A Trinity of one? - A new thought

Evandr2 · Apr 14, 2006

This topic is one that has been a focus of mine for years. I have heard hundreds of arguments, participated in many discussions and debates about the concept of the trinity and the nature of God.

Personally I feel that the concept of the trinity is flawed and requires too much dependence upon the well worn statement that we "just don't know all things."

Of course I do believe that we can't understand all things but I also believe that the Lord has given us commandments and information about Himself and the Godhead that we are meant to understand. After all, becoming like them and living eternally in their presence is the goal. Would not the Lord want us to understand something about what we are being asked to apply so much devotion toward achieving?

The problem comes in when what is plain to understand does not fit in well with the religious cannon that we choose to follow. It is then that man begins to interpret scripture to explain cannon when just the opposite should be true.

There is one possible explanation that I rarely see considered. Everyone assumes that the term "God" is a name that is singularly held but scripture indicates that it is held by at least three different personages, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. It is this apparent contradiction that has led to the concept of the trinity.

Please understand that I suggest this "theorem" for the purpose of discussion and consideration. I will not respond to insult or argument for the sake of argument. Let us agree to disagree and then have a satisfying discussion about the ideas we hold.

My thought is this:

Suppose that "God" is not a name that is singularly held but a title that is given to a person that has risen to the top level of the priesthood. Having all power and glory along side Our Heavenly Father. There is argument that supports this idea but I will not try to write all I have learned here.

Please bear with me.

God said that we shall have no other God before Him but He did not say that there were no others that held this exalted title.

I can tell my children that they shall have no other fathers before me but that does mean that there are no other fathers on the earth. (a simplistic analogy to be sure but the idea is there.)

The question will arise, "if this is true then why have we not been made aware of it, why has our Heavenly Father let us believe that He alone is God by making no reference to others who may hold the title (other than His Son and the Holy Ghost)?"

I think that the answer could be in the fact that we are on this earth for an eternally important purpose and the Lord God is the one on whom we need to focus for our eternal salvation.

Considering the importance of this reality, I think it a wise choice not to burden the intellect of man with information that is not necessary to our achieving all that we can achieve and being worthy of all the blessings that our Heavenly Father has for us.

I am not claiming that this is the way it is. It is just a thought that I think can garner some good debate. I am prepared with further support for those of you who wish to engage in a healthy debate.

If you would be interested in learning more about my views please visit www.faithandevidence.com

Vandr

Squirt · Apr 14, 2006

Vandr,

Unfortunately your post made so much sense that it appears no one is up to trying to refute it. I've used all of your arguments myself on many occasions, so I'm afraid I'm not going to be much fun to debate. Anyway, great post!

Squirt

Mister Emu · Apr 15, 2006

Personally I feel that the concept of the trinity is flawed and requires too much dependence upon the well worn statement that we "just don't know all things."

And the scripture...

The problem comes in when what is plain to understand does not fit in well with the religious cannon that we choose to follow. It is then that man begins to interpret scripture to explain cannon when just the opposite should be true.

So because something is hard/impossible to understand it is automatically wrong? Because something is simpler it is true? Maybe you are the one interpretting scripture to go along with your non-Trinitarian beliefs...

There is one possible explanation that I rarely see considered. Everyone assumes that the term "God" is a name that is singularly held but scripture indicates that it is held by at least three different personages, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. It is this apparent contradiction that has led to the concept of the trinity

What led to the concept of the Trinity is the teachings of Jesus faithfully recorded is Scripture and Tradition.

...I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isaiah 45:18

cmfcf · Apr 15, 2006

There is so much going on around us that we do not see or understand. I believe that there is God the Father, God the son and God the Holy Ghost (The First Comforter). I don't believe it could be any other way.

cmfcf · Apr 15, 2006

God is a title to a higher deity but he was also as we are now. Christ is also just a title. Their names are for the individual and each has their own. The only name that has not been given (through revelation) is the Holy Ghost. He is called the First Comforter and there is a Second Comforter. Anyway though they are Gods they are still bound by universal law and order. They cannot nor will break any of those laws.

s2a · Apr 15, 2006

The question will arise, "if this is true then why have we not been made aware of it, why has our Heavenly Father let us believe that He alone is God by making no reference to others who may hold the title (other than His Son and the Holy Ghost)?"

I think that the answer could be in the fact that we are on this earth for an eternally important purpose and the Lord God is the one on whom we need to focus for our eternal salvation.

Considering the importance of this reality, I think it a wise choice not to burden the intellect of man with information that is not necessary to our achieving all that we can achieve and being worthy of all the blessings that our Heavenly Father has for us.

I don't know if you will consider my reply as merely argumentative (qualitatively), or worthy of debate.

Your rationale strikes me as akin to "What you don't know, can't/won't hurt you". On the surface, as in a parent seeking to defend a child from things they are either ill-equipped or ill-prepared to confront from a more mature perspective, I could superficially concede (if not necessarily concur) that such a "defense" would serve the short-term interests of the child.

I'd even like to believe that religion seeks to instigate and bolster inquiry into things yet undiscovered/unexplained/unknown, but history reflects poorly upon such a hopeful optimism.

Would it not be simpler to remove any burden of intellect (and accountable/consequential choice/circumstance) from the imperfect and wanton mind of an mortal man?

Are dogs inherently sinful? They are unburdened by feelings of shame, long-term remorse, or guilt for their consequential actions. They do not question existence, they simply revel in it - in a manner that is worthy of our envy, grudging respect, and balefully wishful thinking. Ahhhh...to fart in mixed company without concern or apology; to lick one's own genitals because it needs to be done; to take a crap in an unspecified place of one's own choosing in the moment of need.

Dogs evince all the qualities we aspire to ourselves. They are loyal, fun-loving, carefree, and unabashed in their personal selves. They also tender unconditional love and a lifetime emotional bond to whomever bothers to feed them from time to time (without killing/torturing them). Dogs are eager to please their masters, as long as their masters are neither cruel nor inconsistent in their care/welfare. Why should we burden a dog with our cares and responsibilities? Should a dog feel remorse, guilt, or a need of conscious repentance in the knowledge that their masters must earn a paycheck in order to provide Purina Dog Chow?

As masters (gods?) of dogs, what burdens of intellect do we impose upon our canine companions in order for them to asses/judge their worthiness of our love and affection? What would be fair? What should we righteously expect, beyond that which is not already inherent within their species or capacities? Does a dog poop on your carpet as a matter of defiance to your wishes, or do we seek to impose a burden (and culpability) of intellect comparable to our own ("'Good people'" don't abjectly crap on carpets")?

Would you rather be a dog, or a master of one?

Are men of freewill accountable to make such choices for themselves, or a they intellectually unburdened in having to make a consequential choice at all?

One god, or many?

Who cares? Let's go play, then we'll worry about where lunch comes from.

That's my choice.

michel · Apr 15, 2006

s2a said:
I don't know if you will consider my reply as merely argumentative (qualitatively), or worthy of debate.

Your rationale strikes me as akin to "What you don't know, can't/won't hurt you". On the surface, as in a parent seeking to defend a child from things they are either ill-equipped or ill-prepared to confront from a more mature perspective, I could superficially concede (if not necessarily concur) that such a "defense" would serve the short-term interests of the child.

I'd even like to believe that religion seeks to instigate and bolster inquiry into things yet undiscovered/unexplained/unknown, but history reflects poorly upon such a hopeful optimism.

Would it not be simpler to remove any burden of intellect (and accountable/consequential choice/circumstance) from the imperfect and wanton mind of an mortal man?

Are dogs inherently sinful? They are unburdened by feelings of shame, long-term remorse, or guilt for their consequential actions. They do not question existence, they simply revel in it - in a manner that is worthy of our envy, grudging respect, and balefully wishful thinking. Ahhhh...to fart in mixed company without concern or apology; to lick one's own genitals because it needs to be done; to take a crap in an unspecified place of one's own choosing in the moment of need.

Dogs evince all the qualities we aspire to ourselves. They are loyal, fun-loving, carefree, and unabashed in their personal selves. They also tender unconditional love and a lifetime emotional bond to whomever bothers to feed them from time to time (without killing/torturing them). Dogs are eager to please their masters, as long as their masters are neither cruel nor inconsistent in their care/welfare. Why should we burden a dog with our cares and responsibilities? Should a dog feel remorse, guilt, or a need of conscious repentance in the knowledge that their masters must earn a paycheck in order to provide Purina Dog Chow?

As masters (gods?) of dogs, what burdens of intellect do we impose upon our canine companions in order for them to asses/judge their worthiness of our love and affection? What would be fair? What should we righteously expect, beyond that which is not already inherent within their species or capacities? Does a dog poop on your carpet as a matter of defiance to your wishes, or do we seek to impose a burden (and culpability) of intellect comparable to our own ("'Good people'" don't abjectly crap on carpets")?

Would you rather be a dog, or a master of one?

Are men of freewill accountable to make such choices for themselves, or a they intellectually unburdened in having to make a consequential choice at all?

One god, or many?

Who cares? Let's go play, then we'll worry about where lunch comes from.

That's my choice.

I can't say I agree with you, but you make a wonderful argument from your perspective;

Are dogs inherently sinful? They are unburdened by feelings of shame, long-term remorse, or guilt for their consequential actions. They do not question existence, they simply revel in it - in a manner that is worthy of our envy, grudging respect, and balefully wishful thinking. Ahhhh...to fart in mixed company without concern or apology; to lick one's own genitals because it needs to be done; to take a crap in an unspecified place of one's own choosing in the moment of need.

I might disagree with certain assertions above. Dogs, unburdened by feelings of shame ?......I think our Jessie would disagree with you when she has been presented with the mess she has left when trying to get to something which smells nice on the kitchen worktop; if that ain't guilt, well......................

As for what they think, I suppose unless we do know better, we must assume that they do live to play, eat and sleep

Ahhhh...to fart in mixed company without concern or apology; to lick one's own genitals because it needs to be done; to take a crap in an unspecified place of one's own choosing in the moment of need.

Well, of course I had to smile at that; but I would suggest that it is we humans who have made the above 'unsociable' behaviour. After all, that is mere nature.

As a Chinaman once said, when he was first introduced to western "Civilization?", "I do not understand you, you remove the excretia from your noses, wrap it in silk, and put it in your pocket ??"

Squirt · Apr 15, 2006

Mr. Emu,

And the scripture

Im not sure exactly what youre asking for; perhaps Evandr will. I must go along with him and say that not only is the concept of the Trinity flawed, it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. Hence, there is no scripture. Since we (Christians) all base our beliefs on the Bible, perhaps you would begin by presenting those of us who dont believe in the Trinity with a few passages that describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the same terms as they are described a few hundred years later when the Trinity doctrine was actually established.

So because something is hard/impossible to understand it is automatically wrong? Because something is simpler it is true? Maybe you are the one interpretting scripture to go along with your non-Trinitarian beliefs...

Neither difficulty nor ease in understand something should be a factor in determining whether its true or not. But the truth of the matter is that the Trinity is not taught in the scriptures at all. Its not even a matter of interpretation.

What led to the concept of the Trinity is the teachings of Jesus faithfully recorded is Scripture and Tradition.

Perhaps you could share some of Jesus Trinitarian teachings and some of the traditions passed on by His Apostles or even by others living at the same time He did, who would be familiar with what He actually taught about His Father and His relationship with His Father.

Ill just leave you with this joke I saw quite some time ago. I would like to state up front that it is not meant to offend, but describes pretty well what I believe Jesus Christ Himself would have to say about the Trinity:

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, but an economic subordination within God, a division which makes the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

Super Universe · Apr 15, 2006

Do you believe that a father can have a son? Can that father also have a soul? Father. Son. Holy Spirit.

Squirt · Apr 15, 2006

Super Universe said:
Do you believe that a father can have a son?

Sure. I just don't believe that a father can be his own son or that a son can be his own father.

Can that father also have a soul?

I'm assuming that you are using the word "soul" as I would normally use the word "spirit." If I'm assuming correctly, yes, I absolutely believe that a father can have a soul (i.e. spirit).

Father. Son. Holy Spirit.

Uh... what's your point? I believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all part of the Godhead.

Super Universe · Apr 15, 2006

We agree.

Mister Emu · Apr 15, 2006

I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking for

Not asking for anything... also add that the Trinity makes on dependant on Tradition.

Since we (Christians) all base our beliefs on the Bible

Are you saying I am not a Christian?

(I believe the Bible was based on the beliefs of the Church who compiled it.)

perhaps you would begin by presenting those of us who don’t believe in the Trinity with a few passages that describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the same terms as they are described a few hundred years later when the Trinity doctrine was actually established

I will, however I will also state my belief that the authority who compiled the Bible had the authority to teach what is in that Bible.

Phil. 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
Jn 1:1(The most blantantly Trinitarian(or dualitarian) passage in the Bible)
In the beginning was theWord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mat 3:16-17 And Jesus, 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 descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
Mar 13:11 But when they shall lead [you], and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD

But the truth of the matter is that the Trinity is not taught in the scriptures at all. It’s not even a matter of interpretation.

A duality is obvious, the Trinity implied.

Perhaps you could share some of Jesus’ Trinitarian teachings and some of the traditions passed on by His Apostles or even by others living at the same time He did, who would be familiar with what He actually taught about His Father and His relationship with His Father.

The Tradition of the Trinity was passed down, the sacraments, the primacy of Peter...

Squirt · Apr 15, 2006

Mister Emu said:
Not asking for anything... also add that the Trinity makes on dependant on Tradition.

This is fine, as long as the tradition is grounded in true doctrine. In this particular case, I don't believe it is.

Are you saying I am not a Christian? (I believe the Bible was based on the beliefs of the Church who compiled it.)No, absolutely not! Unlike some on this forum, I would never presume to tell someone who considers himself to be a Christian that he isn't. I was merely trying to say that both you and I believe in the Bible. I do not, however, accept the 4th and 5th century Creeds. That's why I was hoping we could stick to scripture to support our relative positions.

I will, however I will also state my belief that the authority who compiled the Bible had the authority to teach what is in that Bible.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't believe that anybody held the authority to compile the Bible. I believe that that authority ceased to exist shortly after the Apostles' deaths. I'm totally fine with everything the Bible teaches.

Phil. 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
Jn 1:1(The most blantantly Trinitarian(or dualitarian) passage in the Bible)
In the beginning was theWord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mat 3:16-17 And Jesus, 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 descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
Mar 13:11 But when they shall lead [you], and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD

A duality is obvious, the Trinity implied.

I can go along with a triune Godhead, as appears to be what is taught in these examples. I just can't buy into the later interpretations that transformed the Godhead into a metaphysical being that, in my opinion, is far removed from what is taught in the scriptures.

The Tradition of the Trinity was passed down, the sacraments, the primacy of Peter...

I don't wish to discuss the sacraments or the primacy of Peter in this particular thread, since it would take us too far off the topic presented in the OP. As for the tradition of the Trinity being passed down, I can't argue with you there. I just don't think it was passed down from Jesus and the Apostles. I don't see the idea of "a single substance" being even alluded to in the scriptures you mentioned. On the contrary, I see these scriptures as describing three distinct beings who are fully united, fully "one" -- just not physically.

dawny0826 · Apr 15, 2006

I believe and probably will always believe that belief or non-belief in the Trinity rests on biblical interpretation.

These are only a FEW verses which support my belief in the Trinity from a biblical perspective...

"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Speak these things, exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you." Tit. 2:11-15

"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given: and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God." Isaiah 9:6

"My Father who has given them to me is greater than all: and no one is able to snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and My Father are one." John 10:29-30

"Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58

After Christ arose...he spoke to Thomas and when Thomas saw him he replied...

"My Lord and my God!." John 20:28

In John 1:1-5...the Eternal Word is defined as being both God and Christ...

"In the beginning, was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it."

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:16

For me, there's a spiritual enrichment in understanding and believing in the Trinity. It makes sense to me. I wish that everyone could feel what I do when it comes to my understanding of the Trinity. But...

I wouldn't consider a Christian who doesn't accept the Trinity any less Christian than myself and if one's faith is in Christ...the Bible states that it is in CHRIST that we will be reconciled with the Father.

Mister Emu · Apr 15, 2006

This is fine, as long as the tradition is grounded in true doctrine. In this particular case, I don't believe it is.

That is fine, I happen to believe it is

I can go along with a triune Godhead, as appears to be what is taught in these examples. I just can't buy into the later interpretations that transformed the Godhead into a metaphysical being that, in my opinion, is far removed from what is taught in the scriptures.

There is our difference, you think they are later, I think yours are later...

I don't wish to discuss the sacraments or the primacy of Peter in this particular thread, since it would take us too far off the topic presented in the OP

Neither do I. You asked for some Apostolistic(sp) Tradition that was passed down...

I don't see the idea of "a single substance" being even alluded to in the scriptures you mentioned. On the contrary, I see these scriptures as describing three distinct beings who are fully united, fully "one" -- just not physically.

Matter of interpretation.

Mister Emu · Apr 15, 2006

No, absolutely not! Unlike some on this forum, I would never presume to tell someone who considers himself to be a Christian that he isn't. I was merely trying to say that both you and I believe in the Bible. I do not, however, accept the 4th and 5th century Creeds. That's why I was hoping we could stick to scripture to support our relative positions.

Sorry, lost this one in a bigger quote.

I didn't really think you were saying I wasn't Christian

I apologize if the toungue smiley did not adaquetely convey this.

Well, I don't believe that anybody held the authority to compile the Bible. I believe that that authority ceased to exist shortly after the Apostles' deaths. I'm totally fine with everything the Bible teaches.

This as well.
For clarity. The people who compiled the Bible didn't have the authority to do so?

jaareshiah · Apr 15, 2006

There are many who feel that God, Jesus and the holy spirit are "one" in a "Godhead". However, the Bible does not provide this thought. Here are some Scriptures to show that Jesus is indeed God's Son, subject to his Father.
At Hebrew 5:7-10, it says "In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek." Questions - If Jesus is God, then why did he have "godly fear" and who heard him ? If Jesus is God, then how was it that he "learned obedience" ? Does God have to become obedient to anyone ? Since God is perfect, setting the standards for perfection, then how could Jesus be "made perfect" if he is God ? How could Jesus be God and yet be "called by God" for the position of "a high priest according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek." ?
At Matthew 24:36, Jesus said concerning the moment the "great tribulation" will begin that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Since God has all knowledge, even able to foretell the future thousands of years in advance, then how is it that Jesus was not aware when the "great tribulation" would break lose, if he is God ?
At Matthew 26:39, Jesus says in prayer that "my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." How could Jesus be God and yet pray for not his "will" to take place but his Father's ?
At John 14:28, Jesus said that "my Father is greater than I."(King James Bible) If Jesus were God, would the Father be greater then him ?
At John 17:3, Jesus said that "this means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." How could he be God and yet pray to the "only true God" ?
At John 20:17, Jesus said to Mary: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." How could Jesus be God and yet ' ascend to his God ' ?
At John 8:28,29, Jesus said that "I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him." How could Jesus be God and yet be "taught" ? Furthermore, how could Jesus be God and yet do "nothing of (his) own initiative " ? Too, how could Jesus "always do the things pleasing to him (God)", if he is God ?
Too, at Philippians 2:9, the apostle Paul wrote that "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"(King James Bible) How could Jesus be God and yet be "exalted" or be given a "name which is above every other name" ? Is there any "name" higher than God's ?
The apostle John said some sixty five years after Jesus death and resurrection, that "at no time has anyone beheld God." (1 John 4:12 ) Did not the apostle John see Jesus in the flesh and yet how could he say that "at no time has anyone beheld God" ?
At Colossians 1:15, the apostle Paul wrote that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" How could he be God and yet be his "firstborn" ? At 1 Corinthians 15:24, Paul wrote that Jesus "hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power." How could Jesus be God and yet "hand over the kingdom" to him ? In verse 28, Paul says that after the "last enemy, death is... brought to nothing", then he says that "when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone". If Jesus is God, then how is it that "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone" ?
The apostle John wrote of Jesus that "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;"(John 13:3 King James Bible) How Jesus be God and have "come from God" and then "went to God" ?
Some will turn to 1 Timothy 3:16, which according to the King James Bible reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." However, this Scripture has shown to have been tampered with. This Scripture, with the words "God was manifest in the flesh" has been found to have incorrect, really tampered with. John James Wetstein (1693-1754), while he was examining the Alexandrine Manuscript in London (a Greek manuscript dating from the fifth century C.E., which contains most of the Bible), made a startling discovery. Up till that time, according to the King James Version (1611), 1 Timothy 3:16 was rendered: "God was manifest in the flesh." This rendering was reflected in most other Bibles in use.
However, Wetstein noticed that the Greek word translated "God," which was abbreviated to ΘC, had originally looked like the Greek word OC, which means "who." But a horizontal stroke showing through faintly from the other side of the vellum page, and the addition by a later hand of a line across the top, had turned the word OC ("who") into the contraction ΘC ("God"). Other manuscripts now confirm Wetsteins reading, accurate modern translations read: "He was made manifest in flesh," or "He who . . . ," referring to Jesus Christ. (American Standard, Moffatt, Weymouth, Spencer, The New English Bible)
This was later reaffirmed by Konstantin von Tischendorf, for in 1859, he found what was the oldest known complete copy of the Greek Scriptures in a monastary at the base of Mount Sinai, now known as Codex Sinaiticus and probably produced about 350 C.E. Because Sinaiticus was among the oldest original-language manuscripts, it not only revealed that the Greek Scriptures had remained essentially unchanged but also helped scholars to uncover errors that had crept into later manuscripts, such as the one at 1 Timothy 3:16, for the Sinaiticus reads: "He was made manifest in the flesh." Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading "God." Thus, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text.
And of course there is John 1:1, in which many will say this proves that Jesus is God. However, this is not the case. Because many Bibles render it as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", most believe that the "Word", who is Jesus, is God. Literally the Greek text reads: "IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD. THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD." (John 1:1,2 ) In looking at the koine Greek in which it was written, the first mention of "god" in this verse is preceeded by the Greek definite article ton, which literally means "the". But in the second occurrence of "god", there is no definite article. Why did John use "the " before the first God (theos), but not before the second occurrence of it ? Is there a difference between asking for "the" black suit and "a" black suit ? Yes there is. Likewise with the apostle John using the identfying article of "ton" (the) before the first use of God. He intentionally used it to separate who is meant by "god". How else would one distinguish between two individuals, except by saying "the man", as opposed to "a man" ?
By use of "the"(ton), John is speaking of a specific person - God, whereas in using "god" without a definite article, he was identifying the "Word" as being godlike,or having a godly quality, thus describing the nature of the Word. Therefore, Philip B. Harner, in his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate (without definiteness ) preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite."
The apostle John, in using the Greek article "ton" (the) before the first occurrence of God at John 1:1, but not in the second occurrence, was thereby pointing toward the Word as having the quality of godlike ones, but not the person of God.
If John had said ton theos en ho logos, (the God is the Word) using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos [the Word] with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, more of an adjective than a noun.
Therefore, Jesus is God's only-begotten Son, for how can someone be be begotten and yet have no beginning, as God does ?(Psalms 90:2; John 3:16 King James Bible) Hence, Jesus had a beginning, for Revelation 3:14 calls him the "the beginning of the creation of God;"

jaareshiah · Apr 15, 2006

There are many who feel that God, Jesus and the holy spirit are "one" in a "Godhead". However, the Bible does not provide this thought. Here are some Scriptures to show that Jesus is indeed God's Son, subject to his Father.
At Hebrew 5:7-10, it says "In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek." Questions - If Jesus is God, then why did he have "godly fear" and who heard him ? If Jesus is God, then how was it that he "learned obedience" ? Does God have to become obedient to anyone ? Since God is perfect, setting the standards for perfection, then how could Jesus be "made perfect" if he is God ? How could Jesus be God and yet be "called by God" for the position of "a high priest according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek." ?
At Matthew 24:36, Jesus said concerning the moment the "great tribulation" will begin that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Since God has all knowledge, even able to foretell the future thousands of years in advance, then how is it that Jesus was not aware when the "great tribulation" would break lose, if he is God ?
At Matthew 26:39, Jesus says in prayer that "my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." How could Jesus be God and yet pray for not his "will" to take place but his Father's ?
At John 14:28, Jesus said that "my Father is greater than I."(King James Bible) If Jesus were God, would the Father be greater then him ?
At John 17:3, Jesus said that "this means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." How could he be God and yet pray to the "only true God" ?
At John 20:17, Jesus said to Mary: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." How could Jesus be God and yet ' ascend to his God ' ?
At John 8:28,29, Jesus said that "I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him." How could Jesus be God and yet be "taught" ? Furthermore, how could Jesus be God and yet do "nothing of (his) own initiative " ? Too, how could Jesus "always do the things pleasing to him (God)", if he is God ?
Too, at Philippians 2:9, the apostle Paul wrote that "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"(King James Bible) How could Jesus be God and yet be "exalted" or be given a "name which is above every other name" ? Is there any "name" higher than God's ?
The apostle John said some sixty five years after Jesus death and resurrection, that "at no time has anyone beheld God." (1 John 4:12 ) Did not the apostle John see Jesus in the flesh and yet how could he say that "at no time has anyone beheld God" ?
At Colossians 1:15, the apostle Paul wrote that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" How could he be God and yet be his "firstborn" ? At 1 Corinthians 15:24, Paul wrote that Jesus "hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power." How could Jesus be God and yet "hand over the kingdom" to him ? In verse 28, Paul says that after the "last enemy, death is... brought to nothing", then he says that "when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone". If Jesus is God, then how is it that "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone" ?
The apostle John wrote of Jesus that "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;"(John 13:3 King James Bible) How Jesus be God and have "come from God" and then "went to God" ?
Some will turn to 1 Timothy 3:16, which according to the King James Bible reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." However, this Scripture has shown to have been tampered with. This Scripture, with the words "God was manifest in the flesh" has been found to have incorrect, really tampered with. John James Wetstein (1693-1754), while he was examining the Alexandrine Manuscript in London (a Greek manuscript dating from the fifth century C.E., which contains most of the Bible), made a startling discovery. Up till that time, according to the King James Version (1611), 1 Timothy 3:16 was rendered: "God was manifest in the flesh." This rendering was reflected in most other Bibles in use.
However, Wetstein noticed that the Greek word translated "God," which was abbreviated to ΘC, had originally looked like the Greek word OC, which means "who." But a horizontal stroke showing through faintly from the other side of the vellum page, and the addition by a later hand of a line across the top, had turned the word OC ("who") into the contraction ΘC ("God"). Other manuscripts now confirm Wetsteins reading, accurate modern translations read: "He was made manifest in flesh," or "He who . . . ," referring to Jesus Christ. (American Standard, Moffatt, Weymouth, Spencer, The New English Bible)
This was later reaffirmed by Konstantin von Tischendorf, for in 1859, he found what was the oldest known complete copy of the Greek Scriptures in a monastary at the base of Mount Sinai, now known as Codex Sinaiticus and probably produced about 350 C.E. Because Sinaiticus was among the oldest original-language manuscripts, it not only revealed that the Greek Scriptures had remained essentially unchanged but also helped scholars to uncover errors that had crept into later manuscripts, such as the one at 1 Timothy 3:16, for the Sinaiticus reads: "He was made manifest in the flesh." Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading "God." Thus, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text.
And of course there is John 1:1, in which many will say this proves that Jesus is God. However, this is not the case. Because many Bibles render it as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", most believe that the "Word", who is Jesus, is God. Literally the Greek text reads: "IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD. THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD." (John 1:1,2 ) In looking at the koine Greek in which it was written, the first mention of "god" in this verse is preceeded by the Greek definite article ton, which literally means "the". But in the second occurrence of "god", there is no definite article. Why did John use "the " before the first God (theos), but not before the second occurrence of it ? Is there a difference between asking for "the" black suit and "a" black suit ? Yes there is. Likewise with the apostle John using the identfying article of "ton" (the) before the first use of God. He intentionally used it to separate who is meant by "god". How else would one distinguish between two individuals, except by saying "the man", as opposed to "a man" ?
By use of "the"(ton), John is speaking of a specific person - God, whereas in using "god" without a definite article, he was identifying the "Word" as being godlike,or having a godly quality, thus describing the nature of the Word. Therefore, Philip B. Harner, in his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate (without definiteness ) preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite."
The apostle John, in using the Greek article "ton" (the) before the first occurrence of God at John 1:1, but not in the second occurrence, was thereby pointing toward the Word as having the quality of godlike ones, but not the person of God.
If John had said ton theos en ho logos, (the God is the Word) using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos [the Word] with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, more of an adjective than a noun.
Therefore, Jesus is God's only-begotten Son, for how can someone be be begotten and yet have no beginning, as God does ?(Psalms 90:2; John 3:16 King James Bible) Hence, Jesus had a beginning, for Revelation 3:14 calls him the "the beginning of the creation of God;"

Evandr2 · Apr 15, 2006

cmfcf said:
God is a title to a higher deity but he was also as we are now. Christ is also just a title. Their names are for the individual and each has their own. The only name that has not been given (through revelation) is the Holy Ghost. He is called the First Comforter and there is a Second Comforter. Anyway though they are Gods they are still bound by universal law and order. They cannot nor will break any of those laws.

It is evident that you have thought somewhat on this subject. Please explain your views about what deity is, it a person or an organization. I have ideas on the subject but I will wait for your response before posting them.

As to deity being given to law you are absolutely correct. I like to think of omnipotence this way, "In all the laws of all creation encompassing all things, places, dimensions, times, and powers, there is that which acts and that which is acted upon. In all of this God's knowledge and glory is absolute and perfect. In other words "if it can be done, God can do it" The ramifications of that statement are mind boggling.

I will explain what I mean by that last statement if someone asks me to.

Vandr

Evandr2 · Apr 15, 2006

Mister Emu said:
This as well.
For clarity. The people who compiled the Bible didn't have the authority to do so?

Mister Emu, if your question was "what does authority have to do with it?" I am with you all the way.

The Bible is a compilation of letters (to use modern vernacular) from the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ to various congregation to which they could not be personally present.

These were prophets who knew the mind and will of God and thusly these letters were then, as they are now (provided they have been translated correctly and have not lost meaning in the translation), of great value to anyone looking to get closer to the Lord.

I doubt that whoever started compiling these writing into what we know as the Bible knew how grand a scale there efforts would culminate to. I really don't think that authority had so much to do with it as opportunity.

But one thing I do believe, "God had a hand in it"

Vandr

A Trinity of one? - A new thought

Member

Well-Known Member

Emu Extraordinaire

New Member

New Member

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Defender of God

Well-Known Member

Defender of God

Emu Extraordinaire

Well-Known Member

Mother Heathen

Emu Extraordinaire

Emu Extraordinaire

Member

Member

Member

Member