• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Roman Catholic on the Trinity

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
The Roman Catholic writer Thomas Hart, in his book, To Know and Follow Jesus, commented on a couple of verses in Hebrews.

Heb 2:17,

Wherefore in all things it behoved him (Jesus) to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest (Jesus) which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.​

"The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He knows the past, present, and future … He knows exactly what everyone is thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are familiar with."
Indeed, had Jesus known He was God he would not have been at all like the rest of us.

Quoting scripture won’t cause the concept of the trinity to make sense, Rob.
Basically, it means that god sacrificed himself to himself to get around rules he himself put into place.

Besides, if he was resurrected three days later a became an immortal king, he gained, not lost.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Quoting scripture won’t cause the concept of the trinity to make sense, Rob.
Basically, it means that god sacrificed himself to himself to get around rules he himself put into place.

Besides, if he was resurrected three days later a became an immortal king, he gained, not lost.
Wrong. It means as required by the law, it was kept perfectly, as a substitutionary life for all believers. Further, the crucifixion was a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all believers.

There is nothing to do with getting around the law, it was all about someone who could fail, not doing so.

People make the Godhead (trinity) much more complicated than it is.

Water is water, yet it can be a vapor, a liquid, or a solid. Gods can be three different manifestations at the same time,

My Father was Bill Jones, I am Tim Jones, my son is David Jones. We are all Jones, we are all individuals
 

Niblo

Active Member
Premium Member
In all honesty, yes, they have created what can only be described as an absurdity. I often wonder how many intelligent people reject Christianity because of the absurdness of the trinity. Can't blame 'em one bit!

One of the main arguments for adherence to the trinity is tradition.

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.​

As usual, the scriptures speak for themselves.

Take care and thanks for your post.

Hello again, and thank you.

Sorry for the delayed reply.

According to the Catholic Church the ‘hypostatic union’ is a: ‘Mystery of faith, the reality of which could not be known before its revelation, and the inner possibility of which cannot positively be proved even after its revelation…. Pope Leo the Great says: "That both substances unite themselves in one Person no speech can explain if Faith does not hold fast to it".’ (Ludwig Ott - ‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’; Page 152).

For me, belief in the doctrine of the incarnation is an example of what is known a ‘doublethink’ – defined by George Orwell as:

‘The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies…. and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.’ (‘Nineteen Eighty-Four; part 2, chapter 9, page 220).

Please take note of the words: ‘To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them.’

A liar is someone who sets out to deceive; who makes a statement in the full knowledge that it is false. As you know, Trinitarians are not doing this. They really do believe that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was (and is) fully man and fully God (at one and the same time).

‘Doublethink’ in action.

Take care, and very best regards.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Jesus cant be like us when he has innoncent blood. He isnt god. So....

How can sin share in the nature of purity and innocence?

I hear this a lot; so, I understand the concept. The actual process or connecting how a three thousand (lets say) yearo ld person can save anyone in the 21st century is beyond me.
Try reading the first 8 chapters of Romans.

They start out explaining the fallen nature of man. The first few chapters do not say anything at all about man being pure or innocent. In fact, they were all quite guilty, no innocence whatsoever.

Rom 3:10,

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
That is pretty clear and definitive. Because of Adam's sin, all people were born with a sin nature.

Rom 5:12,

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
God gave Adam free will. He told him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as well as exactly what would happen if he disobeyed. God created the world perfect. He then gave the oversight of that world to Adam (Gen 1:28). God never was in control because He gave that privilege to humans. Well, humans screwed it up. It wasn't God's will, but at that time there was nothing He could do.

We all share in the same guilty blood as Adam. That is the upshot of corruptible seed. We all are descendants of Adam and thus our blood is the same guilty blood as his. That is why we are sinners by nature.

By miraculously planting seed within Mary's womb, God was able to create another man who was born with innocent blood. Jesus did not share in the seed and blood the rest of us do. He was the second man to begin life with innocent blood. That is why he was the lamb without blemish.

Unlike Adam, Jesus maintained that innocence to his death. That is why God could raise him from the dead and thus conquer death. By simply believing that (Rom 10:9), we too can get born again and become innocent in God's sight. That is why we have eternal life.

Like I said, give the first 8 chapters of Romans a slow reading to get a good overview of man's fall and redemption. Maybe read my post #55 also for a fuller explanation of what I've just wrote to you.

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. Take care.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
May I ask exactly when you believe this second birth by incorruptable seed takes place? Is it at baptism or at some other specific action or is it at different times for different people?
Luke 3:16,

John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he (Jesus) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
John said that although he baptized with water, Jesus would baptize with holy spirit. (Holy spirit is a better translation of "holy ghost" which are the Greek words "pneuma agios.")

Just before Jesus' ascension Jesus repeated this truth.

Acts 1:5,

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost (pneuma agios) not many days hence.
That promise was fulfilled about 40 days later on the day of Pentecost. You can read Acts chapter 2 to get the whole story, but this is a summary of the events of that day:

Peter had just finished the first sermon that was preached after the first outpouring of pneuma agios in history. He explained that they made a mistake in having Jesus crucified by the Romans.

Acts 2:37,

Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
Some understood their mistake and that is why they were "pricked in the heart." They wanted to make things right, so they asked how that could be done.

Acts 2:38,

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
That is the essence of the new birth, of being saved. The new birth is to be baptized in pneuma agios, holy spirit.

There are several other incidents in the book of Acts that show the Apostles telling people how to get saved and several of those incidents include the people getting baptized or receiving the gift of holy spirit.

Rom 10:9,

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
This verse spells it out as clear as clear can be. The moment a person acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus Christ and believes God raised him from the dead, that person is saved and they receive the gift of holy spirit. Our bodies and souls all perish. It is that gift of holy spirit wherein our eternal life is found.

Gal 2:20,

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.​

Col 3:3,

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
The true life of any born again person is the life that is in the gift of holy spirit.

1Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
The first time we were born of our parents we were born by incorruptible seed. That's why all people die. But when we are born again of holy spirit it is by incorruptible seed, hence we get eternal life.

I hope all this helps. It's a simple story and yet requires much study and consideration.

 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Quoting scripture won’t cause the concept of the trinity to make sense, Rob.
Basically, it means that god sacrificed himself to himself to get around rules he himself put into place.

Besides, if he was resurrected three days later a became an immortal king, he gained, not lost.
I understand that quoting scripture won't cause the trinity to make sense. Nothing can cause it to make sense because it doesn't make sense, period.

I'm not so sure God would do anything to "get around the rules He Himself put into place." That's more of a human characteristic. God does not renege on any of His works. When He gave dominion to Adam (Gen 1:28) it was out of God's hands. Man screwed things up and it had to be a man to make them right. Enter stage right the man Jesus Christ. God's plan, the logos of John 1:1 did not violate man's free will in any way. Man was in charge, so it had to be a man to fix it.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Hello again, and thank you.

Sorry for the delayed reply.

According to the Catholic Church the ‘hypostatic union’ is a: ‘Mystery of faith, the reality of which could not be known before its revelation, and the inner possibility of which cannot positively be proved even after its revelation…. Pope Leo the Great says: "That both substances unite themselves in one Person no speech can explain if Faith does not hold fast to it".’ (Ludwig Ott - ‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’; Page 152).

For me, belief in the doctrine of the incarnation is an example of what is known a ‘doublethink’ – defined by George Orwell as:

‘The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies…. and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.’ (‘Nineteen Eighty-Four; part 2, chapter 9, page 220).

Please take note of the words: ‘To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them.’

A liar is someone who sets out to deceive; who makes a statement in the full knowledge that it is false. As you know, Trinitarians are not doing this. They really do believe that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was (and is) fully man and fully God (at one and the same time).

‘Doublethink’ in action.

Take care, and very best regards.
I copied the quote by Orwell for my notes. Brilliant!

The general concept of faith is a funny thing. It is generally taken to mean that if something can't be explained in terms that a logical person understand in everyday terms, then it must be taken "by faith." It is often called "blind faith."

Faith is actually quit the opposite. We are likely to lend money to a friend with whom we familiar and know to be trustworthy. We have faith they will pay us back so we lend them the money. On the other hand, we are unlikely to lend money to someone about whom we know little. We do not have faith that we will bet re-payed.

Faith is the result of knowledge and familiarity. We have faith in things we know to be trustworthy. We have faith to sit down on a chair because by experience we know it won't let is fall onto the floor and get hurt. If a complete stranger, told me to close my eyes and sit down on a chair that I didn't see for myself but that they assured me was there, I'm not so sure how much faith I'd have in that situation. I might not sit.

Blind faith is just that; blind. I know people say they believe in a trinity, but it is really quite impossible to do so.

And yes, you are absolutely right in saying trinitarians are not guilty of deception. It is they themselves who have been deceived by 2,000 years of tradition. I'm often told I'm not saved because I don't believe the trinity. I'd never take upon myself the role of judge and jury and say a trinitarian is not saved. I'd never say that anybody is not saved, including a Muslim such as yourself. God determines the fate of every man. People look on the exterior, God looks on the heart.

Take care.
 
Last edited:

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Luke 3:16,

John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he (Jesus) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
John said that although he baptized with water, Jesus would baptize with holy spirit. (Holy spirit is a better translation of "holy ghost" which are the Greek words "pneuma agios.")

Just before Jesus' ascension Jesus repeated this truth.

Acts 1:5,

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost (pneuma agios) not many days hence.
That promise was fulfilled about 40 days later on the day of Pentecost. You can read Acts chapter 2 to get the whole story, but this is a summary of the events of that day:

Peter had just finished the first sermon that was preached after the first outpouring of pneuma agios in history. He explained that they made a mistake in having Jesus crucified by the Romans.

Acts 2:37,

Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
Some understood their mistake and that is why they were "pricked in the heart." They wanted to make things right, so they asked how that could be done.

Acts 2:38,

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
That is the essence of the new birth, of being saved. The new birth is to be baptized in pneuma agios, holy spirit.

There are several other incidents in the book of Acts that show the Apostles telling people how to get saved and several of those incidents include the people getting baptized or receiving the gift of holy spirit.

Rom 10:9,

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
This verse spells it out as clear as clear can be. The moment a person acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus Christ and believes God raised him from the dead, that person is saved and they receive the gift of holy spirit. Our bodies and souls all perish. It is that gift of holy spirit wherein our eternal life is found.

Gal 2:20,

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.​

Col 3:3,

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
The true life of any born again person is the life that is in the gift of holy spirit.

1Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
The first time we were born of our parents we were born by incorruptible seed. That's why all people die. But when we are born again of holy spirit it is by incorruptible seed, hence we get eternal life.

I hope all this helps. It's a simple story and yet requires much study and consideration.

Hope you do not mind one question. Peter said repent and be baptized. What does this mean when babies are baptized and they do not know anything about repenting? Should only adults be baptized? Is it necessary to repent first before being baptized? All these babies may not really be saved if they did not repent. Your thoughts please.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us.

Then Hart is a heretic from his own church. It happens.

The early church was chock full of heretics back in the day, and we certainly have plenty of heretics running around now. It was predicted.

It's not uncommon for folks to misunderstand the dual nature of Christ. This generally happens in the cults as opposed to the historic, traditional church. But whether Hart espouses they denounced Chritologies of Eutychianism (Christ's divine and human nature was scrambled together) or Monophysitism (Christ's divine nature was combined with his human nature into one nature) matters little. In either instance Christ would become a creature that is neither man nor God and thus unable to mediate for either, and this is where your argument breaks down.

If an intelligent dispute arises between a man and a horse, how would you decide it fairly? If you hire a man the horse will object, and if you hire a horse, the man will immediately claim the horse to biased.

So if Christ is only man, he cannot mediate for God and if Christ is only God, he cannot mediate for man. If he is some weird mixed combination of the two, he can do neither.

Christ has a dual nature (hypostatic union). NEITHER nature "dominates" the other...instead they co-exist as born by scripture:

GOD
He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33
Man
He worshiped the Father (John 17)​
God
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)​
Man
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5)​
God
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)​
Man
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)​
God
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59)​
Man
He prayed to the Father (John 17)​
God
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)​
Man
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)​
God
He knows all things (John 21:17)​
Man
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)​
God
He gives eternal life (John 10:28)​
Man
He died (Rom. 5:8)​
God
All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)​
Man
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)​

READ and APPLY the above scriptures to your Christology @rrobs. Your Christology must be able to account for all verses concerning Christ, without over or de-emphasizing others. This is how the church formed its Christology.

As you scripturally discern Christ's dual nature you'll be able to understand how Trinitarians can state Christ was subject to the Father in his nature as man or even call upon the Father as his God (because there is only one God of man) whilst at the same time being fully God.

Indeed, had Jesus known He was God he would not have been at all like the rest of us.

Jesus was "like" us because he was fully man. He was also fully God. This allowed him not to be "like man" but actually a man whilst not being "like God" but actually God. If you understand how a spouse can be a wife to her husband and a secretary to her boss without "mixing" these roles with her boss to her husband's detriment, then you have all the needed capacity to understand the dual nature of Christ without confusion.

Can you be tempted and know you can not fail? I trust you will answer that in the negative.

You and I were born into sin, so of course we can be tempted and fail. Another way to phrase your question: How can Jesus be like us unless he sins?

So if you can fail but Jesus can't fail, how does that make Jesus just like you, as Hebrews clearly says he is.

Jesus was tempted just like any man would be from Adam to the present time. Unlike Adam (or the rest of us) Jesus relied on God which is not a recipe for failure.

John 1:14 says the logos became flesh. That didn't happen until many years after the beginning spoken of in John 1:1, so Jesus was not there in the beginning. There is more to the logos than simply substituting the word Jesus for it.

You'll really have to explain this one to me. John 1:1 tell us:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

and John 1:14 tells us

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.​

There are not two "Words" but one "Word" here! The Word was "In the beginning" and yes, many years later "The Word became flesh", so how on earth can you say "...so Jesus was not there in the beginning" when John 1:1 tells us the exact opposite???

Remember @rrobs, John 3:16 clearly tells us the Father gave (not "made") his only Son. Jesus has always been there.

We should be able to reconcile John 3:16 with your statement that "Jesus was not there in the beginning" and I'm not seeing how that is done.

So if you can fail but Jesus can't fail, how does that make Jesus just like you, as Hebrews clearly says he is.

Sin equals failure.It's not that Jesus couldn't fail, it's that he didn't. Jesus did not sin so there was no failure. We on the other hand do sin, and quite often, some with every chance they get so we have lots and lots of failures..

To claim Jesus couldn't be like us because he didn't fail (sin) is like claiming Adam wasn't really a man until he did.

Come back to the hypostatic union @rrobs. There are two distinct and unmixed natures in the Christology of Jesus...the Divine, and the human. Had Jesus called upon his own Divine nature to circumvent/check on whether he would be successful or not, or to prevent him from temptation, he would have instantly ceased to have been human and could no longer offer himself as a human ransom for all. That is why he had to rely totally on the Father:

"By myself, I can do nothing..." (John 5:30)

"...I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." ( John 8:28)​

It's why he called upon his Father rather than himself for strength:

"An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him" (Luke 22: 43)​

And its why Trinitarians can reconcile biblical texts while Unitarians struggle.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Hope you do not mind one question. Peter said repent and be baptized. What does this mean when babies are baptized and they do not know anything about repenting? Should only adults be baptized? Is it necessary to repent first before being baptized? All these babies may not really be saved if they did not repent. Your thoughts please.
Well, I know many orthodox churches believe in baptizing babies, but truth is not determined by popular opinion or tradition. Jesus said something pertinent about tradition:

Mark 7:13,

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
I think that verse speaks for itself. No interpretation of commentary necessary. We either believe tradition of God's word.

As far as babies being saved or not, it is not up to me to decide their ultimate fate. That is God's job. The scriptures do tell us that God's judgement is according to truth, so I'll just leave it in His hands. All I know is what Romans 10:9 says.

Rom 10:9,

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
I've not found any other way to get saved in the scriptures.That does mean that a person has to understand certain things that a baby is quite incapable of understanding. Like I said, I just trust God to do the right thing. I do know babies will not suffer eternity in torment.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
So if Christ is only man, he cannot mediate for God and if Christ is only God, he cannot mediate for man. If he is some weird mixed combination of the two, he can do neither.
Then why doesn't 1 Tim 2:5 read as follows:

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the god-man Christ Jesus?
That is quite at odds with what it actually says:

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
It seems that had God wanted us to know Jesus was a god-man this would have been an excellent opportunity for Him to have done that.
Christ has a dual nature (hypostatic union). NEITHER nature "dominates" the other...instead they co-exist as born by scripture:
Hypostatic union are words used to describe concepts that are not in the scriptures. They are man made, not found in the scriptures themselves
GOD
He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33
Man
He worshiped the Father (John 17)​
Those are not good verses to make for the trinity. God does not worship Himself. There is a one who worships and and one who is worshiped. Two people not one. There is no hint that the two are somehow one. That is both impossible and not scriptural. Simple English is all that is required to see two
God
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)​
Man
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5)​
We are reading a preconceived idea that a god can only be the one true God. There are several places where men are called gods. The ancient Hebrew understood a god to be someone with power and authority. I offer the following verses as examples of where men with authority are called gods: Ex 7:1, Ex 22:28 (context speaking of the judges), John 10:35 (speaking of the Israelite people).
God
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)​
Man
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)​
But never God the Son. Those born again are also called sons.
God
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59)​
Man
He prayed to the Father (John 17)​
Abraham prayed to his sister (Gen 12:13). Praying simply means asking another for something. It in no way automatically makes the one prayed to God.
God
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)​
Man
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)​
God can not be tempted (James 1:13). If Jesus was tempted, he can't be God.
God
He knows all things (John 21:17)​
Man
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)​
If someone knows all things they can hardly grow in wisdom. Men can grow in wisdom, but not God.
God
He gives eternal life (John 10:28)​
Man
He died (Rom. 5:8)​
God died? In any case those two verses say nothing about a trinity or that Jesus was God. They make two, more or less, different assertions about two different people.
God
All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)​
Man
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)​
Paul prayed that we might be filled with the fullness of God (Eph 3:19). Christ dwells in us (Col 1:27) and therefor so does God (Eph 2:22).
READ and APPLY the above scriptures to your Christology. Your Christology must be able to account for all verses concerning Christ, without over or de-emphasizing others. This is how the church formed its Christology.
I think I just did that. Jesus was "like" us because he was fully man. He was also fully God.
I trust you don't see yourself as being fully God. Remember Jesus is just like you, so he never understood himself to be fully God in any sense whatsoever.
You'll really have to explain this one to me. John 1:1 tell us:
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​
Just read what's written. Don't willy-nilly substitute the word "Jesus" for the word "word." Read my post #55 for a more lengthy discussion of John 1:1.
"By myself, I can do nothing..." (John 5:30)
Neither can we. That verse has nothing to do with the trinity. It merely says that Jesus' power came from God, just like for the born again believer.
"...I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." ( John 8:28)
Again, no reason to insert a trinity here. Jesus is simply saying he speaks what God tells him to speak. You do the same thing every time your quote scripture to someone.
"An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him" (Luke 22: 43)​
God needed strength from an angel? Better think about that a bit more
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Try reading the first 8 chapters of Romans.

They start out explaining the fallen nature of man. The first few chapters do not say anything at all about man being pure or innocent. In fact, they were all quite guilty, no innocence whatsoever.

Rom 3:10,

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
That is pretty clear and definitive. Because of Adam's sin, all people were born with a sin nature.

Rom 5:12,

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
God gave Adam free will. He told him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as well as exactly what would happen if he disobeyed. God created the world perfect. He then gave the oversight of that world to Adam (Gen 1:28). God never was in control because He gave that privilege to humans. Well, humans screwed it up. It wasn't God's will, but at that time there was nothing He could do.

We all share in the same guilty blood as Adam. That is the upshot of corruptible seed. We all are descendants of Adam and thus our blood is the same guilty blood as his. That is why we are sinners by nature.

By miraculously planting seed within Mary's womb, God was able to create another man who was born with innocent blood. Jesus did not share in the seed and blood the rest of us do. He was the second man to begin life with innocent blood. That is why he was the lamb without blemish.

Unlike Adam, Jesus maintained that innocence to his death. That is why God could raise him from the dead and thus conquer death. By simply believing that (Rom 10:9), we too can get born again and become innocent in God's sight. That is why we have eternal life.

Like I said, give the first 8 chapters of Romans a slow reading to get a good overview of man's fall and redemption. Maybe read my post #55 also for a fuller explanation of what I've just wrote to you.

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. Take care.


How can the sin of man share in the purity of christ?
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
How can the sin of man share in the purity of christ?
Because of Jesus' sacrifice. That is the whole point of his death and resurrection. Because of his work God was able to create a "whole new you" that is as righteous as God Himself.

Rom 3:22,

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
When you believed Romans 10:9 you became a new creation.

2Cor 5:17,

Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.​
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
My Father was Bill Jones, I am Tim Jones, my son is David Jones. We are all Jones, we are all individuals
But you are not yourself, your father, and your son all wrapped into one person. That makes absolutely no sense. There is not a person that would think such a thing. Not a good analogy to attempt an explanation for the trinity. The fact is, there is no way whatsoever to explain the trinity.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Because of Jesus' sacrifice. That is the whole point of his death and resurrection. Because of his work God was able to create a "whole new you" that is as righteous as God Himself.

Rom 3:22,

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
When you believed Romans 10:9 you became a new creation.

2Cor 5:17,

Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.​

I know why. How?

Kind of an oxymoron to say a poluted pure person. Unless he has inherited sin, isnt that trying to mix oil and water?
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I know why. How?

Kind of an oxymoron to say a poluted pure person. Unless he has inherited sin, isnt that trying to mix oil and water?
You are right about our flesh being useless. That is exactly what Jesus said.

John 6:63,

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Paul reaffirmed that truth.

Rom 7:18,

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.
The new birth does not affect your flesh. God did not give you a better version of flesh. Instead God created a new creation as it said in 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 5:17). That is the gift of holy spirit, Christ in you (Col 1:27). That is where the righteousness of God dwells in you. It in not in your flesh, but in your spirit.

A non-born again person as a sin nature and that is all they have. A born again person still has a sin nature, but the also have the holy spirit nature. Instead of one nature they now have two natures, one flesh and one spirit.

The flesh will die off soon enough and the only thing left will be the spirit nature, the new creation God put into you. The eternal life is a result of your spirit nature, not your flesh nature.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You are right about our flesh being useless. That is exactly what Jesus said.

John 6:63,

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Paul reaffirmed that truth.

Rom 7:18,

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.
The new birth does not affect your flesh. God did not give you a better version of flesh. Instead God created a new creation as it said in 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 5:17). That is the gift of holy spirit, Christ in you (Col 1:27). That is where the righteousness of God dwells in you. It in not in your flesh, but in your spirit.

A non-born again person as a sin nature and that is all they have. A born again person still has a sin nature, but the also have the holy spirit nature. Instead of one nature they now have two natures, one flesh and one spirit.

The flesh will die off soon enough and the only thing left will be the spirit nature, the new creation God put into you. The eternal life is a result of your spirit nature, not your flesh nature.

I dont see how this relates to my statement.

How can you mix sin with the sinless?

Cant figure a more simple way to ask.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
But you are not yourself, your father, and your son all wrapped into one person. That makes absolutely no sense. There is not a person that would think such a thing. Not a good analogy to attempt an explanation for the trinity. The fact is, there is no way whatsoever to explain the trinity.
It explains the Godhead, not the trinity
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I dont see how this relates to my statement.

How can you mix sin with the sinless?

Cant figure a more simple way to ask.
Our flesh is sin. Our gift from God , our spirit, is sinless. I'm sorry, but that is as clear as I can make it. If that still doesn't answer your question, pray to God for clarity. I'm sure He'll make it plain. Just give it time. Don't give up.

There are many things that took me years to understand. There are still things I don't understand. Until Jesus returns we will not know it all. The main thing is that we admit we don't know instead of making up answers that may not be scriptural.
 
Top