I dont' think so either, His physical body would have prevented it.Katzpur said:And I'm pretty sure that when Jesus was in Galilee, He wasn't simultaneously in Jerusalem.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I dont' think so either, His physical body would have prevented it.Katzpur said:And I'm pretty sure that when Jesus was in Galilee, He wasn't simultaneously in Jerusalem.
Well, I guess it just depends who you are and what religion. I definitely don't think of a godhead and a trinity as being the same thing, those others might. It may be a hard concept (since I can't even explain it), but I don't think you should go back to a corner. Other view point are always nice, and they help me to see things in a different light.Maize said:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: So it is but it isn't.
I think I'll go back to my unitarian corner and sit quietly.
Yes --- I do now --- thanks for clarifying.Jensen said:I"m not sure you understand what I mean. I believe that God is one. One, not a trinity, not a triune God, not three distint persons that are one God, but that God is one. And one only.
Do you see what I mean and believe? :bounce
Hi, Aqualung.Aqualung said:Well, I guess it just depends who you are and what religion. I definitely don't think of a godhead and a trinity as being the same thing, those others might. It may be a hard concept (since I can't even explain it), but I don't think you should go back to a corner. Other view point are always nice, and they help me to see things in a different light.
Good point. How could Jesus both be in Heaven and on the Earth at the same time, if God the Father isn't God the Son also?Tried-by-Fire said:What about when Jesus said this!
In this verse Jesus was talking and He told Nicodemus that the Son of man is (preasent tense) in heven.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Okay, I have some questions for you then:AV1611 said:I dont' think so either, His physical body would have prevented it.
Katzpur said:I think that where I (and others) may be confused is that if you're a Christian, you've kind of ignored somebody -- be it God the Father, the Son Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost. On the other hand, you may be saying that you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but not divine. I'm just trying to get a feel for what you believe, and I don't think I'm doing very well. Now if you're not a Christian in the first place, what you're saying makes perfect sense.
Good job! That's the first time I've ever seen anyone come up with that scripture to support the Trinity. I am honestly impressed. :clapTried-by-Fire said:What about when Jesus said this!
In this verse Jesus was talking and He told Nicodemus that the Son of man is (preasent tense) in heven.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Yes, I do. Thanks for clarifying.Jensen said:I don't see that a Christian's possible misunderstanding of the "composition" of God makes him any less a Christian.
Do you see what I'm saying? :bounce
Hi, KatzpurKatzpur said:Okay, I have some questions for you then:
1. If He was unable to physically be in more than one place at once, does that mean He wasn't God after all?
2. Do you believe He ascended in bodily form into Heaven?
3. If the answer to question #2 is 'yes,' what do you think happened to his body once He arrived in heaven?
That's all for now. I'd like to see how you answer these three questions before I ask the next ones. I don't want to try to second-guess you with regards to what you believe.
Then you should understand since I don't believe in the trinity either.Katzpur said:Yes, I do. Thanks for clarifying.
The dictionary describes "deity" as "the state of being a god." It describes "divine" as "pertaining to a deity." So in my opinion, you're kind of splitting hairs over your distinction between the two.
However, I totally agree that a difference of opinion regarding the "composition" of God is a pretty poor reason for anyone to call someone else a "non-Christian." Believe me, I've personally been told I'm not a Christian about a gazillion times because I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
Excellent defense of the Godhead, Harvester. Good job!Harvster said:If we cannot accept any idea that we do not completely understand, how can we believe John 3:16? How can we receive the assurances of the gospel and saved.
Christ is not the Father. He is our God and Lord, but that does not mean that he is the Father. He speaks of the Father, and why would he do that if he were the Father, too. Why not just say, "no one can be saved except through me"?Harvster said:I am the Way, the Truth and The Life and no one come to the Father but through Me It is here that Salvation is spoken of and is why we must accept Christ as our savour. Therefore confirming that Christ is in fact God
It's like saying this, "The Jury decides the fate of the defendant." Because the jury is acting in unison, they are reffered to in the singular, but it would be stupid to say that the jury is not comprised of just one person. It is comprised of twelve, although all are united in purpose.Harvster said:On the other hand, the bible teaches that God is not a sterile monad but eternally exists in three Persons. This is suggested by the creation account in Genesis 1:1-3: In the beginning God [Elohim, plural in form, with the im ending] created [Bara, a singular verb, not the plural Bareu]
I'd go along with that. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost share the name of God.Harvster said:Christian baptism commanded by Christ in the great commission Matt. 28:19 is to be in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (NASB) notice that it says name, and not names. This suggests that the name of God is Father-Son-Holy Spirit.
I suppose that if you want to discuss theology as a philosophical disciples, you're right. When I discuss God, however, I seem to be able to do so quite adequately without getting into neo-Platonic thought at all. As far as the doctrine of the Trinity being a coherent, organized way of teaching man about the nature of God, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but I find the Bible to do a fine job of explaining who God is and what my relationship to Him is.It is impossible to discuss theology as a systematic, philosophical discipline without using these technical terms. None of them is found in the bible text, to be sure; but all of them sum up in a coherent, organized way the major concepts that are taught in scripture. Therefore we must dismiss as irrelevant the objection that the precise word Trinity is not used in the bible text.
That doesn't sound too awfully good for the Apostles and first century Christians. I bet they'd turn over in their graves knowing that. Imagine having died as a martyr, only to learn that because you didn't get into metaphysics, you were going to be damned! (I hope I'm not being too hard on you. I'm just not comfortable with your implication that if I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity, my soul is lost. Can you appreciate that?)It was once quoted by someone regarding this doctrine To try to explain it is to loose your mind; to try to deny it is to lose your soul.
Agreed, (with very minor differences in wording).First let us be very clear as to what is meant by Trinity. This implies that God is a Unity subsisting in three Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit- all three of whom are one God. That God is one is asserted in both the OT and NT: Deut 6:4, Mark 12:29, Eph 4:6, Is 45:22 (footnote to this scripture please note that here God states that He is the only one who can save, however in the NT Christ states that I am the Way, the Truth and The Life and no one come to the Father but through Me. It is here that Salvation is spoken of and is why we must accept Christ as our savour.
My goodness! I wasn't aware that the Bible teaches that God is a "monad" of any sort -- sterile or otherwise.Therefore confirming that Christ is in fact God.), Ps 96:4-5, 1 Cor 8:5, 6.
On the other hand, the bible teaches that God is not a sterile monad but eternally exists in three Persons.
Again, I agree. Faith is the first principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must walk in faith. If the works of God could be understood and explained, there would be no value whatsoever in faith.For if we are to accept and believe only what we can fully understand, then we are hopelessly beyond redemption. Why so? Because we shall never fully understand how God could love us enough to send His only Son to earth in order to die for our sins and become our saviour. If we cannot accept any idea that we do not completely understand, how can we believe John 3:16? How can we receive the assurances of the gospel and saved.
Just a couple of questions for you, Jensen:Jensen said:Then you should understand since I don't believe in the trinity either.
Understanding that Jesus is the Son of God and not God isn't splitting hairs as I see it. It's believing what the bible actually says verses what is traditionaly taught by modern churches.
:bounce
Hi, Katzpur --- two quick questions:Katzpur said:I suppose that if you want to discuss theology as a philosophical disciples, you're right. When I discuss God, however, I seem to be able to do so quite adequately without getting into neo-Platonic thought at all. As far as the doctrine of the Trinity being a coherent, organized way of teaching man about the nature of God, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but I find the Bible to do a fine job of explaining who God is and what my relationship to Him is.
Well, you have implied that you believe it does. Haven't you said that it contains everything God wants us to know about Him?AV1611 said:Hi, Katzpur --- two quick questions:
You say the Bible does a fine job of explaining who God is, etc.; but does it do a complete job?
Yes, there is. Unfortunately, much of the gospel Jesus Christ taught was lost during the first couple of centuries after His death. By the time the doctrine of the Trinity was established, man's understanding of who God was had been so corrupted by philosophy that what the Bible has to say about God became secondary to what the secular scholars of that time period insisted God had to be in order to be God.In other words, is there more to God that we can know that is outside of the King James Bible?
That would be impossible. This is the very reason Jesus Christ established His Church on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles. This is why Paul pointed out that this same organization should continue to guide His church "...till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."You say you can discuss God quite adequately without getting into neo-Platonic thought. I agree with that statement wholeheartedly myself, but can a person know Him just as well as you do via Sola Scriptura?
Okay, thank you.Katzpur said:With Sola Scriptura alone, you have hundreds of different interpretations of the exact same words, resulting in thousands of different denominations of Christians, all believing to be interpreting the same words correctly. With doctrine being interpreted by the philosophers, and the rest of humanity just blindly accepting the notion that these philosophers merely clarified what the Bible already teaches, you get uninspired gibberish disguised as God's word.