The Trinity: Biting The Bullet

[Eddi]

Sometimes, in an argument or discussion you have to bite the bullet and accept that what/who you are arguing against is in some way right - or that you are in some way wrong

You need to face up to reality and change your position

There should be no shame in doing this

But having started a thread about it, and having read some responses, I am considering biting the bullet on the issue of whether The Holy Trinity and Trinitarianism is a true doctrine...

It is time to admit that either:

A) My faith is Polytheistic

- or -

B) God The Father created Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and these are not God - and I'm a Unitarian

But there is an alternative:

C) "The Holy Trinity is a mystery! We can never get our heads around it because God is ineffable!"

Personally, I feel most comfortable going with option C

Anyways, I have abandoned all rational attempts to justify the doctrine of the Trinity - I no longer think this is possible. I think that I'll have to make a leap of faith and trust in God

In practical terms, I will carry on considering Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to be divine

That's what I think, anyway

 

[Eyes to See]

The only way to everlasting life is to know Jehovah God and his son Jesus Christ. If they are a mystery that is unknowable then you lose out on everlasting life.

There is a simple illustration I use to help people who have been raised believing in an unknowable Trinity to help explain to them what the holy spirit is. The holy spirit is also called God's active force in the Bible.

Think of it like this. You have a power plant that produces power. Many things are connected to the power plant. Take for example a house. In the house you have various appliances all connected to the plant. They all operate off of the power from the plant. That is pretty much what Jehovah's holy spirit is. His energy in action.

Scripture tells us that God is full of dynamic energy, he is an unending source of energy, he is the source of all energy. And we also know that Jehovah is holy. That is clean, pure in thought and motive, all his ways are righteous and true and just. And thus anything Jehovah says or does is holy.

When Jehovah uses his unending supply of energy to do what his good will desires that energy is converted into active force, or holy spirit. It is God's energy doing his will. It can create worlds, it created the universe. It can destroy. It can be used to open the mind to teach. It can be used in a limitless number of ways. All of them being holy because it is accomplishing Jehovah's will.

Once you see that holy spirit is not a person or a living being, but rather Jehovah's dynamic energy at use it helps you clear up the misconception of the Trinity. The word is never used in the Bible. It is never taught in the Bible. The Trinity is actually a pagan teaching. And a pleothra of pagan religions have their trinities from which an apostate Church borrowed their pagan, unholy and unscriptural teaching.

Jesus also never claimed to be God. He claimed to be God's son. And he said that his father was greater than he was, and that he worshiped Jehovah God. We are also told that Jesus learned obedience from the things he suffered while on earth, and was tempted by Satan the Devil, and finally that he gave up his life and died for our sins.

Jehovah cannot worship anyone. He does not learn from anyone, let alone obedience. Jehovah cannot be tempted. And Jehovah certainly can never die. The whole Christian faith is based on the fact that Jesus died for our sins. If Jesus was God then he could never have died. It is impossible to kill an immortal God who can never die.

Jesus was begotten by holy spirit while on earth as the firstborn among many brothers. God does not have brothers. But Jesus does.

Also the Bible clearly tells us that no one can look upon God's face and live. And the apostle John wrote, after Jesus ascended to heaven, that no one has ever seen God. You would think he would know if Jesus was God, he was Jesus' beloved apostle. And he clearly taught that no one has ever seen God. So do you think John thought Jesus was God?


These are but a few of many many other things the Bible teaches about God being one Jehovah. And his son being the first creation of all things, later coming to earth and being given the name Jesus Christ. In his prehuman existence he had a number of titles and names. He is the archangel, the word of God, also known as Michael.

 

[Starlight]

Sometimes, in an argument or discussion you have to bite the bullet and accept that what/who you are arguing against is in some way right - or that you are in some way wrong

You need to face up to reality and change your position

There should be no shame in doing this

But having started a thread about it, and having read some responses, I am considering biting the bullet on the issue of whether The Holy Trinity and Trinitarianism is a true doctrine...

It is time to admit that either:

A) My faith is Polytheistic

- or -

B) God The Father created Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and these are not God - and I'm a Unitarian

But there is an alternative:

C) "The Holy Trinity is a mystery! We can never get our heads around it because God is ineffable!"

Personally, I feel most comfortable going with option C

Anyways, I have abandoned all rational attempts to justify the doctrine of the Trinity - I no longer think this is possible. I think that I'll have to make a leap of faith and trust in God

In practical terms, I will carry on considering Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to be divine

That's what I think, anyway

Hm I don't think you have to give up your belief in the trinity. Some people say "It is nothing in this world thats like the trinity, so the trinity is false". That is wrong. Think of conjured twins. They are two persons one body. Sounds familiar to three persons one being or essence?

But i like the belief about Father who created the Holy spirit and The son. Its very similar belief to the trinity anyway. why? Because according to the offical trinity The father was really first.

Just read here:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the
Father and the Son (according to ortodox christians the holy spirits only proceeds from the father)

 

[Katzpur]

Sometimes, in an argument or discussion you have to bite the bullet and accept that what/who you are arguing against is in some way right - or that you are in some way wrong

You need to face up to reality and change your position

There should be no shame in doing this

But having started a thread about it, and having read some responses, I am considering biting the bullet on the issue of whether The Holy Trinity and Trinitarianism is a true doctrine...

It is time to admit that either:

A) My faith is Polytheistic

- or -

B) God The Father created Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and these are not God - and I'm a Unitarian

But there is an alternative:

C) "The Holy Trinity is a mystery! We can never get our heads around it because God is ineffable!"

Personally, I feel most comfortable going with option C

Anyways, I have abandoned all rational attempts to justify the doctrine of the Trinity - I no longer think this is possible. I think that I'll have to make a leap of faith and trust in God

In practical terms, I will carry on considering Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to be divine

That's what I think, anyway

I think it's truly admirable that you are so open-minded, and while I do not believe in the Trinity (at least not as it was defined in the 4th and 5th century creeds), I hope you will be able to resolve this dilemma in your own mind, at least to the extent that you can feel some peace in whatever conclusion you end up coming to. I don't know if you've read any of my posts in your threads on this subject, because you haven't commented on them. In case you haven't, I'm going to try once again in this thread to explain why there is an Option D.

I see "God" as a title that we humans use in addressing or referring to the deity we worship. For most Christians, this God is a being comprised of three persons. If these persons are divine as opposed to human, then they are gods. Worshipping all three of them and acknowledging them as all being divine does not mean that your faith is polytheistic. In His great intercessory prayer in John 17, Jesus asks His Father that His followers "may be one, as we are," and "that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." He wasn't asking that we all be absorbed into an essence called the Trinity. He was merely asking for a perfect and absolute unity of will, purpose, mind and heart. The word "one," remember, means more than just a number. It also means "united." In Genesis, we are told that Adam and Eve should be "one flesh." Well obviously, they were not literally "one flesh," but they were united in their choices and decisions."

In John 1:1, we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It clearly states that from the very beginning, from the moment the clock started ticking, so to speak, the Word, i.e. Jesus Christ, was already "God." But, it also says that He was "with God." The word "with" implies a second individual. You can't be "with" yourself. The Word, who was God, was with the Father, who was also God. But they were individuals, wholly God on their own not just parts of some kind of invisible essence. And if God the Father existed first (as all fathers do), and if at some point prior to "the beginning" as it pertains to the events recorded in the Bible, He begat a Son, why wouldn't that Son be God, too?

We can refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as "God" because that is a title shared by all three. If we are speaking of Jesus, we are speaking of "God" because that's who He is. He's not just a part of a whole, but is "God" on His own. When we speak of "God" and are referring to all three of the persons in the Godhead, we are using the word "God" as a collective noun, in much the same way as we would use the word "team." If I were to say, "My team won," I would be referring to the team as a whole and not just to the player who scored the most points.

If you would like to read a book that explores the logic behind Trinitarianism and which may help you come to your own conclusions, may I suggest "What is the Trinity?" by Dale Tuggy. It's a very short book and relatively easy to read and understand. I read it in order to better understand the Trinity and it really helped me. (This is not an LDS book, by the way. It's written by a Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York.)

 

[Eddi]

Hm I don't think you have to give up your belief in the trinity. Some people say "It is nothing in this world thats like the trinity, so the trinity is false". That is wrong. Think of conjured twins. They are two persons one body. Sounds familiar to three persons one being or essence?

But i like the belief about Father who created the Holy spirit and The son. Its very similar belief to the trinity anyway. why? Because according to the offical trinity The father was really first.

Just read here:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the
Father and the Son (according to ortodox christians the holy spirits only proceeds from the father)

I don't know what to think anymore, lol

I know there is God, there is Jesus, and there is the Holy Spirit - I think that's enough, I don't need to know the details!

You say:

But i like the belief about Father who created the Holy spirit and The son

Does that mean you actually believe that? Or just that it makes sense to you?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Hm I don't think you have to give up your belief in the trinity. Some people say "It is nothing in this world thats like the trinity, so the trinity is false". That is wrong. Think of conjured twins. They are two persons one body. Sounds familiar to three persons one being or essence?

But i like the belief about Father who created the Holy spirit and The son. Its very similar belief to the trinity anyway. why? Because according to the offical trinity The father was really first.

Just read here:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the
Father and the Son (according to ortodox christians the holy spirits only proceeds from the father)

Just because some church or relifious person wrote this description, does not make it true. Msny other religions have different views. Who is to say who is right?

 

[Eyes to See]

know there is God, there is Jesus, and there is the Holy Spirit - I think that's enough, I don't need to know the details!

Jesus said:

"This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."-John 17:3.

So, while it may appear that you don't need to know the truth, it is important. In fact your very life hangs on the matter. Everyone that will achieve everlasting life will have to come to an accurate knowledge of Jehovah God and his son Jesus Christ.

We need to know both of them. And not only know them but grow to have a relationship with them. We grow a relationship with the Father, Jehovah God, by studying his word the Bible, and by praying to him. As we ask for his holy spirit to open our minds and hearts to understand spiritual truths. Jehovah draws close to us and teaches us who he is and who his son is. But we also need to develop a relationship with Jesus Christ. Although we do not pray to Jesus, we do pray to God in Jesus' name. And Jesus is watching us just as his Father Jehovah God is. And he chooses whom he wants to be friends with.

In order to gain life you have to be a friend of Jehovah and of Jesus Christ. So you need to know who both of them are. You see, you cannot be a friend of someone that you don't know. Certainly you call your friends by their names. How many people do you think call God by his name Jehovah? Well, his friends.

If a person didn't really want to get to know God's name, or God as a person, or who Jesus Christ really is, are they really wanting friendship with God? Do you think Jehovah God really considers that person a friend?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Hm I don't think you have to give up your belief in the trinity. Some people say "It is nothing in this world thats like the trinity, so the trinity is false". That is wrong. Think of conjured twins. They are two persons one body. Sounds familiar to three persons one being or essence?

But i like the belief about Father who created the Holy spirit and The son. Its very similar belief to the trinity anyway. why? Because according to the offical trinity The father was really first.

Just read here:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the
Father and the Son (according to ortodox christians the holy spirits only proceeds from the father)

Was the Father really first? The Bible says that in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god. So was the word first? Or was the word and God together at the same time? And I do not see the word fathere there. Was the father there at the beginng? It says the word and god were there at the beginning/ Who was the father?

 

[Eddi]

I think it's truly admirable that you are so open-minded, and while I do not believe in the Trinity (at least not as it was defined in the 4th and 5th century creeds), I hope you will be able to resolve this dilemma in your own mind, at least to the extent that you can feel some peace in whatever conclusion you end up coming to. I don't know if you've read any of my posts in your threads on this subject, because you haven't commented on them. In case you haven't, I'm going to try once again in this thread to explain why there is an Option D.

I see "God" as a title that we humans use in addressing or referring to the deity we worship. For most Christians, this God is a being comprised of three persons. If these persons are divine as opposed to human, then they are gods. Worshipping all three of them and acknowledging them as all being divine does not mean that your faith is polytheistic. In His great intercessory prayer in John 17, Jesus asks His Father that His followers "may be one, as we are," and "that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." He wasn't asking that we all be absorbed into an essence called the Trinity. He was merely asking for a perfect and absolute unity of will, purpose, mind and heart. The word "one," remember, means more than just a number. It also means "united." In Genesis, we are told that Adam and Eve should be "one flesh." Well obviously, they were not literally "one flesh," but they were united in their choices and decisions."

In John 1:1, we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It clearly states that from the very beginning, from the moment the clock started ticking, so to speak, the Word, i.e. Jesus Christ, was already "God." But, it also says that He was "with God." The word "with" implies a second individual. You can't be "with" yourself. The Word, who was God, was with the Father, who was also God. But they were individuals, wholly God on their own not just parts of some kind of invisible essence. And if God the Father existed first (as all fathers do), and if at some point prior to "the beginning" as it pertains to the events recorded in the Bible, He begat a Son, why wouldn't that Son be God, too?

We can refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as "God" because that is a title shared by all three. If we are speaking of Jesus, we are speaking of "God" because that's who He is. He's not just a part of a whole, but is "God" on His own. When we speak of "God" and are referring to all three of the persons in the Godhead, we are using the word "God" as a collective noun, in much the same way as we would use the word "team." If I were to say, "My team won," I would be referring to the team as a whole and not just to the player who scored the most points.

If you would like to read a book that explores the logic behind Trinitarianism and which may help you come to your own conclusions, may I suggest "What is the Trinity?" by Dale Tuggy. It's a very short book and relatively easy to read and understand. I read it in order to better understand the Trinity and it really helped me. (This is not an LDS book, by the way. It's written by a Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York.)

Thanks so much for your reply

You have given me much to think about and I will re-read some of what you've said

I have just ordered that book that you mentioned

Thanks again

 

[Eyes to See]

The Bible says that in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god

That is John 1:1. Not all translations say that the word was God though. Some translate it as "a god" or "godlike" or "divine in nature."

The very same chapter of John though makes it clear that John was not stating that Jesus was God. If you read just a few verses ahead he tells you that no one has ever seen God:

"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."-John 1:18.

John, the beloved apostle of Jesus Christ, wrote, after Jesus was raised to heaven, that no one had ever seen God. If John saw God you would think he would have known it. So no, Jesus is not God. Then he says that Jesus, the "only-begotten god" at Jehovah's side, explained him to us.

The word beget means to create. That is Jesus is a creature. A creature has a creation, a beginning. Never is God referred to as begotten or procreated, or created, or a creature. As God is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting. Never having a beginning and never having an end. Jehovah can never die.

Jesus was the only-begotten, the first creation by God, and the only direct creation by God. For all other things in heaven and earth were created through God's son and for his son.

 

[Eddi]

I think it's truly admirable that you are so open-minded, and while I do not believe in the Trinity (at least not as it was defined in the 4th and 5th century creeds), I hope you will be able to resolve this dilemma in your own mind, at least to the extent that you can feel some peace in whatever conclusion you end up coming to. I don't know if you've read any of my posts in your threads on this subject, because you haven't commented on them. In case you haven't, I'm going to try once again in this thread to explain why there is an Option D.

I see "God" as a title that we humans use in addressing or referring to the deity we worship. For most Christians, this God is a being comprised of three persons. If these persons are divine as opposed to human, then they are gods. Worshipping all three of them and acknowledging them as all being divine does not mean that your faith is polytheistic. In His great intercessory prayer in John 17, Jesus asks His Father that His followers "may be one, as we are," and "that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." He wasn't asking that we all be absorbed into an essence called the Trinity. He was merely asking for a perfect and absolute unity of will, purpose, mind and heart. The word "one," remember, means more than just a number. It also means "united." In Genesis, we are told that Adam and Eve should be "one flesh." Well obviously, they were not literally "one flesh," but they were united in their choices and decisions."

In John 1:1, we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It clearly states that from the very beginning, from the moment the clock started ticking, so to speak, the Word, i.e. Jesus Christ, was already "God." But, it also says that He was "with God." The word "with" implies a second individual. You can't be "with" yourself. The Word, who was God, was with the Father, who was also God. But they were individuals, wholly God on their own not just parts of some kind of invisible essence. And if God the Father existed first (as all fathers do), and if at some point prior to "the beginning" as it pertains to the events recorded in the Bible, He begat a Son, why wouldn't that Son be God, too?

We can refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as "God" because that is a title shared by all three. If we are speaking of Jesus, we are speaking of "God" because that's who He is. He's not just a part of a whole, but is "God" on His own. When we speak of "God" and are referring to all three of the persons in the Godhead, we are using the word "God" as a collective noun, in much the same way as we would use the word "team." If I were to say, "My team won," I would be referring to the team as a whole and not just to the player who scored the most points.

If you would like to read a book that explores the logic behind Trinitarianism and which may help you come to your own conclusions, may I suggest "What is the Trinity?" by Dale Tuggy. It's a very short book and relatively easy to read and understand. I read it in order to better understand the Trinity and it really helped me. (This is not an LDS book, by the way. It's written by a Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York.)

So, from your perspective, does that mean that even if God "The Father" created Jesus and the Holy Spirit, then Jesus and The Holy Spirit are still divine in nature - and share the title "God"?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sometimes, in an argument or discussion you have to bite the bullet and accept that what/who you are arguing against is in some way right - or that you are in some way wrong

You need to face up to reality and change your position

There should be no shame in doing this

But having started a thread about it, and having read some responses, I am considering biting the bullet on the issue of whether The Holy Trinity and Trinitarianism is a true doctrine...

It is time to admit that either:

A) My faith is Polytheistic

- or -

B) God The Father created Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and these are not God - and I'm a Unitarian

But there is an alternative:

C) "The Holy Trinity is a mystery! We can never get our heads around it because God is ineffable!"

Personally, I feel most comfortable going with option C

Anyways, I have abandoned all rational attempts to justify the doctrine of the Trinity - I no longer think this is possible. I think that I'll have to make a leap of faith and trust in God

In practical terms, I will carry on considering Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to be divine

That's what I think, anyway

Good for you, Eddi!

IMO, the theological debates are not important if you know the Lord Jesus and trust him. He will supply your spiritual needs, and the Holy Spirit will guide you into 'all truth'. [See John 16:13 - How can the Spirit of truth be an impersonal force? He hears, speaks and 'shews']

 

[Eyes to See]

God "The Father" created Jesus and the Holy Spirit,

It would be correct to say that God created his son. He was the first of God's creations, and the only direct creation by God. Why? Because God used his son, Jesus Christ, to create all other things. So only Jesus was directly created by his Father in the beginning. Everything else, both visible and invisible, both in heaven and on earth, was created through Jesus Christ.

It would not be correct to say that God created the holy spirit. You see God is the SOURCE of all energy. That energy has always been with him as a part of who he is, it is part of his very nature. When he uses that energy to do whatever it is he wills then that energy becomes active, it becomes holy spirit, or active force. So you see God never created the holy spirit, the holy spirit is simply God's dynamic energy, which he has an endless amount of, in action.

 

[Starlight]

I don't know what to think anymore, lol

I know there is God, there is Jesus, and there is the Holy Spirit - I think that's enough, I don't need to know the details!

You say:

Does that mean you actually believe that? Or just that it makes sense to you?

I'm not sure what I believe. But it make sense that Father was first, then he made Jesus and then the father/or father+jesus made the holy spirit. This happened before God created the universe. (as i wrote above catholics, protestants believe the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son, but ortodox believes the holy spirit only proceeds from the father).

So the Father is the most true God in that sense (in my belief). The offical trinity believes they are all three equally as much God.

But that is very similar idea to the offical trinity anyway. The offical trinity do not believe that Jesus and the holy spirit was created, they believe they was begotten and proceeds from the father in eternity. (But to be honest i think this is very much the same as to be created... )

The offical trinity belief is also that God never can be split apart. That they always are togheter as one. that they can not function on their own. Its like the social trinity theory: Social trinitarianism - Wikipedia

 

[Eddi]

I'm not sure what I believe. But it make sense that Father was first, then he made Jesus and then the father/or father+jesus made the holy spirit.(as i wrote above catholics, protestants believe the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son, but ortodox believes the holy spirit only proceeds from the father).

So the Father is the most true God in that sense (in my belief). The offical trinity believes they are all three equally as much God.

But that is very similar idea to the offical trinity anyway. The offical trinity do not believe that Jesus and the holy spirit was created, they believe they was begotten and proceeds from the father in eternity. (But to be honest i think this is very much the same as to be created... )

The offical trinity belief is also that God never can be split apart. That they always are togheter as one. that they can not function on their own. Its like the social trinity theory: Social trinitarianism - Wikipedia

That's an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing

Social Trinitarianism is interesting too!

 

[Starlight]

Just because some church or relifious person wrote this description, does not make it true. Msny other religions have different views. Who is to say who is right?

Thats true. I agree

 

[Katzpur]

So, from your perspective, does that mean that even if God "The Father" created Jesus and the Holy Spirit, then Jesus and The Holy Spirit are still divine in nature - and share the title "God"?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

You've understood me correctly, but I will add just another couple of thoughts to what I've already said. There seems to be a consensus among most Christians that if the Father "created" the Son, then the Son would just be another "created being" like the rest of us. But why must that be the case? Why couldn't the Father have created another like himself -- a divine being and not a human being? I mean, who makes the rules here -- God or men? Also, the Bible deals from the moment at which God began to create the earth. It does not even address what was happening before that. If God has always existed, then He must have been doing something worthwhile before He began the creation. Since we know that "the Word" was "God" in the beginning, who's to say that it might not have been before "the beginning" that God begat a Son like him, so that from "the beginning" they could work in unity as "one God"?

Now the Bible clearly does state that "the Word was God." If Jesus Christ is the individual we believe to be "the Word," then it's clear that He was God. But the Bible also clearly states that the Father is "greater than" the Son. Do we have a contradiction here? Some people would obviously believe that we do. I don't see it that way at all. A general may be greater than a lieutenant, but they are both addressed by their subordinates as "Sir." And they may both be equally fine human beings and both are equally better than an earthworm or a mosquito because they are both created in God's image. So, they are equal in some ways even though one of them always takes his orders from the other. It's never the other way around.

 

[Eddi]

You've understood me correctly, but I will add just another couple of thoughts to what I've already said. There seems to be a consensus among most Christians that if the Father "created" the Son, then the Son would just be another "created being" like the rest of us. But why must that be the case? Why couldn't the Father have created another like himself -- a divine being and not a human being? I mean, who makes the rules here -- God or men? Also, the Bible deals from the moment at which God began to create the earth. It does not even address what was happening before that. If God has always existed, then He must have been doing something worthwhile before He began the creation. Since we know that "the Word" was "God" in the beginning, who's to say that it might not have been before "the beginning" that God begat a Son like him, so that from "the beginning" they could work in unity as "one God"?

Now the Bible clearly does state that "the Word was God." If Jesus Christ is the individual we believe to be "the Word," then it's clear that He was God. But the Bible also clearly states that the Father is "greater than" the Son. Do we have a contradiction here? Some people would obviously believe that we do. I don't see it that way at all. A general may be greater than a lieutenant, but they are both addressed by their subordinates as "Sir." And they may both be equally fine human beings and both are equally better than an earthworm or a mosquito because they are both created in God's image. So, they are equal in some ways even though one of them always takes his orders from the other. It's never the other way around.

That's amazing, thanks for sharing

It makes perfect sense!

 

[Starlight]

I think you believed in the psychological model of trinity before today. Right?
The social trinity I wrote about above in this tread. But now I will show you what the psychological trinity is:

The psychological trinity goes back to Augustine. It likens the unity and diversity of the Godhead to the unity and diversity of the human self. According to Augustine, the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is like the unity of the mind (thoughts), heart (emotions), and volition (will) of a person.
A different version was put forth by Jonathan Edwards in the eighteenth century. He argued that as the human psyche consists of a self, a self-image, and a relationship between the self and the self-image, so the Godhead consists of a self (Father), a perfect self-image (Son), and a perfect loving relationship (Spirit) between the self and the self-image.

While many have found the psychological model helpful, others have objected to it on the grounds that it is not faithful to the biblical data. Bible depicts the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct Persons, not three distinct aspects of one Person.

To some defenders of the psychological model think the social trinity borders on tritheism (the belief in three separate gods). To some defenders of the social model, the psychological model borders on modalism (reducing the three Persons to three modes of one person)

It was not I who wrote this. The source of this text: is: What are the different models of the Trinity in the Christian tradition? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

 

[Eddi]

I think you believed in the psychological model of trinity before today. Right?
The social trinity I wrote about above in this tread. But now I will show you what the psychological trinity is:

The psychological trinity goes back to Augustine. It likens the unity and diversity of the Godhead to the unity and diversity of the human self. According to Augustine, the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is like the unity of the mind (thoughts), heart (emotions), and volition (will) of a person.
A different version was put forth by Jonathan Edwards in the eighteenth century. He argued that as the human psyche consists of a self, a self-image, and a relationship between the self and the self-image, so the Godhead consists of a self (Father), a perfect self-image (Son), and a perfect loving relationship (Spirit) between the self and the self-image.

While many have found the psychological model helpful, others have objected to it on the grounds that it is not faithful to the biblical data. Bible depicts the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct Persons, not three distinct aspects of one Person.

To some defenders of the psychological model think the social trinity borders on tritheism (the belief in three separate gods). To some defenders of the social model, the psychological model borders on modalism (reducing the three Persons to three modes of one person)

It was not I who wrote this. The source of this text: is: What are the different models of the Trinity in the Christian tradition? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

wow, that's some mind-bending stuff