The Trinity

[God's Truth]

The OT calls Him Father, so yes, absolutely. However, you never find God being called "Son" before Bethlehem. The reason is because He wasn't a Son until he was born to Mary. Jesus was the Father of the OT becoming a man.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

I am glad we agree about the Old Testament being Jesus and called the Father.

I also agree with you that the Father was not called a Son until Jesus was born to Mary; however, I believe Jesus existed in heaven before coming to earth as God the Father with a body.

I believe that God the Father is invisible, and that He made Himself a physical body, the resurrected Spiritual body of the Man Jesus, which makes him First and Last. I believe that Jesus gave up that body and came in the flesh. After Jesus died, rose again, and ascended to heaven, he received the same Spiritual body he had before coming to earth.

 

[Rosenritter]

Thanks. Is there a label or a church that believes similarly as you? A website where I can read and understand you better? -Lon

Not exactly. I once found a Oneness Pentacostal site that seemed to have some very good points (but I forgot the site name) and I somewhere found a "Tract #121" from Pentacostal Publishing House that has a good collection of scripture illustrating "God is a Spirit" "There is but One God" "Jesus is God" "Jesus is Man" (it's really just a collection of 120-ish verse references)... but I have never attended Pentecostal churches, heard a Pentecostal sermon, etc.

So I am not Pentecostal but it is possible that I may have arrived at some similar conclusions through prayer and self-study. But as I'm not derived from that source, I can't vouch for what various people might say from there either, and as such I can't give you the reference you're looking for. I actually arrived where I am now by attempting to prove Trinity doctrine (as I misunderstood it at the time) by setting aside prior assumptions such as "Jesus is God" so I could build up from ground zero and seeing where that led.

Where it did lead was that Jesus not only showed to be God, but there became so much blending and equivalency that I realized that I was mistaken in my earlier assumption that there were different people involved. A = B , B = C, C = A type of logic.

 

[Rosenritter]

Wow. I don't even know what I say about JudgeRightly's beliefs.

Just because I didn't continue to read what he says does not mean I don't know what he says about your beliefs.

You have many problems going on with you.

Stop bearing false witness.

He is not a trinitarian like you are.

 

[God's Truth]

Jesus was the Father of the OT becoming a man.

What you say here needs more explaining.

 

[freelight]

Cruel Theology.................

Cruel Theology.................

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

As I shared on the Trinity earlier here, its but a relational construct, a model of 3 Gods within a compound unity, a concept of a Godhead with 3 persons. It might be more, but I treat it as just that in my former commentary. There are links to the 'Paradise Trinity' too, for a greater more wondrous cosmic conception of the Godhead found in the Urantia Papers. Again, I mainly treat this in the last commentary as a CONCEPT.

A purely monothetist Unitarian Christology is a simple rational view to take, and is the view of orthodox Jews and the most early christians. Trinity creeds, conceptions were formulated centuries later, but any student of history and theology worth their salt knows these things. I agree with the quote above, to a certain degree. I can tolerate a traditional-orthodox concept of the Trinity as one 'god-concept' among many others, its only when some push it as absolute truth, dogmatically, and furthermore condemn Unitarians or demonize them for not accepting that 'concept', and being mean, cruel, demeaning and the like that is just ridiculous and unnecessary. The folly is amplified when some creeds claim that any not accepting the terms of their creed CANNOT BE SAVED. - (enter Athanasius, at least the creed credited to him, questionable to some).

Uh huh.

Again,...and I'll say it with heaven as my witness,....I have yet to see any advantage of believing the traditional-orthodox concept of the Trinity over a historical biblical Unitarian view of Jesus, as the Messiah-Son of God. I find other views, among spiritualists, Gnostics, mystics of various schools, etc. as having just as good a view and respect for Jesus. What counts according to the master is having a 'pure heart'...for these are they who will SEE 'God'....among other essentials required for entering the kingdom. A belief in the Trinity is more or less inconsequential.

If it can be shown that much war, cruelty, human suffering and pain can be associated with a Trinitarian belief, within whatever time period of Christiainity remains to be supported, but it seems that its was during the doctrinal development and formalizing of certain doctrines...that wars, cruelty and intolerance was rampant. I dont know what William Penn is referring to in particular, if an inference could be made.

 

[God's Truth]

Wow. I don't even know what I say about JudgeRightly's beliefs.

JudgeRightly agrees with anyone who says something against me.

He is a trinitarian and you are not.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

As I shared on the Trinity earlier here, its but a relational construct, a model of 3 Gods within a compound unity, a concept of a Godhead with 3 persons. It might be more, but I treat it as just that in my former commentary. There are links to the 'Paradise Trinity' too, for a greater more wondrous cosmic conception of the Godhead found in the Urantia Papers. Again, I mainly treat this in the last commentary as a CONCEPT.

A purely monothetist Unitarian Christology is a simple rational view to take, and is the view of orthodox Jews and the most early christians. Trinity creeds, conceptions were formulated centuries later, but any student of history and theology worth their salt knows these things. I agree with the quote above, to a certain degree. I can tolerate a traditional-orthodox concept of the Trinity as one 'god-concept' among many others, its only when some push it as absolute truth, dogmatically, and furthermore condemn Unitarians or demonize them for not accepting that 'concept', and being mean, cruel, demeaning and the like that is just ridiculous and unnecessary. The folly is amplified when some creeds claim that any not accepting the terms of their creed CANNOT BE SAVED. - (enter Athanasius, at least the creed credited to him, questionable to some).

Uh huh.

Again,...and I'll say it with heaven as my witness,....I have yet to see any advantage of believing the traditional-orthodox concept of the Trinity over a historical biblical Unitarian view of Jesus, as the Messiah-Son of God. I find other views, among spiritualists, Gnostics, mystics of various schools, etc. as having just as good a view and respect for Jesus. What counts according to the master is having a 'pure heart'...for these are they who will SEE 'God'....among other essentials required for entering the kingdom. A belief in the Trinity is more or less inconsequential.

If it can be shown that much war, cruelty, human suffering and pain can be associated with a Trinitarian belief, within whatever time period of Christiainity remains to be supported, but it seems that its was during the doctrinal development and formalizing of certain doctrines...that wars, cruelty and intolerance was rampant. I dont know what William Penn is referring to in particular, if an inference could be made.

In your arguments... you cite Unitarianism as peaceful. Unitarians teach one unseeable Spirit... and all else "is not" God.

You emphasize the "negative" use of methods to defend The TriUnity...

Islam is unitarian. It teaches Jesus as a separate... creation and "Allah" alone is unseeable Spirit.

I counter argue your point and raise you with the horrid violence of "Unitarianism" that far exceeds the defense of the TriUnity...

 

[glorydaz]

Wow. I don't even know what I say about JudgeRightly's beliefs.

God's Untruth knows all your deepest thoughts, and she only hears what she wants to hear, and she knows it all. :toad:


She's our number one fruit loop here at TOL (in case you haven't noticed).

 

[Lon]

The folly is amplified when some creeds claim that any not accepting the terms of their creed CANNOT BE SAVED. - (enter Athanasius, at least the creed credited to him, questionable to some).

You do this evil on purpose: There is no sense that you are anything. You don't even believe in 'saved.' You and Caino mean rather "enlightened." lain:

Again,...and I'll say it with heaven as my witness,....I have yet to see any advantage of believing the traditional-orthodox concept of the Trinity over a historical biblical Unitarian view of Jesus, as the Messiah-Son of God. I find other views, among spiritualists, Gnostics, mystics of various schools, etc. as having just as good a view and respect for Jesus. What counts according to the master is having a 'pure heart'...for these are they who will SEE 'God'....among other essentials required for entering the kingdom. A belief in the Trinity is more or less inconsequential.

Uhm your discernment consists of believing in teacher's report cards for Jesus from the 3rd grade lain:
You lose MASSIVE credibility points for that.

If it can be shown that much war, cruelty, human suffering and pain can be associated with a Trinitarian belief, within whatever time period of Christiainity remains to be supported, but it seems that its was during the doctrinal development and formalizing of certain doctrines...that wars, cruelty and intolerance was rampant. I dont know what William Penn is referring to in particular, if an inference could be made.

Sure. You are a 'human.' "It can be shown, that much war cruelty, suffering and pain can be associated with being a human."
:dizzy: You simply are void of common sense and horse sense of any kind. You literally think like you've blown half your brain-cells with drugs.
Did you do a lot of drugs growing up? Still doing them occasionally?

 

[patrick jane]

Did you do a lot of drugs growing up? Still doing them occasionally?

:rotfl:

 

[Lon]

:rotfl:

I wasn't intending it to be overtly harsh but I have noticed there is often enough a correlation on TOL

 

[God's Truth]

God's Untruth knows all your deepest thoughts, and she only hears what she wants to hear, and she knows it all. :toad:


She's our number one fruit loop here at TOL (in case you haven't noticed).

Too bad you feel that way.

 

[God's Truth]

I wasn't intending it to be overtly harsh but I have noticed there is often enough a correlation on TOL

That isn't from God.

 

[popsthebuilder]

In your arguments... you cite Unitarianism as peaceful. Unitarians teach one unseeable Spirit... and all else "is not" God.

You emphasize the "negative" use of methods to defend The TriUnity...

Islam is unitarian. It teaches Jesus as a separate... creation and "Allah" alone is unseeable Spirit.

I counter argue your point and raise you with the horrid violence of "Unitarianism" that far exceeds the defense of the TriUnity...

You cannot, with any intellectual honesty, say that the actions of a particular sect of Islam are proof of the falsehood of the belief in One Creator GOD.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[freelight]

Observations, inquiries, points of view, considerations.......

Observations, inquiries, points of view, considerations.......

In your arguments... you cite Unitarianism as peaceful. Unitarians teach one unseeable Spirit... and all else "is not" God.

You emphasize the "negative" use of methods to defend The TriUnity...

Islam is unitarian. It teaches Jesus as a separate... creation and "Allah" alone is unseeable Spirit.

I counter argue your point and raise you with the horrid violence of "Unitarianism" that far exceeds the defense of the TriUnity...

I'd read my commentary again - not insinuating anything cruel with Trinitarianism necessarily, notice my commentary on William Penn's remark was observational and inquisitive, not conclusive.

ALSO,....just because Islam is 'Unitarian' they are not historical biblical Unitarians,....there is difference. i'd hope you haven't hopped the bandwagon with other fundies to totally demonize Islam have you? Also, have I totally rejected or denounced a tri-une concept of 'God'? Who cares? Its one concept among others. God is forever ONE, even if many different personalities of 'God' exist and are entertained among the various religions. Welcome to the Circle.

Some concepts may be better than others, but concepts they are. These observations hold. If you want to try to PROVE a Trinity exists somewhere besides in your 'mind' as a 'relational construct' assisting in the WAY you RELATE to 'God', you're more than welcome to expound. Nothing wrong with that, as I respect individual religious freedom, always have, although I may prefer some veiws over others at any point in time, for the Spirit blows wherever it wills.

I've surveyed the broad expanse of Unitarian and Trinitarian Christologies, and much inbetween (and beyond),.....some views are more logical/rational, some you take with a grain of salt These points of view are what they are, let the readers use the intelligence 'God' has given them to make up their own minds.

What some dont know is there a whole realm of reality beyond all this theologizing, totally transcending it all.....in a place of pure spiritual freedom, pure awareness, knowledge, bliss (sat chit ananda). This is found in 'God' himself as pure SPIRIT. This eternal LIFE is here NOW, in the essence of being itself.

 

[Lon]

Where it did lead was that Jesus not only showed to be God, but there became so much blending and equivalency that I realized that I was mistaken in my earlier assumption that there were different people involved. A = B , B = C, C = A type of logic.

Then you'd be close to modal/oneness. When the Son talks to the Father in prayer, how do you see that? What is it, you understand is happening. Again, thanks. -Lon

 

[Rosenritter]

John 1:1 clearly says "was God" and "was with God." How is such possible? How could any of us ever explain that? I cannot be 'with' myself. It seems only God can. I think your and Rosenritter's idea that God is omnipresent is good, but God is not only omnipresent, He is apart from His creation as well. Imho, God explaining Himself, creates a dynamic that physical beings are little equipped to fully comprehend. I 'think' what I can understand, if not by concept but by wording, is that somehow the Word is 'with' God, and at the same time "is" God.

Here's my take on it. If I am trying to build you up towards an idea, I start in small steps.

"Do I know Fred? Yeah. I know Fred. I was there when Fred entered the room. Not just that, I was with Fred when he came in. Is the shock worn off? This gets better. I AM Fred. That was me."

Is it possible that might be the way John was writing? Start small, understating, and build up the statement?

 

[Rosenritter]

And all you would have to do to show otherwise was to provide an Old Testament quotation. Which you didn't do.

I've only located the word "father" about four times when it occurs in the same context as God. One of which is Isaiah 9:6. The others use the term like an adjective, not a name or title... If you've managed to find anything applicable in the past year + feel free to bring it forward.

Sounds like you believe as I do. However, just to clarify...do you believe it was God the Father speaking in the Old Testament?

I debated Rosenritter before and it sounded as if we had the same beliefs until he said God in the Old Testament was not called the Father.

The Old Testament does call God the Father.

Could you clarify your beliefs?

 

[Rosenritter]

Then you'd be close to modal/oneness. When the Son talks to the Father in prayer, how do you see that? What is it, you understand is happening. Again, thanks. -Lon

If you will forgive the casual analogy, similar to the way it works in "I've been cloned" or "I met myself during time travel" or "I use Ninja shadow clone magic while wearing an orange jumpsuit" scenarios work from the pulp fiction / movies / comics / anime.

Assuming you're not familiar with any of those scenarios, imagine you were suddenly "cloned" and your conscious experience was limited to within the normal bounds of each body. That is, Lon A could see Lon B, and although they can't read each other's thoughts exactly, both of you think exactly the same way and for the same reasons. But with God (in heaven) retaining omniscience and omnipotence, and God (on earth) putting full omnipotence aside while walking in our mortal shoes ("for the suffering of death.")

In this sense prayer for Jesus would be just like it is for you or I. God still knows what we think as we think it.

Jesus did say that he didn't need to pray to be heard (the raising of Lazarus) and when he calmed the stormy waters he just plain *did* it, without any sort of lengthy request. But for the purposes of other prayer, I imagine his experience would be similar to ours - God knows his thoughts and heart, but doesn't always give immediate feedback.

The reason I deny the modal classification is two-fold: first, I don't match the definition, because I understand God the Father and the Son of God to both exist while Jesus was on earth (and there being a reason for the distinction during that time), and second, because usually people seek to pigeon-hole for the purpose of accusation instead of healthy discussion, so I try to not help them jump to any conclusions.

Hopefully no one jumps on me for making a comparison between Jesus and Naruto. Not my intention to be irreverent. The early apologists made analogies using the Greek gods while talking to the Greeks, so it's not without precedence.

 

[Lon]

If you will forgive the casual analogy, similar to the way it works in "I've been cloned" or "I met myself during time travel" or "I use Ninja shadow clone magic while wearing an orange jumpsuit" scenarios work from the pulp fiction / movies / comics / anime.

Assuming you're not familiar with any of those scenarios, imagine you were suddenly "cloned" and your conscious experience was limited to within the normal bounds of each body. That is, Lon A could see Lon B, and although they can't read each other's thoughts exactly, both of you think exactly the same way and for the same reasons. But with God (in heaven) retaining omniscience and omnipotence, and God (on earth) putting full omnipotence aside while walking in our mortal shoes ("for the suffering of death.")

The reason I deny the modal classification is two-fold: first, I don't match the definition, because I understand God the Father and the Son of God to both exist while Jesus was on earth (and there being a reason for the distinction during that time), and second, because usually people seek to pigeon-hole for the purpose of accusation instead of healthy discussion, so I don't help them jump to any conclusions.

Hopefully no one jumps on me for making a comparison between Jesus and Naruto. Not my intention to be irreverent. The early apologists made analogies using the Greek gods while talking to the Greeks, so it's not without precedence.

Seems to me, this is more triune with an emphasis on '-une.' PPS talked a lot about this on TOL here
He discussed it at length for about 100 pages but I think a brief read of the linked page can give you a brief gist.

-Lon