Talk about the Trinity.

[Free]

Polytheism believes in a Father and a Son. As in the Scripture I quoted from Paul as He said there be gods many, but to Us there are two.
Polytheism believes Jesus is God the Son, who has a Father who is also God. 52 other scriptures mention them together........ TWO.

Mentioning the Father and the Son together does not mean that there are two Gods.

So if Paul says to us there are TWO FREE, then Polytheism is biblical, unless you think Paul is wrong. There is also a doctrine out there that do not believe Paul's writings are not canonical.

I don't think Paul is wrong but I do think you're wrong because you aren't understanding what Paul wrote. So let's look again at 1 Cor.8:5-6 but also consider the context this time, which we always must do in interpreting a verse (all from ESV):

1Co 8:1 Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." This "knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up.
1Co 8:2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.
1Co 8:3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one."
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Notice that in verse 4, Paul quotes the OT: "there is no God but one." That alone proves your position to be in error. The immediate context then shows that there is only one God. And this is in agreement with the rest of Scripture. Just a few verses:

Deu 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.

Deu 4:39 know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Isa 44:8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
Isa 45:6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:20 "Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, you survivors of the nations! They have no knowledge who carry about their wooden idols, and keep on praying to a god that cannot save.
Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

It cannot be any clearer--monotheism is a foundation of both Judaism and Christianity. There simply is no way to understand Paul as saying the Father and the Son are two separate Gods, unless you want to believe that either both Moses and Isaiah were wrong or that Paul was wrong.

It is quite likely that Paul was expanding on the Shema, which I gave above in Deut. 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." One cannot exclude the Son from being God any more than they can exclude the Father from being Lord.

I can not personally fault anyone who says there are two, because they are mentioned over and over, nor can I fault someone that wants to believe in Oneness, Modern Trinity, Original Trinity, or even mix them. Every major denomination has it's own spin on the whole concept, and it's very confusing Free.

It is difficult to comprehend, that is certain, but not all is confusing as the Bible very clearly lays out three foundations for the Trinity (as given by James R. White in The Forgotten Trinity):

Foundation One: Monotheism: There Is Only One God.
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons.
Foundation Three: The Persons Are Coequal and Coeternal. (White, p 28)

I have given ample Scriptural evidence that there is only one God--always has been and always will be.
That the Father is not the Son we can agree on.
There are further biblical passages which show that the Holy Spirit is deity and that all three are coequal and coeternal.

Those are the clear biblical teachings which any theology of God proper must take into account. And yours fails at the first foundation. Modalism and Oneness fail on the second foundation, hence why one simply cannot lump the Trinity in with those two. JWs fail on foundation three with their Jesus that was created.

I already know you MIGHT read half of what I posted, but I tried.

Mike

Please knock it off.

 

[Sparkey]

How about if we just dispense with all the canned definitions of man and know that God Himself is unfolding who the I AM (there is none like Him, He is all-together OTHER, and strange to us. Like the word "alien" but He is ultimate and extreme OTHER. We are like Him because we are called to be peculiar and set apart and holy, ultimate different than who we were) is.

Adam didn't know Him well even if that first instant of life came with the intake of God Breath through his nose-nostril. Because if Adam really did know God? He would have NEVER sinned. King David knew Him better. They spoke intimately in a tent. Not the same as "mano-a-mano" (which is Spanish meaning "hand to hand" as in combat, but... but words can't describe what happened) there in the tented-Tabernacle of David. You've heard that Jesus came and that He tabernacled (dwelt) among us. I know you have.

Nobody knew the Father except the Son. That's our major clue. Jesus showed us The Father. Now He also sent to us, after having had our sins and shame exchanged for His upright-ness so that He could send the Ultimate HOLINESS (the Ruach HaKodesh, the Spirit Holy) to us. So now we are able to know more and more about our Father. We are being changed. Transformed. You've heard about the Mind of Christ? This is being formed in us, believe it. God-Trust it. Faith(!) that one!

And now we have the Greater Promise, not the Old Covenant, but the new "whole-hearted" and written on and in our heart new Marriage Contract covenant. So no, we don't yet know Him but we shall. That's what the wedding feast "parable" (it's not a parable, really. It's a prophecy about us, about anybody who will). We shall "know" him, but not in the "Biblical Sense," like a bride does with her husband on earth, because that's a shadow of things to come.

We shall know Him as He is, and even as well as He knows us.

But will we be Him? ----> NOT!

But only in the sense that it's okay for me to think of the marital community of a husband and wife. If a wife uses her credit card to buy 2 sparrows from me for five (5) Assarions? (A guy's gotta make a prophet somehow, right?) Then, it's THEIR credit card and I can sue both of them, or their marital community because they too are ONE. Jesus prayed that we be[come] one with Him and the Father God even as He is One with His Father. But if that sounds like Oneness? See the marriage analogy and notice that Paul says it's a mystery, now revealed.

That's what I think in a nuttyshell. That it's a mystery, being now revealed and it will continue to be revealed as long as we walk hand-in-hand with our betrothed, because that's the job of the Holy Spirit, and He fits us jointly together. He is our OIL and we are the cogs that need the smooth flowing gears and we want to be more and more like HIM and we will too... we are being transformed from glory to GLORY but I'm not saying that we get to be GOD, that's blasphemony or maybe is just a speling mixsteak?!? Don't be confused, little children. Those who do good are good.

The truth tellers who sow the truth in kindness and in peace, who reveal what has been spoken wordlessly into their heart? They deserve to be stoned, right! Throw your rocks. But don't do drugs. Not that kind of 'stoned', silly. Throw rocks and I'll lift my hands and stare all St. Stephen like, straight into HEAVEN and marvel at HE who shows Himself to me.

Hallelujah! :yes

If you can please keep bible references in your thoughts, so that the subject can be as clear as posdible and we have the authority of the bible to temper our own understanding.

How about if we just dispense with all the canned definitions of man and know that God Himself is unfolding who the I AM... IS [?]

Also, my quotes refer to penetrating searches Mr. Google himself and not the Bible because that's what I thought was meant by "keep bible references in your thoughts," right?

So I want my "atta-boy," my "Way to Go, Sparrow," my LIKE. Can you give me it? I don't have to be perfect to get a pat on the back, now do I? Huh? Because if that were the case? WE might have to wait a long time, but not too long. He delays, but not like we do. He delays because He is NOT WILLING that any should perish, but that all shall come to the knowledge of the truth and be SAVED!

So we don't have to be perfect, being perfected (matured) is okay and JUST Trying is good, as long as we God-Trust and Call on His Name! We shall all be changed!!! (as we continue to walk with Him each day, every hour, each minute - He deserves to receive us, the fruit of the earth, perfected and ripe (but no longer stinky) but to be plucked at the perfect moment). It's like Ernest and Julio Gallo said, "We shall sell no wine, before its time." ®

Recall how the wedding feast was one of the very first miracles of Jesus? He changed water to wine, symbolizing JOY at the Wedding Feast of Cana, simply because of a loved ones expectation -- and he did it at that same time as when He rebuked a tree for putting forth its leaves too soon (signifying fruit ready to eat).

What will we be? A tree? Or a fruit?

 

[WIP]

I don't find it to be any stretch to consider that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each distinct but yet one God. After all, it is God Almighty we are talking about. The creator of all things. The Alpha and the Omega of all. Nothing is impossible with God.

I don't feel a need to entirely understand it because I don't believe it is even possible for me. What we are doing is attempting to describe a Godly thing using human understanding and God is too far above us to be explained this way.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55:8-9 NKJV

“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3-4 NKJV

Does a child need to understand to believe and trust?

 

[Brother Mike]

Mentioning the Father and the Son together does not mean that there are two Gods.


I don't think Paul is wrong but I do think you're wrong because you aren't understanding what Paul wrote. So let's look again at 1 Cor.8:5-6 but also consider the context this time, which we always must do in interpreting a verse (all from ESV):

1Co 8:1 Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." This "knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up.
1Co 8:2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.
1Co 8:3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one."
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Notice that in verse 4, Paul quotes the OT: "there is no God but one." That alone proves your position to be in error. The immediate context then shows that there is only one God. And this is in agreement with the rest of Scripture. Just a few verses:

Deu 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.

Deu 4:39 know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Isa 44:8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
Isa 45:6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:20 "Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, you survivors of the nations! They have no knowledge who carry about their wooden idols, and keep on praying to a god that cannot save.
Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

It cannot be any clearer--monotheism is a foundation of both Judaism and Christianity. There simply is no way to understand Paul as saying the Father and the Son are two separate Gods, unless you want to believe that either both Moses and Isaiah were wrong or that Paul was wrong.

It is quite likely that Paul was expanding on the Shema, which I gave above in Deut. 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." One cannot exclude the Son from being God any more than they can exclude the Father from being Lord.


It is difficult to comprehend, that is certain, but not all is confusing as the Bible very clearly lays out three foundations for the Trinity (as given by James R. White in The Forgotten Trinity):

Foundation One: Monotheism: There Is Only One God.
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons.
Foundation Three: The Persons Are Coequal and Coeternal. (White, p 28)

I have given ample Scriptural evidence that there is only one God--always has been and always will be.
That the Father is not the Son we can agree on.
There are further biblical passages which show that the Holy Spirit is deity and that all three are coequal and coeternal.

Those are the clear biblical teachings which any theology of God proper must take into account. And yours fails at the first foundation. Modalism and Oneness fail on the second foundation, hence why one simply cannot lump the Trinity in with those two. JWs fail on foundation three with their Jesus that was created.


Please knock it off.

No Free, you proved there is only ONE LORD GOD. Using your OT scriptures, there has always been ONE LORD GOD. Your problem is, you read the scriptures based on the assumption a Doctrine is already true. That is error, and a big NO, NO. There is One Lord God, none before him, None Like Him, Just ONE. You are correct on that, the problem is you Already Assume Rome is correct about their Trinity Doctrine.

There is Only one Savior He crucified His son for us. You Proved that also, forgetting the Son of God again.

Isa_53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

You Proved there is only ONE LORD GOD, You are 100% correct, but you Forgot the Son of God again.
Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
Isa 45:6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Jud_1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

One Lord God, One Lord Jesus Christ............ That is Two Free, Not One. You are determined to remove the Son of God, and It's that trinity doctrine your holding onto, it makes it so you can't see, and it's dangerous because it wipes the Son of God away from you seeing it in scriptures.

Rev_21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

2Jn_1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

Notice that in verse 4, Paul quotes the OT: "there is no God but one." That alone proves your position to be in error. The immediate context then shows that there is only one God. And this is in agreement with the rest of Scripture. Just a few verses:

No Free, There is only One God, Paul never called Jesus God, John did, but Paul also mentioned the Lord Jesus Christ. You keep forgetting the Son of God over and over in your statements. There is a Son of God Free. There is only One Lord God, that would be the Father of Jesus.


Monotheism is a foundation belief of Judaism because they don't believe in Jesus, the Son of God, but you should.

There is one Savior, One Lord God, the One that Sent His only Son and crucified him. You find those scriptures, and Jude backs that up that there is a Lord God, and a Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing in scripture that tells you to erase Jesus, to combine them into some god system, NOTHING.

In Fact, the Father refereed to Jesus as servant. Do you need those scriptures?
God the Son
God the Father

Just like the Original Trinity Doctrine Stated, both God of God, both of the Same substance, Both God.
Who are you to say that Rome Got it right ignoring the first, and forcing the Athanasian creed on everyone? You also ignore the origins of the Trinity Doctrine. You seem to forget, the big battle over this Doctrine, and how it was rejected when Rome tried to force it down everyone's throat. Sadly, Methodist and Baptist brought it to the Western civilization. It was later the Apostolic Oneness grabbed much earlier notes before 325ad and said that was correct, Rome was wrong on the whole thing.

There are even two Thrones. I asked you about that, but you said you see just One throne. It does not even make sense, because you need to believe the Modern Roman Catholic Doctrine to even say such a thing.

Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Two Thrones here Free, The Son of God, has a throne, and His Father has one. Jesus, the Son sat on His Fathers Throne. That is two, and why you go to great lengths to remove the Son of God, is the real mystery here.

Also, why Bring up JW's, That don't make sense either, they are very confused.

Mike.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Immediately after being born again I could not get enough of The Word, pouring through the pages of the Bible. I probably went through the entirety 4 times in the first 6 months after. Then began the [decades long] studies of various doctrinal positions, the Trinity being first on the list. The foundation laid out by the early church fathers is exceptionally sound. And they were also careful to cover this matter with rightful Mystery. So, though I accept their determinations, I also accept that no amount of study is able to "box" God in Christ, as that is a human flaw and trait that some abuse.

While their determinations were sound, cutting out the tongues of their opponents or killing and persecuting them was not sound whatsoever.

In that they utterly FAILED, regardless of their position.

What good is any doctrine if you end up abusing people over it?

Why was killing, persecuting and removing their tongues a failure?

I'm not asking because I disagree that it's a failure. I'm asking because I think it's an important question, and one that when we argue one point over another point we cross a line. Hopefully we catch ourselves before the progression of the argument reaches out and hurts another person, but often enough I see that we don't. That's not just with the topic of the Trinity, but in general. When people argue with each other there comes a point of loyality to one's arguments, or factors of aggression to the other people and their arguments, that if not countered the progression turns into a simular failure. Regardless of the position taken.

Good points and thanks for the history.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Mike please don't refer to JWs as confused. Though they are a different branch of Christianity, and to each branch we have to descide if it's really part of Christianity, JWs are some of the people that see rejection everyday they go out to talk to people and go to people's homes. And the training to go out with enough knowledge to answer questions and discuss being Christian or becoming Christian is a rarity in other branches of Christianity. I really appreaciate their ministery. And their resolve in the face of continual rejection at the steps of a home.

 

[smaller]

Why was killing, persecuting and removing their tongues a failure?

Seriously? IF a person believes they have everything, every doctrine, every bit of knowledge, and can not and does not LOVE, they learned nothing and have nothing. I would not find cutting out peoples tongues, killing them, persecuting them as anything remotely resembling the Way of God in Christ. Yet we have mainstream denominations today who STILL openly promote the authorization of civil authorities KILLING anyone who is a heretic i.e. other people who don't agree with them. These kinds of people have been DAMNED by God in this present life and have been turned into killers in their own hearts. All the while, thinking only "they" are right. It is an atrocity in the churches.

I'm not asking because I disagree that it's a failure.

I suppose one might if they thought they were in the "right" group and everyone else in the wrong group.

I'm asking because I think it's an important question, and one that when we argue one point over another point we cross a line. Hopefully we catch ourselves before the progression of the argument reaches out and hurts another person,

Do you think all the understanding of the Trinity in the world does any good if you have to kill your neighbor over it?

but often enough I see that we don't. That's not just with the topic of the Trinity, but in general. When people argue with each other there comes a point of loyality to one's arguments, or factors of aggression to the other people and their arguments, that if not countered the progression turns into a simular failure. Regardless of the position taken.

Good points and thanks for the history.

Condemnation in numerous forms is what divides us all. We all want all the good things of God in Christ, yet we are reluctant to share them with others, and prefer, instead, to condemn. This only shows us our own condemnation, within.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I don't find it to be any stretch to consider that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each distinct but yet one God. After all, it is God Almighty we are talking about. The creator of all things. The Alpha and the Omega of all. Nothing is impossible with God.

I don't feel a need to entirely understand it because I don't believe it is even possible for me. What we are doing is attempting to describe a Godly thing using human understanding and God is too far above us to be explained this way.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55:8-9 NKJV

“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3-4 NKJV

Does a child need to understand to believe and trust?

Good points WIP. While it is important to grow in understanding, and to grow in knowledge, expecially with regard to God. It's more important to trust God, and accept Him. Our salvation isn't earned by how good we are any more then it's earned by how knowledgable we are. We should trust God even when we don't understand how it all works together. Thanks.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Seriously? IF a person believes they have everything, every doctrine, every bit of knowledge, and can not and does not LOVE, they learned nothing and have nothing. I would not find cutting out peoples tongues, killing them, persecuting them as anything remotely resembling the Way of God in Christ. Yet we have mainstream denominations today who STILL openly promote the authorization of civil authorities KILLING anyone who is a heretic i.e. other people who don't agree with them. These kinds of people have been DAMNED by God in this present life and have been turned into killers in their own hearts. All the while, thinking only "they" are right. It is an atrocity in the churches.



I suppose one might if they thought they were in the "right" group and everyone else in the wrong group.




Do you think all the understanding of the Trinity in the world does any good if you have to kill your neighbor over it?



Condemnation in numerous forms is what divides us all. We all want all the good things of God in Christ, yet we are reluctant to share them with others, and prefer, instead, to condemn. This only shows us our own condemnation, within.

Smaller don't read my reply in parts please. In the whole context I meant it in a way of we need to understand that it is a failure, regardless of the position, and see to it that we do not repeat the same mistake. Why is it a failure to go to extremes on one point or another is hopefully a question that draws out both an answer and and understanding to not let one's self get stuck in that kind of failure.

 

[Sparkey]

Mike please don't refer to JWs as confused. Though they are a different branch of Christianity, and to each branch we have to descide if it's really part of Christianity, JWs are some of the people that see rejection everyday they go out to talk to people and go to people's homes. And the training to go out with enough knowledge to answer questions and discuss being Christian or becoming Christian is a rarity in other branches of Christianity. I really appreaciate their ministery. And their resolve in the face of continual rejection at the steps of a home.

Last time I asked a JW into my house to fellowship, she came in. But the next time? She brought an 'elder' of the church so I invited him in too... and we became friends because we are both old and we both have protestant backgrounds (he wasn't born a JW) and we both know what it is to be admitted to the hospital for emergency too -- and there's just a lot in common, even the twinkle in his eye as he witnesses in truth and kindness.

But that does NOT mean that he is not confused. Confusion (or my definition of confusion) is "The act of entertaining two opposing ideas at the same time without assigning proper priority to one over the other." I've never tested it with my friend, for fear of his conflicted and/or confused reaction, but the last time I invited a JW to come in and to pray with me, and just as soon as I began my prayer, addressed to Jesus, the Christ? He bowed out. Refused. That's idolatry, to them. Well, at least, to the two I had invited to prayer in my own home, it was. And then we spent way too much time talking about their convoluted thoughts on who the "Word of God" is and what John may have, emphasis, "may have" meant in his prefatory comment in the gospel of John. But those two never became friends and that was 30+ years ago anyway. I had interrupted our 'friendshop' with my foolish invitation to prayer, not properly considering their frame.

SO I don't ask my current JW door-knocker and friend to pray (directly) and if I did? I'd address my prayer to "our Heavenly Father" because we do share that but we simply do not share the revelation of Jesus being the only begotten son, as revealed to Thomas the Confirmer (not the Doubter, he doesn't deserve that epitaph )
John 20:28 Thomas [the Confirmer] said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

 

[smaller]

Smaller don't read my reply in parts please. In the whole context I meant it in a way of we need to understand that it is a failure, regardless of the position, and see to it that we do not repeat the same mistake. Why is it a failure to go to extremes on one point or another is hopefully a question that draws out both an answer and and understanding to not let one's self get stuck in that kind of failure.

If you think that it's a failure, then state it, openly.

I wasn't sure. There are many here who still posture this matter, and it should be dragged out into the open for what it is, utter and complete failure of the "early" churches, which was in fact PROPHESIED by Paul, here:

Acts 20:29
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

 

[Drew]

One Lord God, One Lord Jesus Christ............ That is Two Free, Not One.

...There is only One Lord God, that would be the Father of Jesus.

...There is nothing in scripture that tells you to erase Jesus, to combine them into some god system, NOTHING.

I find it difficult to ascertain your position, but it certainly appears you do not agree with the "mainstream" Trinity concept that many (most?) people who would self-identify as Christians hold. In the statement above, you appear to draw a stronger distinction between who Jesus is and who "God the Father" is than I believe the Bible supports. I certainly think your last statement - "There is nothing in scripture that tells you to erase Jesus, to combine them into some god system, NOTHING" is demonstrably incorrect. Perhaps later today, I can provide the relevant argument in full but for now I will summarize:

The book of Luke contains a long narrative capturing Jesus' return to Jerusalem. When that narrative is carefully studied specifically in light of an Old Testament-based promise that the God who had disappeared from the Temple would ultimately return to His people, a strong case can be made Jesus very intentionally sets out to enact that very promised return through his trip to Jerusalem. In so doing - through the powerful language of symbolic action - Jesus is saying powerfully, albeit indirectly, "I am God, returning to my people".

 

[Sparkey]

Smaller don't read my reply in parts please.

I'm betting that he read the whole thing and didn't read in parts. Then he analysed what you said. Analysis is breaking things down to their component part, to analyse or examine them. And knowing smaller as I do, I'm also betting that during that analysis stage, he had way too many thoughts that occurred to him to be able to capture them all.

SO then... comes the synthesis stage. He composed a reply (or parts several, actually) and then set about giving what he thought would relate to you. He let what you say go into him, thought about it, chewed it up and then stored it near other stuff that he related to. Then, during the synthesis process, he assembled his response, again, as it related to him, and composed his reply.

And since he likes to think in a somewhat ordered fashion, he replied to you and your thoughts a piece at at time. But don't mistake that for thinking that he "read you wrong" or in a way that is different than how you read others. For instance, can you read me in a glance? Really? Or do you too have to break what I say down into it's component parts.

But back to the analysis (breaking down) and the synthesis (assembling) process and processing... that's how we relate to each other. You've heard of dysfunctional families? What is the function of the family? Is it to raise healthy children (at least in part), right? How do we do this? We RELATE. We form family relationships. By relating! We accept what is said and then we relate it to our personal experience. Then we find something that relates (or in other words, is stored in us near to what your said) and we fish that out and offer it as our conversational tid-bit. A morsel, if you will. We break bread together. Or, if you'd rather, we share Col 4:6 SALT together. Ye are the salt of the earth! But you still can't read me in whole. Nobody can. Not even my mother (who is dead, just by the way - she can't read me at all, now).
:blush

I find it difficult to ascertain your position

That might be because we are in The Lounge and not in A&T (where we are, by rule, required to clearly state our positions from the get go). It could also be because we are speaking about a topic that has been argued about for thousands of years and it has not been resolved (yet) because we do not yet see even as we are seen? We still break down what God has said, piece by piece, here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept on precept, law on law... like we were kids, earnestly desiring the milk.

But does He give doctrine from those just weaned? Well, yes. He does. But do we get milk with our meat? Yes, we do. I have a little sister. I don't know if she is a door or if she is a wall... but the one who said that also said that her breasts are like towers!

I want to be able to speak in a manner that shows that i have digested meat for others and can produce MILK, the pure milk of the word, offered in peace by a true peacemaker, one who has in his/her possession the Peace that He (the King of peace) leaves! I wanna be a pacifist (like you Drew , a mother nursing in the prayer closet!

And I think we all do.

 

[Drew]

Further to my last post: Discussions of the Trinity often ignore a vital dimension of the issue: the matter of Biblical narrative. The idea here is that the Bible is not really a set of doctrinal assertions, but rather the continuing story of God at work to redeem His creation. On such a view, we find that the Old Testament ends with a number of the sub-plots of the story unresolved. For present purposes, some of these sub-plots are about things God is doing and / or promises He will do.

Now Jesus enters the story and there are powerful arguments to the effect that He takes up the role of God from the Old Testament narrative - Jesus completes the "God sub-plots". The key point being that in so doing, He effectively declares Himself to be so closely identified with God that we are effectively forced to create Trinity concept, even if it is not there in Bible as a kind of creedal formulation.

 

[smaller]

I'm betting that he read the whole thing and didn't read in parts. Then he analysed what you said. Analysis is breaking things down to their component part, to analyse or examine them. And knowing smaller as I do, I'm also betting that during that analysis stage, he had way too many thoughts that occurred to him to be able to capture them all.

SO then... comes the synthesis stage. He composed a reply (or parts several, actually) and then set about giving what he thought would relate to you. He let what you say go into him, thought about it, chewed it up and then stored it near other stuff that he related to. Then, during the synthesis process, he assembled his response, again, as it related to him, and composed his reply.

And since he likes to think in a somewhat ordered fashion, he replied to you and your thoughts a piece at at time. But don't mistake that for thinking that he "read you wrong" or in a way that is different than how you read others. For instance, can you read me in a glance? Really? Or do you too have to break what I say down into it's component parts.

But back to the analysis (breaking down) and the synthesis (assembling) process and processing... that's how we relate to each other. You've heard of dysfunctional families? What is the function of the family? Is it to raise healthy children (at least in part), right? How do we do this? We RELATE. We form family relationships. By relating! We accept what is said and then we relate it to our personal experience. Then we find something that relates (or in other words, is stored in us near to what your said) and we fish that out and offer it as our conversational tid-bit. But you can't read me in whole. Nobody can. Not even my mother (who is dead, just by the way - she can't read me at all, now).
:blush

That might be because we are in The Lounge and not in A&T (where we are, by rule, required to clearly state our positions from the get go). It could also be because we are speaking about a topic that has been argued about for thousands of years and it has not been resolved (yet) because we do not yet see as we are seen?

Well, thanks for trying to stick up for me buddy. You know I don't have any "excuses" for myself well enough by now.

I was not trying to slur anyone, as that is not in my repertoire. The various divisions in the churches has always grieved me, even before I was a believer. I grew up in the era when RCCer's and Protestants were still openly condemning each others to hell from the pulpits and it always detested me, even prior to belief. You see I really did love my family members, even those who were RCCer's and Protestants, so that left me to have to figure out "how to get there" doctrinally, after I was saved. And in that quest I finally came to the conclusion that there is a priority in doctrine, that priority being Romans 13:8-10, which I consider to be the only valid doctrine, above all others, and Living Proof of the "residency" of God in Christ in the temple of 'mini-me.'

In order to "get there" with ALL the members of His Body, I had to, in essence, dumb down my own "doctrine" to the lowest common denominator, that those who have called upon God in Christ to save them, are then in fact SAVED, as much as some of them try to make it harder on themselves.

This "low bar" has served me well in the quest to LOVE.

 

[Sparkey]

I too came from a mixed family and have mixed feelings about that. Part one and part the other. It's all good when it's blessed by Him who Knows us.

And in that quest I finally came to the conclusion that there is a priority in doctrine, that priority being Romans 13:8-10

And your statement fits in very nicely with what I was trying to say about "confusion" when Brother Mike said something about JW's.

It's like James said, let us all be slow to speak and quick to slaughter each other with the Word of Truth, our Sword of Truth, right? But above all, take that shield of God-Trust'n Ph8th, which is able to quench fiery darts tossed at us by the Adversary through our own mouths, when our Body of Christ, called-out-Ones or Ecclesia (Greek: ἐκκλησία ekklēsia) which also may refer to a Latin term for the Christian Church as a whole) and our (agape others as we agape ourselves) self-guard, when it is down for the count and unconscious! Having just been given a knock-out combination punch by Pride and Guilt. It's a one-two punch. Yer out!

So count to ten (10) and hold your peace before you attack a brother in Christ, or let the referee do it for ya! That's what I like to say.

 

[smaller]

I too came from a mixed family and have mixed feelings about that. Part one and part the other. It's all good when it's blessed by Him who Knows us.

With "unbelievers" I move the bar even lower, in order to 'grab' hold of them for Jesus. 1 John 4:7. This also has been extremely effective, and allows me to "bond" with them, solidly. Again, at some point, I saw that I could not insulate and isolate myself "in faith." I am essentially "forced" to get along, somehow, in His Love.

I think Free has a solid grasp on matters of foundational issues of Trinity, and I "wholeheartedly" agree with same, but I would perhaps depart from any man's ways in condemnation, particularly if "their rightness" insisted that others had their tongues cut out, burned at the stake, killed or otherwise demoted for their incorrectness.

We all after all only see in part, making it therefore IMPOSSIBLE to see Perfectly in any case of sights.

P.S.
I also doubt that there is going to be a correct Trinity checkpoint set up outside the Pearly Gates in order to pass through into heaven. I'll be the last person to try to tell God Who He Is. That would seem a little presumptuous on my part. "How the heck should I know?" would seem more in order.

 

[Free]

No Free, you proved there is only ONE LORD GOD. Using your OT scriptures, there has always been ONE LORD GOD. Your problem is, you read the scriptures based on the assumption a Doctrine is already true. That is error, and a big NO, NO. There is One Lord God, none before him, None Like Him, Just ONE. You are correct on that, the problem is you Already Assume Rome is correct about their Trinity Doctrine.

Do not make the useless claim that I "read the scriptures based on the assumption a Doctrine is already true." Not only is that patently false and you would have to be able to read my mind, I could make the same claim about you. It is fallacious and just plain ridiculous to make such a claim on the basis of disagreement.

There is no difference whatsoever between "Lord God" and "God." They are not two different Gods or two different beings. The Lord God is God. Until you prove otherwise, it is just your opinion.

Jud_1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

As far as I can find, only the KJV and NKJV support such a translation.

Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (ESV)

Jud 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (NASB)

Jud 1:4 for there did come in unobserved certain men, long ago having been written beforehand to this judgment, impious, the grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord--Jesus Christ--denying, (YLT)

From Vincent's Word Studies:
Lord God
God is omitted in the best texts.

One Lord God, One Lord Jesus Christ............ That is Two Free, Not One. You are determined to remove the Son of God, and It's that trinity doctrine your holding onto, it makes it so you can't see, and it's dangerous because it wipes the Son of God away from you seeing it in scriptures.

You are purposely misrepresenting my position which is a violation of the TOS. Do not do it again.

Rev_21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

2Jn_1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

I am not sure what you're trying to show with these verses but they do not show the Trinity to be wrong.

No Free, There is only One God, Paul never called Jesus God, John did, but Paul also mentioned the Lord Jesus Christ.

I remember you contradicted yourself in the same way the last time we debated the Trinity. Here you say "there is only one God," but yet you have previously posted in this thread that there are two: "As in the Scripture I quoted from Paul as He said there be gods many, but to Us there are two."

Which is it, one God or two? You cannot believe both.

It's also interesting that you know that John calls Jesus God but then claim that Paul doesn't. And not only that, you are then basing your entire position on what you think Paul says and ignore what you know John says. By your own words you are choosing which parts of Scripture to believe and which to disregard. And more than that, you seem to have forgotten that all Scripture is inspired, which means that both John and Paul wrote what God would have them write. With your own admission then, God is contradicting himself, just as you have contradicted yourself.

Paul clearly implies that Jesus has always existed. The only logical conclusion then, since there is only one God, is that Paul is implying that Jesus is also God. No NT writer, including Paul, needs to say "Jesus is God," in order to get the idea across.

Monotheism is a foundation belief of Judaism because they don't believe in Jesus, the Son of God

Monotheism is a foundational belief of Judaism because that is precisely what God revealed to them, as I have shown. Monotheism is a foundational belief in Christianity because that is precisely what God reveals to us throughout the entire Scriptures.

If God says in Scripture that he is the only God, and he clearly does, and that he knows of no other God, and he clearly does, and that there will never be another God, and clearly does, then that means there is no difference from the OT to the NT regarding this matter. If God says there will never be another and suddenly in the NT there is another, as you claim, then God is a liar.

There is one Savior, One Lord God, the One that Sent His only Son and crucified him. You find those scriptures, and Jude backs that up that there is a Lord God, and a Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, Lord God and God are one and the same, and the Bible clearly teaches that the Father is God and the Son is God, yet they are distinct.

You say there is one Saviour. Who is it?

There is nothing in scripture that tells you to erase Jesus, to combine them into some god system, NOTHING.

Of course there isn't and I have done no such thing. In fact, if you go back and read what I posted, it is very clear that the doctrine of the Trinity does no such thing either.

There are even two Thrones. I asked you about that, but you said you see just One throne. It does not even make sense, because you need to believe the Modern Roman Catholic Doctrine to even say such a thing.

Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Two Thrones here Free, The Son of God, has a throne, and His Father has one. Jesus, the Son sat on His Fathers Throne. That is two, and why you go to great lengths to remove the Son of God, is the real mystery here.

You didn't ask me in this thread and I don't recall such a discussion. Not that it matters since we must be much more careful than you have been in understanding what is being said in this passage. The apocalyptic books make significant use of imagery and metaphor, so we simply cannot take a literalistic approach, as you have done. One should immediately notice that all who overcome will sit with Jesus on his throne. If we take these as literal thrones, that is one massive throne. Not to mention that the Father is spirit, so to understand this verse as talking of him sitting on a literal throne proves to be difficult.

Also, why Bring up JW's, That don't make sense either, they are very confused.

It's quite clear as to why I brought up the JWs: I was giving examples of those who deny one of the foundations and therefore have fallen into error.

 

[Sparkey]

I think Free has a solid grasp on matters of foundational issues of Trinity

Me too! I've head him over the years speak and have only gained respect for him and the way he talks about this ever single time. Now how many people can you say that about? (Answer: None! Because nobody but me makes the typo "ever" for "every" and so you can't say that, unless you really, really try, that is). There are a couple others kicking around here like that too! Not necessarily on that particular subject, but Wisdom is given to all (upon asking) but we are cautioned, "Asking in faith, nothing doubting," and told, "let not he who asks (with doubting) think he gets anything from the LORD." (sparrow paraphrase)

Do not make the useless claim that I "read the scriptures based on the assumption a Doctrine is already true."

Speak of the devil, right?

Good to see you Free. I'll post this so that I might read your side of the ongoing discussion b/w you and the other member sometimes called "Brother Mike " and sometimes called BM (by me, that is... hahaha)

Getting my popcorn first:

 

[Free]

Mike please don't refer to JWs as confused. Though they are a different branch of Christianity, and to each branch we have to descide if it's really part of Christianity, JWs are some of the people that see rejection everyday they go out to talk to people and go to people's homes. And the training to go out with enough knowledge to answer questions and discuss being Christian or becoming Christian is a rarity in other branches of Christianity. I really appreaciate their ministery. And their resolve in the face of continual rejection at the steps of a home.

Jesus is the central person of the entire Bible and who he is is absolutely central to salvation. This is why discussions on the nature of God are so important, because we cannot just make Jesus out to be who we want him to be and still believe we are saved.

But the JWs have done this very thing in claiming that Jesus is a created being. It doesn't matter how sincere they are--one can be sincere and still be wrong--or how hard they work, they teach a different Jesus than what the Bible reveals, which is why they are not Christians. And please understand that this is not something I say lightly.