trinity, godhead, or neither

[Harvster]

Aqualung,
Sorry for that, how you quoted the scripture is correct and me being in a rush whilst typing I left ‘of’ out. This however still does not change the meaning of the scripture to how you suggest. Please allow me to expand on what I said as I may have left it a bit short and unclear. In Christ's Great Commission to preach the Gospel, he instructs his disciples to "go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matt 28:19). Please note that the Greek word "name," used in this verse, is singular (homonos). It does not say, "in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," but rather, it says, "in the name...." In other words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct persons, have only one name. This implies the Triune nature of God. If they wanted to say in the name of the Father, the name of the son and the name of the Holy Spirit why didn’t they state it like that. It would have made it simpler to understand than using the singular word ‘name’ for all three.

I don't have a problem with the fact that "trinity" is not mentioned by name. I just don't think the concept is supported biblically. They are not "one God." They are three distinct beings, but they are united in purpose.

I fully agree that they are three distinct beings, however, they are still one God as why would they be stated such in the above mentioned if they were only united in purpose. God is the name of all three beings which implies they are 1 God as the bible states there is only one God, but as God they can operate their distinct roles as individuals.

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"?

Please correct me if I am wrong but I never said that Christ was the Father. I think the way I put it might have been a little confusing. I stated that Christ is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Christ could never be the Father as he has a separate role and characteristics. Please consider the following taken from The Trinity by Francis J. Beckwith:
(1) Jesus of Nazareth is called the one and only mediator between God and man (I Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). This would mean that God the Son has a property - mediatorship - which is possessed by neither God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit, since the text is saying he is the ONLY mediator between humanity and the Godhead.
(2) "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, `This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'" (Matt. 3:16-17). The Son has the property of "being the Son loved by the Father" but not the property of "being the Father who loves the Son." The Spirit has neither property. Thus, we have in this verse a clear distinction between the persons of the Trinity.
(3) "`No one knows, however, when that day and hour will come - neither the angels in heaven nor the Son; the Father alone knows.'" (Matt. 24:36). Here the Son has a property (not knowing the day or hour of his second coming) which the Father does.

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.

Yes it is true to think of a Jury like that but please note that the singular form of the word jury is Juror, therefore in this situation you cannot relate a Jury to God as Elohim is both singular and plural. Please take the word fish or sheep for example it has the same grammatical characteristics as the word God (plural & singular). The word God has singular grammatical characteristics as in Gen 1:1 it does not state Gods, and it also has plural characteristics as the word itself means plural. When you analyse the words Elohim and God together you see that God is singular but the Hebrew is plural.

Christ is both Lord and God because he is the Lord and God of this Earth. That does not also mean that he is part of some weird trinity, where he is at the same time the Father, and the Holy Ghost. All three are seperate.

If I recall correctly the bible clearly states that Satan has dominion over this earth as he is stated as being the Prince of the power of the Air; not Christ/God. God is the omnipotent ruler of the Universe.

Yes they are all separate beings; however they are also one God observe the following: 3 (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in 1 (God) that being they are all God and 1 (God) in 3 (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) being that they are one God yet each share a separate role and can perform those roles separately from each other and yet all are equal. Consider the following:

Concerning Christ's Resurrection we are told that the Father raised Jesus from the dead (I Thess. 1:10), the Son raised Himself from the dead (John 2:19-22), and the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11). Yet, we are told in Acts 17:30,31 that God raised Jesus from the dead. Therefore, either the Bible contradicts itself, or the three persons are the one God.

In regards to the Holy Spirit being God note the following: In Acts 5:3-5, the Holy Spirit is clearly called God:

"An-an-ias," Peter said, "how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the money from the Lord? While you still owned the land, wasn't it yours to keep, and after you had sold it wasn't the money yours to do with it as you liked? What put this scheme into your mind? It is not to men that you have lied, but to God."

Peter is associating a lie to the Holy Spirit with lying to God. In other words, to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God.
Please excuse my Brevity...LOL:biglaugh: In order to reply to the fullest i had to go into depth...Sorry.

 

[Harvster]

Katzpur,

Please forgive me )( as I did not intend to come over as harsh regarding the quote mentioned in my previous post. In reply to it however, I can say that the emphasis was intended to be on the first section not the second. I should have left the last part out as I believe and I know you also believe, the same that God is a just God and he is only concerned about the heart of the person not the fact that since the establishment of his church there has been an argument regarding the trinity. I do not believe that if we cannot understand the nature or being of God precisely, that he will send us to Hell.

Also, I in no way consider you a stupid person either. The debate that has been going on in your part suggests that you are well informed, sourced and knowledgeable person regarding your faith. Please note I am not trying to force anything on you stating this is right; that is wrong. My beliefs are my own as are yours and it all depends on a persons personal interpretation and revelation. I agree that the bible does a great job at explaining who God is and what our relationships to Him should/n’t be, however when questions such as these are raised I believe all arguments should be put on the table so as people can gain understanding of different view points amongst the Christian faith.

Harvs.

 

[Aqualung]

Sorry for that, how you quoted the scripture is correct and me being in a rush whilst typing I left ‘of’ out.

No problemo.

This however still does not change the meaning of the scripture to how you suggest.

It does indeed, and I will show you why.

Please allow me to expand on what I said as I may have left it a bit short and unclear. In Christ's

Great Commission to preach the Gospel, he instructs his disciples to "go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matt 28:19). Please note that the Greek word "name," used in this verse, is singular (homonos). It does not say, "in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," but rather, it says, "in the name...."

The fact that it says "of" both times, however, makes it so that you can put the preceding but left-out nown in all places. If the nown was names, would the sentence make sense? "go and baptise in the names of the father, in the names of the son, and in the names of the holy spirit" doesn't make the least bit of sense. But "go and baptise in the name of the falther, in the name of the son, and in the name of the holy spirit" does. It only makes sense if there is no of, because then you can't put the nown back in. "go and baptise in the names of the father, the son, and the spirti.

In other words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct persons, have only one name.

Hmm. The way you wrote that sentence makes me think that, at least in this regard, we think of them in the same manner. Perhaps you're using triune differently then I am. Can you look back at my first posts and see if, when you look at my deffinitions of trinity and godhead, if you still think it's a trinity, and if you do, could you then explain your case again?

 

[Jensen]

Just a couple of questions for you, Jensen:

1. Why do you believe that Jesus did not correct Thomas who, when he finally recognized Him as the resurrected Savior, exclaimed, "My Lord and my God!"?

2. Are you a cat-lover like me, or did you just like the avatar?

1. Thomas recognized him as the resurrected Savior....and do you think that God was the appropriate English word for the Greek to be translated in?

2. Yes, I love cats...had one for many many years.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I ascribe to the Panalenial view of the Trinity/Godhead debate. It's gonna pan out the way God wants it to and our beliefs on this subject have little bearing on our eternal destiny.

 

[jonny]

I ascribe to the Panalenial view of the Trinity/Godhead debate. It's gonna pan out the way God wants it to and our beliefs on this subject have little bearing on our eternal destiny.

I wish you'd convince everyone who has told me that my belief in the nature of God disqualifies me from being a Christian that I won't end up in hell!

 

[Scuba Pete]

What does it matter what others think? It only matters what GOD thinks. Fortunately he loves me.

 

[Aqualung]

I wish you'd convince everyone who has told me that my belief in the nature of God disqualifies me from being a Christian that I won't end up in hell!

Definitely!

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur,

Please forgive me )( as I did not intend to come over as harsh regarding the quote mentioned in my previous post.

Harvs,

Hey, don't give it another thought!

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

1. Thomas recognized him as the resurrected Savior....and do you think that God was the appropriate English word for the Greek to be translated in?

Hi, Jensen.

Your question suggests that you are a Jehovah's Witness. Would you care to confirm my suspicions? (It's not my intention to pry. If you'd rather remain anonymous with respect to your denominational affiliation, that's okay. Sometimes it just helps to know the background of the individual you're debating with.) I'm actually fine with the way the KJV was translated. In my opinion, He recognized Jesus as his Lord, his God, his Savior and his Redeemer. He did not, however, recognize Him as His own Father! (But then I'm sure I don't have to convince you of that!)

Kathryn

 

[Jensen]

Hi, Jensen.

Your question suggests that you are a Jehovah's Witness. Would you care to confirm my suspicions? (It's not my intention to pry. If you'd rather remain anonymous with respect to your denominational affiliation, that's okay. Sometimes it just helps to know the background of the individual you're debating with.) I'm actually fine with the way the KJV was translated. In my opinion, He recognized Jesus as his Lord, his God, his Savior and his Redeemer. He did not, however, recognize Him as His own Father! (But then I'm sure I don't have to convince you of that!)

Kathryn

Sure. And no I am not a Jehovah's Witness.

If Thomas recognized Jesus as is God, then who and what is the Father to Thomas? One can't have a God who has a God without their being more than one God. That is how I see it.



Jensen

 

[Aqualung]

Sure. And no I am not a Jehovah's Witness.

If Thomas recognized Jesus as is God, then who and what is the Father to Thomas? One can't have a God who has a God without their being more than one God. That is how I see it.



Jensen

Jesus is our God. That doesn't change by the fact that he has a father, who is also God. It's like your boss. He probably has a boss, too. But he's still your boss.

 

[Harvster]

Hmm. The way you wrote that sentence makes me think that, at least in this regard, we think of them in the same manner

Aqualung,

I would have to say no. What I am saying here is that I believe that they are three distinct (unique) persons (Hypostase), that being; they are all individual of each other allowing them to perform their separate roles as seen in the NT. With that in mind they are also divinely equal to each other. In other words they are all God/divine (individually) but because the bible states that there is only one God, the trinity implies that the three together form one essence or class which by nature is God. When I state they only have one name I mean that in the bible the three together are referred to as God (Elohim [plural]) i.e. Gen 1:1.

Please refer to the following link particularly the triangular diagram which should explain my position on the Trinity.

http://theology.home.att.net/trinity/#understand

Harvs

 

[michel]

Jesus is our God. That doesn't change by the fact that he has a father, who is also God. It's like your boss. He probably has a boss, too. But he's still your boss.

But what if your boss' boss claimed that he is The Boss, and other than him, there are no bosses. Then, to take it a step further, what if he claimed that to obey any other person as boss would constitute idolatry?

 

[Katzpur]

But what if your boss' boss claimed that he is The Boss, and other than him, there are no bosses. Then, to take it a step further, what if he claimed that to obey any other person as boss would constitute idolatry?

If you refer to Jesus as "God" and the Father as "God," and if you try to obey the commandments they gave, do you consider it idolatry? Would it somehow make a difference if I'd said, "if you try to obey they commandments He gave"? In this context, do you really see the first sentence as an example of idolatry?

 

[michel]

If you refer to Jesus as "God" and the Father as "God," and if you try to obey the commandments they gave, do you consider it idolatry?

No.

Would it somehow make a difference if I'd said, "if you try to obey they commandments He gave"? In this context, do you really see the first sentence as an example of idolatry?

I'm lost here. The words of Jesus are the words of Jehovah, and the words of Jehovah are the words of Jesus.

By retrospect, it would be correct to say:

In the beginning, Jesus created the Heaven and the Earth.

And Jesus said, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

And Jesus said, let us make man in our image.

Etc.

It would also be correct to say,

And Jehovah bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

And Jehovah walked on water.

As well as: And the Holy Ghost bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

And the Holy Ghost walked on water.

And, in the beginning, the Holy Ghost created the Heaven and the Earth. And the Earth was without form, and void, and Jesus moved on the face of the waters.

I don't know how much plainer I can make this.

 

[Aqualung]

Aqualung,

I would have to say no. What I am saying here is that I believe that they are three distinct (unique) persons (Hypostase), that being; they are all individual of each other allowing them to perform their separate roles as seen in the NT. With that in mind they are also divinely equal to each other. In other words they are all God/divine (individually)

I agree with all that you have said so far.

but because the bible states that there is only one God, the trinity implies that the three together form one essence or class which by nature is God.

What do you mean by essence or class?

 

[Aqualung]

Never mind about that picture. See, we essentially beleive the same thing. You call it "trinity," I call it "godhead."

 

[Aqualung]

If you refer to Jesus as "God" and the Father as "God," and if you try to obey the commandments they gave, do you consider it idolatry? Would it somehow make a difference if I'd said, "if you try to obey they commandments He gave"? In this context, do you really see the first sentence as an example of idolatry?

yes, good point. Everything that Jesus tells us to do, he tells us to do because god told him to tell us. "not my authorit but my fathers," or whatever that quote is. You would really only have an issue with it if they told you to do different things, but they are both doing the same thing, as they are united in purpose.

 

[Katzpur]

By retrospect, it would be correct to say:

In the beginning, Jesus created the Heaven and the Earth.

And Jesus said, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

And Jesus said, let us make man in our image.

Etc.

It would also be correct to say,

And Jehovah bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

And Jehovah walked on water.

As well as: And the Holy Ghost bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

And the Holy Ghost walked on water.

And, in the beginning, the Holy Ghost created the Heaven and the Earth. And the Earth was without form, and void, and Jesus moved on the face of the waters.

I don't know how much plainer I can make this.

It appears that you are saying that since the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all "God," it would be accurate to use any one of the three in the scriptures in place of the one actually found there. Is that what you meant?

Would it be accurate, then, to say:

And about the ninth hour, the Father cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

or...

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Father, but the Holy Ghost.


or...

And the Son descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Holy Ghost; in thee I am well pleased.

or...

And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, Son, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

or...

Then said the Holy Ghost unto them, When ye have lifted up the Holy Ghost, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Son hath taught me, I speak these things.



I can't imagine that this is what you mean. Would you mind clarifying?