Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[Awoon]

well since God is a spirit, He is not physical. the word person is referring to a being, not necessarily physical

Have you ever seen, touched, identified by color a non physical God?

 

[Mountain_Climber]

People pay for the class I lecture in.


What education do you have on any historical biblical topic?

I have no doubt many do pay for your classes.

As for my education? Let's just say it excels yours. But that is no credit to me, for it is enough that the student be like his teacher.

 

[outhouse]

Let's just say it excels yours

What biblical education do you possess?

From which credible universities? or is this some rhetoric I have heard a thousands times here, god told me

 

[outhouse]

thanks, outhouse, I appreciate your comments and wish there was some place to study some of the things you know. I believe you are an honest and sincere person

Thank you for being reasonable despite our difference in opinion.


By the way, The Galilean mans name was Isho. That is the native Aramaic dialect for the Hebrew Yeshua and or Yehoshua, or lesous in Koine, or Joshua in English, or Jesus in Latin.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

a few small differences make for a more interesting discussion

 

[Yoshua]

No the scripture does no say that.

People took passages like you are, and it helped them develop the trinity doctrine that is not taught anywhere in the NT.

Christianity had a problem, they had to retain monotheism after adding another deity to the mix [jesus]

They also took the god concept and developed the spirit of god as a separate entity. Judaism never separated the two he way Christians defined it.

If you follow the trinity concept there is a clear path of how it evolved in doctrine, starting with Pauls vague statements and continuing on and advancing greatly under Tertullian and others. There was no real conclusion in doctrine until after the council of Nicea redefined Jesus relationship with the father. Which amounted to a court hearing where Constantine demanded unity of all, and those who were not in unity were going to pay a severe price.

Hi Outhouse,
Then, how you will explain their existence: Please read.

Trinitarian doctrine is one God exists in three persons, they appeared to us as the Father, the Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Scripture said this, and it was not me.
There is Jesus, He is not the Holy Spirit because He said I will give you another Helper. We see Father and Son in distinction. How could you explain this if there is really non-existence of the three?

Matthew 3:16
16. And Jesus (Son), when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17. And lo a voice from heaven (Father), saying, This is my beloved Son (Jesus), in whom I (Father) am well pleased.

John 14:16-19
16. "And I (Jesus) will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper (Holy Spirit), that He may abide with you forever,
17. "even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
18. "I (Jesus) will not leave you orphans; I (Jesus) will come to you.
19. "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I (Jesus) live, you will live also.

Thanks

 

[outhouse]

Hi Outhouse,
Then, how you will explain their existence: Please read.

Using the same exact process your now using. They started interpreting the text to make the definition fit the scripture.


Side notes, Judaism in Jesus time did not make two deities out of the spirit and god, it was only one concept, but these Hellenistic authors had no problem changing OT context to meet their own needs. After all they were literally divorcing Judaism.

Another side note. Son of god was not unique to Jesus in this time. The Emperor was first called son of god, and the earliest Christians also used that term as they were competing for the Emperors gentile followers. In that time you had two choices you could worship the corrupt politician emperor as "son of god", or you could worship the Galilean who suffered for the people as "son of god"

So you know, I'm taking a historical approach taught in universities as real history. Theology and apologetics are not my area, just placing these words into context of social anthropology for the period


Remember the early christian bishops fought tooth and nail for months over this, with Constantine forcing unification.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

What biblical education do you possess?

From which credible universities? or is this some rhetoric I have heard a thousands times here, god told me

I don't believe in flashing my university credentials to assist in getting people to listen to me, for my goal is not that they hear me, but that they hear and understand the word of God through me. Our Father in heaven deserves all of the credit and people's eyes and ears ought to be directed to look to him rather than to men.

You are quite welcome to play that game apart from any participation in it by me.

Keep the attention upon He to whom it belongs.

 

[Yoshua]

Using the same exact process your now using. They started interpreting the text to make the definition fit the scripture.


Side notes, Judaism in Jesus time did not make two deities out of the spirit and god, it was only one concept, but these Hellenistic authors had no problem changing OT context to meet their own needs. After all they were literally divorcing Judaism.

Another side note. Son of god was not unique to Jesus in this time. The Emperor was first called son of god, and the earliest Christians also used that term as they were competing for the Emperors gentile followers. In that time you had two choices you could worship the corrupt politician emperor as "son of god", or you could worship the Galilean who suffered for the people as "son of god"

So you know, I'm taking a historical approach taught in universities as real history. Theology and apologetics are not my area, just placing these words into context of social anthropology for the period


Remember the early christian bishops fought tooth and nail for months over this, with Constantine forcing unification.

Hi outhouse,

I respect your comments. If you know before when I was a new Christian, I did not know yet about this trinitarian doctrine. It becomes a challenge for me when one of my subordinates in the office who is a member of the Church of Christ (Iglesia Ni Kristo) asked me about the trinity. I'm stunned and cannot answer back because I can't explain it to him.

So, I started to dig, seek and study about this doctrine and I've seen with my own very eyes that it is in the Scripture. This is still in question why they exists in three persons. I cannot debate with God regarding this doctrine, but to have faith in what the Scriptures have to say. He designed it. Historical, geological and archaeological evidence are a big factor to consider as biblical evidence.

Thanks for answering.

 

[moorea944]

Hi Moorea,

We believe in one God who exists in three persons (Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). At Phil. 2:5-7, it says that He (Jesus) is in the form of God, emptied Himself (because He is God, He did not consider Himself to be equal with God-Father instead He take the form of a human like us).

Yes, David is not literally His father, but in David's lineage.
Phil. 2:5-7
5. Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6. who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7. but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;

If we dwell with the Scriptures, we can see first their existence as I posted the baptism of Jesus.
Matt. 3:16-17
16. And after being baptized, Jesus(Son) went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending as a dove, and coming upon Him,
17. and behold, a voice(Father) out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

How could you explain this? Trinitarian doctrine is about existence and deities as manifested throughout the Scriptures.

Thanks

Sorry I didnt get back to you right away. Work has been crazy. But would love to answer your questions.

Yes, David is not literally His father, but in David's lineage.

Yes, I know that. Same with Abraham.

Phil 2v5-7

You really need to read the whole chapter. It is really saying that Jesus is NOT God. I'll explain...

If "in the form of God" means the very nature of God, then Christ could not have been "Very God" while on earth, as trinitarians assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.

How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father's person. (Heb. 1:3).

Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was originally in the form of God - i.e., "being" in the form of God is taken to mean that he was in fact "Very God" before his "incarnation". The Greek verb "huparchon" refutes this position since it is in the imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual, habitual, repeated action, so that "being in the form of God" means "being, and continuing to be in the form of God". Christ never ceased to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth he habitually exemplified his Father's character.

"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The R.S.V. reads as follows: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the "elohim") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).

And look at verse 7. Paul tells us that Jesus DIDNT make a reputation on being God. Now look at verse 11. Jesus is Lord, to the glory of the Father. Everything Jesus does, is to the glory of God.

If we dwell with the Scriptures, we can see first their existence as I posted the baptism of Jesus.
Matt. 3:16-17

16. And after being baptized, Jesus(Son) went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending as a dove, and coming upon Him,
17. and behold, a voice(Father) out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
How can you explain this?

I totally agree with you. Jesus is the son of God and the son of man. Jesus was born. He is God's Son. Yes I agree. He was made to be a man, not a God. Thanks for bringing that one up.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God. later the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus existed from the beginning of time but in a different form. He started out as the Word and then later was made into a man. so from the very beginning of time Jesus was God. if you do not believe it then you have to tear some pages out of your Bible. Oh I forgot nobody believes the Bible anyway. just make up traditions to explain everything

 

[Mountain_Climber]

in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God. later the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus existed from the beginning of time but in a different form. He started out as the Word and then later was made into a man. so from the very beginning of time Jesus was God. if you do not believe it then you have to tear some pages out of your Bible. Oh I forgot nobody believes the Bible anyway. just make up traditions to explain everything

No, from the beginning of time, which God is well before, Jesus was the chief messenger or Word of God who bore God's Word so that the Word was God.

Jesus was in the beginning because he was the beginning of all the creation of God. And from that point all creation was made through Jesus and for Jesus.

 

[moorea944]

in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God. later the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus existed from the beginning of time but in a different form. He started out as the Word and then later was made into a man. so from the very beginning of time Jesus was God. if you do not believe it then you have to tear some pages out of your Bible. Oh I forgot nobody believes the Bible anyway. just make up traditions to explain everything

if you do not believe it then you have to tear some pages out of your Bible. Oh I forgot nobody believes the Bible anyway. just make up traditions to explain everything

Wow! Bad day at the office?

Ok, what or who is the word "word" in John 1. In Greek is it "logos". Logos means someone's plans, thoughts or reasons. In the beginning was the word. Yes, that is right. God's Word was in the begining. God said..... God spoke. The word of God. That was in the beginning. It is NOT talking about Jesus. He is the word of God, but it's not talking about him yet.

Then.... in verse 14 "the word (logos) of God" became flesh. Jesus did not pre-exist, he was born. A man, not a God. God was his father, but God wanted His son to be like us. Jesus was not in the beginning with God, he was born.

if you do not believe it then you have to tear some pages out of your Bible.

Isnt that what your doing?......
.

just make up traditions to explain everything

Isnt that what your doing?......

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse,

I respect your comments. If you know before when I was a new Christian, I did not know yet about this trinitarian doctrine. It becomes a challenge for me when one of my subordinates in the office who is a member of the Church of Christ (Iglesia Ni Kristo) asked me about the trinity. I'm stunned and cannot answer back because I can't explain it to him.

So, I started to dig, seek and study about this doctrine and I've seen with my own very eyes that it is in the Scripture. This is still in question why they exists in three persons. I cannot debate with God regarding this doctrine, but to have faith in what the Scriptures have to say. He designed it. Historical, geological and archaeological evidence are a big factor to consider as biblical evidence.

Thanks for answering.

Thank you for a peaceful exchange despite our differences. I love the history surrounding this time period.

 

[Yoshua]

You really need to read the whole chapter. It is really saying that Jesus is NOT God. I'll explain...

If "in the form of God" means the very nature of God, then Christ could not have been "Very God" while on earth, as trinitarians assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.

How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father's person. (Heb. 1:3).

Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was originally in the form of God - i.e., "being" in the form of God is taken to mean that he was in fact "Very God" before his "incarnation". The Greek verb "huparchon" refutes this position since it is in the imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual, habitual, repeated action, so that "being in the form of God" means "being, and continuing to be in the form of God". Christ never ceased to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth he habitually exemplified his Father's character.

"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The R.S.V. reads as follows: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the "elohim") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).

And look at verse 7. Paul tells us that Jesus DIDNT make a reputation on being God. Now look at verse 11. Jesus is Lord, to the glory of the Father. Everything Jesus does, is to the glory of God.

Hi Moorea,

Ok. Let us start from how the Spirit of God enveloped Mary.
Luke 1:35
35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

What overshadowed Mary to conceive Jesus Christ? I believe it is the Holy Ghost/Spirit or the Spirit of God.

Can you give me a version that you think it is not a poor translation so we can truly see what Philippians 2 :7-9 says?

I totally agree with you. Jesus is the son of God and the son of man. Jesus was born. He is God's Son. Yes I agree. He was made to be a man, not a God. Thanks for bringing that one up.

If Jesus is not God, why Thomas will confess to Jesus as “My Lord and my God”?

John 20:27-29
27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Thanks

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

in Luke 1:35 it seems to be saying that the Holy Ghost and the Power of the Highest are the same thing. Otherwise maybe there is a fourth "person" instead of three. Father , Son, Holy Ghost, and Power of the Highest. Mary was overcome by God's power, not some separate "person". By the way, don't we call the Father , Father , because He is the father of Jesus? If the Holy Ghost came upon Mary then the Holy Ghost would be Jesus's father. As for Jesus being God, it says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Later it says this very Word became flesh ( in the form of Jesus) and dwelt among us. So the Word became Jesus and the Word was God so Jesus is God. People are very quick to overlook the Bible and believe traditions made up bt men. The Bible also warns against turning to the traditions of men instead of the Bible but there is probably a tradition that says to ignore that part also

 

[moorea944]

Hi Moorea,

Ok. Let us start from how the Spirit of God enveloped Mary.
Luke 1:35
35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

What overshadowed Mary to conceive Jesus Christ? I believe it is the Holy Ghost/Spirit or the Spirit of God.

Can you give me a version that you think it is not a poor translation so we can truly see what Philippians 2 :7-9 says?

If Jesus is not God, why Thomas will confess to Jesus as “My Lord and my God”?

John 20:27-29
27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Thanks

Ok. Let us start from how the Spirit of God enveloped Mary.
Luke 1:35
35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
What overshadowed Mary to conceive Jesus Christ? I believe it is the Holy Ghost/Spirit or the Spirit of God.

Well it was the Holy Spirit. Bible tells us that. The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God is God's power or spirit. It is not a person as some trinitarians think. Otherwise, the HS would be Jesus's father. If the Holy Spirit were actually a person that would present a highly degrading image of Mary's impregnation with Jesus by the Holy Spirit. It would also make Yahweh a liar when he says that He knows of no other God beside Him (Is. 44:6-8).

But, that doesnt make him God. Scripture tells us that he was made a man like us. He had to be like us. It had to be someone who could conquer sin. Jesus did it with his Father's help. God was working "through" His son.

Can you give me a version that you think it is not a poor translation so we can truly see what Philippians 2 :7-9 says?

There are alot of good translations. One is ESV "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," Jesus ALWAYS gave Glory to the Father. Never did he think he was equal or co-existed. Being in the form of God does not make him God or very God. He manisfested his Father's charactor perfectly.

If Jesus is not God, why Thomas will confess to Jesus as “My Lord and my God”?

Very simple answer to that. He's not. He's not calling him God or Yahweh. He's calling him Elohim in Hebrews. Not God. Our "English" bibles say God, not the org. txt. John and everyone else knows that Jesus was a man and not a God. And who can be Elohim? Mostly angels, but man can be that too. The Judges were called Elohim along with priests. Elohim - the Mighty Ones, God manifest in a multitude. They were called Elohim because they brought the Word of God to the people.
Look at John 10. The Jews didnt like Jesus calling himself the Son of God and being being associated with God. And what did Jesus tell them? "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, " The word for "gods there is Elohim. Their fathers were called gods or Elohim because they were the ones who brought the word of God to the people.

So Thomas is not calling Jesus God, he is saying, you are my Lord and my Elohim. Because Thomas knows that Jesus is the one who brings the word of God to the people.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Elohim is one of those interesting words like "family". Family is a singular word but a family can have more than one member. Elohim being singular indicates there is one God but that God can be made up of more than one member. In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God. Only one God but two members. It would be a lot less confusing if people did not refer to the Father as God God is the sum of all the members . the members were the Father and the Word. Later that Word became Jesus so there was still one God consisting of the Father and the Son. Jesus is a part of Elohim (God) so Thomas was perfectly correct calling Jesus Elohim )God)

 

[moorea944]

Elohim is one of those interesting words like "family". Family is a singular word but a family can have more than one member. Elohim being singular indicates there is one God but that God can be made up of more than one member. In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God. Only one God but two members. It would be a lot less confusing if people did not refer to the Father as God God is the sum of all the members . the members were the Father and the Word. Later that Word became Jesus so there was still one God consisting of the Father and the Son. Jesus is a part of Elohim (God) so Thomas was perfectly correct calling Jesus Elohim )God)

Then you can say that we are too. Isnt God's Spirit in us? Your making the "word" a person in the beginning. IT's not, it's just talking about God's spoken word. Then in verse 14 it talks about Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

but that they hear and understand the word of God through me

That's is proselytizing and not allowed here.

I don't believe in flashing my university credentials to assist in getting people to listen to me

That's what people often say when they have no academic education.


After 30000 post, and teaching some of these subjects, I know your education better then you do. Im guessing if you had any education at all it is 100% apologetic.

It is 100% not historical, or you would have my interest.