Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[sojourner]

Everyone has access.
The Spirit within.
Not many know how or want to access this Spirit because that means everything they think they know has to die, one holds onto to the "I" and "me" and "their" knowledge, and refuse to let go and be taught. One must decrease and the Spirit must increase.

Sure everyone has access -- but it's not objective. The only truth we have is that which is "according to" our own understanding. Therefore, since those who understand the Trinity in a particular way codified that understanding with the establishment of the Doctrine, that's the orthodox definition. Are there others? Of course there are. But the Doctrine explains it most thoroughly.

 

[Unification]

Sure everyone has access -- but it's not objective. The only truth we have is that which is "according to" our own understanding. Therefore, since those who understand the Trinity in a particular way codified that understanding with the establishment of the Doctrine, that's the orthodox definition. Are there others? Of course there are. But the Doctrine explains it most thoroughly.

We can never count or lean on our own understanding. It is always wrong. That's what the Spirit is for. We see, know, and read what we perceive things to be. Our own created world.

There is God's wisdom and mankind's wisdom.

It's the mysteries, the unknown, the things not seen, the "objective" truth one should be seeking. It's all in the scripture itself, it just takes the Spirit and a humble, surrendering, objective approach to obtain.

As for the triune doctrine, there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.. And they are all God, yet ONE and the SAME God. Such is true. A great mystery that our own wisdom can never comprehend... But the Spirit can unravel the great mysteries.. And to humans. Seek properly and one shall find. The way that the doctrine is explained and perceived as truth is the issue.

The Holy Spirit is the Father.
The Son of God is the Holy Spirit.

The Father is through all and in all.

How so is the great mystery.

Viewing a literal, physical, single male as God, will always fail. Viewing Jesus as an external God will always fail. It's the great divide amongst "religions." With all of them being wrong.

Yet there is ONE truth still amongst all of mankind, which has never changed, and even without scripture contradicting itself. A different angle and approach to God is all one needs.

 

[sojourner]

Everyone has access.
The Spirit within.
Not many know how or want to access this Spirit because that means everything they think they know has to die, one holds onto to the "I" and "me" and "their" knowledge, and refuse to let go and be taught. One must decrease and the Spirit must increase.

Self-denial has little (if anything) to do with how truth is discerned.

 

[sojourner]

We can never count or lean on our own understanding. It is always wrong. That's what the Spirit is for.

No it's not. The Spirit is symbiotic with us -- not separate.

There is God's wisdom and mankind's wisdom.

There is wisdom. Then there is the way it's perceived and the way it's integrated and realized.
[edit] That's the whole point of God becoming Incarnate: there is no longer this big divide between humanity and Divinity. Because of Jesus, we, too, are divine creatures with full access to God.

It's the mysteries, the unknown, the things not seen, the "objective" truth one should be seeking.

One doesn't do that, though outside oneself.

It's all in the scripture itself

No it isn't. Much of it is extra-biblical -- and much of it is internal, not external.

The Holy Spirit is the Father.
The Son of God is the Holy Spirit.

The Father is through all and in all.

No. That's neither what the Doctrine says, nor is that the orthodox view of the Trinity. What you have described isn't Trinity -- its heresy.

 

[JM2C]

WHERE ARE THEY/jw NOW?

 

[melk]

WHERE ARE THEY/jw NOW?

Haven't you read it?

I will save you the trouble. I am going to unwatch this thread for a while.

It is enough now. You just can't get through the indoctrination. We tried. Hopefully the readers will check the scriptures for themselves. Have a nice rest.....

 

[JayJayDee]

Haven't you read it?

Too busy being right to read and comprehend anything. Oh well.....

There comes a time to say "enough"...the proof is there but no one blinded by Christendom's teachings is going to see it.
No point in rehashing the same tired old arguments.

Let the readers be the judge.

 

[cataway]

actually we don't have to prove anything . our only obligation is to say what we have said . if they reject it, our hands are free of their blood

 

[sojourner]

but no one blinded by Christendom's teachings is going to see it.

"Blinded by "Christendom's teachings." AAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[JayJayDee]

"Blinded by "Christendom's teachings." AAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Be careful how hard you laugh.....

The Pharisees didn't think they had it wrong either. They blinded most of their nation and fed them all the wrong information about their Messiah. The nation missed out on so much because of their negligent shepherds, promoting the traditions of men over the word of God.

What makes you think it can't happen again? Jesus actually said it would. (Matt 7:13, 14; 21-23)
"Many" are on the wrong road, even though they think they are on the right one.

Who do you think the "weeds" of Jesus parable are? (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43)
The weeds were not sown recently.

 

[sojourner]

Be careful how hard you laugh.....

The Pharisees didn't think they had it wrong either. They blinded most of their nation and fed them all the wrong information about their Messiah. The nation missed out on so much because of their negligent shepherds, promoting the traditions of men over the word of God.

What makes you think it can't happen again? Jesus actually said it would. (Matt 7:13, 14; 21-23)
"Many" are on the wrong road, even though they think they are on the right one.

Who do you think the "weeds" of Jesus parable are? (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43)
The weeds were not sown recently.

"Christendom" is neither the Pharisees (who, BTW, didn't particularly "have it wrong" as a group). "Christendom" wasn't what Matthew had in mind when he wrote that. Matthew is very pro "Christendom." The parable of the weeds has nothing to do with the church. Your "exegesis" of the texts is as hilarious as your statement, and almost as funny as the "prophecy" that Jesus returned in 1914.

 

[JayJayDee]

"Christendom" is neither the Pharisees (who, BTW, didn't particularly "have it wrong" as a group). "Christendom" wasn't what Matthew had in mind when he wrote that. Matthew is very pro "Christendom." The parable of the weeds has nothing to do with the church. Your "exegesis" of the texts is as hilarious as your statement, and almost as funny as the "prophecy" that Jesus returned in 1914.

If you say so......

Jesus had nothing good to say about the Pharisees, so I am guessing they had it way wrong "as a group".

If Matthew was very pro-Christendom, that would be very strange indeed since Christendom was born over 300 years after Jesus died. Christendom masquerades as Christianity but I can find no similarity whatsoever.

The weeds of Jesus parable are "the church". Fake Christianity sown by the devil after the establishment of the "wheat".
History attests to the defection from Christ's teachings. Their "fruits" were "rotten".

Its "hilarious" that the last days prophesied by Jesus as the prelude to the end of the present age, fits the last 100 years like a glove. It's all there in Matthew 24:3-14. It had application to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE but since it was also tied in with Christ's return, it also has application for our day. Ignore it if you want.

The "last days" began with World War ("nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom") followed by all the other features of the "sign" that would signal Christ's "presence" as king. (Food shortages, disease, great earthquakes, false prophets and an increase in lawlessness whilst love continues to disappear from the world as humans become more self obsessed. (2 Tim 3:1-5)

An unseen event recorded by Daniel was the enthroning of the Christ as king of God's kingdom. (Dan 7:13, 14)

The First World War ushered in a period of human conflict that has never ended. Jesus gave the "sign" of his presence because it was not a visual event....it was to be discerned by "the sign" itself. His "presence" had to come before his "coming" or "manifestation" as judge in order for all the features of the sign to be observed...including the preaching of his kingdom "in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations".......only then, after due warning, will the foretold "end" come. (Matt 24:36-39) A "great tribulation" was also prophesied at the end of this period. (Matt 24:21) Something so dreadful that it will be worse than anything that has ever occurred on earth.

By the time people see the Christ "coming" as judge, it will be too late then to alter their course, as he "separates the sheep from the goats".
People's fates are then sealed....irrevocably.

If you are not aware of Christ's "presence" (parousia) you will not be prepared for his "coming".

 

[JM2C]

Haven't you read it?

How about you what do you say? I guess you got nothing.

 

[JM2C]

Let the readers be the judge.

Readers of this thread please read this.

And of course we invented the 144,000...nothing to do with the number in Revelation who are chosen from the earth as "firstfruits". (Rev 14:1, 3,4)

"of course you/jw invented it"
jw been claiming that they are the 144,000 in Revelation 7:4-8. They interpreted the 144,000 literally in verse 4, but from verses 5-8 they interpreted it as figurative. Think about that. When it favors their twisted doctrines literal and figurative has no meaning at all to these gentile pagans.

The 144,000 are the literal Semitic Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel, and these are NOT Your/jw IMAGINARY 144,000 ELITE GENTILE PAGAN MEMBERS.

These are the literal genetically related Semitic Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel.

IOW, NONE OF YOU/jw GENTILE PAGANS HAVE ANY RIGHTS AT ALL TO BE IN THIS GROUP

Rev 7:4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Rev 7:5
From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000

Rev 7:6,
from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000

Rev 7:7,
from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000

Rev 7:8,
from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus had nothing good to say about the Pharisees,

Jesus often clashed with the religious authorities... but it's also clear that Jesus had friends who were Pharisees.

so I am guessing

Indeed you are.

If Matthew was very pro-Christendom, that would be very strange indeed since Christendom was born over 300 years after Jesus died.

"Christendom" is the church, which was born 40 days following the resurrection. Somehow, you're making some kind of separate entity out of the state church of the Roman Empire, which is incorrect. The church became the state church, but the church has always been the church, much as you, at one time, became a teenager, yet remained the same person.

Christendom masquerades as Christianity but I can find no similarity whatsoever.

Does a 14-year-old "masquerade" as a human being? Or are you creating this false condemnation out of a need to have something be "wrong" so that you can be "right?"

The weeds of Jesus parable are "the church". Fake Christianity sown by the devil after the establishment of the "wheat".

There is no "fake Christianity." There is only the church. Matthew is illustrating the difference between Anointed-Believers (who he claims constitute the "true Israel") and the Judaic religious establishment. That establishment constitutes the weeds. Do some frickin' exegesis!

History attests to the defection from Christ's teachings.

History's got nothing to do with Matthew's parable.

Its "hilarious" that the last days prophesied by Jesus as the prelude to the end of the present age, fits the last 100 years like a glove. It's all there in Matthew 24:3-14. It had application to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE but since it was also tied in with Christ's return, it also has application for our day. Ignore it if you want.

Dispensationism. Matthew isn't prophecy. Matthew is a ... gospel. Ignore that if you want.

The "last days" began with World War ("nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom") followed by all the other features of the "sign" that would signal Christ's "presence" as king. (Food shortages, disease, great earthquakes, false prophets and an increase in lawlessness whilst love continues to disappear from the world as humans become more self obsessed. (2 Tim 3:1-5)

Hindsight is always 20/20. People see what they want to see. The "last days" (very clearly illustrated by the structure of Luke's gospel) began post-resurrection.

An unseen event recorded by Daniel was the enthroning of the Christ as king of God's kingdom. (Dan 7:13, 14)

Hindsight again. This has nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus does not appear in the Hebrew texts, because Jesus hadn't been born yet. Daniel had no concept of "Jesus."

The First World War ushered in a period of human conflict that has never ended.

Don't kid yourself. There has always been human conflict -- especially in the Fertile Crescent.

By the time people see the Christ "coming" as judge, it will be too late then to alter their course

Classic sales technique: "But this price is only good today." "I've got another guy looking at it, and he's coming back this afternoon." "What can I do to put you in this car today?" It's called, "Building A Sense of Urgency In the Customer."

People's fates are then sealed....irrevocably.

...Because God's either too weak and ineffectual, or too draconian to do anything about it. Nice God ya got there.

If you are not aware of Christ's "presence" (parousia) you will not be prepared for his "coming".

Puh-leeze!! Spare me the "I'm enlightened; you're not" drivel.

 

[sojourner]

When it favors their twisted doctrines literal and figurative has no meaning at all to these gentile pagans

"Gentile Pagans??"

 

[JM2C]

"Gentile Pagans??"

They/jw think they are the literal Jews in Revelation 7:4-8, but the fact is they/jw are actually and literally nothing but gentile pagans, not even Christians at all, but pagans.

 

[sojourner]

They/jw think they are the literal Jews in Revelation 7:4-8, but the fact is they/jw are actually and literally nothing but gentile pagans, not even Christians at all, but pagans.

The JWs think a lot of things. I'm not sure I'd be so quick to ostracize them from Xy, though.

 

[melk]

How about you what do you say? I guess you got nothing.

I believe Jesus is the Son of God, firstborn of all creation, given for the redemption of humankind, so that we can rely on Him as a Father again.

 

[truthofscripture]

I was talking to a Lutheran Pastor the other day and he said God provided the greatest gift when he offered himself up as Jesus on the cross. But from what I read in the Bible, when Jesus was on the cross, he spoke to God in heaven. How then can he be God at the same time? Please explain. Thanks

Trinity
Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.
What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?
Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)
John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)