The Trinity

[Tri Unity]

It seems as though you're saying we should accept the Trinity since it is implied but just not mention it out loud lest we offend any Jew or Muslim. However, Jews and Muslims will be offended simply because both deny that God has a Son. Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah and Muslims don't even believe it was Jesus who died, so whether or not they understand the current Trinity or some reformulated one is the least of their problems.

It seems as though you haven't read my post correctly. When Tertullian used the word Trinity for the first time, over 150 years before the doctrine was cast in stone, Tertullian described the Trinity doctrine differently to the later fathers. This is what you do not seem to understand. Our modern usage of the word is not the same as was originally given or conceived. It is not the word that is problematic, it is the explanation and definition of the word. We have tried to explain exactly what a Spirit is within the world of physics. We cannot even do this with our own soul and spirit; yet we believe we can do it to God? God has given us language in which to use to describe the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We should stay with that language and not add to it. "More than this is from the evil one." (Matthew 5:37)

 

[reba]

Joe, sometimes simple childlike faith is the best route.... Men and their fancy words can drive us crazy...

 

[Tri Unity]

Ok I see I'm not the only one who puts a lot of thought into this. I have to tell you, I have a really hard time accepting The Trinity. It causes me a lot of doubt. Sometimes I read the theories and explanations until my head pounds, and nothing seems to move me closer. In fact, sometimes the more I study it, the farther away it seems to be.

You are not alone. Many people become JW's (even Muslims or Jews) simply because of the offence caused by this doctrine. That is most unfortunate that we have become a cause of stumbling. God did not formulate this doctrine, we did; otherwise it would be used exactly that way in the scriptures. Don't get me wrong; I believe and agree with the basic doctrine of the Trinity. I believe and agree that Jesus is God by virtue that He is the only-begotten Son. Jesus shares this designation with His Father. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no other name in which one can be saved. All power and authority was handed to the Son. The problem comes from trying to make Jesus and His Father numerically one and the same when they are not. They are two seperate persons, not one. They are said to be one, just as Adam and Eve were said to be one. They are one in purpose and essence.

A river flows from a fountain. A river is not a fountain and a fountain is not a river; yet one is derived from the other, and they both share the same water (Spirit). The sun gives off light. Light is not the sun and the sun is not the light; yet one is derived from the other. A son is begotten by a father. A son is not the father of Himself; and the Father is not also the Son; yet one derives from the other. A river is one with the fountain; light is one with the sun; the Son is one with his Father; a wife is one with her husband. We all understand these concepts perfectly well. These are the descriptions given in scripture... "More than this is from the evil one." (Matthew 5:37)

 

[chakham]

But Modalism, one God in three manifestations, IS what I was talking about, and it's my firm belief. As a matter of fact, I think God manifests himself to us in an infinite number of ways. Given that God exists outside time and space, and is completely beyond our human ability to understand, and He reveals himself in how interacts with us, how He manifests Himself to His creation.

I think it's silly human arrogance and folly to agonize over whether God is three manifestations of one being, or three distinct beings. It doesn't matter.

When I read scripture I find a pattern in that God has revealed Himself through a messenger (angel) or a prophet. It was written that Moses was only man to ever see Him face to face.

Outside of that what else do we have besides our own imaginations?

But I do agree with you in regards to the trinity doctrine of christianity. It has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. neither does blood or fine flour. Repentance is key, turning from our ways and learning and doing His.

"What ever I command you, take care to do it; you shall not add to it, nor diminish from it.". (His words, not mine)

 

[Tri Unity]

But I do agree with you in regards to the trinity doctrine of christianity. It has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. ...Repentance is key, turning from our ways and learning and doing His.

"What ever I command you, take care to do it; you shall not add to it, nor diminish from it.". (His words, not mine)

Absolutely, well said!

 

[Free]

You are not alone. Many people become JW's (even Muslims or Jews) simply because of the offence caused by this doctrine. That is most unfortunate that we have become a cause of stumbling. God did not formulate this doctrine, we did; otherwise it would be used exactly that way in the scriptures.

This point is rather moot, particularly since God reveals himself as triune so there is no reason to shy away from it. It is simply a summation of what Scripture reveals about God.

Don't get me wrong; I believe and agree with the basic doctrine of the Trinity. I believe and agree that Jesus is God by virtue that He is the only-begotten Son. Jesus shares this designation with His Father. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no other name in which one can be saved. All power and authority was handed to the Son.

But salvation is dependent on who Jesus is.

The problem comes from trying to make Jesus and His Father numerically one and the same when they are not. They are two seperate persons, not one. They are said to be one, just as Adam and Eve were said to be one. They are one in purpose and essence.

I have yet to see an understanding of the Trinity that states the Father and Son are the same person. Every definition I have come across says they are two persons but of the same essence, hence one Being.

A river flows from a fountain. A river is not a fountain and a fountain is not a river; yet one is derived from the other, and they both share the same water (Spirit). The sun gives off light. Light is not the sun and the sun is not the light; yet one is derived from the other. A son is begotten by a father. A son is not the father of Himself; and the Father is not also the Son; yet one derives from the other. A river is one with the fountain; light is one with the sun; the Son is one with his Father; a wife is one with her husband. We all understand these concepts perfectly well. These are the descriptions given in scripture... "More than this is from the evil one." (Matthew 5:37)

Add the Holy Spirit in there and you have the Trinity.

I guess I really don't understand your point.

 

[Free]

But I do agree with you in regards to the trinity doctrine of christianity. It has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. neither does blood or fine flour. Repentance is key, turning from our ways and learning and doing His.

"What ever I command you, take care to do it; you shall not add to it, nor diminish from it.". (His words, not mine)

The issue is that who Jesus is--that he is God Incarnate, yet not the Father--is central to salvation. This much Scripture shows. But as soon as you do that, at least a binity is implied and then questions of the Holy Spirit arise.

As Jesus asked: "Who do you say that I am?"

 

[elijah23]

Does anyone really get The Trinity? Whenever I ask people, I get John 1:1 quotes and a bunch of sort of disconnected thoughts.

And yeah I've heard all the stuff like I am my father's son, my daughter's father,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I believe God is three persons at once—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—just as a man can be a father, son, and husband at once.

The Father is the creator of all things, omniscient, all-powerful, and motivated entirely by love.

The Son is God in flesh. God decided to come to earth as a human being, so he did so as Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit is what we call God when he communicates directly with us with his spirit.

 

[Tri Unity]

Every definition I have come across says they are two persons but of the same essence, hence one Being. Add the Holy Spirit in there and you have the Trinity. I guess I really don't understand your point.

God the Father is one being, God the son is another being. They are not the same "Being". My point is, you have just repeated what is considered heretical. Do you think that a distinct person is not a distinct "being". The doctrine, as it stands since Constantinople, is a mine-field. Make any wrong statement and you are a blown up as a heretic. This is rubbish. If that is the case then everyone here so far is a heretic. The Confession of Faith has not been accurately transmitted. Your idea of... add the Holy Spirit in there and you have a trinity is a joke. That is disrespectful to God and the doctrine. You are trying to over-simplify the subject. It cannot be over-simplified. I don't think you know enough about the subject to be aware when you have made a false statement. If so, I will ask you a couple of simple questions:

• Do you believe in the confession of Faith as outlined in the Apostle's Creed; or the Nicene Creed; or the Athenasian Creed; or the Confession of Constantinople (383)? They are all slightly different to each other... which Creed represents your view?

• Assuming you agree with one of these creeds; are all of the "Christians" prior to the 4th century to be considered heretics? For they did not confess any of these creeds (apart from the Apostles Creed, which is similar to what I am suggesting should be believed).

• If the creeds of the 4th century are now binding on the faith, why was this never mentioned by the Apostles to be prerequisite to salvation, as is now taught?

• Why did the Early Church Fathers never mention the word Trinity until the 3rd century?

As I said, I do not doubt the implied doctrine that Jesus is God along with His Father; and that there is only one Godhead; yet they are both equally God. Think of the word God in the same way you think of King. There is only one Kingdom, but there are three kings (Gods) who rule that Kingdom; and all three are one in will and purpose. God is, therefore, one. This is how the early Church characterised the Trinity. This view is now considered heretical; so all of those early Christians are now "heretics" based on the ruling of a council in the 4th century. But because no one can articulate that doctrine correctly, it means that you and others have taught a heretical teaching also. I think this is crazy. Christians naturally ignore all of the politics and don't care about the dogmatic representation, and this is how it should be.


Now apart from disagreeing with me for the sake of it... How are you proposing that the Trinity should be understood for all Christians? elijah23 (above) just gave a definition of the Trinity. Do you think this view is allowable?

 

[chakham]

The issue is that who Jesus is--that he is God Incarnate, yet not the Father--is central to salvation. This much Scripture shows. But as soon as you do that, at least a binity is implied and then questions of the Holy Spirit arise.

As Jesus asked: "Who do you say that I am?"

If he asked me I would say he is Jesus, provided of course I knew his name already. If I never met him I suppose I would say I dont know.

But let me ask this how is this trinity thing central to salvation? When all that is left for Israel, as a nation, to do id to repent and turn back to God? Thats it ,nothing else can help us, not blood, not a meal offering, not an intermediary, nor a sacrifice. We are to repent and to turn from our wicked ways or we will die.

Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, everyone according to his ways, says Yehovah. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so that iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, in which you have transgressed; and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit; for, why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him who dies, says the Yehovah; therefore turn, and live.

Christianities doctirne to me atleast is contrary to Gods own words. In that it says the commandments our King gave were nailed to a cross and no longer applicable that they cannot be done nor sin ruled over. Some will say not all of them are void but only some and think they can pick and choose.

Yet I find throughout scripture Gods encouraging us to do all of them. A wonderful example of this encouragment is found in Deuteronomy chapter 30. Where it basically says Gods yoke is easy His burden is light mor so far from us that they cannot be done.

If you shall listen to the voice of Yehovah your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the Torah, and if you turn to Yehovah with all your heart, and with all your soul. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not hidden from you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it. See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command you this day to love the Yehovah your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God shall bless you in the land which you are entering to possess.


In the first chapt of Genesis sin is likened to a crouching beast ready to pounce on you. Yet God told Cain he was able to rule over it.

Throughout scripture God calls us to love Him and walk in His ways. Please note too I consider scripture where I can quote Gods words. IMO if He didnt say it it isnt scripture.

 

[WIP]

Ok I see I'm not the only one who puts a lot of thought into this. I have to tell you, I have a really hard time accepting The Trinity. It causes me a lot of doubt. Sometimes I read the theories and explanations until my head pounds, and nothing seems to move me closer. In fact, sometimes the more I study it, the farther away it seems to be.

Actually, for me, rather than introduce doubt it affirms the nature of God. God is all things to all things.

 

[jasoncran]

If he asked me I would say he is Jesus, provided of course I knew his name already. If I never met him I suppose I would say I dont know.

But let me ask this how is this trinity thing central to salvation? When all that is left for Israel, as a nation, to do id to repent and turn back to God? Thats it ,nothing else can help us, not blood, not a meal offering, not an intermediary, nor a sacrifice. We are to repent and to turn from our wicked ways or we will die.

Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, everyone according to his ways, says Yehovah. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so that iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, in which you have transgressed; and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit; for, why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him who dies, says the Yehovah; therefore turn, and live.

Christianities doctirne to me atleast is contrary to Gods own words. In that it says the commandments our King gave were nailed to a cross and no longer applicable that they cannot be done nor sin ruled over. Some will say not all of them are void but only some and think they can pick and choose.

Yet I find throughout scripture Gods encouraging us to do all of them. A wonderful example of this encouragment is found in Deuteronomy chapter 30. Where it basically says Gods yoke is easy His burden is light mor so far from us that they cannot be done.

If you shall listen to the voice of Yehovah your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the Torah, and if you turn to Yehovah with all your heart, and with all your soul. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not hidden from you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it. See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command you this day to love the Yehovah your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God shall bless you in the land which you are entering to possess.


In the first chapt of Genesis sin is likened to a crouching beast ready to pounce on you. Yet God told Cain he was able to rule over it.

Throughout scripture God calls us to love Him and walk in His ways. Please note too I consider scripture where I can quote Gods words. IMO if He didnt say it it isnt scripture.

what is the metatron, or to the unisiated to judaism,the angel unto the lord? why does the writings say in joshua that my name is in my angel and do what he says or die? and when the captian unto lord is met and greeted by joshua. joshua bows and gives him worship?
in the gematria these have a number which is traceable to the messiah and another name of the lord.

 

[Free]

God the Father is one being, God the son is another being. They are not the same "Being". My point is, you have just repeated what is considered heretical.

Not at all. I am repeating what Scripture states and just using a different word, "being," than what you used, "essence". You, however, have just shown that you believe in polytheism.

Do you think that a distinct person is not a distinct "being".

They are different words with different meanings.

Your idea of... add the Holy Spirit in there and you have a trinity is a joke. That is disrespectful to God and the doctrine. You are trying to over-simplify the subject. It cannot be over-simplified.

I am not at all trying to over-simplify the subject, nor is it a joke, nor disrespectful to God.

A quote from you is appropriate here, from your very first post in this thread: "I personally think that there should be allowed a little room for opinion on the subject, as light is seen through various spectrums. My view is not orthodox from that point of view; the orthodox view is inflexible and intolerant of any variation."

It sure seems to be you that is not allowing for opinion and you that is being inflexible and intolerant.

I don't think you know enough about the subject to be aware when you have made a false statement.

I think this where another quote from you is appropriate: "These under-handed remarks are what you continually try to base your arguments on. You rely on insults and demonizing..., making fun of people."

As I said, I do not doubt the implied doctrine that Jesus is God along with His Father; and that there is only one Godhead; yet they are both equally God. Think of the word God in the same way you think of King. There is only one Kingdom, but there are three kings (Gods) who rule that Kingdom;

Again, polytheism.

and all three are one in will and purpose. God is, therefore, one. This is how the early Church characterised the Trinity. This view is now considered heretical;

As it should be since it's polytheism.

Now apart from disagreeing with me for the sake of it...

Again, see your second quote I quoted above.

 

[Free]

But let me ask this how is this trinity thing central to salvation?

I don't believe I ever said it was.

 

[Tri Unity]

Not at all. I am repeating what Scripture states and just using a different word, "being," than what you used, "essence".

You don't know what you are talking about. Essence and being are not the same thing.

It sure seems to be you that is not allowing for opinion and you that is being inflexible and intolerant.

You were trying to present the "orthodox" version of the trinity. You did not. It was far from the orthodox version. I am not saying you are wrong for believing in this; I am saying you are wrong for pretending you are orthodox. You are entitled to "add the Holy Spirit", and... Hocus Pocus, you have a trinity. I am tolerant of that view, but I do think it is disrespectful to God.

I think this where another quote from you is appropriate: "These under-handed remarks are what you continually try to base your arguments on. You rely on insults and demonizing..., making fun of people."

You will twist my words just to appear to be right. I did not demonize you or make fun of you or insult you; but you are doing that to me right now by twisting my words around to defame me.

...polytheism...polytheism...

You don't know the subject well enough to try to dispute this; and I couldn't be bothered arguing with you. Think what ever you want.

 

[Free]

You were trying to present the "orthodox" version of the trinity. You did not.

If you can show me where I said I was presenting the orthodox version of the Trinity, then have a point. However, I didn't and I wasn't. You are far too presumptuous.

You will twist my words just to appear to be right. I did not demonize you or make fun of you or insult you; but you are doing that to me right now by twisting my words around to defame me.

"I don't think you know enough about the subject to be aware when you have made a false statement." <--That is an insult.

You don't know the subject well enough to try to dispute this; and I couldn't be bothered arguing with you. Think what ever you want.

Again, you are far too presumptuous and insulting. Again, your quote applies. You have no idea what I know on the subject.

"God the Father is one being, God the son is another being. They are not the same "Being"."

"There is only one Kingdom, but there are three kings (Gods) who rule that Kingdom;"

Hence, polytheism. Belief in more than one God is polytheism.

 

[Tri Unity]

If you can show me where I said I was presenting the orthodox version of the Trinity, then have a point. However, I didn't and I wasn't. You are far too presumptuous.

You were correcting several people on what was the right and wrong way of understanding the trinity; hence you presented your view as orthodox, which it wasn't.

"I don't think you know enough about the subject to be aware when you have made a false statement." <--That is an insult.

That is not an insult; it is clearly self-evident. I also asked you questions that you evaded with diversions. This shows a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Again, you are far too presumptuous and insulting.

Yeah, I get it. You keep repeating it so that must mean you're right.

"There is only one Kingdom, but there are three kings (Gods) who rule that Kingdom;" Hence, polytheism. Belief in more than one God is polytheism.

If you knew the scriptures well enough you would know that even kings and angels are called gods.

"I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee." (Psalms 138:1)

You are just being argumentative for the sake of it. I am not interested in this game.

 

[Free]

You were correcting several people on what was the right and wrong way of understanding the trinity; hence you presented your view as orthodox, which it wasn't.

No, I didn't. As will be clear to any reader, I was very clearly responding to what you were saying, nothing more.

That is not an insult; it is clearly self-evident. I also asked you questions that you evaded with diversions. This shows a lack of knowledge on the subject.

I answered what was relevant. Again, you're insulting and presumptuous.

Yeah, I get it. You keep repeating it so that must mean you're right.

I repeat it because I am right and it really needs to stop.

If you knew the scriptures well enough you would know that even kings and angels are called gods.

"I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee." (Psalms 138:1)

You are just being argumentative for the sake of it. I am not interested in this game.

Apart from yet again be presumptuous and insulting, one must be extremely careful when taking such words and equating them with the meanings when they are applied to God. Many words have different meanings depending on the context. The meaning of "gods" here is certainly not the same as speaking of the Father or the Son, as even you say it is applied to "kings and angels". They certainly cannot in any sense be equated with God or deity. When speaking of the one God, the Creator of everything, to say that there is more than one is polytheism.

 

[Tri Unity]

Please note too I consider scripture where I can quote Gods words. IMO if He didnt say it it isnt scripture.

That is an important point you make that has appeared to go over the head. I think it is much safer in true orthodoxy to rely on scriptural definitions as opposed to abstract reasoning.

 

[farouk]

I don't believe I ever said it was.

The Lord Jesus in His gospel commission gave the baptismal formula in Matt. 28, which refers to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.