Trinitry Truth

[jaybird]

Yes, the interpreters add "He" in this passage, and in some others. But, no, it does not mean that every time ego eimi is used that it is a claim to be YHWH. Context. Context. Context. In this case, context is clear. And quite often, words take on a more significant meaning when used of Jesus or Jesus uses them.

i will be happy to agree to disagree. i think He is claiming to be the Christ, Son of the Most High, like the book purpose says. i could be wrong. i am not the final authority.
you could very well be correct.
i hate for these discussions to get heated so i am backing out. i hope you have a great evening.
Praise His name!

 

[Free]

i was going by the english translation. i have no idea whats in the original text and i dont speak the old greek.

Worse than that. You are presuming that if such and such was the case, then it would have been mentioned. But you have no basis to make that claim. Of course, I would argue, as I have done in these forums before, that even the phrase "Son of God" is an implicit claim to deity.

 

[LovethroughDove]

I'm just gonna throw this out there

Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

 

[Jim Parker]

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, “ I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘ I AM has sent me to you.’”
“ I AM WHO I AM.”
“ I AM.”
similar but not the same

Moses asked for a name when the people asked what is the name of God who spoke to you.
The answer he was given was, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘ I AM has sent me to you."

 

[Runner]

Worse than that. You are presuming that if such and such was the case, then it would have been mentioned. But you have no basis to make that claim. Of course, I would argue, as I have done in these forums before, that even the phrase "Son of God" is an implicit claim to deity.

Somewhat counterintuitively, the scholarly books on the Trinity that I have read argue that "Son of Man" is Jesus' clearest claim to divinity.

I'm not going to start down the Trinity Road because it has no end, but I am highly suspect of any doctrine that relies primarily on the Gospel of John. The Jesus of John is so utterly different from the Jesus of the Synoptics that it is difficult to believe we are talking about the same individual. Of course, if someone believes all gospels are equally inspired and equally historically accurate, his mileage will vary.

As jaybird suggests, for a doctrine that many Christians regard as fundamental and "so clear," the Trinity certainly has a checkered history and has been the source of an astounding amount of confusion and controversy. If the doctrine were really "so clear," I think all of us who question it would be delighted to acknowledge this.

 

[jaybird]

Somewhat counterintuitively, the scholarly books on the Trinity that I have read argue that "Son of Man" is Jesus' clearest claim to divinity.

I'm not going to start down the Trinity Road because it has no end, but I am highly suspect of any doctrine that relies primarily on the Gospel of John. The Jesus of John is so utterly different from the Jesus of the Synoptics that it is difficult to believe we are talking about the same individual. Of course, if someone believes all gospels are equally inspired and equally historically accurate, his mileage will vary.

As jaybird suggests, for a doctrine that many Christians regard as fundamental and "so clear," the Trinity certainly has a checkered history and has been the source of an astounding amount of confusion and controversy. If the doctrine were really "so clear," I think all of us who question it would be delighted to acknowledge this.

i like the gospel of John, the only thing i thought was strange is before Jesus was always battling the pharisees, religious leaders, high priest, etc, john lumps them all together as "the Jews" which never made sense being as Jesus, the 12, and the crowds were also "the Jews".
i have no issue with anyone that believes the trinity doctrine, if they believe it helps them follow what Jesus taught, i wouldnt tell them to change a thing. i do have a little bit of an issue with those that teach you can not be a follower of Jesus if you dont accept this doctrine, i think thats taking it a bit far. also there are many that believe the trinity makes it difficult to follow what Jesus taught.

 

[Runner]

i like the gospel of John, the only thing i thought was strange is before Jesus was always battling the pharisees, religious leaders, high priest, etc, john lumps them all together as "the Jews" which never made sense being as Jesus, the 12, and the crowds were also "the Jews".
i have no issue with anyone that believes the trinity doctrine, if they believe it helps them follow what Jesus taught, i wouldnt tell them to change a thing. i do have a little bit of an issue with those that teach you can not be a follower of Jesus if you dont accept this doctrine, i think thats taking it a bit far. also there are many that believe the trinity makes it difficult to follow what Jesus taught.

I certainly have no objection to the Trinity either. I just do not believe it is clear enough for anyone to be claiming that belief in the Trinity is an essential. There are certainly verses outside of John indicating that Jesus was preexistent and that all of creation was by and through him, so it is not as though one can reasonably take the position that Jesus did not become the Son of God until his birth or baptism or anything like that. In some sense, he clearly was understood as divine by the earliest Christians, but "divine" does not necessarily equate to "the Second Person of the Trinity." If someone finds it a useful way of thinking about Jesus or the nature of God, I'm fine with that.

 

[eddif]

I think one needs to be much more careful in making triune connections between things as much of what you have given is totally arbitrary.

What do you do with Romans 1:20 ?
Is this just an interesting verse but nothing to search out and explore?
What qualifications do you need to be any man?


Redneck
eddif

 

[Free]

What do you do with Romans 1:20 ?
Is this just an interesting verse but nothing to search out and explore?
What qualifications do you need to be any man?

I don't understand what you're asking.

 

[eddif]

I don't understand what you're asking.

Well I look at Romans 1:20 as an indication that the hidden things of God are in his creation as symbols. If we lack wisdom we ask God. Since he has said ask I have. Over years and years (30 plus) I have a trickle of information. Romans 1:26
Speaks of as against nature. So I would suggest it is physical with spiritual implications,

Romans 1:20 was the basis for much of what I said about threes.

I am interested in what you see. Being rejected is tough.

eddif

 

[Free]

Well I look at Romans 1:20 as an indication that the hidden things of God are in his creation as symbols. If we lack wisdom we ask God. Since he has said ask I have. Over years and years (30 plus) I have a trickle of information. Romans 1:26
Speaks of as against nature. So I would suggest it is physical with spiritual implications,

Romans 1:20 was the basis for much of what I said about threes.

I don't think there is really much we can get from Rom. 1:20 that should lead us to try and find trinities in nature, as it doesn't seem to be addressing God's triune nature. It is speaking about the fact that God exists, that he is creator and is exceedingly powerful, and therefore worthy of our worship. What we see in nature should lead us to such conclusions.

 

[SytheF]

Ok here I am in the language I speak.
Physical manifestations.

A God of form and order Skeletal System of firm bones.

The DNA RNA are like a book to order our lives.

An immune system to cast out / attack disease. Jesus slain from foundation knew problems ahead of time.

Natural pacemaker of heart looks like crucified man. The desperately wicked and deceitful heart needs all Jesus did for us.

Kidneys filter blood. Removing waste. Cleaning waste.
II Chronicles 7:14 KJV
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

The spirit operates through possibly a brain (spirit of mind).
The cerebellum has a river of spinal fluid flowing between the trees of the cerebellum.

God made us as an image of what he is. We do not think like him. Adam and Eve did not manifest spiritual awareness.

Angels carry messages from God to man and nerves carry messages in us. Nerves pass information across synapse space.
...............
You went past the physical and into possibly the new man of Pentecost. Law written in heart and mind are a new covenant born again benefit reality and are not physical symbols (image) but spiritual reality.
The New Jerusalem has no temple (symbolism over reality over
The first Adam was a living soul (physical).

Ok. Did I mess with the pigs? LOL

With that last part about synaptic messages and the nerves, it sounds like you're saying God is all in our mind.

 

[eddif]

With that last part about synaptic messages and the nerves, it sounds like you're saying God is all in our mind.

LOL

Well on the day of Pentecost he placed the law in our hearts and minds.
Hebrews 10:16 KJV
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Jeremiah 31:33 KJV
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Angels bear messages from God to man and back. They seem to go across nothing.

Nerves in us (as we were created) show the knowledge of how angels work. It is a network.

Daniel 10:12 KJV
Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

This scripture is an angel block.
Today we talk about nerve blocks.

That help any?
eddif

 

[eddif]

I don't think there is really much we can get from Rom. 1:20 that should lead us to try and find trinities in nature, as it doesn't seem to be addressing God's triune nature. It is speaking about the fact that God exists, that he is creator and is exceedingly powerful, and therefore worthy of our worship. What we see in nature should lead us to such conclusions.

Romans 1:20 KJV
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

His eternal power is seen. I agree
His Godhead is seen too.

Do I not understand? Is not Godhead about what Trinity is about?

And Godhead.

In some Eastern Religions the head god is recognized. Where are you on Godhead?

Rual redneck
eddif

 

[Free]

Romans 1:20 KJV
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

His eternal power is seen. I agree
His Godhead is seen too.

Do I not understand? Is not Godhead about what Trinity is about?

And Godhead.

In some Eastern Religions the head god is recognized. Where are you on Godhead?

Rual redneck
eddif

It depends on version. These are the four I use most often:

Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (ESV)

Rom 1:20 For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. (HCSB)

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (NASB)

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (NIV)

Despite all that, I don’t think the Trinity is what was meant by Godhead.

 

[jaybird]

In some Eastern Religions the head god is recognized. Where are you on Godhead?

Rual redneck
eddif

what do you mean "the godhead is recognized" ?

 

[eddif]

It depends on version. These are the four I use most often:

Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (ESV)

Rom 1:20 For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. (HCSB)

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (NASB)

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (NIV)

Despite all that, I don’t think the Trinity is what was meant by Godhead.

Do your translations read roughly:
Let us make man in our image.

Is the (our) trinity but not Godhead?

eddif

 

[eddif]

what do you mean "the godhead is recognized" ?

Eastern meaning eastern mysticism, not Christians.

No, mystics do not recognize Father - Son - Holy Spirit.

I am trying to get Free to just define Godhead or Us.

I am glad you are still posting.

eddif

 

[Free]

Do your translations read roughly:
Let us make man in our image.

Is the (our) trinity but not Godhead?

eddif

What does that have to do with Rom. 1:20?

 

[jaybird]

Eastern meaning eastern mysticism, not Christians.

No, mystics do not recognize Father - Son - Holy Spirit.

I am trying to get Free to just define Godhead or Us.

I am glad you are still posting.

eddif

i understand the eastern part.
what do you mean by the eastern religions "recognize" the godhead?
thank you E most are not glad to see my post haha