The Trinity

[NWL]

Your the one with the flawed reasoning skills.

GOD SAYS He is one.
God says He is the Redeemer.

So when Jesus comes, and he is called the Redeemer, you know that is might God, and the everlasting Father.

I can fully explain my reasoning and it makes sense. You can't even defend your own understanding of the scriptures. I've asked you questions and you didn't even attempt to answer them.

Here they are again. Let's see if your reasoning makes sense.

In 1 Cor 15:24 it has Jesus, some time after his ascension, handing back the kingdom to the Father, how is that possible if he himself is the Father?

(1 Corinthians 15:24) "..Next, the end, when he [Jesus] hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power.."

You made the claim that the reason why Jesus prayed to the Father in Matt 6 was because he was showing the disciples how and who to pray to and that he wasn't actually speaking to the father because the Father came down to earth as Jesus. If this is true then why do we have Jesus praying to the Father in private away from the disciples?

(Matthew 26:36,39) "..Then Jesus came with them to the spot called Geth·semʹa·ne, and he said to the disciples: “Sit down here while I go over there and pray... And going a little way forward, he fell facedown, praying: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will..”

You implied that because Jesus was just a man he didn't know the same things as the father, where do you get the idea that it takes Almighty God to remember a single date?

(Matthew 24:36) “..Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.."

How is it possible that Jesus sat at the right hand of God the Father if he is the God who's hand he sits at?

(Acts 7:55) "..But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.."

 

[Lon]

I showed you the scriptures, you made no mention of them...

Since you clearly deny scripture....

:chuckle: Dude! :doh:

 

[NWL]

:chuckle: Dude! :doh:

I'll wait and see if you're capable of answering what I asked. Then I'll get my time to laugh .

 

[Rosenritter]

You don't agree.... on disagreeing.

There are no absolutes. Are you absolutely sure?

If you don't get it, you need to take a step back from TOL for a couple hours until you feel more relaxed.

Why is it irony?

We are in a debate group.

If everyone just agreed to disagree, there is no debate then.

 

[Rosenritter]

I've always understood 1 John 5:7 to belong more properly in the Oneness camp.

Even if that is a verse claimed most often by Trinity proponents, the reading of it actually goes too far (in the Trinity mindset) and rather than confirming that the reality is three, it says that the reality is one. I think that's much of the reason some hard line Trinity proponents often want to sideline or attempt to discredit the passage. It's also the reason that it is one of the passages you will oft hear from Oneness proponents.

Now, if the passage said "The three are One, and the One is three" that would sound a lot like Trinity, I'd consider it evidence towards the quota.

P.S. The passage is to be both believed and scrutinized.

1 John 5:7 If it is to be either believed or scrutinized....

P.S. That's why Tertullian was arguing that three were one in substance, against other's understanding that they were one in being. Both sides accepted the same original passage. It doesn't prove "Trinity" one way or the other.

An interesting Wikipedia entry...

According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Tertullian's trinity [is] not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member".^[12] A similar word had been used earlier in Greek,^[13] though Tertullian gives the oldest extant use of the terminology as later incorporated into the Nicene Creed at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, or as the Athanasian Creed, or both.

When the guy who is credited with being the earliest founding writer of "Trinity" is rejected as not being Trinitarian, it's hard to justify a claim that says the doctrine is "clearly spelled out through all scripture."

 

[freelight]

Right, the trinity doctrine is not God, it is a teaching from mere men who made a mistake.

And some would say its just a 'concept'.

God is One.

God is Spirit.

 

[popsthebuilder]

In theory, the Unitarian is about "there is One God" but in practice I've found that it's really more about "Jesus is not God." Assuming you identify yourself as Unitarian, if you had to choose between the two, which is more important to you? Which is your central premise, upon which you base the rest of your belief?

a) There is One God
b) Jesus cannot be God

a)

My other, lesser focus is that no man is the utter and absolute fullness of the eternal GOD.

As a man Jesus did not claim to be the utter fullness and entirety of the FATHER, but the extent to which a man could be filled with the Spirit of GOD.

Towards the end if His ministry He did admit that He was the son of the eternal GOD and that none could see GOD except through Him. Which is to by His way and example.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Bright Raven]

There is only ONE GOD and HE IS the Father.

You picked a scripture that rebukes what you preach.

Guess you did not read the verse in its context.

 

[Bright Raven]

There is only one Redeemer, and it is God the Father.

The Bible says that Jesus is the Redeemer.

That makes Jesus God the Father come in the flesh as a Man.

You try so hard and fail so miserably.

 

[NWL]

I've always understood 1 John 5:7 to belong more properly in the Oneness camp.

Even if that is a verse claimed most often by Trinity proponents, the reading of it actually goes too far (in the Trinity mindset) and rather than confirming that the reality is three, it says that the reality is one. I think that's much of the reason some hard line Trinity proponents often want to sideline or attempt to discredit the passage. It's also the reason that it is one of the passages you will oft hear from Oneness proponents.

Now, if the passage said "The three are One, and the One is three" that would sound a lot like Trinity, I'd consider it evidence towards the quota.

P.S. The passage is to be both believed and scrutinized.

The scripture is not worth discussing since its spurious and was added into the KJV to bolster the proof of the trinity doctrine, this is a widely known fact in the scholarly community. The rendering "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; land these three are one" should be stripped from all translations that show it as such.

How the verse should read:

(1 John 5:7, 8) "..For there are three witness bearers:  the spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.."

 

[Bright Raven]

The three are One.

One means 'the same'.

Yes. A proclamation of the Trinity.

 

[Rosenritter]

So, if you came into a conflict between "There is One God" and "Jesus cannot be God" you would be willing to preserve the former and let go of the latter?

a)

My other, lesser focus is that no man is the utter and absolute fullness of the eternal GOD.

As a man Jesus did not claim to be the utter fullness and entirety of the FATHER, but the extent to which a man could be filled with the Spirit of GOD.

Towards the end if His ministry He did admit that He was the son of the eternal GOD and that none could see GOD except through Him. Which is to by His way and example.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

The three all have the SAME NAME, which refers to their AUTHORITY.

There is only ONE God and He has revealed Himself as the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Ghost.

That you don't like it makes no difference at all.

Why do you say I don't like it?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

So you say "Yes, the three are One, One means the same" - That sounds like what GT was saying. If that's what you meant, the only issue is that you call it Trinity and she does not. Sounds like semantics.

Yes. A proclamation of the Trinity.

 

[freelight]

From the One, comes the Many.....

From the One, comes the Many.....

In theory, the Unitarian is about "there is One God" but in practice I've found that it's really more about "Jesus is not God." Assuming you identify yourself as Unitarian, if you had to choose between the two, which is more important to you? Which is your central premise, upon which you base the rest of your belief?

a) There is One God
b) Jesus cannot be God

Biblical Unitarianism affirms wholly that there is only One God, and no other (no other personalities that are also 'God', for such could not be, since there is only One Deity, Singular in being, person, identity, etc.) Besides 'God' there is no OTHER 'God'. This is fundamental. I hold to this, but understand also 'hierarchy' in the cosmic order and angelic ranks, etc. There is One Infinite Intelligence. In a more liberal sense I also hold to a kind of 'monism' since God's Spirit-Energy-Consciousness pervades all, encompasses all, is all. (pan-en-theism). I affirm the divine wisdom and esoteric teachings of most all wisdom schools of metaphysics and philosophy that recognize the eternal and universal laws and principles of the cosmos.

Jesus cannot be 'God' in toto, because 'God' is unbegotten, immortal, omnipresent, incorporeal, INFINITE....for starters. (I recognize that the 'Incarnation' accounts for and explains Jesus as being the 'begotten' God, in distinction from the unbegotten Father. My Christology can include many different human and divine aspects of Jesus, and I dont think the traditional-orthodox formulation of the Trinity is necessarily true, let alone absolute, its but a religious formula, conceptual model of a 'Godhead', thats it. God is pure Spirit-Energy-Intelligence,.....being ONE. - all diversities, duality, multiplicity springs from within this Infinite ONE in the play of creation,...that is all that is going on. There is only 'God' and God in expression.

I see no need to make Jesus 'God' (full and absolute DEITY) as some here are assuming, no matter how intellectually astute one feels they can be in conceptualizing 3 persons co-mingled into one essential 'God'. - its essentially a 'multiple personality order'. One can be just as versatile with a modalist view or some other variation of Christology, just as long as one recognizes 'God' in the person and ministry of Jesus, THIS is all that is essential. A Unitarian, Arian, Gnostic, Theosophical or some other liberal spiritualist view of Jesus is just as good or feasible, as long as the full value, meaning and import of God revealing Himself THRU Jesus is accomplished. So, trinitarians have nothing 'on' or 'over' any Unitarian necessarily. NOTHING, but a conceptual model imposed, an "assumption". Its just a point of view, perspective. It is 'assumed'. - and this is the truth. And still the universal divine reality of 'God' is ever Singular, Indivisible, timeless, omnipresent, here, NOW. (prior to words, space or time, all-pervading, alone absolute).

Again,...only 'Deity' is 'Deity', (not a 'man') and this 'God' is One, One Absolute Reality, with no other beside it. The One and Only. Since it is the only Source from which all Existence springs and all creation derives,...It is ALL That IS, and ALL That will BE.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Seems to me that the truth of a form of Unitarianism or Arianism was all but snuffed out and destroyed by the ancient Roman "Catholic" "church".

Nearly all writing of Arius were destroyed in an effort to hide his understanding and the truth it aluded to. But those right with GOD have no thing to fear, so why were they destroyed?

Man was subsequently persuaded by fear through ignorance.

Thank GOD it is the information age, and the works of the whore of Babylon will be her undoing.

Please do not conflate my words with hate for any practicing Catholic.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

I'll wait and see if you're capable of answering what I asked. Then I'll get my time to laugh .

Or inclined. You are no poodle-trainer, I'm no poodle. Hoops aren't my thing. If I ever decide to address your scriptures, I'll do so upon my own initiative and interest. :e4e:

 

[popsthebuilder]

So, if you came into a conflict between "There is One God" and "Jesus cannot be God" you would be willing to preserve the former and let go of the latter?

Indeed;

Who am I to limit the capacities of GOD?

I would not say Jesus cannot be GOD; I will not willingly and knowingly make a false statement about GOD.

I will openly say that equating man to god produces and had produced atrocious results.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

I've always understood 1 John 5:7 to belong more properly in the Oneness camp.

Even if that is a verse claimed most often by Trinity proponents, the reading of it actually goes too far (in the Trinity mindset) and rather than confirming that the reality is three, it says that the reality is one. I think that's much of the reason some hard line Trinity proponents often want to sideline or attempt to discredit the passage. It's also the reason that it is one of the passages you will oft hear from Oneness proponents.

Now, if the passage said "The three are One, and the One is three" that would sound a lot like Trinity, I'd consider it evidence towards the quota.

P.S. The passage is to be both believed and scrutinized.



P.S. That's why Tertullian was arguing that three were one in substance, against other's understanding that they were one in being. Both sides accepted the same original passage. It doesn't prove "Trinity" one way or the other.

"P.S.S." I might be OCD to mention it. You are correct, it is both Tri- and -une in expression which is why I am tri-une.

An interesting Wikipedia entry...

When the guy who is credited with being the earliest founding writer of "Trinity" is rejected as not being Trinitarian, it's hard to justify a claim that says the doctrine is "clearly spelled out through all scripture."

I don't believe one necessitates the other, nor that they are much related. Actually, I believe you'd agree: We need to understand the scriptures and look to history only as to understand contexts of previous discussions. Tertullian saw that the Son is God and that the Holy Spirit is God.
As such, he pointed Christians to look at contexts in scripture regarding who He and them were, according to scriptures.

 

[freelight]

Arius,...daring to question the eternality of the Son......

Arius,...daring to question the eternality of the Son......

Seems to me that the truth of a form of Unitarianism or Arianism was all but snuffed out and destroyed by the ancient Roman "Catholic" "church".

Nearly all writing of Arius were destroyed in an effort to hide his understanding amdnthe truth it aluded to. But those right with GOD have no thing to fear, so why were they destroyed?

Man was subsequently persuaded by fear through ignorance.

Thank GOD it is the information age, and the works of the whore of Babylon will be her undoing.

Please do not conflate my words with hate for any practicing Catholic.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Yes,....the whole Arian Controversy just shows all the theological, socio-political battles going on within the church-state of the times, to where Arians were after some long struggle in the ranks of power, eventually in the tug-o-war over-ruled by the Trinitarians and the leverage of time and power later became in their 'favor' to win the day to be established as 'orthodox'. All this over Arius statement that "there was a time when the Son was not". - so along comes the "eternally begotten" concept and other supports to keep the Trinity Train going along

The Reality of 'Deity' simply and profoundly is that WHICH IS,...omnipresent, NOW. - all else are but concepts, points of view, opinions and assumptions.