What Trinitarian churches teach about the Trinity

[Soapy]

My body is animated by my mind and spirit - my body is active because I have a mind and spirit. None of these components that a person is comprised of can live independently of one another.

For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

The Spirit CANNOT die… but it CAN be destroyed.

A human Being is Spirit in a flesh body.
An earthly ‘image of God’ Person is Spirit in a flesh body:

• ‘The body of Adam was created AND GOD BLEW THE BREATH OF LIFE INTO the BODY and the Man BECAME A LIVING SOUL’

The body of the man was ENLIVENED by the infusing of THE SPIRIT (the breath of life) - now the body becomes animated by the Spirit in it just as a robot without a program in it is just a heap of metal and silicon, plastic and circuitry. By itself it is a DEAD machine. But when a program (the Spirit) is put into it, it becomes an active animated device. ‘Killing’ the machine does not ‘kill’ the program since there are always stored (on disk, in the cloud, in the mind of the programmer) elsewhere outside the machine. However, the program can be destroyed by destroying all copies of it from the disk, the cloud, the mind of the programmer.

 

[Soapy]

I understand that man is comprised of spirit and soul and body as it says in 2 Thess. 2:12 - Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those components are what make a human being a human being! Those components are not three individual distinct persons making one complete person.

I understand the prologue of John from a different perspective.

The only difficult part of the Trinity is that it is not true. God is not Triune - He is one which is shown throughout scripture by use of singular pronouns when speaking of Him/Himself. God cannot be man and be man at the same time and scripture plainly tells us he is not a man. God cannot be mortal and immortal at the same time. God cannot be tempted and tempted at the same time.

“SOUL” is just the HEBREW equivalent of “PERSON”.

“PERSON” is just the LATIN/GREEK equivalent of “SOUL”.

A Person IS a Soul.

A Person / Soul is an ethereal Spirit in a body of flesh.

When the Trinitarians wanted to ‘prove’ that Manis made in the image of God’ and that ‘God is three Persons’, they came across the problem that the scriptures (Torah and Pentateuch) only ever showed man as a Spirit in a body. So in the typical Hellenist jewish manner, they ADDED in ‘Soul’ as part of man as Spirit and flesh so as to make THREE ELEMENTS in man.

Now, if is evident that their claim isn’t true since it’s impossible to reconcile the Old Testament version of MAN with that of the New Testament version.

So, (How) did the composition of Man change between the testaments??

——————————————-
‘My Soul yearns for you’ - ‘I (my person) yearns for you’

‘There were no PERSONS in the building when the fire started’ - ‘There was not a single SOUL in the building when the fire started’

‘Three hundred persons (people) died that day’ - ‘Three hundred souls were found dead that day’

 

[Niatero]

The Spirit CANNOT die… but it CAN be destroyed.

A human Being is Spirit in a flesh body.
An earthly ‘image of God’ Person is Spirit in a flesh body:

• ‘The body of Adam was created AND GOD BLEW THE BREATH OF LIFE INTO the BODY and the Man BECAME A LIVING SOUL’

The body of the man was ENLIVENED by the infusing of THE SPIRIT (the breath of life) - now the body becomes animated by the Spirit in it just as a robot without a program in it is just a heap of metal and silicon, plastic and circuitry. By itself it is a DEAD machine. But when a program (the Spirit) is put into it, it becomes an active animated device. ‘Killing’ the machine does not ‘kill’ the program since there are always stored (on disk, in the cloud, in the mind of the programmer) elsewhere outside the machine. However, the program can be destroyed by destroying all copies of it from the disk, the cloud, the mind of the programmer.

Definitely smarter than I thought.

 

[amazing grace]

The Spirit CANNOT die… but it CAN be destroyed.

A human Being is Spirit in a flesh body.
An earthly ‘image of God’ Person is Spirit in a flesh body:

• ‘The body of Adam was created AND GOD BLEW THE BREATH OF LIFE INTO the BODY and the Man BECAME A LIVING SOUL’

The body of the man was ENLIVENED by the infusing of THE SPIRIT (the breath of life) - now the body becomes animated by the Spirit in it just as a robot without a program in it is just a heap of metal and silicon, plastic and circuitry. By itself it is a DEAD machine. But when a program (the Spirit) is put into it, it becomes an active animated device. ‘Killing’ the machine does not ‘kill’ the program since there are always stored (on disk, in the cloud, in the mind of the programmer) elsewhere outside the machine. However, the program can be destroyed by destroying all copies of it from the disk, the cloud, the mind of the programmer.

“SOUL” is just the HEBREW equivalent of “PERSON”.

“PERSON” is just the LATIN/GREEK equivalent of “SOUL”.

A Person IS a Soul.

A Person / Soul is an ethereal Spirit in a body of flesh.

When the Trinitarians wanted to ‘prove’ that Manis made in the image of God’ and that ‘God is three Persons’, they came across the problem that the scriptures (Torah and Pentateuch) only ever showed man as a Spirit in a body. So in the typical Hellenist jewish manner, they ADDED in ‘Soul’ as part of man as Spirit and flesh so as to make THREE ELEMENTS in man.

Now, if is evident that their claim isn’t true since it’s impossible to reconcile the Old Testament version of MAN with that of the New Testament version.

So, (How) did the composition of Man change between the testaments??

——————————————-
‘My Soul yearns for you’ - ‘I (my person) yearns for you’

‘There were no PERSONS in the building when the fire started’ - ‘There was not a single SOUL in the building when the fire started’

‘Three hundred persons (people) died that day’ - ‘Three hundred souls were found dead that day’

I understand what you everything you are saying and basically I agree with you. I really don't know why you want to "nit pik" my posts.

Scripture speaks of "man's spirit", "spirit of man" which is NOT the Spirit given at the new birth. The breath that God breathed into Adam's body and Adam became a living soul was just that "breath" and without breath a person is dead! Adam was not born again of God's Spirit as in the new birth - Jesus death and resurrection brought about the new birth.
And when scripture tells us that "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.", it is truth and it is speaking about man's spirit, the spirit of man. So, in the context of 1 Thess. 2:13 - the body is the flesh, the mind and spirit are man's capacity for emotions, knowledge, etc. This is NOT speaking about the Spirit that comes to dwell in believers when they repent and turn toward God, i.e. the new birth.

 

[Kenny]

I don't object to people thinking about God any way they want to, if they think it helps them. My only objection is to people thinking that they know what or who God is and that any other way of thinking is wrong.

I don’t make a big deal if people think differently. we are all free-will spirits.

When people say “they can’t know who God is” when it simply says “God is love”, and other such statement, why argue about it?

 

[Kenny]

My body is animated by my mind and spirit - my body is active because I have a mind and spirit. None of these components that a person is comprised of can live independently of one another.

For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

It was very true when God made Adam, and it still remains true.

 

[Soapy]

I understand what you everything you are saying and basically I agree with you. I really don't know why you want to "nit pik" my posts.

Scripture speaks of "man's spirit", "spirit of man" which is NOT the Spirit given at the new birth. The breath that God breathed into Adam's body and Adam became a living soul was just that "breath" and without breath a person is dead! Adam was not born again of God's Spirit as in the new birth - Jesus death and resurrection brought about the new birth.
And when scripture tells us that "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.", it is truth and it is speaking about man's spirit, the spirit of man. So, in the context of 1 Thess. 2:13 - the body is the flesh, the mind and spirit are man's capacity for emotions, knowledge, etc. This is NOT speaking about the Spirit that comes to dwell in believers when they repent and turn toward God, i.e. the new birth.

The ‘Nit Picking’ is just giving a refined definition which many people miss.

Too many times I hear definitions which miss out essential aspects which then lead to misconceptions.

So please do not belittle anything that is of positive Godly benefit.

 

[Soapy]

I don’t make a big deal if people think differently. we are all free-will spirits.

When people say “they can’t know who God is” when it simply says “God is love”, and other such statement, why argue about it?

Wow, Kenny… I actually agree with your answer here!!!!

 

[jimb]

You’ve only resolved part of it. You haven’t resolved the part about them talking to each other, and about each other. Body, mind and spirit of one person doesn’t resolve that.

I have explained it as clearly as I can. If you don't understand it, the problem lies with you, not me.

 

[jimb]

I don't object to people thinking about God any way they want to, if they think it helps them. My only objection is to people thinking that they know what or who God is and that any other way of thinking is wrong.

Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see."

 

[Tomef]

I’ve decided that it’s time for some lessons about the Trinity. It isn’t as simple as I thought it was. What I mean by “Trinitarian churches” is churches that say they believe in The Trinity, more or less what people call “mainstream churches.” I’ll start with Methodist churches as an example.


- God (www.umc.org)

One key word here is “distinct.”

---

(later)

More examples. The bolding in all of these is mine.

Another example, from the Catholic Answers Encyclopedia


Southern Baptist:


Evangelical Lutheran:


Presbyterian:


Episcopal:


They all say that God is three distinct persons. Some examples of how they explain that are in post #18.

Maybe there was some inchoate notion about the divided self behind it all. Or maybe it was just a mash-up to keep early Christians hanging on - I’m going to the father, he’s god too, but you’ll all get the spirit until I come back, and he’s god too, so, like you get god either way. Like telling your kids you’ll be away for the weekend, but they can order in pizza.

 

[Brian2]

If we are not told we must be able to understand it, then why are people who don't believe in the Trinity Doctrine often labeled as a "heretic"?

That's a good question, why?
Dealing with the first part first, trinitarians don't fully understand so why must you?
Ask people to explain the atonement and we see a similar thing.
As to why are people labeled as heretic, I have wondered the same myself. I have even seen it said that the deity of Jesus and trinity are the most important concepts in Christianity. It has made me wonder at times.
I have seen in the Bible that believing that Jesus is the Son of God is how we are saved (John 20:31) and that this has to be the Son of God that we can call "my God" (John 20:28) not just "a son of God" like we all are.
I have also seen that doctrines are connected in the Bible and if someone thinks that Jesus is just "a son of God" it usually means that their understanding of other important things are off.

Actually, both usages of distinct are adjectives - one meaning apparent, obvious (syn: definite, noticeable, recognizable, specific, unmistakable)
and the other meaning different, unconnected (syn: discrete, disparate, dissimilar, distinctive, divergent, diverse, offbeat, particular, peculiar, separate, special, specific, unique, various)
You are using the meaning of #1 in connection with the word distinct and yet #2 has as a synonym "distinctive" so when speaking of distinct wouldn't it also mean distinctive?

And when you say "3 different persons", what exactly do you mean because that seems to contradict how you are implying the word "distinct"?
#1 different (adj) dissimilar, unlike (syn: disparate, distinct, divergent, unalike, unlike, unsimilar)
#2 different (adj) various (assorted, diverse, various, varying)
#3 different (adj) not identical, other or distinct (another, distinct, other, discrete, separate)
#4 different (adj) unusual (bizarre, distinctive, extraordinary, offbeat, peculiar, rare, special, strange, unconventional, unique, unusual)

Now you are turning it into a joke when all I am saying is that the Father is not the Son in Trinity theology but the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and the Father and Son are one (one thing). These are things that Jesus said. (if you deny that Jesus said that the Father and Son are one (one thing) then you should look at the grammar and the meaning of "one" in the neuter.)

 

[Brian2]

I don't see him saying that. You might have seen him saying that the Trinity teaches that Jesus is God, which for some people is different from saying that the Father is the Son. They can say "Jesus is God" without thinking that the Father is the Son.

I have seen him say that, but of course it may have been something about me and how I was trying to explain the trinity.

 

[Brian2]

Oh Brian2, you live to put false belief in the mouth of truth sayers….!! Stop it… stop right now!!!

What I said was that ‘THAT IS THE RESULT OF TRINITY TEACHINGS’….!!

That does not mean that I am CLAIMING as explicit teachings BUT THAT it’s the outcome of what trinity says.

Trinity claims that JESUS IS GOD because Jesus said:

• ‘I and the Father are ONE’
• God is the Father

Is that not true - is that not what trinity claims?

So you do claim that the trinity teaches "implicitly" that the Son is the Father.

YOU have a different take on the trinity fallacy by claiming a DUAL GOD IN ONE… a BINITY.
In fact, your belief is so crazy that it’s laughable if it wasn’t for loving feelings of trying to get you to see the truth by persisting with you.

We have been talking about the Son and Father only usually. I don't think you should use that to claim that I am a Binitarian and not a Trinitarian.

You claim Jesus IS ‘The Son of God’ but then claim that Jesus IS GOD…!!??

I claim that Jesus is the Son of God and also that Jesus is YHWH, because scripture teaches that.
It's a matter of the type of Son you want Jesus to be, and you want Jesus to be a created Son like millions of others and I see that He cannot have been created if all things were created through Him.
The Son gets His life from His Father but that has always been the case since the Son was not created.
In the beginning was the Word,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, not "In the beginning the Word was created".
Jesus said that He came from heaven and was going back to heaven to be with His Father as He was before the world came into being.
Soapy says that Jesus began existence in Mary, His mother's womb.

 

[cataway]

we could read Colossians 1 :15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

 

[cataway]

or even Proverbs 8 :22 Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,The earliest of his achievements of long ago.23 From ancient times I was installed,From the start, from times earlier than the earth.

 

[InChrist]

we could read Colossians 1 :15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

The watchtower version says, “other things were created “. Valid versions of the Bible do not insert the word other.

 

[InChrist]

or even Proverbs 8 :22 Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,The earliest of his achievements of long ago.23 From ancient times I was installed,From the start, from times earlier than the earth.

Nor is the word “ produced” used, rather possessed, which is speaking about the wisdom (in context of the whole passage), that God possessed from everlasting…


The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
I have been established from everlasting…
Proverbs 8:22-23

Again Proverbs 22 is about God’s wisdom, NOT Jesus Christ.

 

[Brian2]

we could read Colossians 1 :15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

Those 2 times that "other" are used in what you quoted, "other" is not in the original text in those places.
The Watchtower used to put "other" in brackets in those places so that everyone would know that those words are not in the original text, now they have removed the brackets and pretend that they are not changing the meaning by using "other".
They lie about the meaning of "firstborn" and say that it can only mean "first one born of a kind", but that is not true as Psalm 89:26,27 has Jesus being appointed as firstborn. You don't get appointed to be the first one born, you get born before the others.
"Firstborn" at Col 1:15 and Psalm 89:26,27 are showing Jesus authority, not in which order He was born.
If the uncreated prehuman Jesus became a man, it means that He stepped into the creation without being created.

 

[Soapy]

I have explained it as clearly as I can. If you don't understand it, the problem lies with you, not me.

That’s not true. IF you’ve not explained properly THEN IT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!

Or do you subscribe to the miscreated belief of:

• ‘Words mean what I want them to mean!’

which very much says, ‘I can say what I like and it’s down to you to interpret what you think they mean!!’??