Trinity - Fact or Fiction?

[lunamoth]

20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matt 18)

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

See you saying it is impossible and ludicrous - based on your human knowledge.

No, based on basic logic. If God is immaterial, obviously He doesn't have DNA. Therefore, the idea that He has DNA to pass on to His literal physical Son is, indeed, ludicrous.

Isnt that saying that God is NOT omnipotent.

No, it's saying that God has a nature, and cannot contradict Himself.

What has God being unable to lie got to do with it

It has to do with it because both instances deal with occassions where, if such a thing occurred, God would be contradicting His own nature. God is truth, therefore He cannot lie. Does the fact that God cannot lie mean that He is not omnipotent? I do hope your answer is No. By the same token, God is immaterial, therefore He cannot pass on physical DNA; neither does this contradict omnipotence.

it doesnt state in the Bible how Jesus was conceieved exactly word for word? - besides the bible was written by men not God.

You attempt to base your argument on the Biblical data as though your side is just so obvious and that's the end of the discussion, but then turn around and deny inspiration of Scripture? Don't you see a contradiction there?

Its a strange argument, saying just because someone below himself can do it (like poor to rich) he cant? Isnt that an insult to God - saying he cant do something that us mere humans can

Like lie?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I'm afraid I don't agree that being a Father contradicts His nature.

Being a literal, physical father does.

To me, He is the epitome of what fatherhood should be. According to the biblical account of the creation, we were created in His image, after His likeness. Just five chapters later, the Bible says that Adam had a son that was in his image, after his likeness. If Adam was able to beget a son in his image, after his likeness, why would this same ability be something God himself would not have?

Based on the creation account, I would say that is an ability that God has; however, I don't believe that those terms refer, at the very least not exclusively, to physical similarity. Repeatedly in the New Testament, the Apostles make it clear that in Christ we are being made INTO God's image...those statements make exactly zero sense if it's referring to physical similarity.

Besides, Jesus was said to be "in the express image of [His Father's] person." He looked like His Father because His Father was His Father, and not just some metaphorical term that the writers of the Bible threw in for lack of a better word.

Again, your conclusion is based on your false assumption that "image" must refer to physical similarity.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Okay, then He isn't. He's "in Heaven." The Bible implies in many instances that God's influence and power are everywhere at once. Can you give me one single solitary example of a scripture that states He is physically everywhere at once?

See post #232 of this thread.

And why do you believe it is so important that He physically be somewhere other than in Heaven if His power extends to every corner of the universe? I'm just not clear on why you find the statement that He is "in Heaven" to be so limiting

I only find it limiting because the Bible finds it limiting. The Bible explicitly says (in one of the verses I quoted in my earlier post) that heaven CANNOT CONTAIN God. Mormons don't believe this, and they must implicitly insert "power" or "influence" into the verses I cited in order for their theology to work.

 

[Katzpur]

FGS,

You know, the longer I hang around RF, the less inclined I am to waste my time arguing points that can't be decided one way or the other. I'm to the point where it just seems so unimportant to me to try to convince people that I'm right and they're wrong. Know what I mean? I think we'd best just agree to disagree on this topic, 'cause we're never going to see eye to eye on it anyway.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

FGS,

You know, the longer I hang around RF, the less inclined I am to waste my time arguing points that can't be decided one way or the other. I'm to the point where it just seems so unimportant to me to try to convince people that I'm right and they're wrong. Know what I mean? I think we'd best just agree to disagree on this topic, 'cause we're never going to see eye to eye on it anyway.

Fair enough. It was a good discussion, anyhow. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Prometheus]

At least Mormons are logical enough to give God a body. A God without a body could not do anything. By what reasoning do you expect a non-physical being to influence a physical reality?

 

[JayHawes]

At least Mormons are logical enough to give God a body. A God without a body could not do anything. By what reasoning do you expect a non-physical being to influence a physical reality?

wow...

For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; Col 2:9

Godhead from thetos, means the state of being God. I need not type more.

 

[Prometheus]

wow...

For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; Col 2:9

Godhead from thetos, means the state of being God. I need not type more.

So before Jesus was born, the Godhead was incomplete, having no corporeal form.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

No, based on basic logic. If God is immaterial, obviously He doesn't have DNA. Therefore, the idea that He has DNA to pass on to His literal physical Son is, indeed, ludicrous.

Based on logic - if God was immaterial - God wouldnt exist. So you have just contradicted yourself there. Besides how do we know that God cant have DNA - we dont know that! It is beyond our human knowledge and understanding! As far as I am concerned you cant walk on water - but thats in the bible - you wouldnt deny that would you? But then logically that couldnt happen OR what I am saying is IT COULD HAPPEN BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT HAPPENS

 

[kmkemp]

I heard an interesting proof for the Trinity that was different than the normal scriptures that Christians generally bring up.

1 John 4:8
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Before I start, we need to work from the presupposition that God has existed eternally - something that Christians clearly believe. I think that it would suffice, for the purpose of this proof, to say that God existed before our universe existed.

So, if we work from the "God is love" part of the verse, let us ponder this question: How can someone love if he is the only one in existence? Does the term love not infer that there is something or someone there to love? If God existed before we or anything else came into being, what was there to love?

Ironically, a clear answer can be given by the concept of the Trinity.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I heard an interesting proof for the Trinity that was different than the normal scriptures that Christians generally bring up.

1 John 4:8
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Before I start, we need to work from the presupposition that God has existed eternally - something that Christians clearly believe. I think that it would suffice, for the purpose of this proof, to say that God existed before our universe existed.

So, if we work from the "God is love" part of the verse, let us ponder this question: How can someone love if he is the only one in existence? Does the term love not infer that there is something or someone there to love? If God existed before we or anything else came into being, what was there to love?

Ironically, a clear answer can be given by the concept of the Trinity.

Actually thats poof for against the trinity, yes there must be someone else there. In Non-trinitarian view thats Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost. The trintiy states that these three are one person, therefore in the trinity concept noone else would be there.... God would be talking to himself!

 

[Inky]

in the trinity concept noone else would be there.... God would be talking to himself!

Which he does, when Jesus prays in the garden before his crucifixion. Don't have the verse on hand, but it's the "let this cup pass from me" part, you know. It brings an interesting aspect to the Trinity, since it implies that God can separate Himself into pieces enough to need communication like that. I'd like to hear folks' opinions on this.

 

[summia]

the concept of Trinity is fictitious.......

the verse of Bible...
Epistel of jhon (5:7)

was now in new Version, has been thrown out from the Bible.

Because The Christains missionary now have understood that this verse is worthless.

If u don't believe than u can buy the new version of Bible and check it out.

there is no verse in it related to Trinity.

If Christain's own Scriptutre did not contain any idea about Trinity then it is clear, that....
"Trinity is fiction"

 

[UnityNow101]

I agree Summia....I have been trying to understand the trinity for quite awhile, and to be honest, it makes absolutely no sense. And it is not found in the Bible, no matter how hard one searches for it. I guess one can believe anything when they begin reading the Bible with the preconceived notion that the trinity is there and that it is fact. But if one was to read the Bible from front to back with absolutely NO prejudice one way or another, a trinitarian concept would in no way be taken to explain the nature of God.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I agree Summia....I have been trying to understand the trinity for quite awhile, and to be honest, it makes absolutely no sense. And it is not found in the Bible, no matter how hard one searches for it. I guess one can believe anything when they begin reading the Bible with the preconceived notion that the trinity is there and that it is fact. But if one was to read the Bible from front to back with absolutely NO prejudice one way or another, a trinitarian concept would in no way be taken to explain the nature of God.

Agreed!

 

[kmkemp]

the concept of Trinity is fictitious.......

the verse of Bible...
Epistel of jhon (5:7)

was now in new Version, has been thrown out from the Bible.

Because The Christains missionary now have understood that this verse is worthless.

If u don't believe than u can buy the new version of Bible and check it out.

there is no verse in it related to Trinity.

If Christain's own Scriptutre did not contain any idea about Trinity then it is clear, that....
"Trinity is fiction"

On the contrary, if you were to read the Bible front to back and you had no notion of the Trinity by the time you were finished, you weren't paying attention. There are at least several verses that point directly to a Trinity. The Bible is not a textbook. Did you really expect someone to come straight out and explain the nature of God?

One of the most famous Bible verses is the Great Commission.
Matthew 28:18-20 NKJV
"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

If you read that carefully, Jesus says "baptizing them in the name". Now, that clearly implies that they are all one entity. Words from Jesus himself, so there is not much point in saying that the Bible doesn't include the Trinity.

The idea of the Trinity comes from a logical deduction.
1. God is referred to as 3 different persons.
2. It is constantly said thoughout the Bible that there is only one God.

C.S. Lewis gives a great analogy in his famous Mere Christianity. If you really want to understand Christianity better, I suggest that this would be the first book you read (unless you are up for reading the Bible cover to cover).

 

[Truth_Faith13]

On the contrary, if you were to read the Bible front to back and you had no notion of the Trinity by the time you were finished, you weren't paying attention. There are at least several verses that point directly to a Trinity. The Bible is not a textbook. Did you really expect someone to come straight out and explain the nature of God?

One of the most famous Bible verses is the Great Commission.
Matthew 28:18-20 NKJV
"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

If you read that carefully, Jesus says "baptizing them in the name". Now, that clearly implies that they are all one entity. Words from Jesus himself, so there is not much point in saying that the Bible doesn't include the Trinity.

The idea of the Trinity comes from a logical deduction.
1. God is referred to as 3 different persons.
2. It is constantly said thoughout the Bible that there is only one God.

C.S. Lewis gives a great analogy in his famous Mere Christianity. If you really want to understand Christianity better, I suggest that this would be the first book you read (unless you are up for reading the Bible cover to cover).

Well I have started reading the bible - so Ill let you know when I finish! I dont agree that those verses conlude that there is a trintiy! Its like we say, you are going in with the notion that there is a trinity and fitted the verse around your notion!

Jesus also said "All authority HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME" - If Jesus was God he wouldnt need to give himself authority he is authority!

There is ONE GOD. Jesus is the SON OF GOD and the HOLY GHOST - God gave Jesus the authority and power and then sent him here to earth so that we may live by his standards.


Baptizing "in the name" of something does not conclude a trintiy. Again going in with a notion and fitting it around

 

[kmkemp]

Well I have started reading the bible - so Ill let you know when I finish! I dont agree that those verses conlude that there is a trintiy! Its like we say, you are going in with the notion that there is a trinity and fitted the verse around your notion!

I respectfully disagree. There is little doubt that most people who become Christians have already heard of the Trinity before they read the Bible. It's nearly impossible not to. What doesn't follow from this, however, is that we would not have come to the same conclusion if we were to have read the Bible without knowing about the Trinity. It's obvious that someone in the course of history made the same conclusion. It is obvious, at least to me, from the proofs given, that the Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible.

Jesus also said "All authority HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME" - If Jesus was God he wouldnt need to give himself authority he is authority!

You have to be careful here. You are assuming that you know how God works. You are likening human ways to God ways. If we were to assume the Bible is completely true and that God created us, it is not logical at all to assume that we can know the ways of God.

There is ONE GOD. Jesus is the SON OF GOD and the HOLY GHOST - God gave Jesus the authority and power and then sent him here to earth so that we may live by his standards.


Baptizing "in the name" of something does not conclude a trintiy. Again going in with a notion and fitting it around

That is only one verse that is both famous and teaches the Trinity, in my opinion. If you like, there are many references to all 3 God persons as God. And there are equally many places where it is clearly stated that there is only one God. What do you think the logical conclusion to that is?

There are only two:
1. The Bible is wrong. conclusion: no need to bother debating if you don't believe that the Bible is right
2. The Trinity is implicit.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

It has been stated before in this very thread and many other times besides. If Jesus is PRAYING to God then should we not pray to that same God he was praying to? If it was good enough for Jesus why is it not good enough for christians who say they follow Jesus?

I do not accept the whole fully man/fully god thing. To be a human implies certain attributes such as being mistake prone, forgetful, lacking all knowlegde and so on. Being God implies certain attributes as well mainly complete and total perfection, no mistakes or errors.....ever, full knowledge of everything at all times, never forgetting or becoming unaware of anything.

According to the bible Jesus many times demonstrated attributes that one would dare ascribe to God such as a lack of knowledge. Jesus did not know the hour of the day of judgement. Jesus supposedly also died, which is another characteristic one would shy away from ascribing to God. God cannot die or have an end as He did not have a beginning. Death is something created by God and none of His creation has any dominion over Him be it an abstract creation or a concrete one.

Jesus is not God........period.