The Trinity

[Sonofason]

Exactly! I'm glad someone gets it.

God did not come to earth as a man to die at the hands of mere humans. To suggest that an immortal God could die is absurd and to think that humans possess the ability to kill God is even sillier.

The Lamb of God is his son. He is a separate entity who was created as the very first being to be brought into existence. (Col 1:15, 16; Rev 3:14)
He is "only begotten" as the only direct creation of his Father....all other things were brought into existence through the agency of the son. (John 1:3; Prov 8:22, 30)

Immortal beings cannot die, so Jesus was not immortal.
God is immortal so Jesus cannot be God.

Amen, I honestly can't figure it any other way. Jesus prayed to the Father. He often prayed to God, His actual Father, on the behalf of Himself and on the behalf of other people. In the Old Testament, we never see God praying to Himself. God doesn't need to pray to anyone for anything, not ever.

However, Jesus was not necessarily a created being, was He? He was begotten, whatever that really means. Could He have been part God? He had no earthly father.
I can hardly fathom God. How am I supposed to understand what it is to be begotten of God? Jesus died for our sins. I'm grateful to Him. I'm grateful to God.

 

[Sonofason]

its odd how we get the same argument from GBO and yet they insist on calling it trinity .

Jesus was begotten of the Father. That sort of makes Him half God, half man. That's very Trinity like.

 

[Sonofason]

I do not claim to be one of the ones going to heaven . which means you will not understand my answer of NO

YES I have excepted Jesus as the redeemer/savior and to every thing it entails .

do you under stand ?

I think I do, because I think I might feel the same way. I know God can save me. I know the price was paid for all sin. I have a great deal of hope that I will be saved. I often experience the presence of God, the Holy Spirit, which strengthens my hope. But I just don't know if Jesus know's me. And I don't know how to know that with absolute certainty..

 

[pearl]

The conception of Jesus is new creation, not begetting by God. God does not become the biological father of Jesus. Jesus is not
half God and half man. It is, and always has been, a basic tenet of Christian faith that Jesus is completely God and completely man.
The divine Sonship of Jesus does not depend on the fact that Jesus had no human father. The doctrine of Jesus' divinity would not
be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage. "The Divine Sonship of faith is not a biological, but an ontological fact, an event not in time but in God's eternity. God is always Father, Son, and Spirit. The conception of Jesus means,
not a new God the Son comes into being, but that God as Son in the man Jesus draws the creature man to himself, so that he
himself "is" man." Jesus' Divine Sonship The Church's teaching about Divine Sonship of Jesus is not based on the story of the Virgin Birth, but on the Abba-Son dialogue.

 

[Sonofason]

The conception of Jesus is new creation, not begetting by God. God does not become the biological father of Jesus. Jesus is not
half God and half man. It is, and always has been, a basic tenet of Christian faith that Jesus is completely God and completely man.
The divine Sonship of Jesus does not depend on the fact that Jesus had no human father. The doctrine of Jesus' divinity would not
be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage. "The Divine Sonship of faith is not a biological, but an ontological fact, an event not in time but in God's eternity. God is always Father, Son, and Spirit. The conception of Jesus means,
not a new God the Son comes into being, but that God as Son in the man Jesus draws the creature man to himself, so that he
himself "is" man." Jesus' Divine Sonship The Church's teaching about Divine Sonship of Jesus is not based on the story of the Virgin Birth, but on the Abba-Son dialogue.

You are free to all of your opinions. But you have not shown in any sense that you are correct.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are free to all of your opinions. But you have not shown in any sense that you are correct.

It's completely backed by Scripture. Perhaps even of more significance, it doesn't have the various 'problems' other theories have.

 

[Sonofason]

It's completely backed by Scripture. Perhaps even of more significance, it doesn't have the various 'problems' other theories have.

Yet, it is a theory I rarely see anyone actually backing up with scripture.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yet, it is a theory I rarely see anyone actually backing up with scripture.

You have it backwards.
The other 'theories' have to rely on ignoring many verses.

 

[sojourner]

The conception of Jesus is new creation, not begetting by God. God does not become the biological father of Jesus. Jesus is not
half God and half man. It is, and always has been, a basic tenet of Christian faith that Jesus is completely God and completely man.
The divine Sonship of Jesus does not depend on the fact that Jesus had no human father. The doctrine of Jesus' divinity would not
be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage. "The Divine Sonship of faith is not a biological, but an ontological fact, an event not in time but in God's eternity. God is always Father, Son, and Spirit. The conception of Jesus means,
not a new God the Son comes into being, but that God as Son in the man Jesus draws the creature man to himself, so that he
himself "is" man." Jesus' Divine Sonship The Church's teaching about Divine Sonship of Jesus is not based on the story of the Virgin Birth, but on the Abba-Son dialogue.

Well-said! Unfortunately, it's casting pearls before swine, I'm afraid.

 

[pearl]

Well-said! Unfortunately, it's casting pearls before swine, I'm afraid.

Interesting, would you explain, not sure I get your meaning.

 

[sojourner]

Interesting, would you explain, not sure I get your meaning.

You presented a beautiful apology for the Trinity that perfectly rebuts the foregoing arguments. But these people aren't going to buy it, because they're too interested in pushing their own agendas. The post is the pearl being cast before swine who aren't the least bit interested in pearls.

 

[pearl]

You presented a beautiful apology for the Trinity that perfectly rebuts the foregoing arguments. But these people aren't going to buy it, because they're too interested in pushing their own agendas. The post is the pearl being cast before swine who aren't the least bit interested in pearls.

gotchya, thanks

 

[Sonofason]

You have it backwards.
The other 'theories' have to rely on ignoring many verses.

Perhaps we could just start with a bit of reason. If I were to have a son, do you believe that son is me?

 

[moorea944]

Perhaps we could just start with a bit of reason. If I were to have a son, do you believe that son is me?

Good point. If people want to talk to my dad, why would they ever want to talk to me? If I have a question for a friend of mine, why would I do to his dad? Doesnt make sense. Good point!

 

[Yes]

Good point. If people want to talk to my dad, why would they ever want to talk to me? If I have a question for a friend of mine, why would I do to his dad? Doesnt make sense. Good point!

Because Jesus is God come in the flesh as a Son.

 

[JayJayDee]

Perhaps we could just start with a bit of reason. If I were to have a son, do you believe that son is me?

We get our sense of logic from our Creator. The trinity as a doctrine is completely illogical and finds NO support in any direct statement of scripture. It is read into a few verses, but is contradicted by many more. Since the Bible does not contradict itself, then the scriptures that categorically state that Jesus can't be Almighty God must be right and the ones that are open to conjecture must be misinterpreted.

If Jesus didn't once say he was God and Jehovah did not once say his son was equal to himself, then we have no categorical statement to back up the trinity....all we have is a belief based on supposition and a desire to push that belief.

Nowhere are we told to worship the son and nowhere are we told to worship the holy spirit. We are not told to pray to the son or to the Holy Spirit...only to the Father through Jesus.

So where does this ridiculous belief come from and why do people put such great store by it? Why does it have to be true in order for them to hold onto their Christianity. Jesus never was God and Christianity went without a trinity for over 300 years!

Jesus did not have to be God to fulfill his role as Messiah......

 

[moorea944]

Because Jesus is God come in the flesh as a Son.

Why cant Jesus be Jesus? Or God's Word manifest? Or Son of God? Or the Word made flesh? Why does Jesus "have to " be God? Think about what your saying....

 

[Kolibri]

However, Jesus was not necessarily a created being, was He? He was begotten, whatever that really means.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" - Colossians 1:15

"'To the angel of the congregation in La-o-di-ce'a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God:'" - Revelation 3:14

Jesus had a beginning. He was created. He is the oldest individual alive outside of his Father, the "King of Eternity." (1Ti 1:17)

Only-begotten is explained in Colossians 1:16. Jesus is the only creation directly created by his Father. Jehovah used Jesus as a "master worker" to build all other creation.

Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,
The earliest of his achievements of long ago.
From ancient times (or "From time immemorial.") I was installed,
From the start, from times earlier than the earth.
...
Then I was beside him as a master worker.
I was the one he was especially fond of day by day;
I rejoiced before him all the time.
I rejoiced over his habitable earth,
And I was especially fond of the sons of men. (or "mankind.")
- Proverbs 8:22,23,30,31

 

[pearl]

Since the Bible does not contradict itself, then the scriptures that categorically state that Jesus can't be Almighty God must be right and the ones that are open to conjecture must be misinterpreted

The Bible does however correct, reinterpret itself. There is no belief in an after life in Job. Yet there is a Pharisaic belief in resurrection, and finally, the Resurrection of Jesus. There is more than one account of creation etc.

 

[Kolibri]

The Bible does however correct, reinterpret itself. There is no belief in an after life in Job. Yet there is a Pharisaic belief in resurrection, and finally, the Resurrection of Jesus. There is more than one account of creation etc.

• Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 is presented in chronological order as seen from the point of view of the surface of the planet
• Genesis 2:5 - 4:26 is written in order of topical importance with information added in as needed - this topic concentrates on the creation of mankind and the fall into sin.

There really is no conflict between the two narratives when one takes into consideration the way the information in each section is laid out.