News:

New members, please say hello to the forum in the Introductions board!

Main Menu

The Trinity

Started by Jstwebbrowsing, December 09, 2017, 08:50:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jstwebbrowsing

I imagine that I am the only nontrinitarian present on the forum.  If anyone wants to discuss this topic and learn the point of view of a nontrinitarian, I don't mind discussing it.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Teaspoon Shallow

Good for you Jst.  This is a very honest and straight forward approach I appreciate.

I have to admit I have learned a lot more about the bible, translations and the difficulty in proving Jesus is equal to the father than I used to believe.
I used to think John 20:28 was some how very difficult to reconcile with the non-trinitarians.
"28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

The lack of capitals makes this one more ambiguous than I first thought.

What are your thoughts on this passage?
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on December 10, 2017, 03:42:11 AM
Good for you Jst.  This is a very honest and straight forward approach I appreciate.

I have to admit I have learned a lot more about the bible, translations and the difficulty in proving Jesus is equal to the father than I used to believe.
I used to think John 20:28 was some how very difficult to reconcile with the non-trinitarians.
"28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

The lack of capitals makes this one more ambiguous than I first thought.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

Most Jehovah's witnesses give the head-bob answer, with Thomas referring to both the resurrected Christ (as my Lord) and Jehovah (as my God).
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on December 10, 2017, 03:42:11 AM
Good for you Jst.  This is a very honest and straight forward approach I appreciate.

I have to admit I have learned a lot more about the bible, translations and the difficulty in proving Jesus is equal to the father than I used to believe.
I used to think John 20:28 was some how very difficult to reconcile with the non-trinitarians.
"28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

The lack of capitals makes this one more ambiguous than I first thought.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

In my studies I have found three possible interpretations from scholars.

One is that Thomas is referring directly to Christ as his God.

Another is that Thomas was making an exclamation of astonishment but was actually referring to Jesus' God, the Father (John 20:17).

The third is that Thomas was addressing him as "God" like many of his predecessors had addressed angelic representatives of Jehovah as God  (Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22). In like manner, Thomas may have spoken to Jesus as ?my God? in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God.

To me, the correct interpretation must be one that does not contradict the context or the rest of the inspired scriptures.  For example, in verse 20 Christ himself said, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.  I don't believe Thomas was contradicting this or Jesus' own words that he himself heard, "The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28). 

So I don't think the first possibility is correct because it does not agree with the context or Jesus' own words.  The other two possibilities do not cause contradictions.  Which one of those is correct, I do not know.  I personally lean toward the latter because it is something I could see myself doing.   



   

 
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on December 10, 2017, 05:54:27 PM
In my studies I have found three possible interpretations from scholars.

One is that Thomas is referring directly to Christ as his God.
That does appear to be the simplest interpretation.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on December 10, 2017, 05:54:27 PM
Another is that Thomas was making an exclamation of astonishment but was actually referring to Jesus' God, the Father (John 20:17).
And he was not immediately rebuked by Christ?
That seems inconsistent and unreasonable.


Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on December 10, 2017, 05:54:27 PM
The third is that Thomas was addressing him as "God" like many of his predecessors had addressed angelic representatives of Jehovah as God
This I would like to unpack:

Ge 16:7-11, 13;

Spoiler
Genesis 16:7-13King James Version (KJV)
7 And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

13 And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
[close]
Where does she call the angel God in this passage?


Gen 18:1-5
Spoiler
Genesis 18:1-5King James Version (KJV)
18 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
[close]
Where does he call the angel God in this passage?


Gen 18:22-33
Spoiler
Genesis 18:22-33King James Version (KJV)
22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.

23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:

28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.

30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
[close]
Where does he call the angel God in this passage?


Gen 32:24-30
Spoiler
Genesis 32:24-30King James Version (KJV)
24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.

27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.

28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
[close]
Where does he call the angel God in this passage?



Jg 6:11-15
Spoiler
Judges 6:11-1521st Century King James Version (KJ21)
11 And there came an angel of the Lord, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite; and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the wine press to hide it from the Midianites.

12 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him and said unto him, ?The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valor.?

13 And Gideon said unto him, ?Oh my lord, if the Lord be with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, ?Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?? But now the Lord hath forsaken us and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.?

14 And the Lord looked upon him, and said, ?Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. Have not I sent thee??

15 And he said unto Him, ?Oh my Lord, with what shall I save Israel? Behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father?s house.?
[close]
Where does he call the angel God in this passage?




Jg 13:20-22
Spoiler
Judges 13:20-2221st Century King James Version (KJ21)
20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground.

21 But the angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the Lord.

22 And Manoah said unto his wife, ?We shall surely die, because we have seen God.?
[close]
Where does he call the angel God in this passage?


Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on December 10, 2017, 05:54:27 PM
In like manner, Thomas may have spoken to Jesus as ?my God? in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God.

John 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said unto Him, ?My Lord and my God!?

The other passages refer to a Lord or lord but not God.  Is there a difference?

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on December 10, 2017, 05:54:27 PM
To me, the correct interpretation must be one that does not contradict the context or the rest of the inspired scriptures.  For example, in verse 20 Christ himself said, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.  I don't believe Thomas was contradicting this or Jesus' own words that he himself heard, "The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28). 

So I don't think the first possibility is correct because it does not agree with the context or Jesus' own words.  The other two possibilities do not cause contradictions.  Which one of those is correct, I do not know.  I personally lean toward the latter because it is something I could see myself doing.   

I think you raise a valid point here Jst.  It does not make sense to me that the father be greater than the son if they are co-equal in a god-head of the trinity. 

Analogy: 3 CEO's of the same company and have equal shares but one is more experienced and with greater knowledge but all are equal under the banner of CEO?
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on December 10, 2017, 10:01:19 PM
That does appear to be the simplest interpretation.

I agree.  However, Occam's razor is not an infallible principle.  The simplest answer is not always the right answer.  In this case, I think there is reason to believe that the simplest answer is not the right answer.

QuoteAnd he was not immediately rebuked by Christ?
That seems inconsistent and unreasonable.

Why would he be rebuked by Christ if he is exclaiming "My Lord and my God" in reference to Jehovah?

QuoteThen she called on the name of Jehovah, who was speaking to her: ?You are a God of sight,?+ for she said: ?Have I here actually looked upon the one who sees me?" (Gen 16:13)

Here she is calling on the name of Jehovah "who was speaking to her".  The angel was speaking to her.  Then directly addressing the angel she said, "You are a God of Sight......"

QuoteAfterward, Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mam?re while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day. 2

He looked up and saw three men standing some distance from him. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them, and he bowed down to the ground. 3

Then he said: ?Jehovah, if I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. (Gen 18:1-5)

Here he is addressing three men [angels] directly as "Jehovah".  He continues to do so through the rest of the chapter.  This also applies to verses 22-33.

QuoteLater Jehovah?s angel came and sat under the big tree that was in Oph?rah, which belonged to Jo?ash the Abi-ez?rite. His son Gid?e?on was beating out wheat in the winepress in order to hide it from Mid?i?an. 12

Jehovah?s angel appeared to him and said: ?Jehovah is with you, you mighty warrior.? 13

At this Gid?e?on said to him: ?Pardon me, my lord, but if Jehovah is with us, why has all of this come upon us? Where are all his wonderful acts that our fathers related to us, saying, ?Did Jehovah not bring us up out of Egypt?? Now Jehovah has deserted us and given us into Mid?i?an?s hand.? 14

Jehovah faced him and said: ?Go with the strength you have, and you will save Israel out of Mid?i?an?s hand. Is it not I who send you?? 15

Gid?e?on answered him: ?Pardon me, Jehovah. How can I save Israel? Look! My clan is the least in Ma?nas?seh, and I am the most insignificant in my father?s house.? 16

But Jehovah said to him: ?Because I will be with you, you will strike down Mid?i?an as if they were one man.?

Here is referring to Jehovah's angel as Jehovah.

QuoteAs the flame ascended from the altar heavenward, Jehovah?s angel ascended in the flame from the altar while Ma?no?ah and his wife were looking on. At once they fell with their faces to the ground. 21

Jehovah?s angel did not appear again to Ma?no?ah and his wife. Then Ma?no?ah realized that he was Jehovah?s angel.+

22 Ma?no?ah then said to his wife: ?We are sure to die, because it is God whom we have" seen.?

Here he sees Jehovah's angel, but reports "it is God whom we have seen".

QuoteJohn 20:28
28 And Thomas answered and said unto Him, ?My Lord and my God!?

The other passages refer to a Lord or lord but not God.  Is there a difference?

No I do not think so.  I think the reference comes from Thomas' realization that this man really was sent by Jehovah.  It would be exactly the same if a prophet delivers a message and the recipient replies as if talking directly to Jehovah. That's because Jehovah is actually there, only he is talking through someone else, in this instance, his only begotten son.  That's why Christ said "For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak." (John 12:49)

Christ is the mediator between God and man.  He speaks for God.

QuoteAnalogy: 3 CEO's of the same company and have equal shares but one is more experienced and with greater knowledge but all are equal under the banner of CEO?

John 12:49 above and many others like it do not present coequal status and certainly not equal authority.  At every turn Christ is seen in complete submission to Jehovah's will.  In many other ways I do believe they have equal status.  Jehovah and Christ are both immortal, incorruptible, omnipresent, etc.  But this is because it has been bestowed upon Christ because of his faithfulness, not because he is the source of it.

"All authority" was "given" to him except obviously authority over Jehovah, but this was not even done until AFTER his resurrection.  But even in future prophecy, Christ is still seen in submission to Jehovah.  So I don't believe coequal status is reflected in the Bible.

But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Teaspoon Shallow

So Jst, I can't follow what you have addressed in an order.
Can you reformat it to quote the passage you are referring too please?
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

Jstwebbrowsing

#7
Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on December 11, 2017, 02:18:44 AM
So Jst, I can't follow what you have addressed in an order.
Can you reformat it to quote the passage you are referring too please?

"Then she called on the name of Jehovah, who was speaking to her: [the angel] ?You are a God of sight,?+ for she said: ?Have I here actually looked upon the one who sees me?" (Gen 16:13)

"Then he said: ?Jehovah, if I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant." (Gen 18:3)

"So Jacob named the place Pe?ni?el, for he said, ?I have seen God face-to-face, yet my life was preserved." (Gen 32:30)

"Gid?e?on answered him: ?Pardon me, Jehovah. How can I save Israel?" (Jg 6:15)

"Ma?no?ah then said to his wife: ?We are sure to die, because it is God whom we have seen.? (Jg 13:22)


Here are an example of an angel calling itself God:

"I am the true God of Beth?el, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now get up, go out of this land, and return to the land of your birth.?" (Gen 31:13)


Here is an angel talking as if it were Jehovah:

"I brought you up out of Egypt into the land about which I swore to your forefathers." (Jg 2:1)



But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Case

@Jstwebbrowsing,

A trinitarian interpretation would alleviate your difficulty here. These OT passages refer to the pre-incarnate Christ, who is Jehovah. This makes the best sense of the biblical narrative as a whole. I'd be happy to further examine any particular passage with you further, if you desire.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Jstwebbrowsing

I don't see it as a difficulty.  Even humans are referenced as gods.  "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'" (Psalm 82:6)

In reference to that scripture, Christ did not even claim that title for himself.  "Jesus answered them, ?Is it not written in your Law, ?I have said you are ?gods??? 35 If he called them ?gods,? to whom the word of God came........Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ?I am God?s Son??" (Jn 10:35,36)

He didn't say, "he called you gods, so why can't I be called god".  He is saying "you are accusing me of blasphemy for a lesser claim."

If I were to take a Trinitarian view then there are other scriptures that I see as difficulties.  John 17:3 is a very prominent one.  In prayer Christ said, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

To me, that eliminates any possibility of a trinity.  Who is Jesus speaking to that he identifies as the "only true God"?
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Case

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 11, 2018, 08:50:43 PM
I don't see it as a difficulty.  Even humans are referenced as gods. (Psalm 82:6)

The difference here is between referring to something as a god, as in this instance, and referring to Jehovah, as in the previous instance.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 11, 2018, 08:50:43 PM
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'" In reference to that scripture, Christ did not even claim that title for himself.  "Jesus answered them, ?Is it not written in your Law, ?I have said you are ?gods??? 35 If he called them ?gods,? to whom the word of God came........Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ?I am God?s Son??" (Jn 10:35,36)

He didn't say, "he called you gods, so why can't I be called god".  He is saying "you are accusing me of blasphemy for a lesser claim."

Is he making a lesser claim though? In that instance Jesus is comparing his audience to "gods" who judge unjustly and will die like men. These are false gods. Jesus claims to be the Son of God. I don't think we can say he was making a lesser claim.

Psalm 82 is condemning unjust judges, and Jesus is using it to condemn those who are unjustly judging him. "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.? (vs 37-38)

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 11, 2018, 08:50:43 PM
If I were to take a Trinitarian view then there are other scriptures that I see as difficulties.  John 17:3 is a very prominent one.  In prayer Christ said, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

To me, that eliminates any possibility of a trinity.  Who is Jesus speaking to that he identifies as the "only true God"?

I don't have time to respond to this now, I will try to get to it later.

I appreciate talking to you Jst. Have a good morning.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Jstwebbrowsing

I appreciate talking to you too.  It was a good morning but cold.  How have you been?


Quote from: Case on January 12, 2018, 12:17:24 PM
The difference here is between referring to something as a god, as in this instance, and referring to Jehovah, as in the previous instance.

Right, but they are not actually talking to Jehovah.  In most of the examples it specifically says an angel of Jehovah, not Jehovah himself.

QuoteIs he making a lesser claim though? In that instance Jesus is comparing his audience to "gods" who judge unjustly and will die like men. These are false gods. Jesus claims to be the Son of God. I don't think we can say he was making a lesser claim.

Yes, I think so.  He is contrasting them being called "gods" and him calling himself God's son.  If it is okay for them to be called god then it's okay for him to be called God's son.   I think if he were God then he wouldn't be shy nor apologetic about saying it, just like Jehovah is not.  When Jehovah is speaking he has no hesitation in making it unambiguously clear that he is God.  He does not say he is one with God, or that he is God's son, or in Jehovah's case, God's father.  He says he is God.  Those are two different claims, I think.

Also, I have one more comment about John 17:3.  Notice that Jesus refers to himself separately from the only true God and also there is no mention of knowing a third person. 
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Case

Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. This makes sense because the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, and the Spirit is the only true God. Jesus does not deny that the Son the only true God. The Father and the Son are one, so if the Father is the only true God, then so is the Son.

This doesn't mean that the Father is the Son, Jesus is not praying to himself, but the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. In this way, Jesus can claim the name Jehovah for himself, as he does in John 8:58. If Christ were not the only true God, the Jews would have been justified in stoning him for blasphemy.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Case on January 13, 2018, 07:22:00 PM
Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. This makes sense because the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, and the Spirit is the only true God. Jesus does not deny that the Son the only true God. The Father and the Son are one, so if the Father is the only true God, then so is the Son.

And the trinity is the only true God.  For me to insert the trinity there I would have to completely change the meaning of the language.  When you say something is the only one, you necessarily exclude the possibility of others.  If I tell the postman there is only one dog in my yard and he actually finds three then he's going to question my honesty.  If a cop finds a bag of drugs in my car and I tell him that's the only bag of drugs but he finds two more, have I not damaged my credibility?

QuoteThis doesn't mean that the Father is the Son, Jesus is not praying to himself, but the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. In this way, Jesus can claim the name Jehovah for himself, as he does in John 8:58. If Christ were not the only true God, the Jews would have been justified in stoning him for blasphemy.

I think if Christ had claimed to be the only true God the Jews would have stoned him.

QuoteThe Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father

And Christians are in the Son, but that doesn't make them all the only true God, does it?  And Christians can claim the name of Christ and Jehovah for themselves, but that doesn't make them all the only true God, does it?
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Case

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 14, 2018, 04:52:56 AM

And the trinity is the only true God.  For me to insert the trinity there I would have to completely change the meaning of the language.  When you say something is the only one, you necessarily exclude the possibility of others.  If I tell the postman there is only one dog in my yard and he actually finds three then he's going to question my honesty.  If a cop finds a bag of drugs in my car and I tell him that's the only bag of drugs but he finds two more, have I not damaged my credibility?

You don't have to insert the doctrine of the Trinity into John 17. You do need to interpret the passage in light of the whole of Scripture. Jesus is right in saying the Father is the only true God. In other passages, we learn that Jesus is also the only true God. And we know from Scripture that there is only one true God, "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." So there cannot be three true Gods as you imply in your illustration, this is polytheism, and a sin "for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God..." We know from Scripture there is one true God, and we know that the Father and the Son are both true God. If Christ were not true God, it would be blasphemous for him to say he was one with the Father, for "There is none like unto thee, O Jehovah".

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 14, 2018, 04:52:56 AM
I think if Christ had claimed to be the only true God the Jews would have stoned him.

In the passage I mentioned, it says the Jews intended to stone him "but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." And we know that the Jews crucified Jesus on charges of blasphemy. What blasphemy was he being accused of, in your view?

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 14, 2018, 04:52:56 AM
And Christians are in the Son, but that doesn't make them all the only true God, does it?  And Christians can claim the name of Christ and Jehovah for themselves, but that doesn't make them all the only true God, does it?

Christians are united to Christ in his humanity, Christ is united to the Father in deity. This is how he is able to act as our perfect mediator before the Father. Christians know that our humanity will one day be perfected, but we will never be united to God in deity. We are creatures, not the Creator.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 14, 2018, 04:52:56 AM
I think if Christ had claimed to be the only true God the Jews would have stoned him.

"So the Jews said to him, ?You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?? Jesus said to them, ?Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.? So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." - John 8.

"Jesus answered them....I and the Father are one.? The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, ?I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?? The Jews answered him, ?It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.? - John 10.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Case on January 14, 2018, 08:07:17 AM
You don't have to insert the doctrine of the Trinity into John 17. You do need to interpret the passage in light of the whole of Scripture. Jesus is right in saying the Father is the only true God. In other passages, we learn that Jesus is also the only true God. And we know from Scripture that there is only one true God, "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." So there cannot be three true Gods as you imply in your illustration, this is polytheism, and a sin "for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God..." We know from Scripture there is one true God, and we know that the Father and the Son are both true God. If Christ were not true God, it would be blasphemous for him to say he was one with the Father, for "There is none like unto thee, O Jehovah".

I am not implying there are three true Gods.  That's what you are saying.  The Father is the only true God....the Son is the only true God....the Holy Spirit is the only true God.  The language does not allow for that.  The Son can't be the only true God if the Father is the only true God.  Neither of them can be the only true God if the Holy spirit is the only true God.  That is three.  Plus there is also the trinity itself.  Is it also the only true God?  That is four.

QuoteIn the passage I mentioned, it says the Jews intended to stone him "but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." And we know that the Jews crucified Jesus on charges of blasphemy. What blasphemy was he being accused of, in your view?

But when he was correcting them he didn't claim equality with God. 

He was killed for claiming to be King of the Jews, a challenge to Roman rule.

QuoteChristians are united to Christ in his humanity, Christ is united to the Father in deity. This is how he is able to act as our perfect mediator before the Father. Christians know that our humanity will one day be perfected, but we will never be united to God in deity. We are creatures, not the Creator.

The bible does not teach that.  It teaches the unity is in spirit.  Jesus prayed, "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (Jn 17:21)

Jesus doesn't say the unity is different.  He says the unity is the same.

It appears to me you are changing the meaning of language and changing Jesus' own words.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Case

Hi Jst. Sorry for the delay in my response.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 14, 2018, 06:52:13 PM
I am not implying there are three true Gods.  That's what you are saying.  The Father is the only true God....the Son is the only true God....the Holy Spirit is the only true God.  The language does not allow for that.  The Son can't be the only true God if the Father is the only true God.  Neither of them can be the only true God if the Holy spirit is the only true God.  That is three.  Plus there is also the trinity itself.  Is it also the only true God?  That is four.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not state that there are two or three or four gods. It's really just the logical conclusion of what Scripture teaches. We know that:

1. There is only one true God.
2. The Father is true God, the Son is true God, and the Spirit is true God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 14, 2018, 06:52:13 PM
But when he was correcting them he didn't claim equality with God. 

He was killed for claiming to be King of the Jews, a challenge to Roman rule.

He did not correct them in the passage I mentioned, John 8:58.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on January 14, 2018, 06:52:13 PM
The bible does not teach that.  It teaches the unity is in spirit.  Jesus prayed, "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (Jn 17:21)

Jesus doesn't say the unity is different.  He says the unity is the same.

It appears to me you are changing the meaning of language and changing Jesus' own words.


I believe Christians are united to Christ by his Holy Spirit. We are united to the Father only through His Son, because the Son is at once fully man and fully God.

I'm confused, are you saying that created human beings can be united in nature to the one, true God?
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: Case on January 25, 2018, 01:33:58 PM
1. There is only one true God.
2. The Father is true God, the Son is true God, and the Spirit is true God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

The holy spirit is a weird concept.
Jehovah is a spirit.
Jehovah is holy.
Jehovah is god.
Jehovah has a name.

The holy spirit is a spirit.
The holy spirit is holy.
The holy spirit is god.
The holy spirit has no name.

Why does Jehovah need another one of himself?
How can you differentiate Jehovah the holy spirit and the holy spirit?
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on January 28, 2018, 03:15:56 AM
Quote from: Case on January 25, 2018, 01:33:58 PM
1. There is only one true God.
2. The Father is true God, the Son is true God, and the Spirit is true God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

The holy spirit is a weird concept.
Jehovah is a spirit.
Jehovah is holy.
Jehovah is god.
Jehovah has a name.

The holy spirit is a spirit.
The holy spirit is holy.
The holy spirit is god.
The holy spirit has no name.

Why does Jehovah need another one of himself?
How can you differentiate Jehovah the holy spirit and the holy spirit?

Did God 'need' a name before his creatures (us) had a want for one?
Did God's son (Jesus Christ) have a name before he became incarnate?
When Moses asked about the LORD's name, God offered him a verb, why?

And one reason for the Trinity is love, as explained in this video:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/only-the-triune-god-is-love/

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Case

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on January 28, 2018, 03:15:56 AM
Why does Jehovah need another one of himself?
How can you differentiate Jehovah the holy spirit and the holy spirit?

Not really sure what you are asking. Jehovah is triune.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: Case on January 29, 2018, 03:18:52 AM
Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on January 28, 2018, 03:15:56 AM
Why does Jehovah need another one of himself?
How can you differentiate Jehovah the holy spirit and the holy spirit?

Not really sure what you are asking. Jehovah is triune.

The father is a trinity?  Or is the father part of a trinity?

If the father is a holy spirit, why does the father need another part who is its own person and is a holy spirit?  Seems they are the same but the trinity means they are different.  The trinity seems to be an after thought to reconcile unreasonable scriptures.



"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

bad actor

Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 Jesus says " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Did Jesus not know he was one third of god, or god, or whatever?
Maybe the day had a s**tty you.

Case

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on January 29, 2018, 05:10:59 AM
If the father is a holy spirit, why does the father need another part who is its own person and is a holy spirit?  Seems they are the same but the trinity means they are different.  The trinity seems to be an after thought to reconcile unreasonable scriptures.

It's not as simple as the idea of the Trinity being an afterthought to harmonize problematic texts. If you were to study the Bible seriously, you would recognize this. The authors very intentionally use language from OT references to Jehovah and apply it to Christ. The same authors refer to the Spirit as divine, most of whom were strictly monotheistic Jews, so we should assume that they understood the implications of what they wrote.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Case

Quote from: bad actor on January 29, 2018, 06:47:00 AM
Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 Jesus says " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Did Jesus not know he was one third of god, or god, or whatever?

badactor,

I commend you for taking the conversation back to Scripture. Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. That's why the Pharisees wanted to kill him. And your question is excellent, if Jesus was God, who was he praying to? This is why we say that Scripture proclaims a triune God: we know there is only one God, Jesus is God, and we know that Jesus' Father is God.  However, we don't believe Jesus was talking to himself when he prayed. The Father and the Son are distinct, but they are one in divinity.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

eyeshaveit

Quote from: bad actor on January 29, 2018, 06:47:00 AM
Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 Jesus says " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Did Jesus not know he was one third of god, or god, or whatever?

Jesus has a divine (spirit) nature and a human (physical) nature at the same time,
Jesus quoted Psalm 22 while dying on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?",
Jesus? crying out did not separate his human nature from his divine nature or in any way eliminate the Trinity,
The Father and the Son both understood that Jesus was taking away the sin of the world; Christ wasn't questioning the darkness.

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

#26
Quote from: Case on January 25, 2018, 01:33:58 PM
The doctrine of the Trinity does not state that there are two or three or four gods. It's really just the logical conclusion of what Scripture teaches. We know that:

1. There is only one true God.
2. The Father is true God, the Son is true God, and the Spirit is true God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

I don't see that as a logical conclusion.  #1 and #2 are logically impossible.  There is either one true God or more than one.  It can't be both. 

Plus the Bible only ever identifies one person as the only true God. 

QuoteHe did not correct them in the passage I mentioned, John 8:58.

In John 14:9 the same Greek verb eimi? is used to render Jesus? words: "Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me?" 

There are both ancient and modern translations that render it "I have been" or similar.  Here are more examples of the Greek word being used (Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 1:9; 5:6; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8)  It appears to me that translating it "I am" is done in order to fit a preexisting doctrine.  Jesus is not here claiming the name of Jehovah.  He is making a statement about his prehumen existence. The word eimi? is not a name or a title.

Plus contextually Jesus was not trying to portray himself as God but rather his father.  "Jesus answered: ?If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God.  Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word." (v 54,55)

QuoteWe are united to the Father only through His Son, because the Son is at once fully man and fully God.

But it does not logically follow that he must be fully God in order to be an intercessor.  Being fully man and fully God is logically impossible.  Either your are limited or unlimited.

QuoteI'm confused, are you saying that created human beings can be united in nature to the one, true God?

No I am repeating what Christ said.  "That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Christians become united in the same way as Christ, by sharing a single spirit.  Christians do not receive a different spirit than Christ received.  They receive the spirit that makes them sons.  Those in the new covenant are equal sharers with Christ.

But they will certainly never become Almighty God.  They are sharers of God along with Christ.  He is the first fruit.

The Father is the universal sovereign.  That's why Christ himself always obeys him.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

may i ask a question?

why does it matter?

i believe that members of both traditions would agree that the message of the christian god is similar, whether it comes from an arian or a trinitarian point of view.

what is the purpose of focusing on this disagreement?
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Case

Quote from: kevin on February 02, 2018, 06:18:25 PM
may i ask a question?

why does it matter?

It matters whether Jesus Christ is the one and only true God incarnate or not. If Jst is right, then I do not know the true God. If I am right, Jst does not know the true God. This is essential doctrine from both of our points of view.

Quote from: kevin on February 02, 2018, 06:18:25 PM
i believe that members of both traditions would agree that the message of the christian god is similar, whether it comes from an arian or a trinitarian point of view.

what is the purpose of focusing on this disagreement?

To study scripture more deeply and to know who God is.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on February 02, 2018, 06:18:25 PM
may i ask a question?

why does it matter?

i believe that members of both traditions would agree that the message of the christian god is similar, whether it comes from an arian or a trinitarian point of view.

what is the purpose of focusing on this disagreement?

Well my intention is to be informative rather than argumentative.  It is easy to lose sight of that.  But the purpose is to educate curious persons with a nontrinitarian view since I imagine most people are familiar with the trinitarian view.

I do think carrying out the message of Christ is important.  I think that part is the most important.  But all truth matters.  Our relationship and opinion of Jehovah is affected by truth or lack thereof.  Truth brings people closer to him.  In turn, that affects our willingness to carry out his will.

I find that I have a particular dislike of the trinity doctrine because it actually takes honor away from God.  To me, the trinity doctrine paints the human creation as an abysmal failure.  Man is not capable to carrying out his God given purpose.  God had to literally come down and do it himself.  Would you then call man a successful creation? 

If however, Christ is fully man....period.  Then the human creation becomes awe-inspiring.  Not only that but it would have been unjust to condemn Adam if he were anything less than Christ's equal.   It just paints an all around bad picture that is not support in the Bible or with logic.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Case

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on February 02, 2018, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: Case on January 25, 2018, 01:33:58 PM
The doctrine of the Trinity does not state that there are two or three or four gods. It's really just the logical conclusion of what Scripture teaches. We know that:

1. There is only one true God.
2. The Father is true God, the Son is true God, and the Spirit is true God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

I don't see that as a logical conclusion.  #1 and #2 are logically impossible.  There is either one true God or more than one.  It can't be both.

Plus the Bible only ever identifies one person as the only true God.   

It may be hard to comprehend, but I believe it is what Scripture teaches. You and I will obviously disagree on this. Are we at an impasse?

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on February 02, 2018, 06:04:57 PM
In John 14:9 the same Greek verb eimi? is used to render Jesus? words: "Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me?" 

There are both ancient and modern translations that render it "I have been" or similar.  Here are more examples of the Greek word being used (Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 1:9; 5:6; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8)  It appears to me that translating it "I am" is done in order to fit a preexisting doctrine.  Jesus is not here claiming the name of Jehovah.  He is making a statement about his prehumen existence. The word eimi? is not a name or a title.

He said "ego eimi", not simply "eimi". This was the name revealed to Moses at the burning bush. And yes, Jesus does use the term often in John's gospel. This is intentional and Jews knew what it meant.

Why would the Jews want to stone him for claiming to exist before Abraham? It may be an odd claim, but it's not blasphemous.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on February 02, 2018, 06:04:57 PM
Plus contextually Jesus was not trying to portray himself as God but rather his father.  "Jesus answered: ?If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God.  Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word." (v 54,55)

I don't see what you're trying to show here. Maybe you could explain further.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on February 02, 2018, 06:04:57 PM
QuoteWe are united to the Father only through His Son, because the Son is at once fully man and fully God.

But it does not logically follow that he must be fully God in order to be an intercessor.  Being fully man and fully God is logically impossible.  Either your are limited or unlimited.

QuoteI'm confused, are you saying that created human beings can be united in nature to the one, true God?

No I am repeating what Christ said.  "That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Christians become united in the same way as Christ, by sharing a single spirit.  Christians do not receive a different spirit than Christ received.  They receive the spirit that makes them sons.  Those in the new covenant are equal sharers with Christ.

But they will certainly never become Almighty God.  They are sharers of God along with Christ.  He is the first fruit.

The Father is the universal sovereign.  That's why Christ himself always obeys him.

So you're saying the anointed are Christ's equals? I realize you are quoting from Romans 8:17, we are co-heirs with Christ, but you believe he is greater than us, correct?
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Case on February 03, 2018, 02:04:33 AM
It matters whether Jesus Christ is the one and only true God incarnate or not. If Jst is right, then I do not know the true God. If I am right, Jst does not know the true God. This is essential doctrine from both of our points of view.

I would not quite go that far.  I think having some beliefs in error and not knowing God at all are two separate things.

I believe the truth brings us ever closer to him.
   
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on February 03, 2018, 02:36:24 AM
I do think carrying out the message of Christ is important. 

Then the truth,
That Jesus Christ is God,
Would be of the supreme importance, eh?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

Quote from: Case on February 03, 2018, 02:04:33 AM
It matters whether Jesus Christ is the one and only true God incarnate or not. If Jst is right, then I do not know the true God. If I am right, Jst does not know the true God. This is essential doctrine from both of our points of view.

if there is only one god, case, then you do know the true god, whether you understand everything about him correctly or not.

do you understand everything there is to understand about god? if not, perhaps this can be added to the list.

Quote
Quote from: kevin on February 02, 2018, 06:18:25 PM
what is the purpose of focusing on this disagreement?

To study scripture more deeply and to know who God is.

that's a reasonable answer.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

kevin

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on February 03, 2018, 02:36:24 AM

I find that I have a particular dislike of the trinity doctrine because it actually takes honor away from God.  To me, the trinity doctrine paints the human creation as an abysmal failure.  Man is not capable to carrying out his God given purpose.  God had to literally come down and do it himself.  Would you then call man a successful creation? 

If however, Christ is fully man....period.  Then the human creation becomes awe-inspiring.  Not only that but it would have been unjust to condemn Adam if he were anything less than Christ's equal.   It just paints an all around bad picture that is not support in the Bible or with logic.

certainly the nature of adam is regarded differently. does this result in a different array of choices for living people?
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on February 03, 2018, 02:52:43 PM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on February 03, 2018, 02:36:24 AM

I find that I have a particular dislike of the trinity doctrine because it actually takes honor away from God.  To me, the trinity doctrine paints the human creation as an abysmal failure.  Man is not capable to carrying out his God given purpose.  God had to literally come down and do it himself.  Would you then call man a successful creation? 

If however, Christ is fully man....period.  Then the human creation becomes awe-inspiring.  Not only that but it would have been unjust to condemn Adam if he were anything less than Christ's equal.   It just paints an all around bad picture that is not support in the Bible or with logic.

certainly the nature of adam is regarded differently. does this result in a different array of choices for living people?

No I don't think so.  I just think it takes honor from God by devaluing his creation.  This diminishes the power and wisdom of God.  He was unable to create humans that would freely follow his will.  He had to go down and do it himself as some sort of avatar.  This makes Satan's claims in Job true.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

how then do you reconcile tbe creation of adam as a perfect man with the fallen nature of current man?

doesn't the inheritance of a fallen nature equally devalue the creation, because adam's descendants are unable to rise out of it?
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

#37
Quote from: Case on February 03, 2018, 02:47:47 AM
It may be hard to comprehend, but I believe it is what Scripture teaches. You and I will obviously disagree on this. Are we at an impasse?

I think it is hard to understand in the same way a square circle is hard to understand.  I don't believe God is a contradiction.

QuoteHe said "ego eimi", not simply "eimi". This was the name revealed to Moses at the burning bush. And yes, Jesus does use the term often in John's gospel. This is intentional and Jews knew what it meant.

Ego means I.  From what I have read eimi is translated differently depending on sentence structure.  In John 8:58 Jesus starts by talking in the past tense so "have been" I think fits the sentence structure better.

Additionally, in Exodus 3:14 God does not say "I am".  He says 'eh-yeh 'a-ser 'eh-yeh.  This is often translatated as I am who I am (still different from Jesus' statement).  However the word does not actually mean "am" but rather it means "to fall out, come to pass, become, be" (Strong's).   Some other translations render the passage "I will become what I will become".  It is not even a statement about self-existence but a statement about the sureness of his purposes, which was needed encouragement for the Israelites.

QuoteWhy would the Jews want to stone him for claiming to exist before Abraham? It may be an odd claim, but it's not blasphemous.

Because he was claiming to be God's son.  He was claiming to be greater than Moses and all the prophets.

QuoteI don't see what you're trying to show here. Maybe you could explain further.

If you look at the previous verses to John 8:58 you will see that Jesus is claiming to be subordinate to God.  To then turn around and claim to be God is a complete reversal.

QuoteSo you're saying the anointed are Christ's equals? I realize you are quoting from Romans 8:17, we are co-heirs with Christ, but you believe he is greater than us, correct?

I believe they will become like him with their resurrection.  They will become immortal and incorruptible kings with Christ.  Will they be able to command all the powers of God as Christ does?  I'm not sure.  I don't think the Bible says but I have no reason to think not since they will be incorruptible beings in perfect union with Christ.  Christ is greater because he is the one through whom these things come and he will remain the high priest.

I do believe Jehovah and Christ are equal in some ways, but not because of Christ being eternal and is himself God, but because Jehovah has given him these things because of his own faithfulness  Jehovah will also give this to the anointed but only in union with Christ.  That makes Christ always greater.  He will still remain head of the one body, just like God is the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3).

Chirst is also unique in that he is the "only begotten" son of God.  He is Jehovah's only creation.  He was not created in the same way as everything else.  He is also God's only begotten son in that he is the only one resurrected by Jehovah.

I believe Christ shares one nature with God which is what I think trinitarians teach.  But we differ I guess in that I believe the nature they share is Jehovah's nature.  The spirit they share is Jehovah's spirit and that makes Jehovah greater.  Being given these things does in some manner make him God, like a prince ruling in his father's name makes him king, but Christ is not himself "king of eternity".  He has nothing that he did not receive.


But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on February 05, 2018, 05:09:35 AM
how then do you reconcile tbe creation of adam as a perfect man with the fallen nature of current man?

doesn't the inheritance of a fallen nature equally devalue the creation, because adam's descendants are unable to rise out of it?

No I don't think so.  There is a difference between the ability to succeed or fail and only the ability to fail. 

As much as you don't like what happens in Job I would like to you think deeply about the issue raised by Satan's claims.  First, know that the claims are not just about Job.  "Skin for skin!" Satan replied. "A man will give all he has for his own life." (Job 2:4).  That statement is not just about Job.  It goes deeper.  Satan is claiming that no human will maintain integrity to God under pressure.  Satan is actually making claims about the human creation itself.  Since it's purpose is to maintain integrity toward God, if it does not then it's a failure on God's part.  Satan's claims are actually an accusations against God.  He is basically saying "YOU FAILED" as a creator.  It is a challenge to Jehovah's sovereignty.  This challenge dates back to Eden.

Imagine Satan making the same claims about Adam and Eve.  I am quite certain that he did.  I'm sure he didn't sneak down there without God's permission.   And look at what happened.  Two perfect humans failed the test.  The evidence show that Satan's claims may be true.  If they are the only evidence then Satan's claims remain true.  If Christ was man/god then Satan's claims remain true.  Man himself has no integrity.  It Christ was truly a "second Adam" then Satan's claims are proved false.

From Adam to Christ many people, like Job, demonstrated the falseness of Satan's claims.  But Christ's faithful course is the only one that frully demonstrates it.  Christ demonstrated the capacity of a perfect human, proving there is nothing wrong with the creation itself.

Adam alone does not represent all mankind.  Christ does also.  It is not true that Adam represents all of us.  It is not true that all humans would choose as Adam did as the doctrine goes.  God did not fail. 

The trinity doctrine, I think, helps produce other defaming doctrines.  A little yeast works through the whole batch.  And the one being defamed is God.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on February 05, 2018, 09:06:09 PM
No I don't think so.  There is a difference between the ability to succeed or fail and only the ability to fail. 

. . .

Adam alone does not represent all mankind.  Christ does also.  It is not true that Adam represents all of us.  It is not true that all humans would choose as Adam did as the doctrine goes.  God did not fail. 

The trinity doctrine, I think, helps produce other defaming doctrines.  A little yeast works through the whole batch.  And the one being defamed is God.

so if it is possible not to fail, then is it possible for a human today to live a completely sinless life?

what then was tbe purpose of tbe resurrection, and what does it mean today?
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on February 06, 2018, 02:41:27 AM
so if it is possible not to fail, then is it possible for a human today to live a completely sinless life?
Quote

It is possible to not fail as a perfect human.  We have inherited imperection.  Christ is not of the same lineage.  Christ, the man, was created directy by God.  While we inherit imperfection from Adam that does not mean that literally everyone human would have made the same choice.

Quotewhat then was tbe purpose of tbe resurrection, and what does it mean today?

The purpose of the resurrection was to reward Christ for his faithful service.  Not only was he resurrected but he recieved "all power......" 

The purpose of the resurrection today is to allow others to follow Christ and share in his reward rather than maintaining the inheritance of Adam.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Andy S.

There is a lot of disagreement in this thread.  Can we all at least agree on one thing?  That is...well...if the God of the bible exists then the God of the bible is a really crappy communicator!  I mean...really!?!?  The bible I own is 4 pages shy of 2000 pages long and we have Christians arguing who the "One True God" is?  Wow!  Jeez...if I was a Christian I would at least take a serious step back and ask myself why I think the bible is inspired by this "One True God" if Christians can't even agree who this "One True God" even is!   
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Teaspoon Shallow

@Andy S.

Welcome back Andy, good to see you again.   ||tip hat||
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

Former Believer

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on January 29, 2018, 05:10:59 AM
The trinity seems to be an after thought to reconcile unreasonable scriptures.

I think there has been a lot of post-Biblical revisionism by people of various sects to make incongruent passages make sense within the context of those sect's theology.  The Bible grew organically, people who were writing it didn't understand which writings would eventually be accepted as part of sacred scripture that would be in the OT or NT and there was no outside analyst to make sure that all the facts added up. 
Don't sacrifice your mind at the altar of belief

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Former Believer on March 29, 2018, 01:41:33 PM
The Bible grew organically, people who were writing it didn't understand which writings would eventually be accepted as part of sacred scripture that would be in the OT or NT....

Not so,
John, Peter, Paul, etc. knew that they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit, as they were writing the Holy Scriptures: 

"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." - 2 Peter 3.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 29, 2018, 02:23:30 PM
Not so,
John, Peter, Paul, etc. knew that they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit, as they were writing the Holy Scriptures: 


Was it the holy spirit that dictated a different empty tomb natative?    ||iiam||

We have to agree to disagree, off to work I flee.  ||iinam||
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

eyeshaveit

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Former Believer on March 29, 2018, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on January 29, 2018, 05:10:59 AM
The trinity seems to be an after thought to reconcile unreasonable scriptures.

I think there has been a lot of post-Biblical revisionism by people of various sects to make incongruent passages make sense within the context of those sect's theology.  The Bible grew organically, people who were writing it didn't understand which writings would eventually be accepted as part of sacred scripture that would be in the OT or NT and there was no outside analyst to make sure that all the facts added up.

I don't think there are any incongruent messages about a trinity.  Yes, Christ said him and the father are one.  But then he also used an analogy.

"?I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, 21

so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22

I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one" (John 17:20-22).

To me, that solves any mystery.  Taking it further contradicts Christ's own analogy.

But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

But I do believe Christ is equal to God in many ways just like I am equal to my father.  But there is one place where we have never shared equality and that's in the authority department.  I have always been subject to my father, but my father has never been subject to me.

And to me that's what defines Jehovah as God.  It's not his "nature" that makes him God, it's his authority. 
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: eyeshaveit on April 29, 2018, 08:25:36 PM
How to Use the Back of a Napkin to Prove to a Jehovah?s Witness That Jesus Is God

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-to-use-the-back-of-a-napkin-to-prove-to-a-jehovahs-witness-that-jesus-is-god/

QuoteIf you want to prove the Trinity, then, all you need to do is show that three specific truths are taught in Scripture. First, there?s only one God. Second, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are truly distinct persons.

While holy spirit is personified it is never shown to be a distinct person.  God is only shown to have one person with him in heaven.  Holy spirit never speaks or makes any appearance as a person.  Neither God nor Christ ever speak to a third person.  It doesn't even have a name.  The only evidence of it being a person is personification.  The Bible does personify things, like wisdom, that are not actually people.

I also don't agree that having equal natures means they are equal.  It just means they have the same nature.  This nature is reflected in holy spirit.  My father and I have equal natures, but that doesn't mean we are in all ways equal.  We are not.  And Christ is shown to share that same inequality with his father.  He must obey his father.

In my case, that makes by father the patriarch of the family.  In Jehovah's case, that makes him God, or the universal sovereign.  The one that commands is greater than the one that obeys.  The one that sends is greater than the one that is sent.  A father is greater than his son.  Christ even explicitly says that.  "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

You cannot be any more unambiguous than that.  Yet, if I believe it then I'm not a Christian. 

 
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on April 29, 2018, 08:54:20 PM

You cannot be any more unambiguous than that.  Yet, if I believe it then I'm not a Christian. 


that's because nobody was a christian before nicaea, apparently. you've encountered the protestant test for christianity, in which it's what you say that's important, rather than what happens to you.

one old quaker had a different definition for a christian: that you have the spirit of christ, and are led by it.

but this is a functional test, along the lines of, Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

not really popular among protestants.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on April 29, 2018, 08:28:55 PM
But I do believe Christ is equal to God in many ways just like I am equal to my father.  But there is one place where we have never shared equality and that's in the authority department.  I have always been subject to my father, but my father has never been subject to me.

And to me that's what defines Jehovah as God.  It's not his "nature" that makes him God, it's his authority.

There is no pie chart and certainly no human analogy to describe the Trinity, for instance:
A wife is subject to her husband; he has all the authority, but it's only a matter of form or structure.

And you are saying,
"It's not his "nature" that makes him God, it's his authority",
But the Son, Jesus Christ, He who created the Universe and everything in it, has lesser authority?   

"He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities?all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." - Collosians 1.

"Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.[d] From now on you do know him and have seen him. Philip said to him, ?Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.? Jesus said to him, ?Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ?Show us the Father??" - John 14.

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

#53
Quote from: kevin on April 29, 2018, 11:02:55 PM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on April 29, 2018, 08:54:20 PM

You cannot be any more unambiguous than that.  Yet, if I believe it then I'm not a Christian. 


that's because nobody was a christian before nicaea, apparently. you've encountered the protestant test for christianity, in which it's what you say that's important, rather than what happens to you.

one old quaker had a different definition for a christian: that you have the spirit of christ, and are led by it.

but this is a functional test, along the lines of, Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

not really popular among protestants.

By their 'fruits', not 'fruit';
Plural "fruits" (not fruit) should not be a popular concept among 'thinking' Quakers.


Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

^^^ uniintelligible.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: eyeshaveit on April 30, 2018, 06:21:56 AM
Quote from: kevin on April 29, 2018, 11:02:55 PM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on April 29, 2018, 08:54:20 PM

You cannot be any more unambiguous than that.  Yet, if I believe it then I'm not a Christian. 


that's because nobody was a christian before nicaea, apparently. you've encountered the protestant test for christianity, in which it's what you say that's important, rather than what happens to you.

one old quaker had a different definition for a christian: that you have the spirit of christ, and are led by it.

but this is a functional test, along the lines of, Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

not really popular among protestants.

By their 'fruits', not 'fruit';
Plural "fruits" (not fruit) should not be a popular concept among 'thinking' Quakers.

Quote from: kevin on April 30, 2018, 09:06:17 AM
^^^ uniintelligible.

Possibly because it's directed toward a "thinking Quaker"?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: eyeshaveit on April 30, 2018, 06:13:35 AM
There is no pie chart and certainly no human analogy to describe the Trinity, for instance:
A wife is subject to her husband; he has all the authority, but it's only a matter of form or structure.

If the trinity were true that would be a better analogy.  But God does not use that analogy.  They are father and son.  Being in subjection to a husband is not the same as being in subjection to a father.

QuoteAnd you are saying,
"It's not his "nature" that makes him God, it's his authority",

Right.  His nature makes him holy, his authority makes him God.  Him and Christ equally have that holy nature.  He is the perfect "image" of God.  My disbelief in the trinity isn't because of a disagreement with that.  It's the disagreement that they have equal authority.  The Father is always shown to be the one in authority.

QuoteBut the Son, Jesus Christ, He who created the Universe and everything in it, has lesser authority?   

"He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities?all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." - Collosians 1.

"Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.[d] From now on you do know him and have seen him. Philip said to him, ?Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.? Jesus said to him, ?Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ?Show us the Father??" - John 14.

Yes, I believe all of these things.  Christ is the perfect image of God.  And Christ does have all authority the same as God.  There is only one difference. 

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."  The giver of authority is greater than the receiver.  Christ has all the authority of his father.  He doesn't have his own authority. 

That is why I only consider the Father as Almighty God.  It's because he is the supreme authority.
 
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on April 30, 2018, 08:00:48 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on April 30, 2018, 06:13:35 AM
There is no pie chart and certainly no human analogy to describe the Trinity, for instance:
A wife is subject to her husband; he has all the authority, but it's only a matter of form or structure.

If the trinity were true that would be a better analogy.  But God does not use that analogy.  They are father and son.  Being in subjection to a husband is not the same as being in subjection to a father.

There is no satisfactory analogy for the Trinity; you either believe that Christ is God or you don't. That's Christianity 101.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Case

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on April 30, 2018, 08:00:48 PM
His nature makes him holy, his authority makes him God.  Him and Christ equally have that holy nature.  He is the perfect "image" of God. 

Saying that Christ and the Father share a "nature" borders on Trinitarianism... three distinct persons in one divine nature.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on April 30, 2018, 08:00:48 PM
My disbelief in the trinity isn't because of a disagreement with that.  It's the disagreement that they have equal authority.  The Father is always shown to be the one in authority.

Philippians 2:6-11 tells us that before his incarnation, Christ was equal with God the Father, but he voluntarily submits to him. "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant." The passage continues on to apply language about Jehovah from Isaiah 45 to Christ. So this passage is saying that Christ and his Father are Jehovah, with Christ emptying himself of all authority and with the Father exalting him and reinstating it.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on April 30, 2018, 08:00:48 PM
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."  The giver of authority is greater than the receiver.  Christ has all the authority of his father.  He doesn't have his own authority. 

By his nature his authority is equal to the Father's, but he gives it up in submission. By making himself nothing he gains everything.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Case

Quote from: kevin on April 29, 2018, 11:02:55 PM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on April 29, 2018, 08:54:20 PM

You cannot be any more unambiguous than that.  Yet, if I believe it then I'm not a Christian. 


that's because nobody was a christian before nicaea, apparently. you've encountered the protestant test for christianity, in which it's what you say that's important, rather than what happens to you.

one old quaker had a different definition for a christian: that you have the spirit of christ, and are led by it.

but this is a functional test, along the lines of, Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

not really popular among protestants.

kevin, I don't think this is a fair characterization.  ||razz||
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

kevin

thatz because youre CRC, pilgrim.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Case

Quote from: kevin on May 01, 2018, 10:32:44 AM
thatz because youre CRC, pilgrim.

I'm growing into it. Is your point about the CRC's commitment to social justice? If so, we are definitely not alone in that regard. Several Protestant denominations are committed to sound biblical doctrine and working for social justice.

The big news in my life lately, kevin, is that I've been nominated for deacon. I believe that relates to the point you are trying to make.  ||smiley||
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

eyeshaveit

?Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus..? - 1 Timothy 3.

Congratulations, Case.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Hi Case, it's good to see you still around here.

QuoteSaying that Christ and the Father share a "nature" borders on Trinitarianism... three distinct persons in one divine nature.

Yes, upon thinking about these things, it occurred to me that my beliefs have similarities.  The biggest difference is my belief about holy spirit.  I believe that holy spirit, rather than being a person, is a reflection of their nature.

Quote from: Case on May 01, 2018, 12:23:57 AM
Philippians 2:6-11 tells us that before his incarnation, Christ was equal with God the Father, but he voluntarily submits to him. "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant." The passage continues on to apply language about Jehovah from Isaiah 45 to Christ. So this passage is saying that Christ and his Father are Jehovah, with Christ emptying himself of all authority and with the Father exalting him and reinstating it.

We must not take existing in "God's form" to mean the same thing.  God is a spirit.  I believe it's saying that they are both the same kind of being, spirits.  I don't know of a reason to believe that all of God's heavenly creatures don't also exist in God's form -- spirit, or heavenly form.   I guess what I am saying is that there is a earthly form and a heavenly form.  God and Christ both have that heavenly, spiritual form.  However, that's seperate from their nature.  Obviously not all heavenly creature share God's nature.

I believe Christ can be contrasted with Satan.  Satan exists in God's [spirit] form but did consider equality with God something to be grasped.

I'm not seeing anything in Php 2 that refers to Isaiah 45.  I'm still waking up and drinking coffee so maybe it's just me.



But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

Quote from: Case on May 01, 2018, 11:05:18 AM
Quote from: kevin on May 01, 2018, 10:32:44 AM
thatz because youre CRC, pilgrim.

I'm growing into it. Is your point about the CRC's commitment to social justice? If so, we are definitely not alone in that regard. Several Protestant denominations are committed to sound biblical doctrine and working for social justice.

The big news in my life lately, kevin, is that I've been nominated for deacon. I believe that relates to the point you are trying to make.  ||smiley||

not quite, but congratulations. first a pilgrim, now a presbyter. what's next?

no, i wasnt talking about obedience to a scriptural directive to works. i was using the trinity as an example of something that was inserted into doctrine completely without an experiential basis. people ate with christ, and spoke to jehovah. the holy ghost is all personification of an inanimate force, like wisdom in the book of sirach. thefe's no evidence in scripture or experience of anybody i know of to support the doctrine tbat tbe holy ghost is anything otber than a force of energy from god.

when samson was filled with the holy spirit, ii dont think it meant he was possessed. why do you consider otherwise? its been awhile, and i cant recall your opinion.

pix of the family or die
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Case

Quote from: kevin on May 01, 2018, 05:28:17 PM
not quite, but congratulations. first a pilgrim, now a presbyter. what's next?

Not exactly the same thing, but you're close.

Quote from: kevin on May 01, 2018, 05:28:17 PM
the holy ghost is all personification of an inanimate force, like wisdom in the book of sirach. thefe's no evidence in scripture or experience of anybody i know of to support the doctrine tbat tbe holy ghost is anything otber than a force of energy from god.

From John's writings: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17[that is] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, [but] you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." - John 14: 16-17

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." - John 14:26

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is] the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me" - John 15:26

There are many other passages where the Holy Spirit speaks, is lied to, is blasphemed, pleads for us, intercedes for us, and otherwise acts as if he were a person. I suppose you can write it off as personification, but you can't say there is no biblical evidence for the belief. And if you value someone's personal experience more, I can personally witness that the Spirit led me out of Liberal Quakerism to Confessional Christianity.

I understand that some people want to claim that biblical language about the Spirit is merely personification of an impersonal force, but I find that unconvincing. I feel those people are reading their own theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

Quote from: kevin on May 01, 2018, 05:28:17 PM
pix of the family or die



This one is from a few months ago.
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

kevin

yellowheads

i had two of those
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Case on May 02, 2018, 02:48:14 AM
I understand that some people want to claim that biblical language about the Spirit is merely personification of an impersonal force, but I find that unconvincing. I feel those people are reading their own theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

I feel the same way toward Trinitarians sometimes, but I think that may be a mistake.  I mean, I don't imagine either of us have a real preference.  If God is a trinity then I want to know that.  If he is not then I want to know that too and I think you do too.  Do you think these sources are reading in their own theology?

QuoteThe International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that ???trinity? is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement? (1988, Vol. 4, ?Trinity,? p. 914). It further states that ?church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries??long after the apostles had passed from the scene.

The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary tells us, ?The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]? (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, ?Trinity?).

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism states: ?Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT [ Old Testament ] or the NT [ New Testament ] .   .   . It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there . . . Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity? (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, ?God,? pp. 564-565).

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, in its article on the Trinity, explains: ?Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons? (1985 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. 11, p. 928).

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology points out that ?primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church? (Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, ?God,? p. 84).

Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells, in his noted work The Outline of History, points out, ?There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity?at any rate from him? (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499).

Martin Luther, the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, ?It is indeed true that the name ?Trinity? is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man? (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406).

The Oxford Companion to the Bible states: ?Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [i.e., actual Scripture]? (Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, ?Trinity,? p. 782).

Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: ?Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity .   .   . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that ?clearly? states that there is one God who exists in three persons? (1999, p. 89).

Ryrie goes on to state: ?The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity? (p. 90).

Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity ?is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.
?In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble? ( God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12).

Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching ?is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God? (p. 20).

Professor Erickson later points out: ?It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity?s uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.

?Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion? (pp. 108-109). Later in this booklet we will consider various scriptures often used to support the Trinity doctrine.

Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: ?The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ?trinity? itself nor such language as ?one-in-three,? ?three-in-one,? one ?essence? (or ?substance?), and three ?persons,? is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy? ( Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77).?

I don't think the believe that it's personificatin is without justification.  Proverbs 1 says, "Out in the open wisdom calls aloud, she raises her voice in the public square; 21on top of the walld she cries out, at the city gate she makes her speech"

The following verses go on to quote exactly what Wisdom says.    Then all of Proverbs 8 is quoting wisdom as if it's a person.  That is more personifcation than the holy spirit is ever given.  Holy spirit is never quoted.

Also, sometimes the holy spirit is spoken of without personification, and it's likened to inanimate objects.

"I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me+ is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off.+ That one will baptize you with holy spirit+ and with fire." (Mt 3:11)

"Also, do not get drunk with wine,+ in which there is debauchery,* but keep getting filled with spirit." (Eph 5:18)

"So, brothers, select for yourselves seven reputable men* from among you, full of spirit and wisdom,+ that we may appoint them over this necessary matter" (Acts 6:3)

"What they said was pleasing to the whole multitude, and they selected Stephen, a man full of faith and holy spirit, as well as Philip,+ Proch?o?rus, Ni?ca?nor, Ti?mon, Par?me?nas, and Nic?o?la?us, a proselyte of Antioch" (Acts 6:5)

"And the disciples continued to be filled with joy+ and holy spirit." (Acts 13:52)

"but in every way we recommend ourselves as God?s ministers, by the endurance of much, by tribulations, by times of need, by difficulties, 5 by beatings, by imprisonments, by riots, by hard work, by sleepless nights, by times without food; 6 by purity, by knowledge, by patience, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech, by God?s power; through the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left, 8 through glory and dishonor, through bad report and good report. We are regarded as deceivers and yet we are truthful," (2 Cor 6:4-8)

In all of these it's mentioned right along with other inanimate objectes and lacks any personification.

And what I really don't understand is that if the trinity was definitely taught by Christ and the apostles then why did it have to undergo development and refinement after their deaths?  It's original form was Father, Son, and Wisdom. 
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Case

#68
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 02, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
Do you think these sources are reading in their own theology?

Spoiler

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that ???trinity? is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement? (1988, Vol. 4, ?Trinity,? p. 914). It further states that ?church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries??long after the apostles had passed from the scene.

The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary tells us, ?The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]? (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, ?Trinity?).

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism states: ?Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT [ Old Testament ] or the NT [ New Testament ] .   .   . It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there . . . Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity? (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, ?God,? pp. 564-565).

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, in its article on the Trinity, explains: ?Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons? (1985 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. 11, p. 928).

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology points out that ?primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church? (Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, ?God,? p. 84).

Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells, in his noted work The Outline of History, points out, ?There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity?at any rate from him? (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499).

Martin Luther, the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, ?It is indeed true that the name ?Trinity? is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man? (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406).

The Oxford Companion to the Bible states: ?Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [i.e., actual Scripture]? (Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, ?Trinity,? p. 782).

Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: ?Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity .   .   . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that ?clearly? states that there is one God who exists in three persons? (1999, p. 89).

Ryrie goes on to state: ?The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity? (p. 90).

Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity ?is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.
?In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble? ( God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12).

Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching ?is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God? (p. 20).

Professor Erickson later points out: ?It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity?s uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.

?Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion? (pp. 108-109). Later in this booklet we will consider various scriptures often used to support the Trinity doctrine.

Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: ?The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ?trinity? itself nor such language as ?one-in-three,? ?three-in-one,? one ?essence? (or ?substance?), and three ?persons,? is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy? ( Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77).?
[close]

Jst, what most of these sources are saying is that the doctrine was not formalized and articulated in creedal form until centuries after the NT was written. We all agree that the Bible does not use the term "Trinity" but I believe that it is a biblical concept, if that makes sense. The doctrine condenses and clarifies what is taught more widely in Scripture.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 02, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
I don't think the believe that it's personificatin is without justification.  Proverbs 1 says, "Out in the open wisdom calls aloud, she raises her voice in the public square; 21on top of the walld she cries out, at the city gate she makes her speech"

The following verses go on to quote exactly what Wisdom says.    Then all of Proverbs 8 is quoting wisdom as if it's a person.  That is more personifcation than the holy spirit is ever given.  Holy spirit is never quoted.

After a cursory search I found examples of the Spirit being quoted directly in Acts 13:2 and 21:11. Many verses describe the Spirit speaking through people (i.e. David, Peter, Jesus, Paul). Quotations from Scripture are also attributed to the Spirit. For example, Hebrews 10: 15-17 has two quotations from Jeremiah in which Jehovah is speaking. These are both attributed to the Spirit speaking (as Jehovah) by the author of Hebrews.

Concerning wisdom is Proverbs, I think it's pretty clear that the author is speaking metaphorically. It makes less sense for the Spirit to be mere personification because the Spirit is talked about as actually interacting with people in history, not merely in an abstract sense like in Proverbs. For example, how can you make sense of Jesus's language in John's gospel (chapters 14 and 15) when he said he would send the Holy Spirit, another Advocate (so an advocate, like Jesus) who will teach them, guide them, testify about Christ, and be with them forever? Christ repeatedly refers to him as a he and talks about him acting in the church. This makes no sense if the Spirit is just an impersonal force.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 02, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
Also, sometimes the holy spirit is spoken of without personification, and it's likened to inanimate objects.
Spoiler

"I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me+ is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off.+ That one will baptize you with holy spirit+ and with fire." (Mt 3:11)

"Also, do not get drunk with wine,+ in which there is debauchery,* but keep getting filled with spirit." (Eph 5:18)

"So, brothers, select for yourselves seven reputable men* from among you, full of spirit and wisdom,+ that we may appoint them over this necessary matter" (Acts 6:3)

"What they said was pleasing to the whole multitude, and they selected Stephen, a man full of faith and holy spirit, as well as Philip,+ Proch?o?rus, Ni?ca?nor, Ti?mon, Par?me?nas, and Nic?o?la?us, a proselyte of Antioch" (Acts 6:5)

"And the disciples continued to be filled with joy+ and holy spirit." (Acts 13:52)

"but in every way we recommend ourselves as God?s ministers, by the endurance of much, by tribulations, by times of need, by difficulties, 5 by beatings, by imprisonments, by riots, by hard work, by sleepless nights, by times without food; 6 by purity, by knowledge, by patience, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech, by God?s power; through the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left, 8 through glory and dishonor, through bad report and good report. We are regarded as deceivers and yet we are truthful," (2 Cor 6:4-8)
[close]

In all of these it's mentioned right along with other inanimate objectes and lacks any personification.

I'm not sure I could agree that the Spirit is considered an inanimate object in these passages. It seems to me the Spirit is always talked about as being alive. Although I see your point that these passages don't necessarily talk about the Spirit as if he is a person, I think there is sufficient textual evidence elsewhere to conclude that he is.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 02, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
And what I really don't understand is that if the trinity was definitely taught by Christ and the apostles then why did it have to undergo development and refinement after their deaths?  It's original form was Father, Son, and Wisdom.

I think the confusion here is about what is meant when you ask whether they taught the Trinity or not. I would say they did not teach it as articulated by the creeds centuries later. But I think they taught and understood all the same content, if that makes any sense. I would say, the Jewish NT authors had their way of getting their point across, but later the Gentile church had different ways of expressing the same truth. For example, I brought up Philippians 2 the other day. In verses 10 and 11 Paul says every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Isaiah 43:23 it is Jehovah who says every knee will bow to him and every tongue will confess. This is Paul's Jewish way of declaring Christ to be Jehovah, by applying OT language about Jehovah to Christ. The Greeks were more analytical thinkers and articulated it in the form of the Nicene Creed. So, in short, I would say that the Greeks were great systemizers, they took the truth of Scripture and articulated it in a clean, logical system. We believe the creeds are true because they teach the Scripture. If they anywhere contradict it, they are false.

The creeds were also produced to address debates in the Church. For example, the Nicene Creed addresses the debate between the Trinitarian minority and the Arian majority at the time. The Arians believed, as do you, that Christ was a created being while the Trinitarians taught he was the only true God. The creed is meant to be an articulation of what Scripture teaches for use in the historical context in which it was written. If you are interested in reading more about how the Trinitarians argued their point of view from Scripture, I would suggest reading Athanasius On the Incarnation.

Sorry if I got too long-winded or dense with this post, or if I jumped around too much.  ||smiley||
"You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." Augustine, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: Case on May 03, 2018, 06:36:06 AM
I would say they did not teach it as articulated by the creeds centuries later.

That's what I'm saying.  That's why I don't believe it as articulated by the creeds centuries later.  It underwent change and development.  You can trace the steps. 

1.  Another early, and already more philosophic, formulation of the Trinity (again without usage of that term) is attributed to the Gnostic teacher Valentinus (lived c.100 ? c.160), who according to the fourth century theologian Marcellus of Ancyra, was ?the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures.?

2.  The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)

3.  The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended his theology against "Praxeas",[35] though he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine.

4.  The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit.[50] The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[51] He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[50] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.

5.  Belief in the trinity doctrine is necessary for salvation.

What did people do until the trinity was figured out?  It wasn't just formalized, it was developed and then formalized and then become the most important doctrine ever.

QuoteThis makes no sense if the Spirit is just an impersonal force.

I believe it is itself an impersonal force but it's not blind because the source is not impersonal so it does stand apart from things like wisdom, and it's active.

I just really don't understand why a person would think that Jehovah's spirit is a person that is seperate from him rather than being a part of him.  To me, for all intents and puposes, it is God, rather than a person seperate from him..  It would be just like a reference to your spirit is a reference to you and not a reference to a person seperate from you.

It teaches, comforts, and all these things by interacting with our own spirit.  It gives us a receptive spirit.  It empowers.  Gives courage.  Imparts wisdom.  It comforts.  It disciplines. It provides hope.  It imparts all the things listed as "fruits of the spirit".  So I don't actually quite view it as an inanimate object.  Rather I see it as an active, spiritual force that guides us to God and strengthens us to overcome obstacles.  When Christ was sweating blood it was this spiritual force that allowed him to press on.  It was the force of his character.  His "heart".  Saying someone has a lot of heart is saying they have a lot of spirit.

Quoteso an advocate, like Jesus

That's what Islam teaches.  Muhammad was that advocate to Muslims.  So I don't think it's like Jesus.  Christ also said he would be with Christians.  I believe he is present through holy spirit.  He has given us his spirit, holy spirit. 

QuoteFor example, I brought up Philippians 2 the other day. In verses 10 and 11 Paul says every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In Isaiah 43:23 it is Jehovah who says every knee will bow to him and every tongue will confess.

Yes, but that does not make him Jehovah himself.  All authority has been given to Christ.  Every knee will bow to both of them through their obedience to Christ.  Christ is ruling in God's stead.  Obeying Christ is obeying Jehovah.  Christ himself obeys Jehovah.  It is no different than an earthly king giving his kingdom to his son who rules in his father's name.  If they bow to the son then they are also bowing to the father because the son is a representative of his father.

QuoteThis is Paul's Jewish way of declaring Christ to be Jehovah, by applying OT language about Jehovah to Christ.

This to me really appears to be confirmation bias.  Do you not think people will be bowing to both the Father and the Son?

And I've never heard of a theology that says Christ is Jehovah until this forum.  I've only ever heard it used in reference to the Father.  To me that is like saying Christ is the Father rather than being a distinct person.  Where did you learn this doctrine?

QuoteSorry if I got too long-winded or dense with this post, or if I jumped around too much.

Me too.  I'm not always the most organized thinker.   

But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2018, 03:52:28 PM
I've never heard of a theology that says Christ is Jehovah until this forum.

You never heard of Christianity?

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2018, 03:52:28 PM
I've never heard of a theology that says Christ is Jehovah until this forum.  I've only ever heard it used in reference to the Father.  To me that is like saying Christ is the Father rather than being a distinct person.  Where did you learn this doctrine?

It's yours to agree or disagree with the Trinity, but at least understand the doctrine:  The Father (Jehovah), Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are one (unified) in essence, but they are three separate personalities. Jesus Christ has been worshiped as God since his incarnation 2,000 years ago.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 03, 2018, 06:57:49 PM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2018, 03:52:28 PM
I've never heard of a theology that says Christ is Jehovah until this forum.

You never heard of Christianity?

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 03, 2018, 03:52:28 PM
I've never heard of a theology that says Christ is Jehovah until this forum.  I've only ever heard it used in reference to the Father.  To me that is like saying Christ is the Father rather than being a distinct person.  Where did you learn this doctrine?

It's yours to agree or disagree with the Trinity, but at least understand the doctrine:  The Father (Jehovah), Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are one (unified) in essence, but they are three separate personalities. Jesus Christ has been worshiped as God since his incarnation 2,000 years ago.

The trinity doctrine has nothing to do with saying Jehovah is Jesus' name.  Does the mean the father's name is Jesus?
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 04, 2018, 06:32:43 PM
The trinity doctrine has nothing to do with saying Jehovah is Jesus' name.

Exactly what is your understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity? 

"And Jesus came and said to them, ?All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.? - Matthewc 28.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 04, 2018, 06:32:43 PM
The trinity doctrine has nothing to do with saying Jehovah is Jesus' name.  Does the mean the father's name is Jesus?

Is this a strawman extraordinaire?
Who in your world says that Jehovah's name is Jesus?
Where in the world is the idea advanced that Jehovah's name is Jesus?

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." - 2 Corinthians 13.

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace." - 1 Corinthians 14.

Exactly what is your understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity?





Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

#73
There is no earthly analogy to explain the Christian God as three distinct persons,
And certainly no analogy for the Trinity that plays upon the names of the Father and the Son;
To postulate otherwise is the stuff of theatrics and word tricks; ones are not worthy of serious consideration.



 
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

the trinity itself is not worthy of serious consideration, eyes.

what would any christian, anywhere in history, do differently, in anything, if the trinity were false rather than true?

it's a gigantic nothing.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

If you want to interpret and postulate you can suppose that the whole of the Bible is a "gigantic nothing" and you will never be fulfilled:

"But seek first the kingdom of God" - Matthew 6.

What is 'the kingdom of God', is it "a gigantic nothing"?

"Jesus said....If you love me, you will keep my commandments" - John 14.

What are these 'commandments' of Christ, are they "a gigantic nothing"?

"And Peter said to them, ?Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2.

What is the 'gift of the Holy Spirit", is it "a gigantic nothing"?

"And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, ?This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3.

That's the Trinity at work in a loving endeavor: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; it is not "a gigantic nothing".



Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on May 04, 2018, 09:14:11 PM
the trinity itself is not worthy of serious consideration, eyes.

what would any christian, anywhere in history, do differently, in anything, if the trinity were false rather than true?

it's a gigantic nothing.

I tend to agree.  If you silence all the noise, who is still a Christian?

Is a Christian to be identified by understanding everything about God's being or by their faithfulness to Christ? 
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 04, 2018, 10:06:54 PM
What is 'the kingdom of God', is it "a gigantic nothing"?

That's a good question.  What's your answer?
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 04, 2018, 10:06:54 PM
If you want to interpret and postulate you can suppose that the whole of the Bible is a "gigantic nothing" and you will never be fulfilled:

"But seek first the kingdom of God" - Matthew 6.

What is 'the kingdom of God', is it "a gigantic nothing"?

"Jesus said....If you love me, you will keep my commandments" - John 14.

What are these 'commandments' of Christ, are they "a gigantic nothing"?

"And Peter said to them, ?Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2.

What is the 'gift of the Holy Spirit", is it "a gigantic nothing"?

"And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, ?This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3.

That's the Trinity at work in a loving endeavor: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; it is not "a gigantic nothing".

tberes no indication thete that god has three persons, eyes.

still a nothing.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on May 04, 2018, 11:06:12 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 04, 2018, 10:06:54 PM
If you want to interpret and postulate you can suppose that the whole of the Bible is a "gigantic nothing" and you will never be fulfilled:

"But seek first the kingdom of God" - Matthew 6.

What is 'the kingdom of God', is it "a gigantic nothing"?

"Jesus said....If you love me, you will keep my commandments" - John 14.

What are these 'commandments' of Christ, are they "a gigantic nothing"?

"And Peter said to them, ?Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2.

What is the 'gift of the Holy Spirit", is it "a gigantic nothing"?

"And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, ?This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3.

That's the Trinity at work in a loving endeavor: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; it is not "a gigantic nothing".

tberes no indication thete that god has three persons, eyes.

still a nothing.

We have to agree to disagree:

"The Christian God Is One in Essence, Yet Distinguished in Three Persons

"According to this truth and this Word of God, we believe in one only God, who is the one single essence, in which are three persons, really, truly, and eternally distinct according to their incommunica ble properties; namely, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is the cause, origin, and beginning of all things visible and invisible; the Son is the word, wisdom, and image of the Father; the Holy Spirit is the eternal power and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son. Nevertheless, God is not by this distinction divided into three, since the Holy Scriptures teach us that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have each His personality, distinguished by Their properties; but in such wise that these three persons are but one only God.

"Hence, then, it is evident that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. Nevertheless, these persons thus distinguished are not divided, nor intermixed; for the Father has not assumed the flesh, nor has the Holy Spirit, but the Son only. The Father has never been without His Son, or without His Holy Spirit. For They are all three co- eternal and co-essential. There is neither first nor last; for They are all three one, in truth, in power, in goodness, and in mercy."

The Belgic Confession.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 04, 2018, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 04, 2018, 10:06:54 PM
What is 'the kingdom of God', is it "a gigantic nothing"?

That's a good question.  What's your answer?

Start a new thread and find out, meanwhile,
"Exactly what is your understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity?"
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 05, 2018, 06:57:21 AM
Quote from: kevin on May 04, 2018, 11:06:12 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 04, 2018, 10:06:54 PM
If you want to interpret and postulate you can suppose that the whole of the Bible is a "gigantic nothing" and you will never be fulfilled:

"But seek first the kingdom of God" - Matthew 6.

What is 'the kingdom of God', is it "a gigantic nothing"?

"Jesus said....If you love me, you will keep my commandments" - John 14.

What are these 'commandments' of Christ, are they "a gigantic nothing"?

"And Peter said to them, ?Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2.

What is the 'gift of the Holy Spirit", is it "a gigantic nothing"?

"And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, ?This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3.

That's the Trinity at work in a loving endeavor: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; it is not "a gigantic nothing".

tberes no indication thete that god has three persons, eyes.

still a nothing.

We have to agree to disagree:

"The Christian God Is One in Essence, Yet Distinguished in Three Persons

"According to this truth and this Word of God, we believe in one only God, who is the one single essence, in which are three persons, really, truly, and eternally distinct according to their incommunica ble properties; namely, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is the cause, origin, and beginning of all things visible and invisible; the Son is the word, wisdom, and image of the Father; the Holy Spirit is the eternal power and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son. Nevertheless, God is not by this distinction divided into three, since the Holy Scriptures teach us that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have each His personality, distinguished by Their properties; but in such wise that these three persons are but one only God.

"Hence, then, it is evident that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. Nevertheless, these persons thus distinguished are not divided, nor intermixed; for the Father has not assumed the flesh, nor has the Holy Spirit, but the Son only. The Father has never been without His Son, or without His Holy Spirit. For They are all three co- eternal and co-essential. There is neither first nor last; for They are all three one, in truth, in power, in goodness, and in mercy."

The Belgic Confession.

nothing there, eyes.

polytheism in the guise of unity
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

The Westminster Confession of Faith - Of God, and of the Holy Trinity

I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternall begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

The Westminster Confession of Faith.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

the hindu confession of faith--food

Life is sustained by different kinds of food; rainfall produces food; timely movement of clouds brings rains; to get the clouds moving on time yajna, religious sacrifice, helps; yajna is performed through rituals; those actions that produce rituals belong only to God; God is revealed by the Vedas; the Vedas are preserved by the human mind; and the human mind is nourished by food. This is the cycle that helps the existence of all forms of life on this globe.

One who does not contribute to the maintenance of this cycle is considered as a destroyer of all life here. When the Lord desired to create life, He created the Sun, Moon, and Earth, and through them a congenial atmosphere for life to come into being. Therefore the Sun, Moon, Earth, Stars and all objects in the universe jointly, not individually, create the atmosphere for the creation, sustenance, or destruction of everything in the universe. The Earth is the only daughter of the Sun to produce children. The Moon is essential for the creation of the right atmosphere for those children to exist and evolve. This we say because of the influence of the Moon on high and low tides in our rivers and oceans. This is narrated also in the Bhagavad Gita:

I become the moon and thereby supply the juice of life to all vegetables.

We cannot refute this influence of the Moon on life. It is proved by the movement of all liquid on this globe depending on the movement of the Moon. Therefore ecology in totality must be preserved: just a part of it would not suffice.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 05, 2018, 07:00:06 AM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 04, 2018, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 04, 2018, 10:06:54 PM
What is 'the kingdom of God', is it "a gigantic nothing"?

That's a good question.  What's your answer?

Start a new thread and find out, meanwhile,
"Exactly what is your understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity?"

So what is your answer @eyeshaveit  ?
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 05, 2018, 07:00:06 AM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 04, 2018, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 04, 2018, 10:06:54 PM
What is 'the kingdom of God', is it "a gigantic nothing"?

That's a good question.  What's your answer?

Start a new thread and find out, meanwhile,
"Exactly what is your understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity?"

Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 05, 2018, 07:00:06 AM
"Exactly what is your understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity?"

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 05, 2018, 05:06:41 PM
.

???
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Ugh.  I messed everything up and didn't even know it.  -1

The trinity is explained as one God in three persons.  Each are of one nature, one being, and one spirit.  Each are coeternal, coequal, and each is individually wholly God.

I did study it as a Protestant.  I was intent on proving it in scripture.  But there were just certain parts that didn't fit. 

Browsing the Wiki article I came across this:

"The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[5] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is".

How is that true?  I'm saying it's not "what" he is that makes Jehovah God.  It's who he is.  He is Jehovah.

We all equally share the same human nature and we are all equal substance and essence.  But that doesn't make us all President.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Eleven Things to Know About the Doctrine of the TRINITY

ZA Blog (Zondervan Academic)

1. The revelation of the Trinity comes with the revelation of the gospel.
The doctrine of the Trinity is need-to-know information that we didn?t need to know with any clarity until, as Paul puts it: ?When the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ?Abba, Father.?? - Galatians 4:4?6. God published both the revelation of the gospel and the revelation of the Trinity same time, in the same ways: more obscurely and by way of anticipation under the old covenant, more luminously and by way of fulfillment under the new....

2. The revelation of the Trinity accompanies salvation.
We make statements in the doctrine of the Trinity that would be true of God even if we didn?t exist or if the incarnation had never occurred. But what we know about the Trinity always accompanies salvation, and always flourishes in the context of teaching about salvation. This is why the doctrine of the Trinity has been the quintessential catechising doctrine throughout church history....

3. The revelation of the Trinity is revelation of God?s own heart.
It?s hard not to use more emotional language here. As Thomas Goodwin, says, ?The gospel reveals the deep things of God.?....

4. The revelation of the Trinity must be self-revelation.
The way that God made himself known was not declarative. He didn?t tell us, ?I am Father, Son, and Spirit.? He actually sent the Son and the Spirit so that they were here among us, revealing themselves by making themselves present....

5. The revelation of the Trinity came when the Son and the Spirit came in person.
As was said in the last point, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn?t shouted over the ramparts of heaven. ?But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son . . . And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying ?Abba! Father!?? (Gal. 4:4, 6)?.

6. New Testament texts about the Trinity tend to be allusions rather than announcements.
There is never a point in the New Testament when Paul writes to a church, ?Now concerning the three persons in the one God, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.? That doesn?t happen because neither Paul nor the other apostles ever announce to the church for the first time that we have received information that God is triune....

7. The revelation of the Trinity required words to accompany it.
There is a modern way of looking at the revelation of God that only wants to focus on the revelation in actions and wants to deny that there are revelations in words. Or if there are revelations in words, it?s only minor elements and it couldn?t be something as important as the identity of God. On the contrary....

8. The revelation of the Trinity is the extending of a conversation already happening.
As Jesus and the Spirit came among us speaking, teaching, and bearing witness to the identity of God, they?re bringing into our world the conversation that has been going on within the life of God....

9. The revelation of the Trinity occurs across the two Testaments of the canon.
We can identify verses and passages, but what we really know about the Son and the Spirit is that their coming was prophesied....

10. The revelation of the Trinity in Scripture is perfect.
There?s a perfection to God?s Word that?s a larger claim than inspiration or inerrancy. The perfection of God?s Word has the practical implication that when we are arranging trinitarian theology so that it can be taught clearly, we?re not improving on the Bible....

11. Systematic theology?s account of the Trinity should serve the revelation of the Trinity in Scripture.
Christian theology should be a humble discipline, pointing from itself back to Scripture as much as possible....a systematic rendering of the Trinity should be careful not to rocket out of the orbit of the biblical content it is designed to explain. It ought to eventually lead back to good reading of the text....

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/11-things-to-know-about-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 21, 2018, 10:36:01 AM
The revelation of the Trinity comes with the revelation of the gospel.

Chapter/verse?

QuoteThe doctrine of the Trinity is need-to-know information that we didn?t need to know with any clarity until

Ahh.  So that's why it's not taught in the Bible.  Clearly the authors didn't think it was need-to-know.

QuoteGod published both the revelation of the gospel and the revelation of the Trinity same time,

Ahh.  So all those people before the trinity was "revealed" to the Catholic Church didn't have the gospel.  It's a good thing they came along  and taught us the things the Bible writers didn't.

Quote2. The revelation of the Trinity accompanies salvation.

Chapter/verse?

Quote3. The revelation of the Trinity is revelation of God?s own heart.
It?s hard not to use more emotional language here. As Thomas Goodwin, says, ?The gospel reveals the deep things of God.?....

Oh, so the good news isn't about the kingdom afterall.  It's about the trinity. 

Chapter/verse?

Quote4. The revelation of the Trinity must be self-revelation.
The way that God made himself known was not declarative. He didn?t tell us, ?I am Father, Son, and Spirit.? He actually sent the Son and the Spirit so that they were here among us, revealing themselves by making themselves present....

Yep, he never reveals himself to be a trinity.  It's all part of that "secret knowledge" that neither Christ nor the apostles taught.  It's a good thing Catholics came along.

Chapter/verse?

Quote5. The revelation of the Trinity came when the Son and the Spirit came in person.
As was said in the last point, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn?t shouted over the ramparts of heaven. ?But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son . . . And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying ?Abba! Father!?? (Gal. 4:4, 6)?.

Did he even read the scripture?  We cry "Father", not "Trinity".

Quote6. New Testament texts about the Trinity tend to be allusions rather than announcements.
There is never a point in the New Testament when Paul writes to a church, ?Now concerning the three persons in the one God, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.? That doesn?t happen because neither Paul nor the other apostles ever announce to the church for the first time that we have received information that God is triune....

Well it's a good thing the Catholic Church cleared it up for you a couple hundred years after Jesus died.

Quote7. The revelation of the Trinity required words to accompany it.
There is a modern way of looking at the revelation of God that only wants to focus on the revelation in actions and wants to deny that there are revelations in words. Or if there are revelations in words, it?s only minor elements and it couldn?t be something as important as the identity of God. On the contrary....

8. The revelation of the Trinity is the extending of a conversation already happening.
As Jesus and the Spirit came among us speaking, teaching, and bearing witness to the identity of God, they?re bringing into our world the conversation that has been going on within the life of God....

9. The revelation of the Trinity occurs across the two Testaments of the canon.
We can identify verses and passages, but what we really know about the Son and the Spirit is that their coming was prophesied....

Why should anyone accept this man's words over Peter's?  "You are the Christ, the son of the iving God."

One of the two has been mislead.  Which one do you think it is?  The man you are quoting, or Peter?

Quote10. The revelation of the Trinity in Scripture is perfect.
There?s a perfection to God?s Word that?s a larger claim than inspiration or inerrancy. The perfection of God?s Word has the practical implication that when we are arranging trinitarian theology so that it can be taught clearly, we?re not improving on the Bible....

Wait.  Now he's saying it's revealed in scripture.

Quote10. The revelation of the Trinity in Scripture is perfect.
There?s a perfection to God?s Word that?s a larger claim than inspiration or inerrancy. The perfection of God?s Word has the practical implication that when we are arranging trinitarian theology so that it can be taught clearly, we?re not improving on the Bible....

11. Systematic theology?s account of the Trinity should serve the revelation of the Trinity in Scripture.
Christian theology should be a humble discipline, pointing from itself back to Scripture as much as possible....a systematic rendering of the Trinity should be careful not to rocket out of the orbit of the biblical content it is designed to explain. It ought to eventually lead back to good reading of the text....

Well this little tidbit has been stocked full of this man's beliefs, but it's sadly lacking in scripture.  I guess it's a good thing the Catholic Church figured things out for you.

I mean this man is calling Christ an outright liar.

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."


But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on May 21, 2018, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 21, 2018, 10:36:01 AM
The revelation of the Trinity comes with the revelation of the gospel.

Chapter/verse?

QuoteThe doctrine of the Trinity is need-to-know information that we didn?t need to know with any clarity until

Ahh.  So that's why it's not taught in the Bible.  Clearly the authors didn't think it was need-to-know.

QuoteGod published both the revelation of the gospel and the revelation of the Trinity same time,

Ahh.  So all those people before the trinity was "revealed" to the Catholic Church didn't have the gospel.  It's a good thing they came along  and taught us the things the Bible writers didn't.

Quote2. The revelation of the Trinity accompanies salvation.

Chapter/verse?

Quote3. The revelation of the Trinity is revelation of God?s own heart.
It?s hard not to use more emotional language here. As Thomas Goodwin, says, ?The gospel reveals the deep things of God.?....

Oh, so the good news isn't about the kingdom afterall.  It's about the trinity. 

Chapter/verse?

Quote4. The revelation of the Trinity must be self-revelation.
The way that God made himself known was not declarative. He didn?t tell us, ?I am Father, Son, and Spirit.? He actually sent the Son and the Spirit so that they were here among us, revealing themselves by making themselves present....

Yep, he never reveals himself to be a trinity.  It's all part of that "secret knowledge" that neither Christ nor the apostles taught.  It's a good thing Catholics came along.

Chapter/verse?

Quote5. The revelation of the Trinity came when the Son and the Spirit came in person.
As was said in the last point, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn?t shouted over the ramparts of heaven. ?But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son . . . And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying ?Abba! Father!?? (Gal. 4:4, 6)?.

Did he even read the scripture?  We cry "Father", not "Trinity".

Quote6. New Testament texts about the Trinity tend to be allusions rather than announcements.
There is never a point in the New Testament when Paul writes to a church, ?Now concerning the three persons in the one God, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.? That doesn?t happen because neither Paul nor the other apostles ever announce to the church for the first time that we have received information that God is triune....

Well it's a good thing the Catholic Church cleared it up for you a couple hundred years after Jesus died.

Quote7. The revelation of the Trinity required words to accompany it.
There is a modern way of looking at the revelation of God that only wants to focus on the revelation in actions and wants to deny that there are revelations in words. Or if there are revelations in words, it?s only minor elements and it couldn?t be something as important as the identity of God. On the contrary....

8. The revelation of the Trinity is the extending of a conversation already happening.
As Jesus and the Spirit came among us speaking, teaching, and bearing witness to the identity of God, they?re bringing into our world the conversation that has been going on within the life of God....

9. The revelation of the Trinity occurs across the two Testaments of the canon.
We can identify verses and passages, but what we really know about the Son and the Spirit is that their coming was prophesied....

Why should anyone accept this man's words over Peter's?  "You are the Christ, the son of the iving God."

One of the two has been mislead.  Which one do you think it is?  The man you are quoting, or Peter?

Quote10. The revelation of the Trinity in Scripture is perfect.
There?s a perfection to God?s Word that?s a larger claim than inspiration or inerrancy. The perfection of God?s Word has the practical implication that when we are arranging trinitarian theology so that it can be taught clearly, we?re not improving on the Bible....

Wait.  Now he's saying it's revealed in scripture.

Quote10. The revelation of the Trinity in Scripture is perfect.
There?s a perfection to God?s Word that?s a larger claim than inspiration or inerrancy. The perfection of God?s Word has the practical implication that when we are arranging trinitarian theology so that it can be taught clearly, we?re not improving on the Bible....

11. Systematic theology?s account of the Trinity should serve the revelation of the Trinity in Scripture.
Christian theology should be a humble discipline, pointing from itself back to Scripture as much as possible....a systematic rendering of the Trinity should be careful not to rocket out of the orbit of the biblical content it is designed to explain. It ought to eventually lead back to good reading of the text....

Well this little tidbit has been stocked full of this man's beliefs, but it's sadly lacking in scripture.  I guess it's a good thing the Catholic Church figured things out for you.

I mean this man is calling Christ an outright liar.

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

1 -
You clearly didn't read and/or understand the link provided.

2 -
Your references to the Roman Catholic Church are always a chuckle and a hoot.
There was only one church for 1,000 years after the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ.
And the Trinity was preached long before the Catholic Church evolved into its present day entity.
And much longer than before the false doctrines of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society were published.   
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

lol

jst wins. clearly.

eyes, btw, this is historically inaccurate:

QuoteThere was only one church for 1,000 years after the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ.

there were many branches of the ante-nicene church, and they feuded with each other over doctrine and theology interminably. there were still active branches of heterodox christians right up to the renaissance. and there were various heresies before the split between rome and constantinople, as well.

the doctrine of the trinity was imposed by the ruling elite, not revealed to theologians. the fate of various arians who crossed the theocracy on this matter was pretty grim.

anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

#92
Quote from: kevin on May 21, 2018, 09:19:46 PM
lol

jst wins. clearly.

Send him his prize.
Do you have a copy of The Blind Beekeeper: Yung, Hung, Stung, Dung?


Quote from: kevin on May 21, 2018, 09:19:46 PM
eyes, btw, this is historically inaccurate:

QuoteThere was only one church for 1,000 years after the incarnation and death of Jesus Christ.

there were many branches of the ante-nicene church, and they feuded with each other over doctrine and theology interminably. there were still active branches of heterodox christians right up to the renaissance. and there were various heresies before the split between rome and constantinople, as well.

There was only one church for the first thousand years:
Yes, there were heretics nibbling at the edges; some of these heresies still bubble up and exist today.   



Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

Sam Storms' "Ten Things You Should Know About Jehovah's Witness": (Number #3) The Trinity:

(3) The JWs deny the doctrine of the Trinity. They insist it is an invention of Satan that originated in ancient Babylon, sometime around 2200 BC. JWs are, strictly speaking, unitarian in their view of the Godhead. They also believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person but a force of God.

(4) In his pre-human state Jesus was known as Michael, the archangel. He is a creature, the first product of Jehovah God?s creative work. He never has been and never will be equal with Jehovah. Thus, in the Watchtower translation of John 1:1, Jesus is ?a? god but not the God. Technically speaking, JWs are therefore polytheists.

http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-jehovah-s-witnesses
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

Quote from: eyeshaveit on May 22, 2018, 07:38:34 AM
Quote from: kevin on May 21, 2018, 09:19:46 PM
lol

jst wins. clearly.

Send him his prize.
Do you have a copy of The Blind Beekeeper: Yung, Hung, Stung, Dung?

his prize is the increase in knowledge of people who see that you cannot adequately support what you claim to be true. among those who have interest and questions.

you sent it to him. i dont have to.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on May 22, 2018, 01:24:06 PM
his prize is the increase in knowledge of people who see that you cannot adequately support what you claim to be true.

just like you
people see what they want to see;
piece of cake to see a contest with only semi-cordial smirks for a prize
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

#96
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on May 22, 2018, 05:51:08 PM
eyes, it's like this. i don't have much interest in conversation by snark, or in trading sharp one-liners, or in using rhetorical devices like burden of proof to claim that i've won arguments.

kevin, it's like this: when you set yourself up as arbiter of 'true and false' or 'winner or loser' or to 'explain the views of others' don't be surprised when folks push back.

Quote from: kevin on May 22, 2018, 05:51:08 PM
i don't bother discussing things with you much, because you don't want to actually confront the holes in your beliefs. when the discussion gets too close the actual meat, you agree to disagree, and fade away.

sorry, everyone doesn't post by your strict interpretations and rules; the easy solution is to put me on ignore.

Quote from: kevin on May 22, 2018, 05:51:08 PM
jst asked you for chapter and verses to support your positions on the trinity, just a post or two up. if the beliefs you are defending are actually based on scripture, you can supply the chapter and verse that does so.

chapter and verse were in the link provided, if you had cared to read it, instead of posting your mental  prowess r?sum? for the umpteenth time.

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on December 09, 2017, 08:50:33 PM
I imagine that I am the only nontrinitarian present on the forum.  If anyone wants to discuss this topic and learn the point of view of a nontrinitarian, I don't mind discussing it.

Fair enough,
And so we are discussing the OP topic, re: The Trinity,
And the same has been described to you in great detail with scriptural proofs,
More will have to come from your reading the entire Bible, which is full of our Father God, Son and Holy Spirit,
If you still have questions add to that a search engine perusal, and your typing in: 'Trinity; Bible chapter and verse (that you question)'.
And also do decide: are you learning, or are you teaching, or are you here proselytising the views of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Incorporated? 

@Jstwebbrowsing

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

The Triune God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit; all members of the Godhead do work:

God, the Father, came to earth as has worked with dirt: "Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." - Genesis 2.

God, the Son, worked as a carpenter: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?? - Mark 6.

God, the Holy Spirit, renews the Earth: "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground" - Psalm 104.

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

The new (free) issue of Credo Magazine is out,
Featuring articles on God's (Jesus Christ) work on the cross:
Jesus Christ alone atoned for all our sins because he was truly man,
But Christ was offered up for our deliverance by all three members of the Trinity:

https://credomag.com/magazine_issue/the-glory-of-the-atonement/
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.