• 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!

Can someone explain the Trinity please...

truthofscripture

Active Member
I gave you bible verses.... Don't start with me because you got the wrong one. I am very familiar with what Jesus taught. I have studied all four gospels. My Lord made it perfectly clear the He and the Father are one. Again, please refer to John 1:1 and John 1:14
Is Jesus Christ actually God?
John 17:3, RS: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God [“who alone art truly God,” NE], and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (Notice that Jesus referred not to himself but to his Father in heaven as “the only true God.”)
John 20:17, RS: “Jesus said to her [Mary Magdalene], ‘Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (So to the resurrected Jesus, the Father was God, just as the Father was God to Mary Magdalene. Interestingly, not once in Scripture do we find the Father addressing the Son as “my God.”)


Does John 1:1 prove that Jesus is God?

John 1:1, RS: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.” AT and Sd tell us “the Word was divine.” The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.” NW reads “the Word was a god”; NTIV uses the same wording.
What is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the·osʹ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god. (See 1984 Reference edition of NW, p. 1579.)
What did the apostle John mean when he wrote John 1:1? Did he mean that Jesus is himself God or perhaps that Jesus is one God with the Father? In the same chapter, verse 18, John wrote: “No one [“no man,” KJ, Dy] has ever seen God; the only Son [“the only-begotten god,” NW], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (RS) Had any human seen Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously not. Toward the end of his Gospel, John summarized matters, saying: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, [not God, but] the Son of God.”—John 20:31, RS.

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.
 
That's more like modalism. Sorry. "Persons" and "forms" are not the same thing. What you're describing is more like one person taking different forms. However, the doctrine clearly states that there are three distinct Persons. What everyone seems to be missing is that God is a community. God is One, but is not one Person, just as a community is one, but not one person. God is three Persons, not one Person in three forms.

Do you not know the definition of an analogy? God is ONE Being who has three different natures. I don't care what you say. The Holy Spirit is not a "person". The abrahamic religions are monotheistic, not polytheistic.
 

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
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.
Where did you base your belief that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God? Can you clarify this “so that we can rely on Him as a Father again
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
40 people held the pens, but there was one author, Jehovah.
Bullspit. The texts simply don't bear that out, since there is no evidence of cohesive authorship, and plenty of evidence of omissions, editing, splitting and combining.
No doctrine in the scriptures is of man. None of it.
It's all "of man," since human beings wrote it. God is about love, not doctrine.
The church (false religion) CHANGED many translations, but not the actual inspired word of God.
Prove it. Ya can't because it just ain't true.
I haven't put any cart before the horse.
Of course you don't think so. Because you're next post will consist of "the bible said it; I believe it; that settles it." That vapid belief don't make it so.
The church didn't create the Bible, Constantine did.
No he didn't. The canon wasn't settled (in the West) until long after Constantine was dead. Then the Protestants screwed with it again in the 1500s when they (IMO mistakenly) thought the LXX was inaccurate.
However, a few translations exist whereby the original texts were consulted every step of the way and the original sense of each scripture remains intact.
What "original texts" do you suppose those might be?

From this post, it appears that you're operating mostly from rumor and folk tale, not from actual church history and biblical exegesis.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Do you not know the definition of an analogy? God is ONE Being who has three different natures. I don't care what you say. The Holy Spirit is not a "person". The abrahamic religions are monotheistic, not polytheistic.
Do you not know the definition of a heresy? Modalism has been a recognized heresy since the 3rd century. It's one of the most common theological errors. God is One Being, consisting of three separate Persons. None of that makes Abrahamic region "polytheistic."
 

truthofscripture

Active Member
Bullspit. The texts simply don't bear that out, since there is no evidence of cohesive authorship, and plenty of evidence of omissions, editing, splitting and combining.

It's all "of man," since human beings wrote it. God is about love, not doctrine.

Prove it. Ya can't because it just ain't true.

Of course you don't think so. Because you're next post will consist of "the bible said it; I believe it; that settles it." That vapid belief don't make it so.

No he didn't. The canon wasn't settled (in the West) until long after Constantine was dead. Then the Protestants screwed with it again in the 1500s when they (IMO mistakenly) thought the LXX was inaccurate.

What "original texts" do you suppose those might be?

From this post, it appears that you're operating mostly from rumor and folk tale, not from actual church history and biblical exegesis.
Sojourner, EVERYTHING I've posted is completely accurate. It is with you that the problem lies. You will never draw close to Jehovah, and therefore, even if God Himself proved it to you, you would still serve Satan. Shame.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I gave you bible verses.... Don't start with me because you got the wrong one. I am very familiar with what Jesus taught. I have studied all four gospels. My Lord made it perfectly clear the He and the Father are one. Again, please refer to John 1:1 and John 1:14
Not very well, apparently. The concept that the Son and the Father are One does not preclude the existence of that Oneness in two separate Persons. Otherwise, Jesus would have been praying to himself all those times.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
EVERYTHING I've posted is completely accurate.
In a blind pig's eye...
It is with you that the problem lies.
I don't have a problem with the reality and historicity of the texts. But you obviously do.
You will never draw close to Jehovah
Too late! Already happened. Sucks for your theory.
even if God Himself proved it to you, you would still serve Satan.
God needs prove nothing. It's as clear as the nose on your face. Additionally, I'm not serving Satan (who doesn't exist anyway), so, again, sucks for your theory.
 

truthofscripture

Active Member
I gave you bible verses.... Don't start with me because you got the wrong one. I am very familiar with what Jesus taught. I have studied all four gospels. My Lord made it perfectly clear the He and the Father are one. Again, please refer to John 1:1 and John 1:14
Then your Lord couldn't be Jesus. John 1:1 does not prove your false point. And John 1:14 is even further from proving your false point. Taking scriptures out of context, and applying a meaning other than the one God intended isn't going to help you prove something that isn't true.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
God just IS and is IN us and all around us, and in everything. All is God.

All of the scriptures teach that the same God is IN every human.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
What's wrong with just saying God as a pronoun for Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and the Creator who each fall under this "God" category because they are all perfect?

If fundamentalist are trying to get away from metaphysics of Christianity, why can't they just say Jesus is perfect; the Creator is perfect; The Holy Spirit is perfect. Without having supernatural terminology that "each equal as one... they are distinct but alike"

Reminds me of metaphysical languages.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
Ok. But what's that got to do with the Trinity, exactly?

Precisely what was said. God is manifested in everything and the most important and integral manifestation is IN and WITHIN the human.

Understanding the "trinity" with a literal, individual, physical person is poison. God is not male or female. God is all. It's all spirit and all the same and one God and how God just IS and IN all and THROUGH all.

Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Precisely what was said. God is manifested in everything and the most important and integral manifestation is IN and WITHIN the human.

Understanding the "trinity" with a literal, individual, physical person is poison. God is not male or female. God is all. It's all spirit and all the same and one God and how God just IS and IN all and THROUGH all.

Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
There are lots of valid ways to understand God. The Trinity is one of them. All are necessary. I'm not arguing that your POV here is wrong -- just that it doesn't either explain or supplant the Doctrine of the Trinity.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
YHWH is God, the Father. Yeshua is God, the Son. Both of them are God. Jesus spoke to the Father when He was on the cross. I honestly think the H2O analogy is the best one to use when trying to explain the trinity. Ice, water and steam are all H2O, just in different forms. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, just in different forms. The Father is not the Son but both are God.

John 1:1
John 1:14
Yep, pretty much, I agree.

Are you aware that believing what you state is antichrist?
Huh?
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
There are lots of valid ways to understand God. The Trinity is one of them. All are necessary. I'm not arguing that your POV here is wrong -- just that it doesn't either explain or supplant the Doctrine of the Trinity.
good grief, do you really think God is so wishie washy that he is ''desperate'' to get people to honor him. fact is ,do it god way or all your doing is shooting the breeze.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
good grief, do you really think God is so wishie washy that he is ''desperate'' to get people to honor him. fact is ,do it god way or all your doing is shooting the breeze.
I don't think it has anything to do with God being "desperate." I think it has lots more to do with 1) God providing multiple avenues for us to meet and to know God and 2) our own limited understanding.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
I don't think it has anything to do with God being "desperate." I think it has lots more to do with 1) God providing multiple avenues for us to meet and to know God and 2) our own limited understanding.
do you really think God is so wishie washy that he is ''desperate'' to get people to honor him. fact is ,do it god way or all your doing is shooting the breeze.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
do you really think God is so wishie washy that he is ''desperate'' to get people to honor him. fact is ,do it god way or all your doing is shooting the breeze.
I don't think it has anything to do with God being "desperate." I think it has lots more to do with 1) God providing multiple avenues for us to meet and to know God and 2) our own limited understanding. Didn't you get it the first time? God opens multiple doors for us to have a relationship with God. I don't see what that has to do with God being either "wishy-washy" or "desperate." Or are you simply being provocative?
 

JM2C

CHRISTIAN
I gave you bible verses.... Don't start with me because you got the wrong one. I am very familiar with what Jesus taught. I have studied all four gospels. My Lord made it perfectly clear the He and the Father are one. Again, please refer to John 1:1 and John 1:14
The/jw/nwt don't understand that. They can't even explain how they/jw/nwt got the "a god" in the 3rd clause of John 1:1.
 
Top