The Trinity

[glorydaz]

If you think that "Love thy neighbor" and "forgive others so that you may be forgiven" and "repent lest ye likewise perish" is "law that you are not subject to" then you are in a dangerous place, and between the two of us, it's not me that lacks understanding of the law and grace.

My salvation is not contingent on whether I forgive others or not, and you only prove you don't understand the great divide between law and grace. It's good that you have let everyone see that you are stuck on the wrong side of the cross. The school bell is ringing....shoo. :wave:

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:​

 

[Rosenritter]

My salvation is not contingent on whether I forgive others or not, and you only prove you don't understand the great divide between law and grace. It's good that you have let everyone see that you are stuck on the wrong side of the cross. The school bell is ringing....shoo. :wave:

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:​

1Jn 3:14-15 KJV
(14) We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
(15) Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

1Jn 4:20-21 KJV
(20) If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
(21) And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

John says it is.

 

[glorydaz]

1Jn 3:14-15 KJV
(14) We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
(15) Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

1Jn 4:20-21 KJV
(20) If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
(21) And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

John says it is.

Those who have the love of God shed abroad on their hearts have been delivered from the law of commandments. And you should be glad of it. Otherwise, you would be a murderer if you even called someone a fool. Perhaps you need to study up on John's letters.

Love is not something a man can be commanded to have. That's the problem with the law. We are given commandments but where is the "power" to keep them? It is, after all, why Christ came.

Notice also how John is speaking of how we can know.....and "if a man say"? John's letters are very interesting, but you can't mix them with the gospel of Grace just like you can't mix oil and water.

 

[glorydaz]

1. If you simply mean "these three are one" then I can agree that God is Triune, Tri- meaning "three" and "-une" meaning "one."

2. Yes, I do accept what Thomas said. So did Jesus. Thank you for the acknowledgment.

3. No, I do not reject verses that speak of the Holy Spirit being God in the exact same way. Technically the passages do not actually speak of the Holy Spirit of being God in the exact same way, but I understand the Holy Spirit as God just the same, just as I understand Jesus as God and He whom was called the Father. My right eye and my left eye do not see the same object in exactly the same way, yet I understand these to be the same object.

Where did you get the idea that I designated the Holy Spirit as some sort of inferior god substance?



No, Glory, that's actually your error. If you are not sure about what someone thinks or believes, it's better to ask them.

Oh dear. Now I'm going to have to go back and search to prove my point. If I must....

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you think that "Love thy neighbor"

... is what God calls us to do, Christian or Jew.

and "forgive others so that you may be forgiven"

... boils down to "do this and you will be rewarded."

"Forgive so that you may be forgiven" != "forgive because you are forgiven"

The first is law, the second is grace.

and "repent lest ye likewise perish"

... is also "do this or you will perish."

What does the law tell those who are under the law? To obey the law.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. - Romans 3:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:19&version=NKJV

"Forgive, or you will not be forgiven."
"Repent, or you will perish."

Both are Law.

is "law that you are not subject to"

Christians are not under the Law, but under grace. Christians are to love God and love their neighbor.

then you are in a dangerous place, and between the two of us, it's not me that lacks understanding of the law and grace.

On the contrary...

This from someone who claims that "love thy neighbor" and "repentance" and "forgiveness" and "peace" are outdated concepts of the law that do not apply to them?

RR, loving one's neighbor, repenting when one does wrong, forgiving those who have repented, and peace, are not inherently part of the law.

I am not Moon, and you didn't direct that at me in response to what I said.

Of course you aren't, and of course I didn't.

I just didn't feel like typing it all over again. Plus, I was trying to catch up to this thread, as I'm not getting notifications for the threads I'm subscribed to.

I don't think that you were entirely wrong, but I don't think you were entirely right either. Elohim does not mean that God is three (or two or four) god-beings calling themselves one God.

That's not the argument I'm making, nor is it anywhere close to what I said.

"-im" is what makes a Hebrew noun plural (e.g. cherub/cherubim, seraph/seraphim, nephil/nephilim).

One of his names is the LORD of Hosts,

YHWH sabaowt. LORD of Hosts, yes. Literally "LORD of armies."

and if God is the God of the gods,

Deuteronomy 10:17 is focusing on God's greatness, his might, how no "god" (such as Zeus or Vishnu or Baal, etc) can compete with him. Let's not lose the forest for the trees here.

then Elohim (plural) is inclusive of the LORD as he also represents the sum of the loyal angels. Angels could also be called elohim as well, could they not?

Granted, "elohim" is used for "angels." But it's not always used for angels, that's why context is important.

Especially in verses such as Genesis 1:1, it literally says "Elohim (plural) He created (singular). Elohim bara. The verse is not talking about angels, nor other gods. The very first verse in the Bible does not have a grammatical error in it. Moses wasn't illiterate. To make the claim that angels helped God create the universe is anti-biblical.

Eighteen hundred years of history and nine hundred pages on this thread and still no explicit statement from the Bible as to a Trinity. But I appreciate that you're addressing the substance of my question: can you show this belief helpful?

1. Yet somehow I don't need a belief in a Triune God to know that abortion is wrong. Even if I did not already understand this by the spirit of God within me, we have "Thou shalt not kill." Regardless, you also have Trinitarians that advocate abortion.

2. Even if we assume that God was "Triune" the passage does not say that this is what is meant by being made in the image of God. I think it is a more obvious interpretation that this image refers to our mental and spiritual aspects of our character, including logic, reason, emotion, and moral responsibility, even the ability to choose between rebellion and obedience, our capacity and potential for worship.

3. I cannot see "Trinity" as being a help with the concept of evolution. Even accepting the premise that the question of special creation vs evolution is important to our society (which I do agree with) I really don't see a linkage. Besides this, there are a great many Trinitarians that have accepted "evolution" so in reality that doesn't seem to work that way.

I said it would help, not that it would be a deciding factor. Most of what you said is true.

The ancient Greek philosophers aren't really a good tool to show how a Trinity would answer questions to keep us safe from philosophy? I don't know why that question has importance. It's not whether God could know that he is Good, it's whether we can know that God is good that matters.

Regardless, how does belief in a "Trinity" answer that God could know he is Good? If I took your example of "having never been wronged by that other person" I could also say the same for cannibal tribes like the pack led by Sawney Bean that only preyed on outsiders.

Perhaps you should read or at least skim through the thread linked that talks about that subject.

Here is the link for it:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?t=47024

As for the question of keeping us safe from philosophy, the Trinity concept seems an awful lot like philosophy itself.

The Trinity doctrine would be theology. Discussing that theological knowledge and the nature of it thereof would be philosophy.

JudgeRightly, I'm not saying this for the sake of being argumentative. I think you haven't yet stated the more obvious answer and I'm hoping you'll include it as well. I'd like to discuss that answer, as well as any others that come up. I think this line of discussion does have merit, as it is considering the fruits of the doctrine, which is a valid test.

"More obvious answer?" To what question?

 

[glorydaz]

"Godhead" is not the same as "Trinity" and there is a difference. "Godhead" is the nature, form, or essential qualities of God. Perhaps that definition needs a little nailing down, but "Trinity" is a man-made metaphysical model of that Godhead.



I certainly do not see three distinct persons. Should you wish to criticize (as it seems you do) then please provide your very specific definition for person. If I use the definition for person as supplied for us by scripture, God consists of only one person. If you intend another meaning, please provide it. I cannot agree with the definition provided by James White or Bright Raven as they apply it to "Trinity."

Heb 1:1-3 KJV
(1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
(3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

That's the only passage I know of that refers to God in the sense of person or persons or people. Notice that it says "person" and not "persons" and as this represents the only explicit declaration of such, God is one person, singular, which is completely in line with the rest of scripture that says to us, "The LORD your God is one LORD." Jesus is the express image of the person of our God. One person.

It does not say that Jesus is a person of God. It does not say that the Father is a person of God. It does not say that the Holy Spirit is a person of God. It never says anything close to resembling that God is three persons, and exclusively three persons. It says that God is a person, not two people, not three people, not a hundred people. One person, singular.

If you will fault me for sticking by the scripture, then so be it. That's where I will stand unless you can show me the scripture defines this otherwise.

I'm pretty sure you've been told that the word "person" is inadequate in describing our Triune God....because person is a word that most often speaks of human beings. Think of it more in terms of a WORD. When you have a sentence, you can use first person singular pronouns, for example....as the roles they play in a sentence.

Pronoun Case is really a very simple matter. There are three cases. Subjective case: pronouns used as subject. Objective case: pronouns used as objects of verbs or prepositions. Possessive case: pronouns which express ownership.

But, as we see written in the Bible, God refers to Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Which is why we have to carefully read each verse. Rather than be so concerned about a particular term, look at what is meant by the term. The idea of being distinct...in that the Father sent the Son who went to the cross....and then sent the Spirit to dwell in us. The same ONE God, but three distinct persons. Anyway, whatever term you might use, it makes for a Triune God....which is what I generally say. And "persons" does have the positive effect of negating God being an "IT" in any way.

 

[Rosenritter]

... is what God calls us to do, Christian or Jew.

... boils down to "do this and you will be rewarded."

"Forgive so that you may be forgiven" != "forgive because you are forgiven"

The first is law, the second is grace.

... is also "do this or you will perish."

What does the law tell those who are under the law? To obey the law.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. - Romans 3:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:19&version=NKJV

"Forgive, or you will not be forgiven."
"Repent, or you will perish."

Both are Law.

Christians are not under the Law, but under grace. Christians are to love God and love their neighbor.

If that is your understanding, then you understand neither the law nor grace. The law of God does command love. I believe you confusing this law with the law of Moses.

1Jn 3:23-24 KJV
(23) And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
(24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

If you think that this law of God is about "doing" something in order to "get" something, then you really don't get it at all. The word "law" has a meaning, and the word "law" can have a specific meaning to a specific law. Where there is commandment, there is law. We have living commandments, as evidenced by John and Jesus above.

Would it make sense to argue that Christians are "not under law by grace" and then think that you can jump to the moon and back, because the law of gravity doesn't apply? No, that would be absurd. But that is the equivalent of rejecting every word in the bible that speaks of law or commandment simply because we are not subjected to the law of Moses or law of similar sort.

We are under a different law, a higher law, a law summarized by love. And yes, our salvation is contingent upon accepting that law called faith and belief, a law that if it is truly accepted and believed does generate fruit as evidence of that Spirit. If there is anything most important, this exceeds any moot questions like "Trinity or Not" by orders of magnitude. THIS is what makes the difference seen in lives, this is what decides life or death.

What is said to the sheep and what is said to the goats? That spirit evidenced by fruits of that spirit decides life or death in the end. A shallow claim of "I was forgiven of all therefore I sinned and condemned my neighbor and did not forgive" has its own answer spelled out in parable. It's an answer that ends with being imprisoned, drawn into pieces and devoured by fire. That was Jesus speaking, his words are there.

"More obvious answer?" To what question?

What do you think that a Trinity doctrine should accomplish? If I made a doctrine that Jesus had red hair, blue eyes, and had the luck of the Irish, it wouldn't matter whether it was true or not, because it would be an absolutely worthless doctrine. Whether one believed it or not would accomplish nothing. I applaud your efforts with regard to abortion or evolution, but it doesn't make a difference either way on those things.

To avoid drawing this out, I think that the primary reason people look to a Trinity doctrine is because it attempts to explain how Jesus could be the manifestation of our one God upon the earth. Or at least, that's what I consider a valid reason. Would you agree on this? That this might be an intended application and purpose of that doctrine? In other words, to provide a model of the Godhead that would explain this question?

I think there's some other reasons that got mixed up in there, reasons that I don't consider valid. But I'd like to provide an opportunity for you (or someone else) to add something beside my own perspective.

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm pretty sure you've been told that the word "person" is inadequate in describing our Triune God....because person is a word that most often speaks of human beings. Think of it more in terms of a WORD. When you have a sentence, you can use first person singular pronouns, for example....as the roles they play in a sentence.

But, as we see written in the Bible, God refers to Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Which is why we have to carefully read each verse. Rather than be so concerned about a particular term, look at what is meant by the term. The idea of being distinct...in that the Father sent the Son who went to the cross....and then sent the Spirit to dwell in us. The same ONE God, but three distinct persons. Anyway, whatever term you might use, it makes for a Triune God....which is what I generally say. And "persons" does have the positive effect of negating God being an "IT" in any way.

That is a better explanation.

But if use your terms, there are additional persons that I can name as well, not being limited to three. Melchizadek, for example, is described in terms as like unto the Son of God, rather than as one of your three words.

I note that your definition did not declare that there must not be "confusion of the persons" ... which is exactly what I have seen when studying this subject... a study that I undertook for the express purpose of trying to find a Trinity. They aren't entirely distinct, they blend into each other.

So if you want to say that we have one God, and we have seen Him in different forms and He refers to himself with different words, I personally have no problem with that. But the word and term "Trinity" carries additional baggage that one has to assume is included unless said otherwise.

Lon makes the distinction that he says God is Triune, rather than saying he believes in a Trinity. I understand and can agree with that.

 

[SabathMoon]

1 Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.​

The LORD our God is ONE LORD.

Actually the original greek old testament said Yahweh our God is the one Yahweh.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Actually the original greek old testament said Yahweh our God is the one Yahweh.

What you are referring to is called the Septuagint, which was translated from the original Hebrew into Greek.

 

[SabathMoon]

What you are referring to is called the Septuagint, which was translated from the original Hebrew into Greek.

The Septuagint is actually a version of the Greek old testament translation. It was altered to appear more anthropomorphic, so the Egyptian Ptomely wouldn't be offended. 72 Israelites, most likely elders, copied and altered a pre-existing text. Instead of deducing this, narratives claim it was miraculously created on the spot, as a miracle. I'll call it a one of the 70 LXX if you want.

 

[glorydaz]

That is a better explanation.

But if use your terms, there are additional persons that I can name as well, not being limited to three. Melchizadek, for example, is described in terms as like unto the Son of God, rather than as one of your three words.

I'm pretty sure that is talking about his priesthood....a type of Christ, rather than a pre-incarnate Christ, although I'm not positive about that. Im sure @ Steko or @ Tambora could comment on that for us.

I note that your definition did not declare that there must not be "confusion of the persons" ... which is exactly what I have seen when studying this subject... a study that I undertook for the express purpose of trying to find a Trinity. They aren't entirely distinct, they blend into each other.

So if you want to say that we have one God, and we have seen Him in different forms and He refers to himself with different words, I personally have no problem with that. But the word and term "Trinity" carries additional baggage that one has to assume is included unless said otherwise.

Lon makes the distinction that he says God is Triune, rather than saying he believes in a Trinity. I understand and can agree with that.

I agree we are at many different stages of seeing who God is. He is bigger than mere man can imagine.

Eph. 3:17-19 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.​

I see many who put too much distance between each person of the Godhead. There is no distance or separation....always ONE and always together in sync. It's actually a wonderful subject for believers to discuss....finding different verses that are eye opening. The brakes come on IN the discussion when someone denies the absolute Deity of Jesus AS CREATOR, while quick to see His humanity.

You understand that, and, honestly, that's an essential to salvation. Then, the Holy Spirit has been called the shy worker....behind the scenes, and often getting none of the glory. Another study cut short way too often.

 

[SabathMoon]

You understand that, and, honestly, that's an essential to salvation. Then, the Holy Spirit has been called the shy worker....behind the scenes, and often getting none of the glory. Another study cut short way too often.

So I would medically suddenly improved if I believe the Most High God contradicted himself to become a kind of god, a gnostic such as Valentinus would like more. Then if the wicked don't suffer the afterlife, they won't be punished in it. You seem to be avoiding those implications. Or the implication of a god who can not be trusted to stop correcting the unjust for eternity.

Right and wrong implies your views are rubbish.

 

[KingdomRose]

At the end of the day, no matter what individuals have thought up in their own minds, the doctrine of the Trinity is erroneous, spurious, blasphemous and wrong. Almighty God will not allow this garbage to go on and on....soon all of the lies will be fully exposed and done away with. God said, "You people will have to know that I am Jehovah." (Ezekiel 7:4) No more pagan teachings will be tolerated on this earth.

William Penn once said: "Know then, my friend, that the Trinity was born above 300 years after the ancient Gospel was declared; it was conceived in ignorance, brought forth and maintained by cruelty." Amen!


Why do people believe it? What is it that they fear?

"A fearful believer obstructs the whole point of the Christian venture which is to seek progressive understanding of truth. History, unfortunately, is often seen through the eye of the beholder, particularly if a historical matter is viewed from a narrow secular or religious perspective. ...Given time and distance a huge GAP develops between historical reality and a canonized version of the facts. Interestingly, the Church has been ready to support great political leaders when they further the Christian cause and back its ecclesiastical control. [Kissing up to worldly politicians.] At the edict of Milan in 313 A.D., the Emperor Constantine secured age-lasting honor from the Christian Church by granting complete toleration to all Christians and other cults. A few years later he charted the rough course which led to the settlement of disputes over doctrine between rival factions. The result was the first major step toward the formal incorporation of Trinitarian belief into Christianity. [A pagan emperor who decided what Christians were to believe!]

"Most Christians would be surprised at the implications of the observation of the Roman Catholic scholar, W.E. Addis. Commenting on the religious turmoil caused by the attempt to introduce the idea that God was more than one person, he said: 'The bulk of Christians, had they been let alone, would have been satisfied with the old belief in one God, the Father, and would have distrusted the "dispensation," as it has been called, by which the sole Diety of the Father expanded into the Diety of the Father and the Son...."All simple people," Tertullian wrote, "not to call them ignorant and uneducated...take fright at the 'dispensation'...They will have it that we are proclaiming two or three gods."'" (Christianity and the Roman Empire, New York: W.W. Norton, 1967, p.174)

And indeed such was the case.


See The Doctrine of the Trinity/ Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound by Anthony Buzzard & Charles Hunting, 1998, pp. 137-139.

 

[popsthebuilder]

opcorn:

One day these foolish ones will bow before the majesty of the ONE TRUE GOD, and they shall see Him as He is....more, MUCH MORE, than the suffering servant they refuse to acknowledge as God come in the flesh. :nono:

Rev. 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.​

How can you deny what is plainly written from Genesis through Revelation?

Rev. 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.​

I don't at all.

The description from scripture you provided about the Christ of GOD; does it sound like a description of the physical body of a man; even Jesus as a man; in the flesh?

 

[popsthebuilder]

What? You have the nerve to tell her that because in doing so it makes you a hypocrite.

How so?

 

[God's Truth]

How so?

You wouldn't believe it if it was spelled out for you.

 

[popsthebuilder]

First, quote me where you got that from me.

If that isn't what you have been saying then I apologize for saying it was.

Do you not equate the physical man Jesus with the literal utter fullness of GOD, as opposed to the Spirit of GOD/ Christ being the literal utter fullness of GOD. I had mentioned that the substance of the temple of GOD was to be worshipped, and that it was synonymous with the fullness, or Spirit of GOD, and that the blessed temple was a vessel. I thought you had claimed that the temple was GOD, but maybe I'm wrong. You say there is One GOD and that GOD is Spirit, but then you also say the man Jesus; in whom the Spirit of GOD did fully dwell, was and is the literal utter fullness of GOD. or am i wrong?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Colossians 2:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

That in no way means that the body was, or is the fullness of GOD, but that GOD dwelled in His temple wholly.

this is painfully apparent by His lack of omniscience while a physical man, though the Spirit that dwelled in Him filled his vessel till it ran over.

 

[God's Truth]

If that isn't what you have been saying then I apologize for saying it was.

Do you not equate the physical man Jesus with the literal utter fullness of GOD, as opposed to the Spirit of GOD/ Christ being the literal utter fullness of GOD. I had mentioned that the substance of the temple of GOD was to be worshipped, and that it was synonymous with the fullness, or Spirit of GOD, and that the blessed temple was a vessel. I thought you had claimed that the temple was GOD, but maybe I'm wrong. You say there is One GOD and that GOD is Spirit, but then you also say the man Jesus; in whom the Spirit of GOD did fully dwell, was and is the literal utter fullness of GOD. or am i wrong?

I believe that Jesus is God the Father come as a Son of Man.

I believe that He did not pretend to be a Man; He really came as a Man.

He had to grow and learn as all men do.

As a Man he had limitations.

His body was and still is the temple of the Spirit of God.

God is Spirit and Jesus' physical body is the temple.

When Jesus ascended into heaven, he had the same glory before coming to earth.

Does that answer your questions?