The Trinity

[Asyncritus]

The responses arose largely to measure 'other promotions' that were not holding water. That effort does not fault them for response.

Where's the Bible in all this?

I feel pretty sure that they divorced themselves from the Bible and began cooking up their own verbiage. And as a direct result, their philosophising took them further and further into the entanglement and multiplying of words, until we have the athanasian confusion.

The Bible itself does not permit much confusion. It is the add add add syndrome that confuses and convolutes.

Anyone who spends any amount of time in the text will sooner or later have to take a look at the same things IF they have any interest in harmony.

I have spent a considerable number of years in the text - and I see no confusion: only clarity, and greater and greater self-consistency and thoroughgoing harmony between all its parts.

My look at the same things in scripture has produced a very clear perception of the Unity of God. Simply using the English text alone will do this for anyone prepared to listen with both ears.

There was a veritable plethora of 'alt' positions and philosophies competing for attentions. Vast amounts. The early church fathers were all to the last man, influenced by an abundance of dissections and philosophies.

You mean, theologians argy-bargying produced all this. Oh dear. They're still at work today. Why don't we fire the whole lot of them, and declare loudly that anyone joining a church will sign an oath that they will read nothing on religion but the BIBLE for their first 5 years?

That alone will clear out a huge amount of cobwebs, as people come to the realisation that their ministers etc don't know as much about the Bible as they themselves do?

I am also NOT discounting government interference in these matters either. Constantine was one of the first to try to 'use' christianity to make a new state sanctioned religion, to quell perpetual infighting by the various sects, and to coalesce power under a theocracy. I think most know these matters.

Politics stinks - and 'christian politics' stinks worst of all. The true believer has and should have nothing to do with the subject.

Otherwise what happens?

They soon pick uip the world's nasty habits, import them into their own churches, and hey presto, the simplicity of Christ has been perverted by well-meaning and not-so-wellmeaning individuals.

It was happening in the first century, as many of Paul's writings show clearly.

Your dissections will fall along the exact same ground. Most believers who have grappled with these matters and have other conclusions just have another 'form' of God box. And 99 out of 100 times it's worse than Trinitarian understandings, usually flirting with various heresies.

I do not dissect Scripture. You cannot dissect a living creature without considerable pain, and the Word of God is 'living and powerful'.

Instead, I pay extremely careful attention to what it says: EXACTLY what it says. I do not attempt to force it into any mold, but shut up and listen carefully to what it's trying to tell me.

If I follow this method, which is only pure common sense really, I end up by knowing fairly accurately what God wants me to know: not what other people would like me to think God wants me to know.

If the ancient theologians had done exactly this, then

a. They wouldn't have been theologians and

b. They wouldn't have got into the mess they've got the churches into no. The inherited mess is appalling, as you know full well.

One of the worst I've seen is those who promote that Jesus was tempted like you. In fact isn't that your claim? And those who promote so...[..]

Then you have to deal with the writer to the Hebrews who had this to say:

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

I accept that at face value as I listen to it. Why don't you?

I equally accept the important caveat the writer puts on to the statement: yet without sin.

Therefore, you are being extremely unfair and unjust to say that I (and others like me) do so for the sole intent of making Jesus a sinner just like you and I.

No, my whole intent is to go with scripture precisely where it leads without wavering under theological pre-conception pressures.

To be fair, I think you are wavering under theological theological pre-conception pressures. You are not prepared to accept the words at their face value - are you?

To claim these matters are not in the scriptures is patently false. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are most assuredly presented therein.

That last bit is precisely correct, and no Bible student worth his salt could or would possibly deny that they are.

Trinitarian understandings seek to harmonize the nature of God in these matters in the face of alternatives.

I utterly fail to see what 'harmonisation' is required. Scripture says with ultra-unmistakable clarity that there is ONE GOD (as in Deut 6.4, 1 Cor 8.6 and many other places).

Scripture says Jesus is His Son, CONCEIVED of Mary, and now elevated to the second highest position in the universe, second only to God Himself (who did the exalting).

Scripture says the Holy Spirit is the power of God, personified on occasion for the occasion.

What 'harmonisation' do you deem necessary of those 3 facts? I can see none, but would like to hear about it.

There were actually quite an incredible amount of pitfalls they fell into almost immediately, which the early church fathers sought to still. The Cappodocian fathers, whom I tend to appreciate for their efforts, seemed to some to have fallen into Tri Deity. And clarifications were rightfully sought. The amount of time and study they applied was worthy of clarifications.

How could they fall into pits if the above 3 statements are correct? The Jews certainly never did any such falling - because their language is a very concrete-block-round-the-feet sort of thing.

Greek being a language of philosophers, easily permits theological obfuscating, and that is precisely what happened.

Already stated some of the obvious issues in these matters. No amount of human language by partial seers is able to entirely box these matters, and rightfully so. And the unfortunate part is they will eventually break apart on a single word or two, often even just an inflection or a partial word. It's a common anomaly in theology itself because of the nature of the subject matters.

The gospel does not lend itself to complexities. Jesus is the clearest speaker known to mankind.

Those who seek to introduce philosophising into the gospel eventually wreck it,as Hymenaeus and Alexander made shipwreck. And as your 1000 years of confusion serves to show only too well.

Simplistic notion on your part.
Your self imposed alternatives will more than likely contain even more of same. You will divide and diminish any one of the matters in some way, which will not compute.

Clarity and simplicity are the principal characteristics of the gospel and of scripture as a whole.

They have to be - because they were written and composed for the simple, the poor, the uneducated. But theologians are complex brutes: esconced in monasteries and their descendants the universities,there they sit their spinning useless verbiage and foolish theories.

Result? 2000 years and counting, of error introduction. And we see this on the board today.

Again, you will merely parade another alternative. And more than likely not well thought out and in conflict with texts as well. So I wouldn't be expecting any better attempt at harmony from whatever it is you are trying to prove.

I will do nothing of the sort. Scripture says what it says, and I reproduce it as faithfully as I possibly can. There is no other alternative to those 3 statements I made above.

I'm certainly not saying that millions of religious folk with these various formulas stuffed into their mouths and certain delivery or understanding systems/formats have much of an interest at all, as that takes a sincere interest in the topic matter.

You'll probably not find too many in the pews who even care and prefer to sit upon the findings of their sects.

That's what makes religious systems and sects.

You're right: not many of the millions care too much about these matters. A pity, but there it is.

I spent probably nothing less than a decade on this subject myself. I 'generally' accept the statement given prior. What they did and do with it I object to.

Had it been left at that it would have been fine, but obviously that did not happen.

They used that understanding among many other understandings to wage war and to torture and kill people for hundreds of years.

Yeah, and it's people like me who were tortured and killed.

 

[smaller]

That last bit is precisely correct, and no Bible student worth his salt could or would possibly deny that they are.

I utterly fail to see what 'harmonisation' is required. Scripture says with ultra-unmistakable clarity that there is ONE GOD (as in Deut 6.4, 1 Cor 8.6 and many other places).

Then you utterly failed the prior observation. These matters arose for the most part to counter various alt theories.

And as much as you may type, you yourself will have an alt theory to espouse. You can claim, well, just read the text, but the reality is that in doing so you WILL have another postulation on this matter if Trin is not your avenue.

Scripture says Jesus is His Son, CONCEIVED of Mary, and now elevated to the second highest position in the universe, second only to God Himself (who did the exalting).

And there is your alt theory, that Jesus was not God, and less than God. And that just won't cut it for those scriptures that show otherwise.

In the end analysis, your alt is only going to be another alt in a very very long list of alt's.

s

 

[Asyncritus]

The responses arose largely to measure 'other promotions' that were not holding water. That effort does not fault them for response.

Where's the Bible in all this?

I feel pretty sure that they divorced themselves from the Bible and began cooking up their own verbiage. And as a direct result, their philosophising took them further and further into the entanglement and multiplying of words, until we have the athanasian confusion.

The Bible itself does not permit much confusion. It is the add add add syndrome that confuses and convolutes.

Anyone who spends any amount of time in the text will sooner or later have to take a look at the same things IF they have any interest in harmony.

I have spent a considerable number of years in the text - and I see no confusion: only clarity, and greater and greater self-consistency and thoroughgoing harmony between all its parts.

My look at the same things in scripture has produced a very clear perception of the Unity of God. Simply using the English text alone will do this for anyone prepared to listen with both ears.

There was a veritable plethora of 'alt' positions and philosophies competing for attentions. Vast amounts. The early church fathers were all to the last man, influenced by an abundance of dissections and philosophies.

You mean, theologians argy-bargying produced all this. Oh dear. They're still at work today. Why don't we fire the whole lot of them, and declare loudly that anyone joining a church will sign an oath that they will read nothing on religion but the BIBLE for their first 5 years?

That alone will clear out a huge amount of cobwebs, as people come to the realisation that their ministers etc don't know as much about the Bible as they themselves do?

I am also NOT discounting government interference in these matters either. Constantine was one of the first to try to 'use' christianity to make a new state sanctioned religion, to quell perpetual infighting by the various sects, and to coalesce power under a theocracy. I think most know these matters.

Politics stinks - and 'christian politics' stinks worst of all. The true believer has and should have nothing to do with the subject.

Otherwise what happens?

They soon pick uip the world's nasty habits, import them into their own churches, and hey presto, the simplicity of Christ has been perverted by well-meaning and not-so-wellmeaning individuals.

It was happening in the first century, as many of Paul's writings show clearly.

Your dissections will fall along the exact same ground. Most believers who have grappled with these matters and have other conclusions just have another 'form' of God box. And 99 out of 100 times it's worse than Trinitarian understandings, usually flirting with various heresies.

I do not dissect Scripture. You cannot dissect a living creature without considerable pain, and the Word of God is 'living and powerful'.

Instead, I pay extremely careful attention to what it says: EXACTLY what it says. I do not attempt to force it into any mold, but shut up and listen carefully to what it's trying to tell me.

If I follow this method, which is only pure common sense really, I end up by knowing fairly accurately what God wants me to know: not what other people would like me to think God wants me to know.

If the ancient theologians had done exactly this, then

a. They wouldn't have been theologians and

b. They wouldn't have got into the mess they've got the churches into no. The inherited mess is appalling, as you know full well.

One of the worst I've seen is those who promote that Jesus was tempted like you. In fact isn't that your claim? And those who promote so...[..]

Then you have to deal with the writer to the Hebrews who had this to say:

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

I accept that at face value as I listen to it. Why don't you?

I equally accept the important caveat the writer puts on to the statement: yet without sin.

Therefore, you are being extremely unfair and unjust to say that I (and others like me) do so for the sole intent of making Jesus a sinner just like you and I.

No, my whole intent is to go with scripture precisely where it leads without wavering under theological pre-conception pressures.

To be fair, I think you are wavering under theological theological pre-conception pressures. You are not prepared to accept the words at their face value - are you?

To claim these matters are not in the scriptures is patently false. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are most assuredly presented therein.

That last bit is precisely correct, and no Bible student worth his salt could or would possibly deny that they are.

Trinitarian understandings seek to harmonize the nature of God in these matters in the face of alternatives.

I utterly fail to see what 'harmonisation' is required. Scripture says with ultra-unmistakable clarity that there is ONE GOD (as in Deut 6.4, 1 Cor 8.6 and many other places).

Scripture says Jesus is His Son, CONCEIVED of Mary, and now elevated to the second highest position in the universe, second only to God Himself (who did the exalting).

Scripture says the Holy Spirit is the power of God, personified on occasion for the occasion.

What 'harmonisation' do you deem necessary of those 3 facts? I can see none, but would like to hear about it.

There were actually quite an incredible amount of pitfalls they fell into almost immediately, which the early church fathers sought to still. The Cappodocian fathers, whom I tend to appreciate for their efforts, seemed to some to have fallen into Tri Deity. And clarifications were rightfully sought. The amount of time and study they applied was worthy of clarifications.

How could they fall into pits if the above 3 statements are correct? The Jews certainly never did any such falling - because their language is a very concrete-block-round-the-feet sort of thing.

Greek being a language of philosophers, easily permits theological obfuscating, and that is precisely what happened.

Already stated some of the obvious issues in these matters. No amount of human language by partial seers is able to entirely box these matters, and rightfully so. And the unfortunate part is they will eventually break apart on a single word or two, often even just an inflection or a partial word. It's a common anomaly in theology itself because of the nature of the subject matters.

The gospel does not lend itself to complexities. Jesus is the clearest speaker known to mankind.

Those who seek to introduce philosophising into the gospel eventually wreck it,as Hymenaeus and Alexander made shipwreck. And as your 1000 years of confusion serves to show only too well.

Simplistic notion on your part.
Your self imposed alternatives will more than likely contain even more of same. You will divide and diminish any one of the matters in some way, which will not compute.

Clarity and simplicity are the principal characteristics of the gospel and of scripture as a whole.

They have to be - because they were written and composed for the simple, the poor, the uneducated. But theologians are complex brutes: esconced in monasteries and their descendants the universities,there they sit their spinning useless verbiage and foolish theories.

Result? 2000 years and counting, of error introduction. And we see this on the board today.

Again, you will merely parade another alternative. And more than likely not well thought out and in conflict with texts as well. So I wouldn't be expecting any better attempt at harmony from whatever it is you are trying to prove.

I will do nothing of the sort. Scripture says what it says, and I reproduce it as faithfully as I possibly can. There is no other alternative to those 3 statements I made above.

I'm certainly not saying that millions of religious folk with these various formulas stuffed into their mouths and certain delivery or understanding systems/formats have much of an interest at all, as that takes a sincere interest in the topic matter.

You'll probably not find too many in the pews who even care and prefer to sit upon the findings of their sects.

That's what makes religious systems and sects.

You're right: not many of the millions care too much about these matters. A pity, but there it is.

I spent probably nothing less than a decade on this subject myself. I 'generally' accept the statement given prior. What they did and do with it I object to.

Had it been left at that it would have been fine, but obviously that did not happen.

They used that understanding among many other understandings to wage war and to torture and kill people for hundreds of years.

Yeah, and it's people like me who were tortured and killed.

 

[smaller]

Where's the Bible in all this?

We've already covered the simplest fact of Father/Son/HS presented in the text. It is no fault to harmonize those matters in the face of many alternatives.

I feel pretty sure that they divorced themselves from the Bible and began cooking up their own verbiage. And as a direct result, their philosophising took them further and further into the entanglement and multiplying of words, until we have the athanasian confusion.

And as also stated, it is always problematic to try and define God, and most likely that end game will result in disputes, as is obviously the case.

The Bible itself does not permit much confusion. It is the add add add syndrome that confuses and convolutes.

And as also observed prior, everyone who picks up the matters is going to settle upon certain views. It is inevitable.

I have spent a considerable number of years in the text - and I see no confusion: only clarity, and greater and greater self-consistency and thoroughgoing harmony between all its parts.

And again, your clarity may not be the clarity of others. I would not for example take a lesser and divided position between any of the matters. You have. I certainly don't fault you for trying. In the end we all have to live with our own reflections. Some will provide good reflections to take.

My own preference is to bow to eternal contemplations as that is an avenue of peace for me inside.

My look at the same things in scripture has produced a very clear perception of the Unity of God. Simply using the English text alone will do this for anyone prepared to listen with both ears.

As stated prior, I see no need for diminishing or dividing any of the working facts, one from another. It's just not necessary.

You mean, theologians argy-bargying produced all this. Oh dear. They're still at work today. Why don't we fire the whole lot of them, and declare loudly that anyone joining a church will sign an oath that they will read nothing on religion but the BIBLE for their first 5 years?

They were all partial seers just as you and I are. As again stated prior, I can appreciate their efforts in the directions they went, but perhaps not to how they abused those views.

That alone will clear out a huge amount of cobwebs, as people come to the realisation that their ministers etc don't know as much about the Bible as they themselves do?

I pointed out to free in one of these threads that trinitarian understandings can certainly be taught as a matter of pragmatic discourse and such can be easily held by any common unbeliever. So the understandings themselves as a strictly taught matter are matters of teaching, not matters of salvation status.

I think we can both see that Trinitarian foundations are quite filled with torture and killing. So the factual teachings didn't seem to mean much to them, seeing how easily they were led into killing and torture to uphold those matters.

To me such utterly utterly FAILED regardless of their 'correct' knowledge.

Politics stinks - and 'christian politics' stinks worst of all. The true believer has and should have nothing to do with the subject.

I am not fond of political/religious cohesion of any sort as they will inevitably end up bad for anyone in disagreement. If they had every jot and tittle right and ended up killing people and burning them alive, which many of them did and practiced, what in the world good was any of it? ZERO! No, even LESS than ZERO.

Otherwise what happens?

They soon pick uip the world's nasty habits, import them into their own churches, and hey presto, the simplicity of Christ has been perverted by well-meaning and not-so-wellmeaning individuals.

I understand your expression of frustration over the general endgame of supposed correct jots and tittles. One would be better off apart from all of that if that is where the command of their teachings end up. There are more beneficial things to focus on. Doing the throwdown on somebodies eternal state of existence over this matter is of zero interest to me as that avenue will eventually lead to killing them without any remorse, for the better public good.

Religion itself can be very brutal this way. It seems to bring out the very worst in many. And that is a reflection of the factual human condition. Not much different than the Muslims who end up killing people, thinking the other guy is Satan and not even seeing themselves as the factual killers. Quite a sad state of view isn't it?

It was happening in the first century, as many of Paul's writings show clearly.

If a person tracks it out it is actually very interesting. Monarachism/Sabellianism/Monism/Patripassianism/Adoptionism/Modalism were kind of the first ventures out on these matters.

And that seems to be kind of where you are at.

I do not dissect Scripture. You cannot dissect a living creature without considerable pain, and the Word of God is 'living and powerful'.

Ah, people try to kill the Word every day. Mostly from believers.

Instead, I pay extremely careful attention to what it says: EXACTLY what it says. I do not attempt to force it into any mold, but shut up and listen carefully to what it's trying to tell me.

If I follow this method, which is only pure common sense really, I end up by knowing fairly accurately what God wants me to know: not what other people would like me to think God wants me to know.

If the ancient theologians had done exactly this, then

I don't think so async. You too have a view. It is inevitable that we all have to stand up and take reflections. We might all do ourselves a favor and simply see that there are no PERFECT reflectors. The churches of orthodoxy never could bow to this simple fact. And as such they in fact became destroyers.

a. They wouldn't have been theologians and

b. They wouldn't have got into the mess they've got the churches into no. The inherited mess is appalling, as you know full well.

Again, I think any of us would be well served to reflect on the fact that we do have a potential killer in our own hearts. To this matter I know and avoid. I can not avoid for any other person. It's something we all should consider for ourselves, but that working can easily overtake any of us, as it so obviously did to other sects regardless of their 'correct' jots and tittles claim.

Then you have to deal with the writer to the Hebrews who had this to say:

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

I accept that at face value as I listen to it. Why don't you?

I see no benefit in trying to make Jesus out to be a 'sinner' like you and I. That is just not a requirement for me nor would it make me feel any better about myself.

We do know that Jesus suffered death, and he also feared God. IN this way God Himself partook of our suffering. And yes, I know, some will even go so far as to say He took sin upon Himself in our behalves, therefore He was in this way a 'sinner.' But I might see the fact that it was so in HIS DEAD FLESH BODY...and same was VIVIFIED in ETERNAL LIFE regardless. The lesson? God can swallow every sin whole and still come out in LIFE in the end.

So in that I do find hope regardless of our present circumstances.

I equally accept the important caveat the writer puts on to the statement: yet without sin.

Therefore, you are being extremely unfair and unjust to say that I (and others like me) do so for the sole intent of making Jesus a sinner just like you and I.

No, my whole intent is to go with scripture precisely where it leads without wavering under theological pre-conception pressures.

Let's say God was tempted to His Face, and not as an 'internal matter.' Was it 'effective?' Uh, no. Water off a ducks back because God Himself made that little sock puppet to do what it does, Satan and his that is. If you put a sock on your hand and pulled a little string that recorded temptation and fed it back to you, would you be tempted?

prolly not.

I do however consider the suffering and temptation of Jesus exceptionally real to a very certain extent, just not to the extent to make Him a sinner like you and I.

To be fair, I think you are wavering under theological theological pre-conception pressures. You are not prepared to accept the words at their face value - are you?

Don't really know what you're trying to prove quite frankly.

Result? 2000 years and counting, of error introduction. And we see this on the board today.

But what do we really expect to see or hear from any given sect of partialist seers who have indwelling sin? In some cases not much at all. At some point any who press just have to stand up and take an accurate measure of themselves. That will usually at least stop a believer from trying to eternally kill another believer, and to try to see the best rather than to go way out of their way to seek ways to snuff them out.

I will do nothing of the sort. Scripture says what it says, and I reproduce it as faithfully as I possibly can. There is no other alternative to those 3 statements I made above.

And as stated prior, the end result will be just another alt reflection from an imperfect reflector. I have to take the best of the reflections I see. I see that in the classic Triune view, and pretty much ignore the intentions to damn based on a jot or tittle here or there.

You're right: not many of the millions care too much about these matters. A pity, but there it is.
Yeah, and it's people like me who were tortured and killed.

I also understand that some believers will take an anti-orthodox view solely on the basis of what the orthodox do and practice. That does not mean everything they saw is wrong anymore than everything you see is right.

At some point we just reflect. I will remain ever alert for THE PERFECT REFLECTION which I acknowledge I do not presently have. When we do, we'll all know it beyond any disputing.

enjoy!

s

 

[Drew]

Politics stinks - and 'christian politics' stinks worst of all. The true believer has and should have nothing to do with the subject.

You are free to act as you see fit. But I suggest the Biblical evidence is compelling: inasmuch as Jesus has already been installed as a sovereign ruler over this present world, and that we are subjects of His kingship, we are called to advocate for the transformation of all institutions of this present world to fall in line with Jesus' Kingdom of God principles.

The Scriptures declare that the Kingdom of God has arrived in this world through the ministry of Jesus. It would be patently absurd to expect that (1) The Kingdom of God has nothing to say about how the world is actually governed; (2) We are to sit on our hands and allow other value systems to be the ones that determine how the world is run.

The Chrisitian is indeed called on to be "politically" engaged in the sense of seeking to implement the kingdom of God in all institutions of this present world.

 

[Yah1]

You are free to act as you see fit. But I suggest the Biblical evidence is compelling: inasmuch as Jesus has already been installed as a sovereign ruler over this present world, and that we are subjects of His kingship, we are called to advocate for the transformation of all institutions of this present world to fall in line with Jesus' Kingdom of God principles.

The Scriptures declare that the Kingdom of God has arrived in this world through the ministry of Jesus. It would be patently absurd to expect that (1) The Kingdom of God has nothing to say about how the world is actually governed; (2) We are to sit on our hands and allow other value systems to be the ones that determine how the world is run.

The Chrisitian is indeed called on to be "politically" engaged in the sense of seeking to implement the kingdom of God in all institutions of this present world.

Very good Drew, when you say the Kingdom of God has arrived make sure to let them know the Kingdom of God is also the Father's House WITHIN you. Notice he says 'within' that means 'inside' of you. Luke 17:21 - To understand this scripture they have to repent and admit they are sinners first.

 

[Free]

Very good Drew, when you say the Kingdom of God has arrived make sure to let them know the Kingdom of God is also the Father's House WITHIN you. Notice he says 'within' that means 'inside' of you. Luke 17:21 - To understand this scripture they have to repent and admit they are sinners first.

How about instead of calling those who disagree with you sinners, implying they aren't Christians, you respond to my previous points to you. The best way to do this would be to email whomever you want at Bethel Chapel and ask them two questions:

1. Do you believe in the Trinity?
2. Is Jesus the Father and the Son?

Be sure to post their reply here.

 

[Asyncritus]

You are free to act as you see fit. But I suggest the Biblical evidence is compelling: inasmuch as Jesus has already been installed as a sovereign ruler over this present world, and that we are subjects of His kingship, we are called to advocate for the transformation of all institutions of this present world to fall in line with Jesus' Kingdom of God principles.

Not so.

Ps 110.1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Small word that. But full of significance. In this case it means that He is at the right hand of God, but is not yet Sovereign Ruler. HE will be, but is not. AS YET.

And AS LONG AS He sits at the right hand of God, the enemies are not His footstool: and therefore the Kingdom has not come.

The Scriptures declare that the Kingdom of God has arrived in this world through the ministry of Jesus. It would be patently absurd to expect that (1) The Kingdom of God has nothing to say about how the world is actually governed; (2) We are to sit on our hands and allow other value systems to be the ones that determine how the world is run.

Question: When will Abraham Isaac and Jacob (and others) receive their promised inheritance?

Answer:

Lk 13. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

Question: Are they there yet?

Answer: No. But what have they not received?

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Q. So when will they receive it?

A. In the Kingdom of God, when they have been resurrected to eternal life, and so can receive their promised inheritance FOR EVER.

The Chrisitian is indeed called on to be "politically" engaged in the sense of seeking to implement the kingdom of God in all institutions of this present world.

The Christian is called upon to 'do good unto all men'. To honour the king (= the rulers of the day). Here's the full text of the longest comment on Christian political involvement in the scriptures anywhere.

Please notice that there is no mention of INSTALLING the ruler, merely of obeying them:

1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 ¶ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

There we have it. We are to be subject to the powers, not create them. In the kingdom of God we will. but the time is not yet. How do we know?

Rev 5.10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

That's clear enough, isn't it?

 

[Yah1]

My Interpretation of The Holy Trinity
1. Father and God are the same being. The Father and God ARE the same word. People just have them backwards. The Father and God are SPIRIT!! The substance of God is SPIRIT! His real name is 'God the Father' simple as that. God the Father is a spirit. The spirit of God the Father is HOLY. Thus bringing up number 2..
2. The Holy Spirit - The trinity calls the the Holy Spirit Holy because the spirit of God is Holy. The Holy Spirit is a gift OF God AND FROM God - But there is a difference when they say OF and FROM.
3. Jesus - Jesus was all of the above. He is what makes the trinity complete. Why, because God the Father of Spirit took on human flesh. Now listen carefully here, this is where Faith enters. God the Father The SPIRIT as we mentioned earlier MANIFESTED himself into a human being. This here is precisely where people lack FAITH. If it all COMES from God, it all goes BACK to God. Why people can't understand how God the Father a spirit could manifest himself into human flesh..thus being the same being is lack of Faith. He was able to manifest himself into flesh because HE WAS GOD!!! I AM HE!
4. Jesus and the Holy Spirit Luke 3:22 - When the Holy Spirit baptized Jesus, where did the Holy Spirit come from. It came FROM God and the spirit was OF God. Remember what i said earlier, the substance of God is spirit. God the Father 'THE SPIRIT' in Heaven! Now what people are confused with is the definition of what being baptized MEANS. Baptized means to cleanse spiritually. The word spiritual pertains to the soul. Your soul is inside of you, is in not? Thus the Holy Spirit dwelling inside the soul. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are OF God. Thus ALL BEING ONE INSIDE THE SOUL!
5. Final Conclusion - God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are ONE BEING DWELLING INSIDE THE SOUL OF MAN - God sending his spirit that is holy into the soul of flesh, Jesus makes the trinity complete.

 

[rrowell]

My Interpretation of The Holy Trinity
1. Father and God are the same being. The Father and God ARE the same word. People just have them backwards. The Father and God are SPIRIT!! The substance of God is SPIRIT! His real name is 'God the Father' simple as that. God the Father is a spirit. The spirit of God the Father is HOLY. Thus bringing up number 2..
2. The Holy Spirit - The trinity calls the the Holy Spirit Holy because the spirit of God is Holy. The Holy Spirit is a gift OF God AND FROM God - But there is a difference when they say OF and FROM.
3. Jesus - Jesus was all of the above. He is what makes the trinity complete. Why, because God the Father of Spirit took on human flesh. Now listen carefully here, this is where Faith enters. God the Father The SPIRIT as we mentioned earlier MANIFESTED himself into a human being. This here is precisely where people lack FAITH. If it all COMES from God, it all goes BACK to God. Why people can't understand how God the Father a spirit could manifest himself into human flesh..thus being the same being is lack of Faith. He was able to manifest himself into flesh because HE WAS GOD!!! I AM HE!
4. Jesus and the Holy Spirit Luke 3:22 - When the Holy Spirit baptized Jesus, where did the Holy Spirit come from. It came FROM God and the spirit was OF God. Remember what i said earlier, the substance of God is spirit. God the Father 'THE SPIRIT' in Heaven! Now what people are confused with is the definition of what being baptized MEANS. Baptized means to cleanse spiritually. The word spiritual pertains to the soul. Your soul is inside of you, is in not? Thus the Holy Spirit dwelling inside the soul. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are OF God. Thus ALL BEING ONE INSIDE THE SOUL!
5. Final Conclusion - God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are ONE BEING DWELLING INSIDE THE SOUL OF MAN - God sending his spirit that is holy into the soul of flesh, Jesus makes the trinity complete.

So who is the "us" and "our" in this scripture according to your oneness false doctrine?

Genesis 1:26 (KJV)
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

[Free]

My Interpretation of The Holy Trinity
1. Father and God are the same being. The Father and God ARE the same word. People just have them backwards. The Father and God are SPIRIT!! The substance of God is SPIRIT! His real name is 'God the Father' simple as that. God the Father is a spirit. The spirit of God the Father is HOLY. Thus bringing up number 2..
2. The Holy Spirit - The trinity calls the the Holy Spirit Holy because the spirit of God is Holy. The Holy Spirit is a gift OF God AND FROM God - But there is a difference when they say OF and FROM.
3. Jesus - Jesus was all of the above. He is what makes the trinity complete. Why, because God the Father of Spirit took on human flesh. Now listen carefully here, this is where Faith enters. God the Father The SPIRIT as we mentioned earlier MANIFESTED himself into a human being. This here is precisely where people lack FAITH. If it all COMES from God, it all goes BACK to God. Why people can't understand how God the Father a spirit could manifest himself into human flesh..thus being the same being is lack of Faith. He was able to manifest himself into flesh because HE WAS GOD!!! I AM HE!
4. Jesus and the Holy Spirit Luke 3:22 - When the Holy Spirit baptized Jesus, where did the Holy Spirit come from. It came FROM God and the spirit was OF God. Remember what i said earlier, the substance of God is spirit. God the Father 'THE SPIRIT' in Heaven! Now what people are confused with is the definition of what being baptized MEANS. Baptized means to cleanse spiritually. The word spiritual pertains to the soul. Your soul is inside of you, is in not? Thus the Holy Spirit dwelling inside the soul. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are OF God. Thus ALL BEING ONE INSIDE THE SOUL!
5. Final Conclusion - God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are ONE BEING DWELLING INSIDE THE SOUL OF MAN - God sending his spirit that is holy into the soul of flesh, Jesus makes the trinity complete.

A basic definition of the Trinity as found in James R. White's The Forgotten Trinity:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (White, p 26)

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)

 

[Yah1]

So who is the "us" and "our" in this scripture according to your oneness false doctrine?

Genesis 1:26 (KJV)
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

It's not false, the Oneness is Truth. Faith is what separates. What you have to understand is that God the Father, the substance of Spirit ALWAYS existed. He existed even before creation. He is infinite in all things, mysterious, perfect and KNOWS EVERYTHING. The human mind cannot grasp the infinite characteristics of God the Father. So with that said, He MANIFESTED himself into Flesh. Spirit to Flesh, Spirit to Flesh. We're not looking at the spiritual side of the trinity and the definition of what baptism, spiritual and faith means. Faith is what makes one believe.

Us/Our Image/Our Likeness
Us - God the Father and His Holy Spirit
Our Image - Holiness
Our Likeness - The Fruits and Gifts of the Spirit of God

Us - God is speaking of Himself in such a manner as to indicate that all of His majestic power and wisdom were involved in the creation of man. Us meaning God the Father and the substance of His Spirit in which his Spirit is Holy. God the Father and His Holy Spirit.

Our Image/The Definition of Image - A physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible. God the Father, the substance of spirit is now no longer JUST the substance of spirit. He manifested himself into flesh. He made himself visible. Well, what does God the Father and Jesus have in common, the Holy Spirit. They both came from God and of God. HOLINESS!

Our Likeness/The Definition of Likeness - The semblance or appearance of something. Semblance and Appearance means Outward. Something refers to Jesus, the outward appearance of Jesus. Since God is Jesus his outward appearance are the characteristics of the Holy Spirit, meaning the fruits and the gifts. The Fruits of the Spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-Control / The Gifts: Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, Fear of the Lord and Wisdom

When the Holy Spirit dwells inside a believer, the believer has now possessed these qualities of God because everything CAME from God. Always remember the definitions of Baptism, Spiritual and Faith.

What do these words have in common? 1. God the Father 2. Holy 3. Spirit 4. Jesus - They all come from the same origin, God the Father. In order to know who God the Father is you have to know who Jesus is FIRST..thus the definitions of Baptism, Spiritual and Faith.

Baptism - To clean and purify spiritually
Spiritual - Of or pertaining to the spirit or soul
Faith - Placing confidence or trust in a person or thing; Belief that is not based on proof

Is your soul on the outside of your flesh or on the inside. It's on the inside.

 

[rrowell]

Us/Our Image/Our Likeness
Us - God the Father and His Holy Spirit
Our Image - Holiness
Our Likeness - The Fruits and Gifts of the Spirit of God

Us - God is speaking of Himself in such a manner as to indicate that all of His majestic power and wisdom were involved in the creation of man. Us meaning God the Father and the substance of His Spirit in which his Spirit is Holy. God the Father and His Holy Spirit.

Our Image/The Definition of Image - A physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible. God the Father, the substance of spirit is now no longer JUST the substance of spirit. He manifested himself into flesh. He made himself visible. Well, what does God the Father and Jesus have in common, the Holy Spirit. They both came from God and of God. HOLINESS!

Our Likeness/The Definition of Likeness - The semblance or appearance of something. Semblance and Appearance means Outward. Something refers to Jesus, the outward appearance of Jesus. Since God is Jesus his outward appearance are the characteristics of the Holy Spirit, meaning the fruits and the gifts. The Fruits of the Spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-Control / The Gifts: Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, Fear of the Lord and Wisdom

I can't wait to hear your explanation as to why if there is only one in the Godhead, how could/why would Jesus be the mediator between man and himself?

1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

[Yah1]

I can't wait to hear your explanation as to why if there is only one in the Godhead, how could/why would Jesus be the mediator between man and himself?

My explanations are inside of what i wrote. Faith is what separates us. Baptism, Faith, Spiritual, Soul. You're still not looking at this spiritually. What do these words mean to you? Is your soul on the outside of your flesh or on the inside?

 

[Deborah13]

Us/Our Image/Our Likeness
Us - God the Father and His Holy Spirit
Our Image - Holiness
Our Likeness - The Fruits and Gifts of the Spirit of God

Us - God is speaking of Himself in such a manner as to indicate that all of His majestic power and wisdom were involved in the creation of man. Us meaning God the Father and the substance of His Spirit in which his Spirit is Holy. God the Father and His Holy Spirit.

Our Image/The Definition of Image - A physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible. God the Father, the substance of spirit is now no longer JUST the substance of spirit. He manifested himself into flesh. He made himself visible. Well, what does God the Father and Jesus have in common, the Holy Spirit. They both came from God and of God. HOLINESS!

Our Likeness/The Definition of Likeness - The semblance or appearance of something. Semblance and Appearance means Outward. Something refers to Jesus, the outward appearance of Jesus. Since God is Jesus his outward appearance are the characteristics of the Holy Spirit, meaning the fruits and the gifts. The Fruits of the Spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-Control / The Gifts: Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, Fear of the Lord and Wisdom

When the Holy Spirit dwells inside a believer, the believer has now possessed these qualities of God because everything CAME from God. Always remember the definitions of Baptism, Spiritual and Faith.

What do these words have in common? 1. God the Father 2. Holy 3. Spirit 4. Jesus - They all come from the same origin, God the Father. In order to know who God the Father is you have to know who Jesus is FIRST..thus the definitions of Baptism, Spiritual and Faith.

Baptism - To clean and purify spiritually
Spiritual - Of or pertaining to the spirit or soul
Faith - Placing confidence or trust in a person or thing; Belief that is not based on proof

Is your soul on the outside of your flesh or on the inside. It's on the inside.

Yah1

Scripture clearly says that we are body, spirit, and soul. Soul and spirit are two separate parts of us and we have a body of joint and marrow.

1 Thessalonians 5:23

King James Version (KJV)

23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.



I know this is not directly related to the discussion of the Trinity but if we fail to recognize even our own state of being how can we understand the mystery of a triune God.

 

[Yah1]

Soul and spirit are two separate parts of us

Yes, they are separate, but they are both on the inside of us. Are soul and spirit not both inside flesh? This has everything to do with the Trinity. Notice how the definition of spirit has the word soul in it. Also notice the definition of the word soul has separate from your body in it. Do you see how their intertwined. If your spirit of conscience, intuition, and communion isn't aligned with your soul of will, mind and emotions of God then what does that say of you?

Spirit Definition: The soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
Soul Definition: The spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body.

Functions of Soul and Spirit

A careful study of the Bible will show that man has a spirit (Job 32:8), that his spirit has a definite function (Rom. 1:9), and that the function of the spirit is different from the function of the soul (Luke 1:46-47). Since all of God’s communications with men occur in the spirit, it is crucial that a believer know his spirit. If he does not know his own spirit, he does not know how to have fellowship with God in the spirit. Not only that, he mistakenly takes the thoughts or emotions of the soul for the activity of the spirit. Confining himself to the realm of the soul, he seldom reaches the realm of the spirit. The Bible clearly shows first that we have a human spirit, second that our human spirit is not synonymous with our soul, and third that it is not the same as the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:16).

The Human Spirit

According to the revelation of the Bible and the experience of believers, the human spirit can be said to have three main functions. These three functions are conscience (Rom. 9:1; 8:16), intuition (Mark 2:8), and communion (John 4:24). The conscience is the part of the spirit which distinguishes right from wrong and is not influenced by knowledge stored in the mind; it is rather a spontaneous direct judgment. The intuition is the “knowing†part of the spirit. All true knowledge originates not in the mind, but in the spirit. The revelations of God and the movements of the Holy Spirit are known to the believer through his intuition. A believer must, therefore, take care to heed these two aspects of his spirit: the speaking of his conscience and the teaching of his intuition. Communion is the third function of the spirit, and is related to the worship of God. The soul is not competent to worship God. According to John 4:24, “God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.â€

The Human Soul

Not only does man possess a spirit which enables him to function in the spiritual realm; he also possesses a soul which is the organ of his self-consciousness. The soul is the seat of the human personality. The ingredients which make us human beings belong to the soul. The intellect, thought, ideals, love, emotion, understanding, decision, choice, and other like qualities are all associated with the soul. The three main functions of the soul are the will (Job 7:15), the mind (Lam. 3:20, RSV), and the emotion (2 Sam. 5:8; Deut. 6:5). The will is the instrument for making decisions and choices. The second function of the soul is the mind, the instrument for thinking. It is in this part of the soul that man reasons and has knowledge (Prov. 2:10). The third function of the soul is the emotion. This is the instrument of likes and dislikes. Through the emotions we are able to express love or hatred, joyfulness, anger, sadness, or happiness. A shortage in this area will render us insensitive. By a careful study of the Bible, we cannot help but be impressed that these three primary functions of the personality belong to the soul.

 

[Deborah13]

Yes, they are separate, but they are both on the inside of us. Are soul and spirit not both inside flesh? This has everything to do with the Trinity. Notice how the definition of spirit has the word soul in it. Also notice the definition of the word soul has separate from your body in it. Do you see how their intertwined. If your spirit of conscience, intuition, and communion isn't aligned with your soul of will, mind and emotions of God then what does that say of you?

Spirit Definition: The soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
Soul Definition: The spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body.

Functions of Soul and Spirit

A careful study of the Bible will show that man has a spirit (Job 32:8), that his spirit has a definite function (Rom. 1:9), and that the function of the spirit is different from the function of the soul (Luke 1:46-47). Since all of God’s communications with men occur in the spirit, it is crucial that a believer know his spirit. If he does not know his own spirit, he does not know how to have fellowship with God in the spirit. Not only that, he mistakenly takes the thoughts or emotions of the soul for the activity of the spirit. Confining himself to the realm of the soul, he seldom reaches the realm of the spirit. The Bible clearly shows first that we have a human spirit, second that our human spirit is not synonymous with our soul, and third that it is not the same as the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:16).

The Human Spirit

According to the revelation of the Bible and the experience of believers, the human spirit can be said to have three main functions. These three functions are conscience (Rom. 9:1; 8:16), intuition (Mark 2:8), and communion (John 4:24). The conscience is the part of the spirit which distinguishes right from wrong and is not influenced by knowledge stored in the mind; it is rather a spontaneous direct judgment. The intuition is the “knowing” part of the spirit. All true knowledge originates not in the mind, but in the spirit. The revelations of God and the movements of the Holy Spirit are known to the believer through his intuition. A believer must, therefore, take care to heed these two aspects of his spirit: the speaking of his conscience and the teaching of his intuition. Communion is the third function of the spirit, and is related to the worship of God. The soul is not competent to worship God. According to John 4:24, “God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”

The Human Soul

Not only does man possess a spirit which enables him to function in the spiritual realm; he also possesses a soul which is the organ of his self-consciousness. The soul is the seat of the human personality. The ingredients which make us human beings belong to the soul. The intellect, thought, ideals, love, emotion, understanding, decision, choice, and other like qualities are all associated with the soul. The three main functions of the soul are the will (Job 7:15), the mind (Lam. 3:20, RSV), and the emotion (2 Sam. 5:8; Deut. 6:5). The will is the instrument for making decisions and choices. The second function of the soul is the mind, the instrument for thinking. It is in this part of the soul that man reasons and has knowledge (Prov. 2:10). The third function of the soul is the emotion. This is the instrument of likes and dislikes. Through the emotions we are able to express love or hatred, joyfulness, anger, sadness, or happiness. A shortage in this area will render us insensitive. By a careful study of the Bible, we cannot help but be impressed that these three primary functions of the personality belong to the soul.

I can say after quickly reading through this that I agree. I wanted to see if you made the distinction between soul and spirit and soul and flesh, as they are translated to our disadvantage in understanding sometimes. Further it is important to understand that it is our spirit that is the new creation in Christ when we are born again. Our soul is what is still being transformed by the word of God and the Holy Spirit to come into agreement with the mind of Christ. The Holy Spirit is one with our spirit and teaches us in the spirit. The more we come into agreement with the word by the teaching of the Holy Spirit the more we will walk in the Spirit. It is our spirit that has been made the righteousness of God, in Christ. Our soul will be completely transformed only later.

 

[Free]

Yes, they are separate, but they are both on the inside of us. Are soul and spirit not both inside flesh? This has everything to do with the Trinity. Notice how the definition of spirit has the word soul in it. Also notice the definition of the word soul has separate from your body in it. Do you see how their intertwined. If your spirit of conscience, intuition, and communion isn't aligned with your soul of will, mind and emotions of God then what does that say of you?

Spirit Definition: The soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
Soul Definition: The spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body.

Functions of Soul and Spirit

A careful study of the Bible will show that man has a spirit (Job 32:8), that his spirit has a definite function (Rom. 1:9), and that the function of the spirit is different from the function of the soul (Luke 1:46-47). Since all of God’s communications with men occur in the spirit, it is crucial that a believer know his spirit. If he does not know his own spirit, he does not know how to have fellowship with God in the spirit. Not only that, he mistakenly takes the thoughts or emotions of the soul for the activity of the spirit. Confining himself to the realm of the soul, he seldom reaches the realm of the spirit. The Bible clearly shows first that we have a human spirit, second that our human spirit is not synonymous with our soul, and third that it is not the same as the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:16).

The Human Spirit

According to the revelation of the Bible and the experience of believers, the human spirit can be said to have three main functions. These three functions are conscience (Rom. 9:1; 8:16), intuition (Mark 2:8), and communion (John 4:24). The conscience is the part of the spirit which distinguishes right from wrong and is not influenced by knowledge stored in the mind; it is rather a spontaneous direct judgment. The intuition is the “knowing†part of the spirit. All true knowledge originates not in the mind, but in the spirit. The revelations of God and the movements of the Holy Spirit are known to the believer through his intuition. A believer must, therefore, take care to heed these two aspects of his spirit: the speaking of his conscience and the teaching of his intuition. Communion is the third function of the spirit, and is related to the worship of God. The soul is not competent to worship God. According to John 4:24, “God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.â€

The Human Soul

Not only does man possess a spirit which enables him to function in the spiritual realm; he also possesses a soul which is the organ of his self-consciousness. The soul is the seat of the human personality. The ingredients which make us human beings belong to the soul. The intellect, thought, ideals, love, emotion, understanding, decision, choice, and other like qualities are all associated with the soul. The three main functions of the soul are the will (Job 7:15), the mind (Lam. 3:20, RSV), and the emotion (2 Sam. 5:8; Deut. 6:5). The will is the instrument for making decisions and choices. The second function of the soul is the mind, the instrument for thinking. It is in this part of the soul that man reasons and has knowledge (Prov. 2:10). The third function of the soul is the emotion. This is the instrument of likes and dislikes. Through the emotions we are able to express love or hatred, joyfulness, anger, sadness, or happiness. A shortage in this area will render us insensitive. By a careful study of the Bible, we cannot help but be impressed that these three primary functions of the personality belong to the soul.

Please post your source.

 

[Free]

Yah1,

A basic definition of the Trinity as found in James R. White's The Forgotten Trinity:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (White, p 26)

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)

Do you disagree with anything in this definition?

 

[Tri Unity]

For an explanation of how God is ‘one’ and yet three Divine Persons, consider the view presented by Gregory of Nyssa, who is one of the founders of our modern Trinitarian understanding of this doctrine. In his letter: On "Not Three Gods", Gregory uses the terminology of the Godhead as being singular (one), while the Divine Persons who share the Godhead are three.

The explanation of ‘one’ God is that the Godhead describes, not the nature, but the function. This function is experienced by the three Divine Persons only, and it is unique to the three Divine Persons. It is in this way that the three can be called one. Many of the models presented here have confused ‘one’ to be describing God as one nature; when it was intended to describe one function.

“For even if it were granted that the name of Godhead is a common name of the nature, it would not be established that we should not speak of Gods: but by these arguments, on the contrary, we are compelled to speak of Gods: for we find in the custom of mankind that not only those who are partakers in the same nature, but even any who may be of the same business, are not, when they are many, spoken of in the singular; as we speak of many orators, or surveyors, or farmers, or shoemakers, and so in all other cases. If, indeed, Godhead were an appellation of nature, it would be more proper, according to the argument laid down, to include the Three Persons in the singular number, and to speak of One God, by reason of the inseparability and indivisibility of the nature: but since it has been established by what has been said, that the term Godhead is significant of operation, and not of nature, the argument from what has been advanced seems to turn to the contrary conclusion, that we ought therefore all the more to call those three Gods who are contemplated in the same operation, as they say that one would speak of three philosophers or orators,or any other name derived from a business when those who take part in the same business are more than one.â€

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm

Gregory of Nazianzen, in Oration 29 & 31, describes the same function when he replaces the term Godhead with Monarchy.

“When then we look at the Godhead, or the First Cause, or the Monarchia, that which we conceive is One; but when we look at the Persons in Whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those Who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause—there are Three Whom we worship.â€

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310229.htm

The Cappadocian fathers had intended the term ‘one’ God to describe the function of the Godhead, or Monarchy, and not the nature of God as one. They are not numerically one; they one numerically three; but the function of the Godhead is one.