the trinity

[shunyadragon]

I don't consider the teachings of Unity or Jehovah's Witnesses to line up with the Bible or the message of Christ.

Obviously, and you would not accept the Mormon, nor the Unity Church .Same Bible different fallible humans interpret it differently

 

[InChrist]

Obviously, and you would not accept the Mormon, nor the Unity Church .Same Bible different fallible humans interpret it differently

I spent years studying Unity materials and I was at one time a member of the Mormon Church. I don't accept Mormonism or Unity as lining up with the Bible. I don't think it is quite an issue of "same Bible, different interpretations". Mormons use additional materials from Joseph Smith, besides the Bible to come to different conclusions about God, humans, sin, eternal life, etc. and Unity teachings are based on the ideas of Charles and Myrtle Fillmore of positive thinking and that all spiritual paths lead to God, the Bible is only used in a metaphysical sense to support their beliefs.

 

[outlawState]

The trinity, being a description of the father, son, and Spirit, itself, is directly inferenced. You don't need a doctrine to notice that.

You do need intelligence. One cannot infer every relevation or manifestation of God as just one more "person" comprising God's pantheon. That is, after all, how polytheism arose. Every natural power, every human power, every divine or powerful thing, was attributed with its own "personal" god. And so we had polytheism for many thousands of years.

Are not Trinitarians doing the same? The son, the Holy Spirit are denoted as "persons" to be agglomerated into God's pantheon. It is concealed by asserting that they have divine essence, but substantively it is no different from pagans imputing the "god" quality to their own pagan gods.

Does not the "trinity" really denote the divine pantheon, although no longer a pantheon modelled on nature, but on perceived relevations? But why not include the angels too? Did not they also refer to themselves as YHWH in the Old Testament? Why not include the whole Council of God, as is alluded to in the OT?

The whole point about the son and the Holy Spirit is that thay are "sent" out from God, either descending to earth itself, or into the lower heavens. It does not infer that the concept of God is conceived of as a Trinity in respect of men. The bible presents a spiritual unity. There is no distinction to be made as to spirit. The only distinction is in respect of hierarchy of responsibility, but which presents a unitary spirit of God. If there is complete unity within God, why should God be denoted as a Trinity inherently? Is that the most important thing to say about God, or is his unity a more important aspect? Why do we never hear anything about God's unity from Trinitarians, but only his essence?

A trinity of "persons of God" is not what the bible teaches should be taught about God, but a spiritual unity and unitary hierarchy within God of different aspects, functions and roles, with the Father at the very top, and in all - denoting but a single hypostasis. A trinity of revelation or perhaps dispensations, through angels, the son and finally the Holy Spirit also is provided for, even some of whom, i.e. the Son, share the throne with God himself.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I'm so sorry that you reject the God revealed in the biblical scriptures.

Why don't you respond to one of my posts, and provide answers with scriptures to back them up. It's pretty easy to just make some statement like you made with no proof.

Paul said to us there is only one God, the Father. 1 Corinthians 8:6 So if the Holy Spirit is God - How is he not the Father? Matthew 1:18-20 says he is.

 

[metis]

Ehrman simply presents a factual description of the evolution of early Christianity, and the belief in the Trinity. This does not deal with the theological questions and contradictions involving the claim of the Roman Church concerning the Trinity. In fact, his work makes it highly questionable that the Trinity is original to the time and Revelation of Jesus Christ.

You must have read a very different book than Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" because that's a major theme of that book, which even a person unfamiliar with it should be able to derive from the title. He goes through various concepts that developed in the early church that eventually was put together as the "Mystery of the Trinity".

If you believe sincerely yo will be left of something in the Divine mystery you can resolve it. My view there is in reality no mystery, and nothing to reveal in this world and the next, unless of course you believe in the Roman Church.

So, there is no mystery for you because you know "the answers". But maybe the main difference between you and I is that I make no such claim.

Also, it seems that you are just being obtuse because I have made it clear on numerous occasions that I am neither Catholic, nor Christian, nor even much of a theist. So, apparently that's one mystery you seem to have forgot about.

Close is no brass ring. The Hindu belief is strict monotheistic. None of the manifestation of Brahman have any equivalence to the Brahman.

You do not even get close to understanding the simple fact that Hinduism is extremely diverse and that there have been and are Hindu polytheists and there used to be even non-theistic (no creator-god) forms. On top of this, I never said nor implied that the manifestations of Brahman were somehow equivalent, and I'm sick and tired of you putting things in my posts that simply are not there.

So, you can go strut around with your miraculous ability to be able to solve all these religious "mysteries", and I can live in my ignorant world with saying "I don't know" to a lot of things, so I guess it's better to just end this conversation.

 

[shunyadragon]

You must have read a very different book than Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" because that's a major theme of that book, which even a person unfamiliar with it should be able to derive from the title. He goes through various concepts that developed in the early church that eventually was put together as the "Mystery of the Trinity".

I personally have the book, and Max Ehrman as you described he just describes objectively the the development of the Trinity and not the theological questions as to the nature of the 'belief' in the Trinity.in terms of the nature of God. HE is not a believer and makes no statement either way as to the 'truth' of the Trinity.

So, there is no mystery for you because you know "the answers". But maybe the main difference between you and I is that I make no such claim.

What you claim to know or not know is not relevant, because you are not a believer. It is what the Roman Church and traditional Christian churches teach that the Trinity is the nature of God from the human perspective. Upiy sarcasm will get you no where. I consider the consideration of calling it a mystery a dodge, because the Roman Church and tradition Christianity believe that the Trinity is the nature of knowable God from the human perspective,

On the other hand I consider God unknowable from the fallible human perspective, and no I MAKE NO SUCH CLAIMS.

Also, it seems that you are just being obtuse because I have made it clear on numerous occasions that I am neither Catholic, nor Christian, nor even much of a theist. So, apparently that's one mystery you seem to have forgot about.

I am not being obtuse in fact I am being very specific what I believe and what the Roman Church teaches in the Catechism, but your response is often obtuse, or maybe sarcastic defending beliefs you have no issue with.

You do not even get close to understanding the simple fact that Hinduism is extremely diverse and that there have been and are Hindu polytheists and there used to be even non-theistic (no creator-god) forms. On top of this, I never said nor implied that the manifestations of Brahman were somehow equivalent, and I'm sick and tired of you putting things in my posts that simply are not there.

I understand Hinduism very well, and the diversity of Hindu belief is the key that your analogy folds like a sand castle at high tide.

I'm sick and tired of you putting things in my posts that simply are not there.

So, you can go strut around with your miraculous ability to be able to solve all these religious "mysteries", and I can live in my ignorant world with saying "I don't know" to a lot of things, so I guess it's better to just end this conversation.

Again upity sarcasm will get you no where, especially when you are trying desperaely to defend beliefs you do not believe in,

 

[metis]

Yesterday morning I went to mass with my wife and it was "Trinity Sunday", and there's a very brief article in the church paper, so I'll post it here:

Feast of the Most Holy Trinity

The mystery of the Blessed Trinity is probably one of the most difficult for the human mind to understand. That is why it is precisely a mystery.

The fundamental dogma, on which everything in Christianity is based, is that of the Blessed Trinity in whose name all Christians are baptized. The feast of the Blessed Trinity needs to be understood and celebrated as a prolongation of the mysteries of Christ and as the solemn expression of our faith in this triune life of the Divine Persons, to which we have been given access by Baptism and by the Redemption won by Christ. Only in heaven shall we properly understand what it means.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yesterday morning I went to mass with my wife and it was "Trinity Sunday", and there's a very brief article in the church paper, so I'll post it here:

Feast of the Most Holy Trinity

The mystery of the Blessed Trinity is probably one of the most difficult for the human mind to understand. That is why it is precisely a mystery.

The fundamental dogma, on which everything in Christianity is based, is that of the Blessed Trinity in whose name all Christians are baptized. The feast of the Blessed Trinity needs to be understood and celebrated as a prolongation of the mysteries of Christ and as the solemn expression of our faith in this triune life of the Divine Persons, to which we have been given access by Baptism and by the Redemption won by Christ. Only in heaven shall we properly understand what it means.

I am perfectly aware of this, because I grew up in the Roman Church. The first part that it is a mystery of the Blessed Trinity is probably one of the most difficult for the human mind to understand. does not detract from the problem of the absolute certainty and necessity of the belief in the Trinity in salvation without question in the following paragraph, which is the issue from my perspective.

 

[Desert Snake]

Paul said to us there is only one God, the Father. 1 Corinthians 8:6 So if the Holy Spirit is God - How is he not the Father? Matthew 1:18-20 says he is.

The actual verse is

1 Corinthians 8:6

Jesus who is the Lord, is also God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I missed this. It is the word that's trippin' you guys up. You can use triad, trio, threesome, three as a unity, whatever.

No. When we talk about the Trinity, we have to recall its fundamental philosophical definition, 3 x hypostases of God being God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Yes? I don't see how that's different than saying three persons have a relationship with each other regardless the words a christian uses to express the concept.

We cannot talk about the 3 revelations of God and pretend that they substitute for the "Trinity." The "Trinity" is far too well defined, as it goes back to Nicea, for there to be any ambiguity as to what it infers in terms of there being three hypostases of God.

It's very simple. It's not complicated at all. The English definition of trinity describe the relationship between the father, son, and holy spirit. When god the father, god the son, and god the holy spirit are one unit (not each other), that is the trinity.

If it wasn't a tri-nity, they'd call it a singularity.

It's the words.

I am saying that if X is an attribute of Y, then X does not have a separate "hypostasis" from Y. Only if X and Y have separate hypostases can X be said to be not an attribute of Y.

Huh? The word hypostasis is throwing me off. I'm very simple minded.

hypostasis (philosophy): an underlying reality or substance, as opposed to attributes

Thank you. I looked it up. Can't figure the connection yet.

Hence you are required to know that the "Trinity" is defined as a philosophical proposition (3 x hypostases), not a theological proposition (1 x hypostasis).

I'm describing it by English definition. Any other definition is, by definition, not the trinity. Probably translation issues.

Your problem lies in that your philosophy does not reflect your theology.

I don't have a theology. This is from my experience and study being in The Church and reading the bible. Any opinion I try to line it up with what I read and experienced. If it doesn't jive, I ask for clarification. I don't say you or anyone has a problem. I don't say a person is wrong. I just ask for clarification because some things just don't make sense.

Especially written in black, write, red, and blue.

Of course they are related by Jesus and the Holy Spirit being cast as attributes of God. But as having separate hypostases - well that is for philosophy to rationalize.

Three related to each other makes one unit=trinity

That's it. Nothing complicated about it.

But if you're not understanding the complexity of it, perhaps you shouldn't advance propositions that you are not entirely sure of?

I'm very simple minded. Relationships of/as/in/with etc shows the relationship between god/father, god/son, and god/holy spirit.

I am not a trinitarian. I just understand both views. They both make sense. I'm not a you are wrong and I am right person. It is a very nasty part of christianity that really turns people away.

The Trinity isn't in the bible. A unity is in the bible. "I and my Father are one." Jesus said "Before Abraham was born I AM." "If you have seen me you have seen the Father."

Trinity is unity between three parts.

Jesus and father are one expresses duality as one unit.

The father before abraham expresses the seniority relationship the father has with abraham.

Which is greater, unity with God, or the form of God's messenger?

Huh?

I am is singular. It talks about one person. In the bible, god is greater than all, even christ himself.

But I don't understand your question.

What I say is that in theology, unity with God is of far more importance than the form of the messenger of God. With philosophy, the form or manifestation is the most important aspect.

You're confusing me. Translate.

I am not saying Jesus is God the Father. I am saying that the Logos is an attribute of God, not a separate hypostasis from God. Jesus the son of God was separate from God the Father, being made "a little lower than the angels;" and that he cannot be constituted vis-a-vis his relation to God as having a separate hypostasis (in theological terms). The son is the image of the hypostasis of God (Heb 1:3). If he is the "image" of the hypostasis of God, his hypostasis cannot be distinguished from God by mere man.

Huh?

It is very simple: Jesus is in the image of the father; so, he shares the father's characteristics as his father's son not the father himself. The relationship between father and son are expressed one being an image of another. The holy spirit in Acts is from christ because christ got the spirit to preach and die for all from his father. So, the three all are interrelated. God the father/creator. Son a human/The savior. The holy spirit/love and grace that brings the three together so that christians are born again in the father, son, and holy spirit.

I absolutely disagree. "You" are stuck with the word Trinity. The bible knows nothing of it.

Trinity just means a unit of three things.

Find where the father, son, and holy spirit aren't one unit nor related, then we're squared.

I'll use triad, trio, and threesome instead.

English issues not spiritual and definitely not biblical.

 

[InChrist]

The word trinity is not even in the bible. The doctrine was never taught by any of the apostles. The apostles were the ones taught by the Messiah, and told to spread the gospel, and teach whatsoever he had commanded them. Show me one scripture that says there is a trinity, or a triune God, or 3 persons in the Godhead. I am not interested in a man made doctrine, taught and forced on the world, hundreds of years after the apostles were dead.

If you think there is a trinity, then which of the persons is the Father? Is it the one called the Father, or the Holy Spirit, said to be the Father in Matthew 1:18-20? Where it says she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

What about Colossians 1:14-16 - Who created all things per these verses?
The Messiah -correct?

Now compare with Isaiah 44:24 where YHWH said, I am YHWH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself

Please don't just ignore the questions. Try to answer them.

The term "trinity" may not be in the Bible, but the term Godhead is and the triune nature of this Godhead is expressed throughout the scriptures.

"The Bible presents a God who did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship. This God is complete in Himself, being three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct, yet at the same time eternally one God. They loved and communed and fellowshiped with each other and took counsel together before the universe, angels or man were brought into existence. Isaiah "heard the voice of the Lord [in eternity past] saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa:6:8). Moses revealed the same counseling together of the Godhead: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"; and again, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen:1:26;11:7). Who is this "us" if God is a single entity? Why does God say, "The man is become as one of us" (Gen:3:22)?"

'Godhead? Is that a biblical term? Yes, indeed. It occurs three times in the King James New Testament in Acts:17:29, Romans:1:20, and Colossians:2:9. In contrast to theos, which is used consistently throughout the New Testament for "God," three different but related Greek words occur in these verses (theios, theiotes, theotes), which the King James translators (here's another reason for preferring the KJV!) carefully designated by the special word, Godhead. That very term indicates a plurality of being. Paul wrote, "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col:2:9)." https://www.thebereancall.org/content/trinity

God has also revealed and reflected His triune nature throughout His creation...

"In Romans:1:20 Paul argues that God's "eternal power and Godhead" are seen in the creation He made. God's eternal power—but His Godhead? Yes, as Dr. Wood pointed out years ago in The Secret of the Universe, the triune nature of God is stamped on His creation. The cosmos is divided into three: space, matter and time. Each of these is divided into three. Space, for instance, is composed of length, breadth and width, each separate and distinct in itself, yet the three are one. Length, breadth and width are not three spaces, but three dimensions comprising one space. Run enough lines lengthwise and you take in the whole. But so it is with the width and height. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is all of space—just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is each God.

Time also is a trinity: past, present and future—two invisible and one visible. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is the whole. Man himself is a triunity of spirit, soul and body, two of which are invisible, one visible. Many more details could be given of the Godhead's triunity reflected in the universe. It can hardly be coincidence."
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/trinity

 

[InChrist]

Why don't you respond to one of my posts, and provide answers with scriptures to back them up. It's pretty easy to just make some statement like you made with no proof.

Paul said to us there is only one God, the Father. 1 Corinthians 8:6 So if the Holy Spirit is God - How is he not the Father? Matthew 1:18-20 says he is.

Matthew 1:19-20 doesn't say anywhere that the Holy Spirit is the Father.

 

[outlawState]

The term "trinity" may not be in the Bible, but the term Godhead is ...

The sense of the term "godhead" as translated from theotēs has little to do with inferring multiple "persons" in god. In fact it is something of a mistranslation. theotēs could be translated "what is divine" or the "quality of being God" or even the "essence of God" (abstractly), whereas theos is a general name for a specific God, i.e. the Christian God.

 

[outlawState]

I missed this. It is the word that's trippin' you guys up. You can use triad, trio, threesome, three as a unity, whatever.

The point of trinity is that it means 3 not 1. Jesus said that as to spirit, he and the Father were one. If they are one, why are you saying that they are three?

Yes? I don't see how that's different than saying three persons have a relationship with each other regardless the words a christian uses to express the concept.

Whoever said that God is three persons in a "relationship" with each other? They are not "persons." They are not equal that they should ever have a "relation" compared to a relation between persons. Where does the bible say that God is multiple persons?

It's very simple. It's not complicated at all. The English definition of trinity describe the relationship between the father, son, and holy spirit. When god the father, god the son, and god the holy spirit are one unit (not each other),
that is the trinity.

There is no "relationship" as such that we know about in heaven. They are "one." A relationship occurs between those who are not one. Oneness infers agency. The son is the agent of the father. He represent the Father. He is not the Father but as far as the outsider or human is concerned, he is the Father because he speaks with the Father's whole authority.

The analogy is that when you go into the bank, you speak to a bank employee. As far as you are concerned, you are speaking to the bank, not a bank employee. The employee is the bank. The employee and the bank are one. One does not go around saying that the bank consists of multiplicity of persons in a relationship with one another. People would say "You're crazy." It is an entirely subsidiary matter to which you are not privy. You have no idea what the relationship is between employees and you don't even care. Employees are "attributes of the bank." They are not the substantive being of the bank.

A bank is bank. Your contract is with the bank. You speak to the bank on the phone. The matter that the bank is comprised of numerous employees is quite irrelevant for every purpose. The bank is a unity. The divinity is a unity. I will not pursue the analogy too far.

Huh? The word hypostasis is throwing me off. I'm very simple minded.

Well you need to know that the word trinity does not denote a trinity of revelation, but a trinity of composition modelled on a pagan trinity. The whole objection to the way trinity is defined is that it is modelled on paganism and that it seeks to go beyond the revelation to define God, who as to his composition is beyond human conception.

I don't have a theology. This is from my experience and study being in The Church and reading the bible. Any opinion I try to line it up with what I read and experienced. If it doesn't jive, I ask for clarification. I don't say you or anyone has a problem. I don't say a person is wrong. I just ask for clarification because some things just don't make sense.

The clarification is that as a corporate entity, the unity of the entity is what the bible teaches. Deut 6;4. Relevations of God there are a multiplicity of, angels, son, holy spirit and prophets. One could say that conceptually the son and the holy spirit are agents of God but do not destroy his unity. Thus the word trinity is wrong where God is a unity.

Trinity is unity between three parts.

Who said that God was comprised of parts? God is the father pre-eminently and over Christ too 1 Cor 11:3.

Eph 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jesus and father are one expresses duality as one unit.

No Jesus expressed only his unity with God, and never a duality. He never asserted equality with the Father, but that the Father sent him.

I am is singular. It talks about one person. In the bible, god is greater than all, even christ himself.

But I don't understand your question.

You're confusing me. Translate.

When you talk about a trinity you really alluded to a trinity of form. But when God speaks of himself, he only speaks of his unity. If you want to talk about a trinity of form or agents of the Father, (e.g. servants of the bank) it is permissible, provided we agree that the forms comprise a spiritual unity and e.g. we do not infer that the bank is comprised of a multiplicity of parts. Employees are not "parts of a bank" but forms of the bank. Christ in heaven is not "part of God" but God. Trinity infers God in three parts.

It is very simple: Jesus is in the image of the father; so, he shares the father's characteristics as his father's son not the father himself. The relationship between father and son are expressed one being an image of another. The holy spirit in Acts is from christ because christ got the spirit to preach and die for all from his father. So, the three all are interrelated. God the father/creator. Son a human/The savior. The holy spirit/love and grace that brings the three together so that christians are born again in the father, son, and holy spirit.

The holy spirit/love and grace DOES NOT bring "the three together." The three are one. They are part of one corporation. They are the corporation. But the corporation is denoted by the Father. It is "his" corporation. God is properly the Father alone, because the Father is the head of the corporation, even if the son and the holy spirit share in the divinity of the Father.

Find where the father, son, and holy spirit aren't one unit nor related, then we're squared.

It's not about relationships, but about agency. We're not engaged with inter-personal relations with the sundry forms of God's revelation. We're engaged with a corporation that presents a unified face. We cannot pierce the corporate veil, except as the veil has been pierced by the messengers themselves.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The actual verse is

1 Corinthians 8:6

Jesus who is the Lord, is also God.

Not sure I follow what you mean - I already referenced that verse in my post.

I believe that the Messiah was YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Matthew 1:19-20 doesn't say anywhere that the Holy Spirit is the Father.

It says she was found with child of the Holy Spirit, and that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit - so that makes the Holy Spirit the Father.

Paul said that to us there is but one God, the Father. 1 Corinthians 8:6 God is a Spirit (not 3 persons- a Spirit) John 4:24 He is holy - surely you don't deny that. Ephesians 4:4 says there is only one Spirit.

God said in the last days he would pour out his Spirit on all flesh. Joel 2:28-29

So if the Father is the only God, and the only God is a Spirit, and there is only one Spirit, and he is holy, and he said he would pour out his Spirit on all flesh. Then the Holy Spirit is the Father, just like it says in Matthew 1:18-20

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The term "trinity" may not be in the Bible, but the term Godhead is and the triune nature of this Godhead is expressed throughout the scriptures.

"The Bible presents a God who did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship. This God is complete in Himself, being three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct, yet at the same time eternally one God. They loved and communed and fellowshiped with each other and took counsel together before the universe, angels or man were brought into existence. Isaiah "heard the voice of the Lord [in eternity past] saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa:6:8). Moses revealed the same counseling together of the Godhead: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"; and again, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen:1:26;11:7). Who is this "us" if God is a single entity? Why does God say, "The man is become as one of us" (Gen:3:22)?"

'Godhead? Is that a biblical term? Yes, indeed. It occurs three times in the King James New Testament in Acts:17:29, Romans:1:20, and Colossians:2:9. In contrast to theos, which is used consistently throughout the New Testament for "God," three different but related Greek words occur in these verses (theios, theiotes, theotes), which the King James translators (here's another reason for preferring the KJV!) carefully designated by the special word, Godhead. That very term indicates a plurality of being. Paul wrote, "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col:2:9)." https://www.thebereancall.org/content/trinity

God has also revealed and reflected His triune nature throughout His creation...

"In Romans:1:20 Paul argues that God's "eternal power and Godhead" are seen in the creation He made. God's eternal power—but His Godhead? Yes, as Dr. Wood pointed out years ago in The Secret of the Universe, the triune nature of God is stamped on His creation. The cosmos is divided into three: space, matter and time. Each of these is divided into three. Space, for instance, is composed of length, breadth and width, each separate and distinct in itself, yet the three are one. Length, breadth and width are not three spaces, but three dimensions comprising one space. Run enough lines lengthwise and you take in the whole. But so it is with the width and height. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is all of space—just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is each God.

Time also is a trinity: past, present and future—two invisible and one visible. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is the whole. Man himself is a triunity of spirit, soul and body, two of which are invisible, one visible. Many more details could be given of the Godhead's triunity reflected in the universe. It can hardly be coincidence."
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/trinity

God was talking to the angels in Genesis

Yes the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Messiah bodily , so why do you insist on there being other person?

I am not interested in any gobbledy goop that is not from the scriptures. Sorry, but I could care less what some man centuries later thinks, if it is not based on scripture.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think its the words. I posted scripture to all my points to someone else. When I get free time, I'll get them for you.

The point of trinity is that it means 3 not 1. Jesus said that as to spirit, he and the Father were one. If they are one, why are you saying that they are three?

Trio, triad, and threesome fufills this purpose. That is why there and "and" not "is". Relationship is showing how the three are related to each other (scripture soon). So son is related to father. Spirit is from the father. Spirit goes through the so to believers.

And/from/through are relationship words.

Its english not spiritual. Trinity works the same way in the english language.

Whoever said that God is three persons in a "relationship" with each other? They are not "persons." They are not equal that they should ever have a "relation" compared to a relation between persons. Where does the bible say that God is multiple person

Relationship meaning they have something similar to each othe; interconnection.

Where in then bible does it say god, son, and spirit have no relationship (as/of/through and "and")with each other?

The words are throwing you

Relationship: the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected. (Dic)

There is no "relationship" as such that we know about in heaven. They are "one." A relationship occurs between those who are not one. Oneness infers agency. The son is the agent of the father. He represent the Father. He is not the Father but as far as the outsider or human is concerned, he is the Father because he speaks with the Fa

Relationship means more than one thing are interrelates to each other.

When they form a trio, threesome, triad, trinity, they become one unit "not" one person.

The analogy is that when you go into the bank, you speak to a bank employee. As far as you are concerned, you are speaking to the bank, not a bank employee. The employee is the bank. The employee and the bank are one. One does not go around saying that the bank consists of multiplicity of persons in a relationship with one another. People would say "You're crazy." It is an entirely subsidiary matter to which you are not privy. You have no idea what the relationship is between employees and you don't even care. Employees are "attributes of the bank." They are not the substantive being of the bank.

Thats the relationship. The employee and his boss work for the same bank. When you talk to the emoplyee, he represents/in the image-of/is from the bank; they are keys to relations. Both boss and employee are one unit/one bank. Good analogy.

A bank is bank. Your contract is with the bank. You speak to the bank on the phone. The matter that the bank is comprised of numerous employees is quite irrelevant for every purpose. The bank is a unity. The divinity is a unity. I will not pursue the analogy too far.

Yes..?

Well you need to know that the word trinity does not denote a trinity of revelation, but a trinity of composition modelled on a pagan trinity. The whole objection to the way trinity is defined is that it is modelled on paganism and that it seeks to go beyond the revelation to define God, who as to his composition is beyond human conception.

Its a simple word. The concept is in scripture all throughout the gospels. The details behind it, I only know the gospels.

The clarification is that as a corporate entity, the unity of the entity is what the bible teaches. Deut 6;4. Relevations of God there are a multiplicity of, angels, son, holy spirit and prophets. One could say that conceptually the son and the holy spirit are agents of God but do not destroy his unity. Thus the word trinity is wrong where God is a unity.

Wait. Above you seperated them now you making them a unit. Where are we disagreing? (Words??)

Who said that God was comprised of parts? God is the father pre-eminently and over Christ too 1 Cor 11:3.

Parts does mean each other. To understand the nature of the trinity, you must must must read the bible not what people tell you outside it.

No Jesus expressed only his unity with God, and never a duality. He never asserted equality with the Father, but that the Father sent him.

It was an example of words used as units: singularity, duality, trinity

Jesus, father, spirit are a trinity made to be a singular unit.

Duality was an example

When you talk about a trinity you really alluded to a trinity of form. But when God speaks of himself, he only speaks of his unity. If you want to talk about a trinity of form or agents of the Father, (e.g. servants of the bank) it is permissible, provided we agree that the forms comprise a spiritual unity and e.g. we do not infer that the bank is comprised of a multiplicity of parts. Employees are not "parts of a bank" but forms of the bank. Christ in heaven is not "part of God" but God. Trinity infers God in three parts.

Unity of the trinity (three in one unit)

I have one specific and direct scripture on this point to the T.

Ill find it later.

It's not about relationships, but about agency. We're not engaged with inter-personal relations with the sundry forms of God's revelation. We're engaged with a corporation that presents a unified face. We cannot pierce the corporate veil, except as the veil has been pierced by the messengers themselves.

Where in the bible does it say jesu, father, "and" gods spirit are not related to each other???

 

[outlawState]

I think its the words. I posted scripture to all my points to someone else. When I get free time, I'll get them for you.


Trio, triad, and threesome fuflills this purpose. That is why there and "and" not "is". Relationship is showing how the three are related to each other (scripture soon). So son is related to father. Spirit is from the father. Spirit goes through the so to believers.

And/from/through are relationship words.

Its english ot spiritual. Trinity works the same way in the english language.

Jesus said "one." 1 != 3.

Relationship meaning they have something similar to each othe; interconnection.

Where in then bible does it say god, son, and spirit have no relationship (as/of/through and "and")with each other?
The words ars throwing you

the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected. (Dic)

Relationship means more than one thing are interrelates to each other. When they form a trio, threesome, triad, trinity, they become one unit "not" one person.

God is one Lord (Deu 6:4). God is spirit, not person. God is not a "person" either one person or three persons.

Relationship between persons is not an analogy if God is not a person. What is the relation between the Holy Spirit and you? Brother, sister, friend, foe? "Relation" is not really an appropriate term is it?

Thats the relationship. The employee and his boss work for the same bank. When you talk to the emoplyee, he represents/in the image-of/as/from are keys to relations. Both boss and employee are one unit/one bank. Good analogy.

Yes..?.

Its a simple word. The concept is in scripture all throughout the gospels. The details behind it, I only know the gospels.

So you refuse to address the trinity as defined by philosophy? It is a cop out.

Wait. Above you seperated them now you making them a unit. Where are we disagreing? (Words??)

The disagreement is that God is comprised of "parts." There are no parts to God. God does not have a body that he should have parts.

Parts does mean each other. To understand the nature of the trinity, you must read the bible not what people tell you outside it.

To have parts you need a body. Have you seen God's body (excluding the church)?

It was an example of words used as units: singularity, duality, trinity

Jesus, father, spirit are a trinity made to be a singular unit.

Duality was an example

Unittly=trinity (three in one unit)

Three (names) in one is OK, because the bible concurs. But not "three persons" as God is not a person. Three concepts in one, also. But is it not also one in three? The Father in all, and in himself? One in three and three in one infer what as the lowest numeric? One. Yet we can distinguish three, I'll agree. But if we distinguish three, it does not nullify unity.

So trinity does not nullify unity, and if that's the case, why use trinity? What are we trying to prove? Trinity is less important than unity. That's my point. Unity is more important to prevent the biblical God looking like and being defined as a pagan trinity.

I have one specific and direct scripture on this point to the T. Ill find it later.

There in the bible does it say jesu, father, "and" gods spirit are not related to each other???

The relation is divinity itself, the divinity of the Father. The Father is the relation. The relation between JC and the Father is the Father himself.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not sure I follow what you mean - I already referenced that verse in my post.

I believe that the Messiah was YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body.

However, JHVH, who is Jesus, is the person. In other words, Jesus was not 'possessed', by deity, or such.
This means that Jesus, being YHVH, is Himself, God. Spirit form Jesus is still that aspect, of YHVH.