My take on Trinity

[Free]

Your reasoning is not logical.

If you think someone's reasoning isn't logical, then show how it isn't logical rather than just stating that you think it is.

 

[GodsGrace]

God progenated Satan. Not all the messengers of God followed Satan.

PROGENATE:

• verb rare To have children
• noun rare A progenitor; a direct ancestor.

source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/progenate


Are you saying that God is the FATHER of satan?
Please explain.

 

[7thMoon]

Are you suggesting that Satan is the literal offspring of God?

He was created like Adam.

 

[Free]

He was created like Adam.

Like all angels, yes, but none of them are progeny, as that entails what wondering posted.

 

[7thMoon]

Like all angels, yes, but none of them are progeny, as that entails what wondering posted.

Adam, Eve, and Jesus are the only humans which are progeny of God. A Progeny on my definition means a single offspring.

 

[Free]

Adam, Eve, and Jesus are the only humans which are progeny of God. A Progeny on my definition means a single offspring.

Jesus would be the only progeny, in a sense--he is the only begotten. Adam and Eve were created, not procreated.

 

[GodsGrace]

Adam, Eve, and Jesus are the only humans which are progeny of God. A Progeny on my definition means a single offspring.

Hi 7thMoon, you can't make up your own definition of what words mean.
This would be very confusing when having a conversation.

Adam and Eve were created by God.
They were created just like the plants and animals.
God is not the actual PARENT of Adam or Eve.
If God were the parent, the progenitor, it would mean that Adam and Eve were also God.
Just like Jesus is God because He "comes" from the Father....God is the Father.

I won't say more because I'm drifting into Trinitarian heresy.
(it's easy to do).

 

[7thMoon]

Jesus would be the only progeny, in a sense--he is the only begotten. Adam and Eve were created, not procreated.

I guess if you limit the word progeny to something genetic, that would be true.

 

[Free]

I guess if you limit the word progeny to something genetic, that would be true.

That is what it means; it means children who have been begotten.

'progeny (n.)
early 14c., progenie, "children, offspring" (of humans or animals); late 14c., "descent, lineage, family, ancestry," from Old French progenie (13c.) and directly from Latin progenies "descendants, offspring, lineage, race, family," from stem of progignere "beget," from pro "forth" (see pro-) + gignere "to produce, beget" (from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget").
also from early 14c.'

https://www.etymonline.com/word/progeny

 

[7thMoon]

That is what it means; it means children who have been begotten.

'progeny (n.)
early 14c., progenie, "children, offspring" (of humans or animals); late 14c., "descent, lineage, family, ancestry," from Old French progenie (13c.) and directly from Latin progenies "descendants, offspring, lineage, race, family," from stem of progignere "beget," from pro "forth" (see pro-) + gignere "to produce, beget" (from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget").
also from early 14c.'

https://www.etymonline.com/word/progeny

This doesn't change the definition of υιος.

 

[Free]

This doesn't change the definition of υιος.

Right. But that is not what we are discussing.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Ultimately we can never comprehend him completely and exhaustively, yes, but it would be a serious error to leave it at that. And to think that he is only beyond the universe he created is a serious error as well. He’s with us, in us, and, importantly, in his revelation to us.

And, yet, God has chosen to reveal certain things about himself to us, using language that we understand, as inadequate as it is for such a purpose. We are made in his image, so it stands to reason that our idea of persons and personhood come from
him and are based on him. Just as he reveals some of himself as Father and Son, we understand what that means because he has made us analogous to himself, having father and son relationships. Persons have certain attributes and do certain things, such as live in close, loving relationships with others.

Referring to each hypostasis of the Trinity as a person conveys these revelations from God about himself to us as best as our language is able. Again, the words you suggested are wholly inadequate to convey any such meaning and understanding of God.

"You cannot see my face, for no man shall see me and live." (Ex. 33:20) God didn't "reveal" himself as the father, I told you that he was never addressed as "father" in the OT, only as the Lord. He only revealed himself as Jesus the son, which is like a front outlet of him, and only through the son can we know the father. You keep saying "we are made in his image", but you forgot to mention that we're tainted by SIN, thus that image is distorted and no longer totally analogous to himself, the real person who's in the original image of God without sin is Jesus.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Not true, some of the angels in Revelation are virgins. Males aren't virgins.

In both the OT and NT. The rabbis think the sons of God are in a human family. We are not progenies of God.

That's just made up. Creation is not procreation.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is just begging the question as to who the Jesus is that is the way to God. Is the JW Jesus the true Jesus? The Mormon one? The Gnostic Jesus? The most important question we must answer is, “Who do you say that I am?” If one doesn’t have the right Jesus, they don’t have the Father; they don’t have salvation.

What we think about God are the most important thoughts we can have. We had better study well to have the best understanding of God we can, based on his revelation of himself to us.

You wanna know the right Jesus from all the fake ones, follow the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. And that's NOT limited to biblical truth as you presume - there're errors and inaccuracies in all English translations, including KJV and NKJV, the more you study, the more you'll know. God uses testimonies, evidence, personal experience, any resources available to you to point you to that narrow path of righteousness, the only requirement from you and me is eyes to see and ears to hear amidst all the noise and distractions in this world.

And speaking of the "right Jesus", late time I mentioned that he was a humble Jewish craftsman - very likely to be a stonemason and a construction worker - from first century Nazareth with a questionable birth, maligned by his own townsfolk (Mark 6:1-3), that's a real historic figure, a real man of the working class we can relate to and follow. You addressed him as "God the Son" all the time, in every post, but He frequently addressed himself as the Son of Man, very rarely was he called the Son of God.

 

[7thMoon]

That's just made up. Creation is not procreation.

God made the angels, Adam and Eve, and spawned Jesus. We are not the υιοι of God.

 

[Free]

"You cannot see my face, for no man shall see me and live." (Ex. 33:20) God didn't "reveal" himself as the father, I told you that he was never addressed as "father" in the OT, only as the Lord. He only revealed himself as Jesus the son, which is like a front outlet of him, and only through the son can we know the father.

That’s interesting since God is mentioned as Father to the Israelites six times in the OT. Not that it matters, since he very clearly further reveals himself as Father to the Son in the NT.

You keep saying "we are made in his image", but you forgot to mention that we're tainted by SIN, thus that image is distorted and no longer totally analogous to himself, the real person who's in the original image of God without sin is Jesus.

I haven’t forgotten anything; it just has no bearing on what I’ve stated, that I can see.

You wanna know the right Jesus from all the fake ones, follow the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth.

And read the Bible.

And that's NOT limited to biblical truth as you presume - there're errors and inaccuracies in all English translations, including KJV and NKJV, the more you study, the more you'll know.

Yes, I am well aware. I reference multiple translations.

God uses testimonies, evidence, personal experience, any resources available to you to point you to that narrow path of righteousness, the only requirement from you and me is eyes to see and ears to hear amidst all the noise and distractions in this world.

God most often speaks through the Bible, his revelation of himself to us; that is the evidence. Testimonies and personal experience, while not to be entirely discounted, are subjective.

And speaking of the "right Jesus", late time I mentioned that he was a humble Jewish craftsman - very likely to be a stonemason and a construction worker - from first century Nazareth with a questionable birth, maligned by his own townsfolk (Mark 6:1-3), that's a real historic figure, a real man of the working class we can relate to and follow.

Of course, but that is only one part of who he is. He is also God and whoever gets that wrong doesn’t believe in the Jesus of the Bible.

You addressed him as "God the Son" all the time, in every post, but He frequently addressed himself as the Son of Man, very rarely was he called the Son of God.

Of course, but I don’t see how that has any bearing on anything I’ve said.

42 times he is called the Son of God in the NT. That’s hardly “rarely.” 83 times he is called the Son of Man; so 2:1. Remember that while Son of Man speaks of his humility, it is also a claim to be the divine human figure, the Messiah, in Daniel 7:13.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That’s interesting since God is mentioned as Father to the Israelites six times in the OT. Not that it matters, since he very clearly further reveals himself as Father to the Son in the NT.

Then why was it blasphemy for Jesus to address God as the Father? Why was it so offensive to the Jews? And in case you don't know, it's still super offensive to a lot of liberals today for being "patriarchal" and "oppressive", you can ignore and dismiss them, but I'm just telling this as a simple matter of fact. Yes, God was revealed as the Father through the Son in the NT, but unfortunately, no, that was not acceptable to the Son's audience, even though God might have been mentioned as the Father six times to them in the OT.

I haven’t forgotten anything; it just has no bearing on what I’ve stated, that I can see.

No you can't.

And read the Bible.

Yes, I am well aware. I reference multiple translations.

God most often speaks through the Bible, his revelation of himself to us; that is the evidence. Testimonies and personal experience, while not to be entirely discounted, are subjective.

Didn't Jesus instruct us to not be just hearers (or readers, so to speak), but doers of his word? Neither Peter, Nicodemus, Paul nor other pharisees was transformed by their intellectual knowledge of the OT, quite the contrary, that knowledge puffed them up, in some cases it even became a hinderance. It was life experience, real fellowship and encounter with the Lord that transformed them. Bible is the authoratative word of God, but it's not an idol to worship.

Of course, but that is only one part of who he is. He is also God and whoever gets that wrong doesn’t believe in the Jesus of the Bible.

This is THE part by which I know that my Lord is a real person, not a myth or any other fake version of him, including the one that magically "substantiated" into wafers and wine at Eucharist.

Of course, but I don’t see how that has any bearing on anything I’ve said.

42 times he is called the Son of God in the NT. That’s hardly “rarely.” 83 times he is called the Son of Man; so 2:1. Remember that while Son of Man speaks of his humility, it is also a claim to be the divine human figure, the Messiah, in Daniel 7:13.

If you read it carefully, he did call himself the Son in relation to the Father, mostly in the gospel of John, but he rarely used the specific title "Son of God" verbatim, in several cases it came as an affirmation from others -

"truly this was the Son of God!" - Centurion, at the crucifixion (Matt. 27:54)
"He made Himself the Son of God."- Sahedrin (Jn. 19:7)
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." - Peter (Matt. 16:16)

Jesus himself actually ordered his disciples to keep it a secret.

Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ. (Matt. 16:20)

 

[TonyChanYT]

This is why I prefer the Septuagint. This problem doesn't exist.

What problem specifically?

 

[TonyChanYT]

Fourthly, "divine being" is incorrect, as it does not define the fact as the term "Trinity" does

Who says it does?

 

[Butch5]

Your argument leads to a contradiction. Once again, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from ever being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ," precludes the Father from ever being Lord. You want to have your cake and eat it too by arguing both ways, that Jesus can't be God but the Father can be Lord; but proper hermeneutics don't work that way.

And also, once again, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of the Father, then it necessarily follows that "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of Jesus (as the Son). In other words, Jesus is truly God in the same way that the Father is truly God. And that is also consistent with the Father also being Lord, just as Jesus is Lord.

Your position contradicts both points Paul makes here.


I already have: John 1:1-18; 5:18; 8:58; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-7; Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:2, 8-12; 2:10; the use of the title "Son of God;" Jesus's use of titles that God uses of himself--"King of kings and Lord of lords," "the Alpha and the Omega," "the beginning and the end;" etc.


That is what the passage clearly states; that is what you need to actually address.


Yes, it does. Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic at the core--there was, is, and ever will be only one God; God himself says so. If the Son is God in nature, then he must also be the same being, although he is distinct from the Father; it cannot be otherwise.


Exactly. That is the most basic definition of the Trinity.


Where, specifically?


Everywhere in the NT, as I have shown with Scripture. The continual distinction would, at best, be an exercise in futility, but it would be deception.


Yes, it would be. The Father and the Holy Spirit are always spoken of distinctly, which only makes sense if they actually are.


The Bible does say how, it just says that that is the case.


Again, no it is not. The doctrine of the Trinity is worded specifically to avoid contradiction. Three persons in one person, as you have stated, is a contradiction; as is three Gods in one God or three beings in one being.


How, exactly, is that a contradiction?


I'm not saying that either.


Why didn't the Jews know that the Messiah must suffer, die, and be raised after three days for their salvation and the salvation of the world? I'm sure we could figure out a number of things that they didn't know, due to ignorance for one reason or another.


Outside of Scripture, believers saw more than one person as seen in writings from the second century onward. It's precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity was eventually formulated as true biblical doctrine.

I'm sorry, I just have a hard time taking you seriously when you tell me that emptying something means adding to it.