of God: Our finite understanding and the English language! :P

Although (as was pointed out) it is a great "mystery", and one that can not be fully nor adequately explained...yet from an A & E viewpoint...as Christians seeking to "give defense in and out of season" of those things we hold dear, I believe that we must at least have some sort of concept of the Godhead, and a means to express what limited understanding we may have.

Understanding the "Trinity" is not a prerequisite for salvation, but yet is a foundational truth of orthodox Christianity and therefore worthy IMO of deeper study, that we "may be fully equipped" to do the work God has given us. :)

Has anyone put forth a definition of the Trinity?

mcgyver
Jul 13th 2008, 03:37 AM
Are you saying that Jesus and God the Father, are in fact the same person?

Let me answer your second (definition of the Trinity) question first...and see if it answers this one..:)

"God in His good pleasure has chosen to reveal Himself to man in three persons: As God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; each with a different ministry, working harmoniously together to complete God’s redemptive plan for mankind; yet being of one essence and indivisibly one God."

John 1:1-3 states:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

I don't know if this was what you were asking...could you perhaps word it differently? :)

Butch5
Jul 13th 2008, 06:15 AM
Let me answer your second (definition of the Trinity) question first...and see if it answers this one..:)

"God in His good pleasure has chosen to reveal Himself to man in three persons: As God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; each with a different ministry, working harmoniously together to complete God’s redemptive plan for mankind; yet being of one essence and indivisibly one God."

John 1:1-3 states:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

I don't know if this was what you were asking...could you perhaps word it differently? :)

In your other post I got the impression that you were saying that God the Father and Jesus were one in the same person. In the above statement it sounds like we have one being (person) revealing Himself as three different Beings (persons). In other words do you mean that God the Father came to earth as Jesus the Son and as the Holy Spirit?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 13th 2008, 07:50 AM
In your other post I got the impression that you were saying that God the Father and Jesus were one in the same person. In the above statement it sounds like we have one being (person) revealing Himself as three different Beings (persons). In other words do you mean that God the Father came to earth as Jesus the Son and as the Holy Spirit?

I think mcgyver has made it pretty clear that there is one God, but three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I don't think he's equated Jesus to being the Father at all.

He's pointing out that (I think) that the Word (Jesus) was not only with God (the Father), but was God (in a general sense). This can only make sense if we believe in a Trinity - how can Christ be both with God and God at the same time?

I believe that is the point he was trying to make, but I could be mistaken.

Butch5
Jul 13th 2008, 06:14 PM
I think mcgyver has made it pretty clear that there is one God, but three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I don't think he's equated Jesus to being the Father at all.

He's pointing out that (I think) that the Word (Jesus) was not only with God (the Father), but was God (in a general sense). This can only make sense if we believe in a Trinity - how can Christ be both with God and God at the same time?

I believe that is the point he was trying to make, but I could be mistaken.

OK, I got you. I thought He was saying that God the Father was Jesus the Son. I must have misunderstood.

Alaska
Jul 13th 2008, 09:13 PM
We're not tri-part or trinitarian. We're not even in the same ontological field as God. The Trinity is an immutable attribute of God, meaning humans don't have it. Comparing it to humanity is actually - in traditional circles at least - blasphemy.


Yet Jesus and the Word uses the analogy or comparison of the mystery to a human body and it's functions. We speak, God speaks and the Son is the Word of God. We have a right arm and God says his Son is His right arm.
Agreed, we can state what it is while having difficulty saying how it is.
But claiming that God must be 3 separate persons, as some say, is the result of not being able to explain how it is. Why not simply accept the scriptures and admit it is a mystery without coming to a conclusion based on a deduction of how it has to be according to us when we are unable to conclude how it is?
All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him (Jesus) bodily.
By Jesus were all things created in heaven and in Earth.
His Name (Jesus) is above every name.
When they saw Jesus they saw the Father.
Jesus was a Son over his own house.
Jesus is the express image of God's person; not the express image of one of God's persons.
"Three 'Persons' in one Person, Who is the singular person of God" would be acceptable. "Three Persons in one God", without clarifying Persons, lends itself potentially to polytheism, which is heresy.
So you conclude that God and Jesus have to be two persons because how could he pray to himself while on earth if he wasn't two persons? Even your own arm sends messages to your own head when in pain. This would answer the scriptural mandate to not split God up. These three are one.
Yes, "persons" but with some qualifying, lest there be any hint whatsoever of polytheism, which is heresy.

Butch5
Jul 13th 2008, 09:20 PM
Yet Jesus and the Word uses the analogy or comparison of the mystery to a human body and it's functions. We speak, God speaks and the Son is the Word of God. We have a right arm and God says his Son is His right arm.
Agreed, we can state what it is while having difficulty saying how it is.
But claiming that God must be 3 separate persons, as some say, is the result of not being able to explain how it is. Why not simply accept the scriptures and admit it is a mystery without coming to a conclusion based on a deduction of how it has to be according to you when we are unable to conclude how it is?
All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him (Jesus) bodily.
By Jesus were all things created in heaven and in Earth.
His Name (Jesus) is above every name.
When they saw Jesus they saw the Father.
Jesus was a Son over his own house.
Jesus is the express image of God's person; not the express image of one of God's persons.
"Three 'Persons' in one Person, Who is the singular person of God" would be acceptable. "Three Persons in one God", without clarifying Persons, lends itself potentially to polytheism, which is heresy.
So you conclude that God and Jesus have to be two persons because how could he pray to himself while on earth if he wasn't two persons? Even your own arm sends messages to your own head when in pain. This would answer the scriptural mandate to not split God up. These three are one.
Yes, "persons" but with some qualifying, lest there be any hint whatsoever of polytheism, which is heresy.

What exactly do you mean three persons in one person?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 13th 2008, 10:13 PM
Yet Jesus and the Word uses the analogy or comparison of the mystery to a human body and it's functions. We speak, God speaks and the Son is the Word of God. We have a right arm and God says his Son is His right arm.
Agreed, we can state what it is while having difficulty saying how it is.
But claiming that God must be 3 separate persons, as some say, is the result of not being able to explain how it is. Why not simply accept the scriptures and admit it is a mystery without coming to a conclusion based on a deduction of how it has to be according to us when we are unable to conclude how it is?
All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him (Jesus) bodily.
By Jesus were all things created in heaven and in Earth.
His Name (Jesus) is above every name.
When they saw Jesus they saw the Father.
Jesus was a Son over his own house.
Jesus is the express image of God's person; not the express image of one of God's persons.
"Three 'Persons' in one Person, Who is the singular person of God" would be acceptable. "Three Persons in one God", without clarifying Persons, lends itself potentially to polytheism, which is heresy.
So you conclude that God and Jesus have to be two persons because how could he pray to himself while on earth if he wasn't two persons? Even your own arm sends messages to your own head when in pain. This would answer the scriptural mandate to not split God up. These three are one.
Yes, "persons" but with some qualifying, lest there be any hint whatsoever of polytheism, which is heresy.

It's a false analogy to point to the arm. The arm is still one with you and does not have a distinctive personality - it is impersonal, merely an extension of who you are. You cannot fellowship with your arm, you cannot communicate with your arm, your arm cannot act on its own unless it is malfunctioning.

What you are seemingly suggesting is called Sabellianism (modalism) - God is one person with different modes. There are not persons (once again, as I explained, 'person' does not denote individuality or separateness...you chose to ignore this in your quotations), but just one God.

Of course, this view makes no sense in light of John 14:16-17 or 16:10 when Jesus claims He is going to be with the Father - if He is merely a different mode of God the Father or an extension, He would already be with God. Continuing off John 14, we have to ask how Jesus could say He is leaving His disciples to be with His Father, but sending the Spirit - if He is one person with different roles, why need to word it in such a manner?

As for what 'persons' mean, I do believe that this article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) does an amazing job at explaining the issue - of course you will reject it outright just because it has the name 'Catholic' on it, but this of course bears nothing on the truth of their defense of what "person" means. It provides the in-depth philosophical understanding of "person" that is needed when discussing the Trinity.

Alaska
Jul 13th 2008, 10:55 PM
It's a false analogy to point to the arm.

Isn't that exactly what God did through Isaiah? It appears that you are saying God made a false analogy.



Of course, this view makes no sense in light of John 14:16-17 or 16:10 when Jesus claims He is going to be with the Father


Of course? I think that is the problem: it makes no sense to some people. You appear to have the presupposition that it has to make sense in accordance with your sensibilities. It is about acceptance and dealing with what the scriptures give us to deal with: such as the mystery that Jesus is the Word and the Word is God. That God was manifest in the flesh. That Jesus is said to be the right arm of God magnifying the mystery yet given to us as accepting it without denying the word because we cannot see how. Your conclusions appear to be the result of reasonings trying to figure out how at the expense of not allowing the literal word to speak for itself, which we should do howsoever non logical it may appear to us.

If you are standing at a corner and all I see is your arm, yet I know that it is in fact you, I can point to your arm (you) and say there is ak.
Likewise, God was able to manifest his very singular self as in sending his own arm so to speak, himself being his own Son in the flesh with limitations and weaknesses that we also experience. While fully God, also very fully the only begotten of the father, the Son of God having pain and difficulty and in need of praying to the Father for help in time of need.
The same person yet 2 "persons".
The fact that so much discussion is had on this, is in itself evidence of the extent of the fact of it being a mystery. Yet it should be addressed within the parameters allowed by scripture and not on deduction and reason that the scriptures do not give place to.

mcgyver
Jul 14th 2008, 05:40 AM
I think mcgyver has made it pretty clear that there is one God, but three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I don't think he's equated Jesus to being the Father at all.

He's pointing out that (I think) that the Word (Jesus) was not only with God (the Father), but was God (in a general sense). This can only make sense if we believe in a Trinity - how can Christ be both with God and God at the same time?

I believe that is the point he was trying to make, but I could be mistaken.

That, and I was also trying to get a "feel" for your (Butch's) question...as the word "person" can have several connotations.

Positionally speaking; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different...yet God is God (and there is only one God) and therefore Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be equal and co-existent as a "person". Once again the limits of human intelligence and understanding prevent a full understanding of HOW this can be, but yet this is what the Word of God declares.

Suffice it to say that I believe that the bible reveals God as existing simultaneously as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 14th 2008, 06:01 AM
Isn't that exactly what God did through Isaiah? It appears that you are saying God made a false analogy.

I must have missed something. Does the book of Isaiah say the Spirit of God or the Son of God is like the arm of God?


Of course? I think that is the problem: it makes no sense to some people. You appear to have the presupposition that it has to make sense in accordance with your sensibilities. It is about acceptance and dealing with what the scriptures give us to deal with: such as the mystery that Jesus is the Word and the Word is God. That God was manifest in the flesh. That Jesus is said to be the right arm of God magnifying the mystery yet given to us as accepting it without denying the word because we cannot see how. Your conclusions appear to be the result of reasonings trying to figure out how at the expense of not allowing the literal word to speak for itself, which we should do howsoever non logical it may appear to us.

I provided, albeit through another site, an extremely good definition of what "person" is. You should read it because it will help understand this topic a bit more.

Alaska
Jul 15th 2008, 01:20 AM
I provided, albeit through another site, an extremely good definition of what "person" is. You should read it because it will help understand this topic a bit more.

I read it. (I don't think such Catholic literature should be allowed here)
They seem to conclude that "person" denotes a clear, simplistic division of persons. Such as the Father cannot be the Son ect. when there are verses revealing this topic to be very deep indeed; Such as in Isaiah again, calling Jesus the Father.
What would it take to agree that it is deeper than the Catholic trinity doctrine seems to want to acknowledge? Is the scripture that Jesus is the arm of God not good enough?
What do we need, a scripture that says something seemingly outrageous, something like Jesus saying he is in heaven at the same time while he is on the earth?
I mean if God has stretched out his own right hand from heaven to mankind in the form of the only begotten of the Father, then the rest of that One Person is in heaven. Part of him was on earth and part of him was in heaven at the same time, right? Two Persons, yet one Person.
A great mystery like Paul said.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 15th 2008, 02:31 PM
I read it. (I don't think such Catholic literature should be allowed here)
They seem to conclude that "person" denotes a clear, simplistic division of persons. Such as the Father cannot be the Son ect. when there are verses revealing this topic to be very deep indeed; Such as in Isaiah again, calling Jesus the Father.
What would it take to agree that it is deeper than the Catholic trinity doctrine seems to want to acknowledge? Is the scripture that Jesus is the arm of God not good enough?
What do we need, a scripture that says something seemingly outrageous, something like Jesus saying he is in heaven at the same time while he is on the earth?
I mean if God has stretched out his own right hand from heaven to mankind in the form of the only begotten of the Father, then the rest of that One Person is in heaven. Part of him was on earth and part of him was in heaven at the same time, right? Two Persons, yet one Person.
A great mystery like Paul said.

Why are you so anti-Catholic? It's not a Catholic doctrine - this doctrine existed prior to Constantine's conversion (when we begin to see the Catholic Church as we know it form). The website provides an adequate and excellent definition of how 'persons' work.

You keep bringing up this passage from Isaiah, but you haven't provided a reference.

jewel4Christ
Jul 16th 2008, 09:21 PM
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


I think he might be referring to this text....;)

peaceandlove,

janet

Yankee Candle
Jul 18th 2008, 12:45 PM
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


I think he might be referring to this text....;)

peaceandlove,

janet

The verse is a wonderful verse of scripture revealing that one of Jesus titles is 'everlasting Father' and He is a Father to us, His children. But there is still a distinction between Jesus and His heavenly Father.

"For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool." Mark 12:36

Here we see all three persons of the Tri-une godhead in one verse. There are others but this one is very clear.

God bless each of you.




For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 18th 2008, 01:01 PM
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


I think he might be referring to this text....;)

peaceandlove,

janet

The problem is this is comparing apples to oranges. The Hebrew word can refer to someone that is the "head of something. This would fit Christ as the New Testament explains that He is the head of the Church. The Greek word pater, however, doesn't include this distinction. Instead, it refers to one that is the originator of all things, the creator of all, and the sovereign of all. Thus, the connotation between the two words in Hebrew and Greek don't match and are different. Isaiah only seems to be referring to Christ as "God the Father" because of an inadequacy in the English language - in the original languages (or at least a comparison of Hebrew and Greek) there is a distinct difference in the meaning and connotation.

Metadyjital
Jul 18th 2008, 01:40 PM
The Trinity is one of the more complex theologies espoused by the church. The truth of the matter is the bible present to us a God who is numerically "one" yet exists as Father, and Son and Holy Spirit.

We see the distinctions between the three, in a manner of ways:
Relationally
Physically
Authoratively
Verbally
In the Apostles greetings

To name a few. However the total dynamics of the relationship and the complete composition of God as a Trinity is never fully explained. Some within Christendom have rejected the Trinity calling is a heretical doctrine, but this has no scriptural basis! They do so by ascribing jesus either to less than deity or simply to a role or mode the Father played (The Father was essentially Jesus or Jesus is the Father) Neither of these views is biblically correct. The bible clearly represents to us a God who is Trinity, but never fully explains how – and God has not felt compelled or needing to explain this mystery and we are called to simply believe

Friend of I AM
Jul 18th 2008, 03:13 PM
deleted..double post...:)

Friend of I AM
Jul 18th 2008, 03:19 PM
The Trinity is one of the more complex theologies espoused by the church. The truth of the matter is the bible present to us a God who is numerically "one" yet exists as Father, and Son and Holy Spirit.

We see the distinctions between the three, in a manner of ways:
Relationally
Physically
Authoratively
Verbally
In the Apostles greetings

To name a few. However the total dynamics of the relationship and the complete composition of God as a Trinity is never fully explained. Some within Christendom have rejected the Trinity calling is a heretical doctrine, but this has no scriptural basis! They do so by ascribing jesus either to less than deity or simply to a role or mode the Father played (The Father was essentially Jesus or Jesus is the Father) Neither of these views is biblically correct. The bible clearly represents to us a God who is Trinity, but never fully explains how – and God has not felt compelled or needing to explain this mystery and we are called to simply believe

You know the funny thing about it all is God could indeed call himself his Father, his son, and then state that only himself as the Father is God and he would still be right. You have to remember that God's logic doesn't work on the same level as ours. Remember this statement from David in his Psalms..

Psalm 51:4
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

It almost mirror's the testimony of the Apostle Paul...

Romans 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

So it's not really a matter of human understanding when accepting God's Word, it's a matter of God always being proven right despite the understanding of man regarding his word.

As long as one posts something that is scriptural regarding who God is(i.e. Jesus is the Father referenced in Isaiah, Jesus is God, Jesus is the lamb of God) I don't think it's inaccurate to teach/preach different ways how God has chosen to represent himself within the Word.

Alaska
Jul 18th 2008, 03:23 PM
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

To make them one, only in agreement, makes them three distinct individuals that makes Christianity like Hinduism or one of the other pagan religions that are not monotheistic.

Jesus is the creator, He is the right arm of God.

The distinctions I am hearing from the Catholic originating explanation make out trinity/polytheism to be acceptable to Christianity, which it is not.

Many places in Isaiah etc where God is directly addressing himself. Many opportunities to say us or we. He says rather I. There is only one God who is Holy. He is a Spirit, hence God is the Holy Spirit. Like us made in His image, our spirit is not a separate person.
Three "Persons" yet one Person.

Metadyjital
Jul 18th 2008, 03:47 PM
To make them one, only in agreement, makes them three distinct individuals that makes Christianity like Hinduism or one of the other pagan religions that are not monotheistic.

Jesus is the creator, He is the right arm of God.

The distinctions I am hearing from the Catholic originating explanation make out trinity/polytheism to be acceptable to Christianity, which it is not.

Many places in Isaiah etc where God is directly addressing himself. Many opportunities to say us or we. He says rather I. There is only one God who is Holy. He is a Spirit, hence God is the Holy Spirit. Like us made in His image, our spirit is not a separate person.
Three "Persons" yet one Person.

Again we dont have a full explanation of how God exists exactly - so splitting hairs over the Trinity is a little ridiculous as so many arguments many times this comes down to ones personal choice of mere words

Friend of I AM
Jul 18th 2008, 04:22 PM
Again we dont have a full explanation of how God exists exactly - so splitting hairs over the Trinity is a little ridiculous as so many arguments many times this comes down to ones personal choice of mere words

Yup. It becomes very difficult to describe exactly how God exists the way he does, as he explains to Moses he refers to himself as "I am." Being that God himself has described himself to be everything, how can we ourselves really be expected to explain everything there is to know about him in any man made doctrine?

I grew up on the whole triniterian doctrine thing, I know it's not salvific though. Only thing salvific is God himself by his grace allowing us to be with him, through faith in his son being Lord and savior. God bless you in Christ.

Yankee Candle
Jul 18th 2008, 05:12 PM
"To make them one, only in agreement, makes them three distinct individuals that makes Christianity like Hinduism or one of the other pagan religions that are not monotheistic."

I quoted scripture, not my own opinion. I will do so again:

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." John 15:26

God is One God in three distinct personalities and He made a universe that reflects that truth.

Hint:




May His name be forever Praised!

Metadyjital
Jul 18th 2008, 06:33 PM
Do these personalities bare distinciton from one another? For instance can they communicate indpendantly one to another, can they have a personal will from one another?

How unform and distinct are they in your view?

Alaska
Jul 19th 2008, 03:52 AM
Do these personalities bare distinciton from one another? For instance can they communicate indpendantly one to another, can they have a personal will from one another?

How unform and distinct are they in your view?


Good question. I know it wasn't directed at me but it is a good question.

Sure, the word says "these three", but it goes on to say these three are one.
The question: Only one in agreement or is their oneness greater and deeper and more of a mystery than the simplistic, "one in agreement only" theory?
Sure there are places where there is a clear dilineation between the three. But does that necessarily make "these three" not one?
An explanation that should get respect due to the verses that show that it is indeed a great mystery, is the exlanation of parts of the same body yet one person or offices as distinct from one another held by the same person. A man can be a father and a son and a teacher and yet be one man. He can be a judge and a counsellor and an administrator and still be the same one man. Three persons yet one person.
While this of course does not do full justice to the mystery, this will be immediately rejected because it is not cool to consider this since it has been labelled as modalism or some such other label. But if the coat fits, it should be worn or at least looked at seriously.
Those rejecting the 3 persons, yet one person, also do so at the expense of verses that show complexity and depth. The depth is thrown away in favour of an explanation that seems to make sense in light of other verses. But in order to accept all of the verses, it is necessary to accept explanation that vindicates those complex, seemingly contrary verses, even if the role of "office' fits the bill better than persons. It is "persons" and "offices" yet one person, God the creator.

In Rom. 8 the "Spirit of Christ". Is this Christ's Spirit and God's Spirit is a different Spirit if they are two persons?
And what is the person of the Spirit's name? The father is Yahveh, the Son is Jesus. What proper name is there for the person of the Spirit if the Spirit is an independant separate person? To call the holy ghost by the name of Holy Spirit is like being told that your teachers name is Teacher.
Would this not make the Spirit lesser for not having a name if in fact it is a separate person when the alleged other separate persons have names?
"These three are one" would not seem truthful if that supposed separate person doesn't have a name while the other two do have names.

God was able to send his own arm to mankind in the form of the Son as a real son with feelings and temptation and all the rest, yet this Son was God the Father manifest in the flesh: God with us the hope of Glory. A glorious mystery that is clouded and corrupted by not accepting it as a child. God is able to do what may make no sense to us. But it is glorious to those who accept it and yet it can only be revealed to a person by the Father like to Peter.

The Holy Spirit came upon Mary and she became pregnant. So is Jesus the Son of the Holy Ghost or is He the Son of the Father, if the two are separate persons?

God is a Spirit, God is Holy, hence God is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of Christ IS the Spirit of God.

I asked a question earlier: since God says Jesus is his right arm, wouldn't it be interesting if there were a verse saying also something to the effect that while Jesus was on earth he was at the same time in heaven? I mean if you reach down into a bucket from sitting in a chair you are in the bucket and on the chair at the same time aren't you?

Friend of I AM
Jul 19th 2008, 05:35 PM
Do these personalities bare distinciton from one another? For instance can they communicate indpendantly one to another, can they have a personal will from one another?

How unform and distinct are they in your view?

Good question. I would say that they are distinct as God wants them to be, and as united as he wants to be depending upon the situation. For example, we have the cross - where God has essentially made himself his son(who is still possesses the full glory of the Father) in the flesh.

One way I have started to like to look at the trinity is from the perspective of God is always and still fully God despite what form(s) he puts himself in, and regardless of how many forms he chooses to put himself in.

fewarechosen
Jul 19th 2008, 08:49 PM
yea i just dont like hearing people say god has 3 different personalities.

alaska from how i take what you said i am in complete agreement, its like your arm doesnt have a different personality than your leg, they have different appearance of function but are still one.

i dont find it to be like three separate people who all just think the same.

its like christ is often spoken of as the branch, but the branch is not separate from the tree and the leaves are not separate from the branch nor the tree, they are the tree.

fewarechosen
Jul 19th 2008, 08:57 PM
Yet Jesus and the Word uses the analogy or comparison of the mystery to a human body and it's functions. We speak, God speaks and the Son is the Word of God. We have a right arm and God says his Son is His right arm.
Agreed, we can state what it is while having difficulty saying how it is.
But claiming that God must be 3 separate persons, as some say, is the result of not being able to explain how it is. Why not simply accept the scriptures and admit it is a mystery without coming to a conclusion based on a deduction of how it has to be according to us when we are unable to conclude how it is?
All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him (Jesus) bodily.
By Jesus were all things created in heaven and in Earth.
His Name (Jesus) is above every name.
When they saw Jesus they saw the Father.
Jesus was a Son over his own house.
Jesus is the express image of God's person; not the express image of one of God's persons.
"Three 'Persons' in one Person, Who is the singular person of God" would be acceptable. "Three Persons in one God", without clarifying Persons, lends itself potentially to polytheism, which is heresy.
So you conclude that God and Jesus have to be two persons because how could he pray to himself while on earth if he wasn't two persons? Even your own arm sends messages to your own head when in pain. This would answer the scriptural mandate to not split God up. These three are one.
Yes, "persons" but with some qualifying, lest there be any hint whatsoever of polytheism, which is heresy.

completely agree, i also think when we start to talk about 3 separate persons it can lead people astray i have seen it happen.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 19th 2008, 09:23 PM
yea i just dont like hearing people say god has 3 different personalities.

alaska from how i take what you said i am in complete agreement, its like your arm doesnt have a different personality than your leg, they have different appearance of function but are still one.

i dont find it to be like three separate people who all just think the same.

its like christ is often spoken of as the branch, but the branch is not separate from the tree and the leaves are not separate from the branch nor the tree, they are the tree.

The problem with this analogy is that it's heretical.

My arm is merely just an extension of who I am - it is not different, there is no fellowship with my arm, it does not have the ability to perform it's own will, etc. If Jesus were merely an 'extension' of God, then He would be God - it ends up being modalism all over again.

We like to use the arm analogy because then we're not only able to understand the Trinity, but we can then comprehend the Trinity. Of course, this is absurd.

Instead, the Trinity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm) is comprised of three difference persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), yet all have one Being and one Essence. It is not three Gods, but it is not strict monotheism.

fewarechosen
Jul 19th 2008, 10:22 PM
The problem with this analogy is that it's heretical.

My arm is merely just an extension of who I am - it is not different, there is no fellowship with my arm, it does not have the ability to perform it's own will, etc. If Jesus were merely an 'extension' of God, then He would be God - it ends up being modalism all over again.

We like to use the arm analogy because then we're not only able to understand the Trinity, but we can then comprehend the Trinity. Of course, this is absurd.

Instead, the Trinity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm) is comprised of three difference persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), yet all have one Being and one Essence. It is not three Gods, but it is not strict monotheism.


wow straight accusation of heresy i dig it lol

then you go on to say its not "strict" monotheism.
you even seperate god into three different persons
i wont even address how much it is stressed that there is one God.

Alaska
Jul 19th 2008, 10:39 PM
Instead, the Trinity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm) is comprised of three difference persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), yet all have one Being and one Essence. It is not three Gods, but it is not strict monotheism.



Attention, all Bible students, copy the above quotation for a ready answer when asked for an example of what Paul was referring to when he wrote of a little leaven leavening the whole lump. This is also an example of a false, unashamed and confident Catholic doctrinal position.

Athanasius
Jul 20th 2008, 05:25 AM
And... this thread is closed. There's no need for painting all Catholics with the same brush. There's no need to degrade other users by comparing them to said Catholics, either. Catholics, by the way, giving us a lot of our Christology.

In any case, I'm apalled. This is enough.