Christians: The Trinity Fails to Describe God.

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of one being with the Father," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., "of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

Jacob Samuelson said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it all started, I believe at the First Council of Nicaea, where scholars from all over the Roman Empire, invited by Constantine to argue tirelessly over a unified decision of the nature of God. The result came as a creed as follows (copied from wikipedia):

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of one being with the Father," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., "of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

This has been enveloped to what we know as the Trinity for modern Christianity. The last part (part 3) still ambiguous today.

Is God the Father and God the Son the same being?

The Trinity says yes using that same scripture the bishops used in John 10:30, where the Father is One with the Son and the Son with the Father. They are the same being. For there can only be One God. And that God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father and His spirit is the Holy Ghost.

At the same time, someone with reason and common sense is looking at this and saying, "Wait, What!?"

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

The answer is we cannot. Or we can try to by bending a whole lot of scripture to a very uncomfortable and confusing way making the whole meaning of God to everyone as clear as mud.

So the only question really to answer, is what do we do about the whole Monotheism thing we got going for us? What about all the times God tells us that there is only One God? How can Jesus be God and this Father figure be God, and this Holy Spirit be God? Would that make us believe in three Gods, without the idea of the Trinity?

I think accepting this almost 2000 year old man-made creed for such a long time has really messed up Christians idea of God.

Christ had to encounter a similar situation with the Jews, when he was asked a similar question of His divinity. in John 10:33-35. We learn that not only is Jesus defending Psalms 82:6, He is renouncing the Jews understanding of what they thought was blasphemous when he pronounced himself as the Son of God directly from Psalms.

God was never meant to be a singular being. We don't have a First and Last name as "God" in the Bible. It never says God is only one being. It does say that there is only one God, but God is not a name of a being, it is a title.

God represents a collection of spiritual beings whose whole purpose is righteousness. Genesis 1:26 (notice the Us and We pronouns) The Father, who is known as Elohim, The Son, Jesus or Jehovah, and The Holy Ghost. These are the head of the institution which is called God.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. They work together to achieve the same goal which makes them part of the same organization which is God.

Notice that even though there are multiple beings under this Godship, there is still only One God. One singular organization whose goal is the salvation of their creations.

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

Click to expand...

Jacob Samuelson said:

Correct me if I'm wrong,

Click to expand...

questfortruth said:

The 3=1 holds in Spiritual Sense.

Click to expand...

Jacob Samuelson said:

Mathematically, it doesn't, which I think is the point of my post. The Trinity, which by design is supposed to logically help the common understanding of God, is not logical. And no offense, but everything holds in a spiritual sense, considering the spirit is so diverse in nature.

Click to expand...

Super Universe said:

God and Jesus are not the same being.

The Trinity is God, the Eternal Son, and Spirit. Jesus is not one of the Trinity. I know you won't be able to accept this because you want the universe to be simple. I'm sorry but it's not.

Jesus is a son of God, just as any man is a son of God and any woman is a daughter of God.

Humans always think everything said by Jesus was meant only for them. Lucifer had started a rebellion by this time. I and the Father are one means that whatever Jesus speaks is the same thing you would hear from God. Whatever Jesus does is the same thing that God would do. Jesus was saying this to humans as well as the angels. God did not intervene in the rebellion so Jesus was giving warning to the rebel angels that what He said and did had the approval of God.

Also, there is another reason Jesus said that, I'm going to simplify this so it's not as confusing to you. It has to do with the soul. Inside each of us is a fragment of God, so, Jesus, had/has a fragment of God inside of Him. All sentient beings with a normal brain have this God fragment inside of them but we may not keep it if we don't choose to be good.

Only God is to be worshipped. No other member of the Trinity should be worshipped, not Jesus, and certainly not Jesus earth mother Mary. In your present state of evolution your prayers are mostly practice. They do not return energy to God. When you get to heaven you will be more evolved and you will be able to see the effect of your prayer returning energy to God.

Genesis 1:26 - This is highly distorted. What it means is that angels selected humanity to be the upright with arms and legs prototype for a sentient being. Having dominion over means that man will be given intelligence. Usually only one animal type is selected to receive intelligence and evolve into the upright/arms/legs prototype on each inhabited planet. No other animal has equal intelligence as humans on the earth.

The Elohim are angels. The angels were on the earth in the old days.

God is NOT a collection of beings and Jesus is not Jehovah.

Click to expand...

Super Universe said:

God and Jesus are not the same being.

The Trinity is God, the Eternal Son, and Spirit. Jesus is not one of the Trinity. I know you won't be able to accept this because you want the universe to be simple. I'm sorry but it's not.

Jesus is a son of God, just as any man is a son of God and any woman is a daughter of God.

Humans always think everything said by Jesus was meant only for them. Lucifer had started a rebellion by this time. I and the Father are one means that whatever Jesus speaks is the same thing you would hear from God. Whatever Jesus does is the same thing that God would do. Jesus was saying this to humans as well as the angels. God did not intervene in the rebellion so Jesus was giving warning to the rebel angels that what He said and did had the approval of God.

Also, there is another reason Jesus said that, I'm going to simplify this so it's not as confusing to you. It has to do with the soul. Inside each of us is a fragment of God, so, Jesus, had/has a fragment of God inside of Him. All sentient beings with a normal brain have this God fragment inside of them but we may not keep it if we don't choose to be good.

Only God is to be worshipped. No other member of the Trinity should be worshipped, not Jesus, and certainly not Jesus earth mother Mary. In your present state of evolution your prayers are mostly practice. They do not return energy to God. When you get to heaven you will be more evolved and you will be able to see the effect of your prayer returning energy to God.

Genesis 1:26 - This is highly distorted. What it means is that angels selected humanity to be the upright with arms and legs prototype for a sentient being. Having dominion over means that man will be given intelligence. Usually only one animal type is selected to receive intelligence and evolve into the upright/arms/legs prototype on each inhabited planet. No other animal has equal intelligence as humans on the earth.

The Elohim are angels. The angels were on the earth in the old days.

God is NOT a collection of beings and Jesus is not Jehovah.

Click to expand...

questfortruth said:

It is logical and fact. The Love makes from two beings one being in spiritual sense. This being is called couple.

Click to expand...

Jacob Samuelson said:

God is Love as Love is what unites these three separate beings together in a same cause.

Click to expand...

Jacob Samuelson said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it all started, I believe at the First Council of Nicaea, where scholars from all over the Roman Empire, invited by Constantine to argue tirelessly over a unified decision of the nature of God. The result came as a creed as follows (copied from wikipedia):

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of one being with the Father," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., "of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

This has been enveloped to what we know as the Trinity for modern Christianity. The last part (part 3) still ambiguous today.

Is God the Father and God the Son the same being?

The Trinity says yes using that same scripture the bishops used in John 10:30, where the Father is One with the Son and the Son with the Father. They are the same being. For there can only be One God. And that God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father and His spirit is the Holy Ghost.

At the same time, someone with reason and common sense is looking at this and saying, "Wait, What!?"

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

The answer is we cannot. Or we can try to by bending a whole lot of scripture to a very uncomfortable and confusing way making the whole meaning of God to everyone as clear as mud.

So the only question really to answer, is what do we do about the whole Monotheism thing we got going for us? What about all the times God tells us that there is only One God? How can Jesus be God and this Father figure be God, and this Holy Spirit be God? Would that make us believe in three Gods, without the idea of the Trinity?

I think accepting this almost 2000 year old man-made creed for such a long time has really messed up Christians idea of God.

Christ had to encounter a similar situation with the Jews, when he was asked a similar question of His divinity. in John 10:33-35. We learn that not only is Jesus defending Psalms 82:6, He is renouncing the Jews understanding of what they thought was blasphemous when he pronounced himself as the Son of God directly from Psalms.

God was never meant to be a singular being. We don't have a First and Last name as "God" in the Bible. It never says God is only one being. It does say that there is only one God, but God is not a name of a being, it is a title.

God represents a collection of spiritual beings whose whole purpose is righteousness. Genesis 1:26 (notice the Us and We pronouns) The Father, who is known as Elohim, The Son, Jesus or Jehovah, and The Holy Ghost. These are the head of the institution which is called God.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. They work together to achieve the same goal which makes them part of the same organization which is God.

Notice that even though there are multiple beings under this Godship, there is still only One God. One singular organization whose goal is the salvation of their creations.

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

Click to expand...

Jacob Samuelson said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it all started, I believe at the First Council of Nicaea, where scholars from all over the Roman Empire, invited by Constantine to argue tirelessly over a unified decision of the nature of God. The result came as a creed as follows (copied from wikipedia):

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of one being with the Father," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., "of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

This has been enveloped to what we know as the Trinity for modern Christianity. The last part (part 3) still ambiguous today.

Is God the Father and God the Son the same being?

The Trinity says yes using that same scripture the bishops used in John 10:30, where the Father is One with the Son and the Son with the Father. They are the same being. For there can only be One God. And that God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father and His spirit is the Holy Ghost.

At the same time, someone with reason and common sense is looking at this and saying, "Wait, What!?"

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

The answer is we cannot. Or we can try to by bending a whole lot of scripture to a very uncomfortable and confusing way making the whole meaning of God to everyone as clear as mud.

So the only question really to answer, is what do we do about the whole Monotheism thing we got going for us? What about all the times God tells us that there is only One God? How can Jesus be God and this Father figure be God, and this Holy Spirit be God? Would that make us believe in three Gods, without the idea of the Trinity?

I think accepting this almost 2000 year old man-made creed for such a long time has really messed up Christians idea of God.

Christ had to encounter a similar situation with the Jews, when he was asked a similar question of His divinity. in John 10:33-35. We learn that not only is Jesus defending Psalms 82:6, He is renouncing the Jews understanding of what they thought was blasphemous when he pronounced himself as the Son of God directly from Psalms.

God was never meant to be a singular being. We don't have a First and Last name as "God" in the Bible. It never says God is only one being. It does say that there is only one God, but God is not a name of a being, it is a title.

God represents a collection of spiritual beings whose whole purpose is righteousness. Genesis 1:26 (notice the Us and We pronouns) The Father, who is known as Elohim, The Son, Jesus or Jehovah, and The Holy Ghost. These are the head of the institution which is called God.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. They work together to achieve the same goal which makes them part of the same organization which is God.

Notice that even though there are multiple beings under this Godship, there is still only One God. One singular organization whose goal is the salvation of their creations.

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

Click to expand...

Jacob Samuelson said:

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

Click to expand...

• Hey, Kid, let Ol' Terry give you a little "friendly" advice.
• You've identified your religion as "Christ - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". That's not a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, but it is "your personal" thing.
• You've chosen, in this thread, to challenge the "traditional Christian" doctrine of the Trinity. IMO, that's not a reasonable thing to do for a couple of reasons:
  • Foremost reason: No traditional Christian is going to take anything an LDS Restorationist Christian says about the Trinity seriously, nor should they, given the fancy dancing you have to do to explain why your own theology is rational, reasonable, and Scriptural.
  • Consequently, either you're "preaching", as it were, to other LDS Restorationists which, although it may be a reasonable thing to do, seems like an odd thing, to me, to do; or
  • you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested.
  • Now, if you're preaching to other LDS Restorationists, you've at least chosen the correct forum to do it in: i.e. the "same faith debate" forum. But if that's the case, then allow me to ask a respectful question: "Do LDS Restorationists actually 'debate' the Trinity among themselves?"
  • If, on the other hand, you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested, you're either doing it in the wrong forum or you have failed to read the "special rules" governing posting in the "Same Faith Debates" forum.
• My "friendly" advice":
  • Next time you want to start a thread, consult one of your LDS elders and see what they think about what you want to do.
  • And read the special rules governing the forum that you want to post in. In this case, the rules that you would do well to read are @Same Faith Debates - Special Rules

Jacob Samuelson said:

I cannot accept what I don't understand. Sorry, I am very lost in what you are trying to say. I get the whole Jesus being the Son of God as we are the Children of God. but everything else kind of fell through like an cracked egg.

Do you believe that as Children of God, we are inheritors of God by legal definition?

Click to expand...

Terry Sampson said:

LOL!

• Hey, Kid, let Ol' Terry give you a little "friendly" advice.

Click to expand...

You've identified your religion as "Christ - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". That's not a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, but it is "your personal" thing.

Click to expand...

You've chosen, in this thread, to challenge the "traditional Christian" doctrine of the Trinity. IMO, that's not a reasonable thing to do for a couple of reasons:

• Foremost reason: No traditional Christian is going to take anything an LDS Restorationist Christian says about the Trinity seriously, nor should they, given the fancy dancing you have to do to explain why your own theology is rational, reasonable, and Scriptural.
• Consequently, either you're "preaching", as it were, to other LDS Restorationists which, although it may be a reasonable thing to do, seems like an odd thing, to me, to do; or
• you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested.
• Now, if you're preaching to other LDS Restorationists, you've at least chosen the correct forum to do it in: i.e. the "same faith debate" forum. But if that's the case, then allow me to ask a respectful question: "Do LDS Restorationists actually 'debate' the Trinity among themselves?"
• If, on the other hand, you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested, you're either doing it in the wrong forum or you have failed to read the "special rules" governing posting in the "Same Faith Debates" forum.

Click to expand...

Katzpur said:

Wow. What a condescending response.

Click to expand...

Katzpur said:

Here's Ol' Katzpur's "friendly" advice to you:

Click to expand...

• Good Lord, girl. Didn't anybody ever tell you? When you wade in the insanity marshes, you ought to wear high-top waders: takes less work to hose you down, if and when you get pulled out.
• My self-identification is, indeed, "Creedalist Xian"; however, that self-imposed label doesn't really "clearly state" anything, much less that my "beliefs about the nature of God are founded on the manmade creeds of the 4th, 5th and subsequent centureies, and not to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His contemporaries.
• If you really wanted to know what the label "Creedalist Xian" clearly states, you could have just asked before you made a fool of yourself.
• It so happens that I do indeed subscribe to one of the traditional Christian Creeds: i.e. the Apostle's Creed. The fact that you dismiss all traditional Christian Creeds carte blanche and affirm the teachings of Jesus Christ and his contemporaries, raises an intriguing question: What the hell do you think that Creed says that was not among the teachings of Jesus' contemporaries and can, therefore, be rejected?