The Baptism of Jesus - Trinity or Tritheism?

[BradtheImpaler]

The problem I see with this post's argument is man's linear thinking. It is argued that Father/Son/Holy Spirit Godhead must be three separate gods acting in agreement with each other or must be one single God with three different roles. This is limiting God to our own simple, human understanding. Why must it be one or the other

He must only be one or the other if all 3 "persons" are God. Two other possibilities are that not all 3 are God, or that they are 3 Gods. Do fundamental Christians reject the last 2 possibilities, because they rely on their "simple human understanding"?

Can't God possibly be One God that has chosen to reveal Himself as Three Persons? Is God so limited that He can't possibly do this? Why must we put limitations on God that He does not put on Himself?

You argue against the truth being limited to "one or the other", but your "why can't" example betrays your thinking - one God CHOOSING to reveal Himself as 3 persons does fit into "one or the other" possibilities. Funny enough, it is more in tune with Modalism.

The more I discuss these matters with Trinitarians, the more it is evident that MANY Trin's concept of the Trinity is actually more like "oneness/modalism", but that is another topic and the whole modalism question was a diversion from this thread to begin with.

Those that accept the doctrine of the Trinity will never be able to open the eyes of them that don't. Those that deny this doctrine will never be able to convince those that do that it is wrong. Both side argue that the other is somehow blinded or lied to by Satan in either accepting or denying the doctrine and for that Satan wins because he has been able to put discord in the unity that all true believers have in Christ

But those who DON'T believe in the Trinity (as specified in the Athanasian Creed) are not considered "true believers in Christ" by the fundamental Trinitarian majority. Therefore accepting or denying the doctrine is not a case of "discord in the unity" of the Body of Christ, but an even more serious issue.

Those that accept and defend the doctrine of the Trinity do so by a harmony of all the Scriptures, those that deny it do so by claiming that there is no one scripture that plainly teaches this

What those who accept the doctrine, through an attempt to "harmonize all the scripture" don't realize, is that many of the scriptures they use as proof texts were tampered with by scribes who had a bias in promoting the doctrine to begin with. The scriptures they attempt to harmonize do not always reflect the original, of which we have no true copies.

Here's food for thought...

Perhaps if the scripture we have today was true to the original, we wouldn't HAVE to try and "harmonize" it, because it wouldn't seem contradictory in this (and other) issues. Make sense?

I personally believe that it is plain as day that the Scriptures teach that God is One and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all this One God I don't care what anyone else really wants to call it, as long as they agree that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that He is truly Jehovah God, I can share a unity of Faith with them

Well, right there you'd have to eliminate the Jews, because they can never accept a "God in the flesh" per their scripture. This is actually what the (gentile) formulators of Christianity did, who were in general anti-semetic. Read up on many of the "Church Fathers" and influential church figures of the first few centuries and you will find an abundance of quotes to this effect. As they despised the Jew, the culture of the Jews, and it's not surprising they would also want to get away from the strict monotheism of Judaism.

At this point I pretty much believe that what we know as Christianity is more a NEW RELIGION ALTOGETHER than "completed Judaism".

I may disagree with their view of the Trinity, but that doesn't mean they are going to Hell for that belief. Just as, I hope, they don't believe I'm going there for believing in it

That's very open - minded of you (no sarcasm intended) but, again, it's not "orthodox". In fact, the Trinitarian world may consider YOU heretical for not believing that those who don't subscribe to the Trinity (proper) are damned.

I am resigning from this particular thread since it's not really going anywhere fast. People are starting to throw names out, however subtly they may or may not be doing it, and that's just not healthy for christian fellowship

The thread is not going anywhere because no one answered, or even addressed, the original question. But then, if the answer is incriminating to the Trinitarian doctrine (as being a disguised version of polytheism) this silence is understandible.

 

[Ormly]

A scenario which Trinitarians constantly refer to in offering evidence of the Trinity is the baptism of Jesus (Mt.3:13-17) where the Father spoke from heaven, the Son stood in the water, and the Holy Spirit descended. Now the distinction between these persons is obvious, which is the point Trinitarians make, but there is something equally obvious here which Trinitarians stop short of in their evaluation, and that is that these 3 persons are not only distinct, but absolutely SEPERATE in this picture. A necessary Trinitarian mantra has always been that the persons are distinct but NOT "seperate", because "seperateness" would logically cross into Tritheistic territory. I believe that the difference between "distinct" and "seperate" in the Trinitarian vocabulary is only semantic, and it is proven by this scenario.

Simply stated - how much MORE "seperate" do 3 entities have to be to be 3 GODS, than that one speak from heaven ABOUT another, and the 3rd descending upon the 2nd, apparently SENT by the first? The seperation among persons here, each of which the Trinitarian believes to be deity, is just as great as the seperation between John the Baptist and the other persons which were witnesses to this event.

The same logic which the Trinitarian (rightfully) employs to point out that the F/S/Sp. are not the same "person", would tell us, if we are honest and consistent in our evaluation, that they are also NOT THE SAME ENTITY OR BEING. If we are to believe that these 3 are the same one God, then the concept of "one God" is MEANINGLESS in distinction to the concept of "MORE than one God", because there is no difference in the seperation between the "persons" depicted at the baptism of Jesus, and the seperation between 3 GODS which happen to have a relationship and a unity of purpose.

First off, you need to make the distinction between Jesus, son of man, born of Mary, God's only begotten, and Christ, Son of God who always was and who became Jesus Christ Son of God-God, IN THE FLESH, which you don't. Now, where do you want to go?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

First off, you need to make the distinction between Jesus, son of man, born of Mary, God's only begotten, and Christ, Son of God who always was and who became Jesus Christ Son of God-God, IN THE FLESH, which you don't. Now, where do you want to go?

Hmmm...apparently there's more than one Jesus to choose from? Now we're up to 4 persons and counting?

 

[Ormly]

First off, you need to make the distinction between Jesus, son of man, born of Mary, God's only begotten, and Christ, Son of God who always was and who became Jesus Christ Son of God-God, IN THE FLESH, which you don't. Now, where do you want to go?

Hmmm...apparently there's more than one Jesus to choose from? Now we're up to 4 persons and counting?

Not hardly. You just need study it out to find there is no conflict.

Question: When was Jesus, the man, before He was born? Did He e xist except in the Mind and purpose of God before He was born?? He was born, right?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

First off, you need to make the distinction between Jesus, son of man, born of Mary, God's only begotten, and Christ, Son of God who always was and who became Jesus Christ Son of God-God, IN THE FLESH, which you don't. Now, where do you want to go?

Hmmm...apparently there's more than one Jesus to choose from? Now we're up to 4 persons and counting?

Not hardly. You just need study it out to find there is no conflict.

Question: When was Jesus, the man, before He was born? Did He e xist except in the Mind and purpose of God before He was born?? He was born, right?

Existed in the mind and purpose of God - exactly.

He was born - right. (God isn't "born", unless we subscribe to the myriad pagan mythologies that had god's being born right and left)

 

[DivineNames]

Hmmm...apparently there's more than one Jesus to choose from? Now we're up to 4 persons and counting?

:D


Still Trinity bashing I see...

If "person" is used in anything like the ordinary sense, you are obviously right that the Trinity is polytheism.

 

[Ormly]

First off, you need to make the distinction between Jesus, son of man, born of Mary, God's only begotten, and Christ, Son of God who always was and who became Jesus Christ Son of God-God, IN THE FLESH, which you don't. Now, where do you want to go?

Hmmm...apparently there's more than one Jesus to choose from? Now we're up to 4 persons and counting?

Not hardly. You just need study it out to find there is no conflict.

Question: When was Jesus, the man, before He was born? Did He e xist except in the Mind and purpose of God before He was born?? He was born, right?

Existed in the mind and purpose of God - exactly.

He was born - right. (God isn't "born", unless we subscribe to the myriad pagan mythologies that had god's being born right and left)

Jesus was but was Christ? Again, you need to make some distinctions. You'll find that Christ, who always was, now has a new body to dwell in, one made of flesh and bone and this because of the obedience of the divinely conceived man, Jesus. When He cried on the cross: "It is finished", that is part of what He was referring to.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Jesus was but was Christ? Again, you need to make some distinctions. You'll find that Christ, who always was, now has a new body to dwell in, one made of flesh and bone and this because of the obedience of the divinely conceived man, Jesus. When He cried on the cross: "It is finished", that is part of what He was referring to.

Christ, "who always was", and the divinely conceived man, Jesus. One Christ and one Jesus. This is interesting but I think it would have to come under the heading of -

"I guess I'll start my own religion" :roll:

In any case, once again the thread's question is not being addressed.

 

[Ormly]

Jesus was but was Christ? Again, you need to make some distinctions. You'll find that Christ, who always was, now has a new body to dwell in, one made of flesh and bone and this because of the obedience of the divinely conceived man, Jesus. When He cried on the cross: "It is finished", that is part of what He was referring to.

Christ, "who always was", and the divinely conceived man, Jesus. One Christ and one Jesus. This is interesting but I think it would have to come under the heading of -

"I guess I'll start my own religion" :roll:

In any case, once again the thread's question is not being addressed.

Seems like you've already started your own which stems from being willfully ignorant. Most cult thinking starts out that way.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Jesus was but was Christ? Again, you need to make some distinctions. You'll find that Christ, who always was, now has a new body to dwell in, one made of flesh and bone and this because of the obedience of the divinely conceived man, Jesus. When He cried on the cross: "It is finished", that is part of what He was referring to.

Christ, "who always was", and the divinely conceived man, Jesus. One Christ and one Jesus. This is interesting but I think it would have to come under the heading of -

"I guess I'll start my own religion" :roll:

In any case, once again the thread's question is not being addressed.

Seems like you've already started your own which stems from being willfully ignorant. Most cult thinking starts out that way.

How does asking a question qualify as trying to start my own cult? I would repeat that question, but am tired of retyping it again. Please refer to my initial post if you have an answer.

 

[Ormly]

Jesus was but was Christ? Again, you need to make some distinctions. You'll find that Christ, who always was, now has a new body to dwell in, one made of flesh and bone and this because of the obedience of the divinely conceived man, Jesus. When He cried on the cross: "It is finished", that is part of what He was referring to.

Christ, "who always was", and the divinely conceived man, Jesus. One Christ and one Jesus. This is interesting but I think it would have to come under the heading of -

"I guess I'll start my own religion" :roll:

In any case, once again the thread's question is not being addressed.

Seems like you've already started your own which stems from being willfully ignorant. Most cult thinking starts out that way.

How does asking a question qualify as trying to start my own cult? I would repeat that question, but am tired of retyping it again. Please refer to my initial post if you have an answer.

Whadda mean ask a question? You've asked no question but stated only your own preconceived conceit no matter how disguised you think you may have made it seem as a question to anyone. You fool no one and no one will have an answer for you that will satisfy the cult mindset of you. I'd rather pound sand than try any longer.

 

[DivineNames]

Some Christian philosophers will argue for a "functional" monotheism. The three persons all agree to cooperate and work together in unison, so its really equivalent to having only one God. (so they would claim...)

 

[DivineNames]

First off, you need to make the distinction between Jesus, son of man, born of Mary, God's only begotten, and Christ, Son of God who always was and who became Jesus Christ Son of God-God, IN THE FLESH, which you don't. Now, where do you want to go?

Hmmm...apparently there's more than one Jesus to choose from? Now we're up to 4 persons and counting?

I think Ormly had a legitimate point.

You didn't give any consideration in what you were saying to the distinction made between the immanent and economic Trinity.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Whadda mean ask a question? You've asked no question but stated only your own preconceived conceit no matter how disguised you think you may have made it seem as a question to anyone. You fool no one and no one will have an answer for you that will satisfy the cult mindset of you

Well I guess we can't know whether anyone will have an answer that will satisfy me since no one has HAD an answer?

I'd rather pound sand than try any longer.

No, you'd rather feign "righteous indignation" to conceal the fact that you don't have an answer :wink:

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Some Christian philosophers will argue for a "functional" monotheism. The three persons all agree to cooperate and work together in unison, so its really equivalent to having only one God. (so they would claim...)

Sort of like having one God, but not really...exactly!

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I think Ormly had a legitimate point.

You didn't give any consideration in what you were saying to the distinction made between the immanent and economic Trinity.

Are you saying there is not as much distinction (seperateness?) between the members of the Trinity in God Himself (immanent Trinity), as there APPEARS to be (economic Trinity) in the scene of the Baptism of Jesus? Why then is this example used as a prooftext by mainstream Trinitarians to illustrate that God is 3 LITERAL persons?

 

[Ormly]

Whadda mean ask a question? You've asked no question but stated only your own preconceived conceit no matter how disguised you think you may have made it seem as a question to anyone. You fool no one and no one will have an answer for you that will satisfy the cult mindset of you

Well I guess we can't know whether anyone will have an answer that will satisfy me since no one has HAD an answer?

Wrong perspective --- You can't receive one. Most have rightly concluded you won't receive one. --- which is more correct.

I'd rather pound sand than try any longer.

No, you'd rather feign "righteous indignation" to conceal the fact that you don't have an answer :wink:

Naah! The answer is easy except for a fool; irrational thinking is his way of life. Now I feel sure you don't want to be looked upon as being irrational, correct? So why not start trying to be rational?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Whadda mean ask a question? You've asked no question but stated only your own preconceived conceit no matter how disguised you think you may have made it seem as a question to anyone. You fool no one and no one will have an answer for you that will satisfy the cult mindset of you

Well I guess we can't know whether anyone will have an answer that will satisfy me since no one has HAD an answer?

Wrong perspective --- You can't receive one

You got nuthin' - be honest like a Christian is supposed to be and admit it.

[quote:c9c1c]Most have rightly concluded you won't receive one. --- which is more correct

What I won't "receive" is a scantily camoflauged attempt to avoid the question - like what you're doing now.

I'd rather pound sand than try any longer.

No, you'd rather feign "righteous indignation" to conceal the fact that you don't have an answer :wink:

Naah! The answer is easy except for a fool; irrational thinking is his way of life. Now I feel sure you don't want to be looked upon as being irrational, correct? So why not start trying to be rational?

[/quote:c9c1c]

You're defending the Trinity and appealing to RATIONALITY? Good :D Let's be rational...

How much greater "seperation of being" would be required to postulate 3 GODS than the amount of seperation of being illustrated between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the baptism of Jesus scenario? 8-)

 

[Ormly]

Whadda mean ask a question? You've asked no question but stated only your own preconceived conceit no matter how disguised you think you may have made it seem as a question to anyone. You fool no one and no one will have an answer for you that will satisfy the cult mindset of you

Well I guess we can't know whether anyone will have an answer that will satisfy me since no one has HAD an answer?

Wrong perspective --- You can't receive one

You got nuthin' - be honest like a Christian is supposed to be and admit it.

[quote:98140]Most have rightly concluded you won't receive one. --- which is more correct

What I won't "receive" is a scantily camoflauged attempt to avoid the question - like what you're doing now.

[quote:98140]I'd rather pound sand than try any longer.

No, you'd rather feign "righteous indignation" to conceal the fact that you don't have an answer :wink:

Naah! The answer is easy except for a fool; irrational thinking is his way of life. Now I feel sure you don't want to be looked upon as being irrational, correct? So why not start trying to be rational?

You're defending the Trinity and appealing to RATIONALITY? Good :D Let's be rational...

How much greater "seperation of being" would be required to postulate 3 GODS than the amount of seperation of being illustrated between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the baptism of Jesus scenario? 8-)[/quote:98140][/quote:98140]

Irrational thinking being presented as rational reasoning again. You still don't get it. Your foundation is no foundation for discussing this. I'm going back to my sand table.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Irrational thinking being presented as rational reasoning again. You still don't get it. Your foundation is no foundation for discussing this. I'm going back to my sand table.

You're right in a way, I "still don't get it" - I still don't get it because YOU HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING. All you do is presume I wouldn't receive an answer IF I were given one, accuse me of being cultic, and "tire" of dealing with me in the course of 2 or 3 posts.

Now you may as well limp off to your sandbox and continue building your castles made of sand, because you have shot yourself in the foot by appealing to rationality, divesting yourself of the only eventual recourse you may have had in this discussion, namely, that the Trinity doesn't HAVE to be logical or rational. My question was very simple, straightforward, logical, and rational.