Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 17:32:29 GMT
Yes, and if my suspicions hold true, most Biblical scholars and most Christians do not understand the trilogy. Sadly, most of the latter group are happy to shrug their shoulders and not fully understand it.
Milton had it nailed in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 17:40:05 GMT
Wrong, according to the Holy Bible, yes. You’ve already had your say and stated your opinion. Now kindly let others state theirs. If you want to claim that Trinity is biblical, go right ahead. Your claim cannot be validated because there is in fact no trinity in the Bible. Neither that word nor it’s descr is given in any book, chapter or verse on any translation of canonical scripture. "Rapture" isn't in the Bible either, but the philosophy runs rampant. Whereas the word "trilogy" never appears in the text, the philosophy runs rampant. The problem with pretty much everyone's understanding of this philosophy is why it is hard to see its indications in the text outside of the standard go-to verses that the pro-trinity interpretation camp lean on. If you don't know what you're looking for, you may not see it. There are three distinct parts to the trinity. The Father does have authority over the other two due to his nature. All three parts are the same person. These are not contradictory statements.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 22, 2018 19:20:06 GMT
You’ve already had your say and stated your opinion. Now kindly let others state theirs. If you want to claim that Trinity is biblical, go right ahead. Your claim cannot be validated because there is in fact no trinity in the Bible. Neither that word nor it’s descr is given in any book, chapter or verse on any translation of canonical scripture. "Rapture" isn't in the Bible either, but the philosophy runs rampant. Whereas the word "trilogy" never appears in the text, the philosophy runs rampant. The problem with pretty much everyone's understanding of this philosophy is why it is hard to see its indications in the text outside of the standard go-to verses that the pro-trinity interpretation camp lean on. If you don't know what you're looking for, you may not see it. There are three distinct parts to the trinity. The Father does have authority over the other two due to his nature. All three parts are the same person. These are not contradictory statements. It is contradictory because it’s not logical. It’s also inconsistent with how other trinitarians describe it (as one God in THREE persons). Moreover, nowhere in scripture are they described as the same God OR the same person. And it’s particularly damaging to the doctrine of trinity that there are an equal if not greater number of passages that directly contradict it. As far as I know, there is nothing biblical contradicting the idea or Rapture, though there may be very little supporting it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 19:46:25 GMT
"Rapture" isn't in the Bible either, but the philosophy runs rampant. Whereas the word "trilogy" never appears in the text, the philosophy runs rampant. The problem with pretty much everyone's understanding of this philosophy is why it is hard to see its indications in the text outside of the standard go-to verses that the pro-trinity interpretation camp lean on. If you don't know what you're looking for, you may not see it. There are three distinct parts to the trinity. The Father does have authority over the other two due to his nature. All three parts are the same person. These are not contradictory statements. It is contradictory because it’s not logical. It’s also inconsistent with how other trinitarians describe it (as one God in THREE persons). Moreover, nowhere in scripture are they described as the same God OR the same person. And it’s particularly damaging to the doctrine of trinity that there are an equal if not greater number of passages that directly contradict it. As far as I know, there is nothing biblical contradicting the idea or Rapture, though there may be very little supporting it. It's perfectly logical, and like all other "mysteries," shades of it are seen in every day life. I'm not sure how what I said is contradictory to "one God in THREE persons." I agree with the theology "one God in THREE persons," although, I believe it is better stated as "one God in three natures." I disagree with this statement: "nowhere in scripture are they described as the same God." I agree with this statement: "nowhere in scripture are they described as the same person." I have yet to read scripture that contradicts the idea of one God in three natures. All I see are dozens and dozens of examples to support it. Which verses are you referring to? There are about a dozen Rapture verses. EDIT: re-reading a previous post, I can see why you thought I was contradicting the one God in three persons theory. I had previously said "all three parts are the same person." In this case, I was defining "person" differently than in sense it is used in the "one God three persons" theory. In my statement, I was defining "person" as being a singular conscience. This is why I'm not fond of the simplistic "one God in three persons" phrasing because the word "person" is ambiguous (is a "person" a body or s spirit or both? for instance). So to more clearly state my understanding of the biblical texts: The Trinity, which exists, is one conscience in three natures, one of which takes on an authoritative role.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 20:15:41 GMT
The Bible doesn't articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but the evidence for it is all over the place in the NT. That is why Trinitarians can point to the evidence in the NT and say, "Here is where we're getting the doctrine of the Trinity from."
And, if articulated properly, the doctrine of the Trinity isn't all that earth-shattering to begin with. It's just an interesting idea. One eternal divine essence that has three eternal and concurrent centers of consciousness: God's transcendent self (the Father), God's incarnate self (the Son), and God's indwelling self (the Holy Spirit). The Father is the "invisible" source of all things. The Son is the "visible" image of the "invisible" Father. And the Holy Spirit is the spirit that resides within the Father and the Son (and also within the Church).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 20:27:33 GMT
The Bible doesn't articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but the evidence for it is all over the place in the NT. That is why Trinitarians can point to the evidence in the NT and say, "Here is where we're getting the doctrine of the Trinity from." And, if articulated properly, the doctrine of the Trinity isn't all that earth-shattering to begin with. It's just an interesting idea. One divine essence with three centers of consciousness. The transcendent self (the Father), the incarnate self (the Son), and indwelling self (the Holy Spirit). Have you considered the alternative to seeing the Holy Spirit as purely the indwelling self? Good to see you again Dennis
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 21:22:40 GMT
The Bible doesn't articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but the evidence for it is all over the place in the NT. That is why Trinitarians can point to the evidence in the NT and say, "Here is where we're getting the doctrine of the Trinity from." And, if articulated properly, the doctrine of the Trinity isn't all that earth-shattering to begin with. It's just an interesting idea. One divine essence with three centers of consciousness. The transcendent self (the Father), the incarnate self (the Son), and indwelling self (the Holy Spirit). Have you considered the alternative to seeing the Holy Spirit as purely the indwelling self? Good to see you again Dennis
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 22, 2018 22:19:35 GMT
It is contradictory because it’s not logical. It’s also inconsistent with how other trinitarians describe it (as one God in THREE persons). Moreover, nowhere in scripture are they described as the same God OR the same person. And it’s particularly damaging to the doctrine of trinity that there are an equal if not greater number of passages that directly contradict it. As far as I know, there is nothing biblical contradicting the idea or Rapture, though there may be very little supporting it. It's perfectly logical, and like all other "mysteries," shades of it are seen in every day life. I'm not sure how what I said is contradictory to "one God in THREE persons." I agree with the theology "one God in THREE persons," although, I believe it is better stated as "one God in three natures." I disagree with this statement: "nowhere in scripture are they described as the same God." I agree with this statement: "nowhere in scripture are they described as the same person." I have yet to read scripture that contradicts the idea of one God in three natures. All I see are dozens and dozens of examples to support it. Which verses are you referring to? There are about a dozen Rapture verses. EDIT: re-reading a previous post, I can see why you thought I was contradicting the one God in three persons theory. I had previously said "all three parts are the same person." In this case, I was defining "person" differently than in sense it is used in the "one God three persons" theory. In my statement, I was defining "person" as being a singular conscience. This is why I'm not fond of the simplistic "one God in three persons" phrasing because the word "person" is ambiguous (is a "person" a body or s spirit or both? for instance). So to more clearly state my understanding of the biblical texts: The Trinity, which exists, is one conscience in three natures, one of which takes on an authoritative role. Let me ask you these questions to try to get some SA on your perspective: 1) How many god’s does the bible recognize as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? One? Two? Three? Or more than three? 2) Do you believe that in order for someone to make a god claim, they must exhibit these attributes?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 22:21:17 GMT
It's perfectly logical, and like all other "mysteries," shades of it are seen in every day life. I'm not sure how what I said is contradictory to "one God in THREE persons." I agree with the theology "one God in THREE persons," although, I believe it is better stated as "one God in three natures." I disagree with this statement: "nowhere in scripture are they described as the same God." I agree with this statement: "nowhere in scripture are they described as the same person." I have yet to read scripture that contradicts the idea of one God in three natures. All I see are dozens and dozens of examples to support it. Which verses are you referring to? There are about a dozen Rapture verses. EDIT: re-reading a previous post, I can see why you thought I was contradicting the one God in three persons theory. I had previously said "all three parts are the same person." In this case, I was defining "person" differently than in sense it is used in the "one God three persons" theory. In my statement, I was defining "person" as being a singular conscience. This is why I'm not fond of the simplistic "one God in three persons" phrasing because the word "person" is ambiguous (is a "person" a body or s spirit or both? for instance). So to more clearly state my understanding of the biblical texts: The Trinity, which exists, is one conscience in three natures, one of which takes on an authoritative role. Let me ask you this question to try to get some SA on your perspective: How many god’s does the bible recognize as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? One? Two? Three? Or more than three? Just jumping in, but have not bothered with the rest of the thread. How do you feel about God as a Trinity, but Jesus is not God. That is to say a metaphysical understanding that God is trinitarian by nature, but that Jesus is not a part of that trinity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 22:22:22 GMT
It's perfectly logical, and like all other "mysteries," shades of it are seen in every day life. I'm not sure how what I said is contradictory to "one God in THREE persons." I agree with the theology "one God in THREE persons," although, I believe it is better stated as "one God in three natures." I disagree with this statement: "nowhere in scripture are they described as the same God." I agree with this statement: "nowhere in scripture are they described as the same person." I have yet to read scripture that contradicts the idea of one God in three natures. All I see are dozens and dozens of examples to support it. Which verses are you referring to? There are about a dozen Rapture verses. EDIT: re-reading a previous post, I can see why you thought I was contradicting the one God in three persons theory. I had previously said "all three parts are the same person." In this case, I was defining "person" differently than in sense it is used in the "one God three persons" theory. In my statement, I was defining "person" as being a singular conscience. This is why I'm not fond of the simplistic "one God in three persons" phrasing because the word "person" is ambiguous (is a "person" a body or s spirit or both? for instance). So to more clearly state my understanding of the biblical texts: The Trinity, which exists, is one conscience in three natures, one of which takes on an authoritative role. Let me ask you this question to try to get some SA on your perspective: How many god’s does the bible recognize as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? One? Two? Three? Or more than three? There is one God who has manifested himself in three formats. That one god is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. EDIT (to answer your edit): Literally? No. Anyone can claim anything. But to get to the spirit of what I think you were asking, I must first establish that I believe in a God who exhibits the three characteristics referenced above. Since I believe in that type of God, then only a being who likewise exhibits those same attributes could also be considered a God, but that is a self-contained logical fallacy. Thus, like Highlander, there can be only one.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 22, 2018 22:23:06 GMT
Let me ask you this question to try to get some SA on your perspective: How many god’s does the bible recognize as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? One? Two? Three? Or more than three? Just jumping in, but have not bothered with the rest of the thread. How do you feel about God as a Trinity, but Jesus is not God. That is to say a metaphysical understanding that God is trinitarian by nature, but that Jesus is not a part of that trinity? I just made an edit to my post (adding an additional question). Who would the other “people” in the trinity be if not Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Sorry, I haven’t read every response in the thread yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 22:30:22 GMT
Just jumping in, but have not bothered with the rest of the thread. How do you feel about God as a Trinity, but Jesus is not God. That is to say a metaphysical understanding that God is trinitarian by nature, but that Jesus is not a part of that trinity? I just made an edit to my post (adding an additional question). Who would the other “people” in the trinity be if not Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Sorry, I haven’t read every response in the thread yet. I know this wasn't quoted at me, but I did see your edit and edited my own response in turn.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 22:36:43 GMT
Just jumping in, but have not bothered with the rest of the thread. How do you feel about God as a Trinity, but Jesus is not God. That is to say a metaphysical understanding that God is trinitarian by nature, but that Jesus is not a part of that trinity? I just made an edit to my post (adding an additional question). Who would the other “people” in the trinity be if not Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Sorry, I haven’t read every response in the thread yet. Neither have I (read all the posts in the thread), just toying with something I read. If God™ is a single unity that is the totality prior to creation (which would mean that God™ would be forming creation out of itself somehow), then at the moment of 'I am' then God™ separates itself from unity, as it creates the idea of other, in creating that other it also creates the concept of opposite (manifest and non-manifest, God™ the all as opposed to creation or whatever), this opposite could be expressed in many ways but for the sake of clarity for members of a binary gender species we can call these opposites male and female. We still have the initial God™ that is the source of 'I Am', but the act of 'I Am' has now created a male principle and the female principle in thought separating the previously unified singular into a trinity of creation. Not sure if that was exactly how it was written, but that would be a trinity without Jesus as God™
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 22, 2018 22:41:32 GMT
Let me ask you this question to try to get some SA on your perspective: How many god’s does the bible recognize as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? One? Two? Three? Or more than three? There is one God who has manifested himself in three formats. That one god is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. So if there is one God, who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, how can the following verses be interpreted logically. Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” ). John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Acts 7:55-56 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. From the above passages, it seems clear that the scripture intended to convey the idea that Jesus is NOT all knowing, NOT omnipotent, and NOT omnipresent. The scripture also seems to imply that Jesus has his own God (who he prays to, who abandoned him, and who sits to his left in heaven). So, if there is only one God, who knows more than Jesus, who sits on a throne to his left, who is greater than him, AND Jesus died, wasn’t around for 3 days, and prayed to his own God, then Jesus fails meet any of your criteria for Godhood!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 22, 2018 22:44:52 GMT
I just made an edit to my post (adding an additional question). Who would the other “people” in the trinity be if not Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Sorry, I haven’t read every response in the thread yet. Neither have I (read all the posts in the thread), just toying with something I read. If God™ is a single unity that is the totality prior to creation (which would mean that God™ would be forming creation out of itself somehow), then at the moment of 'I am' then God™ separates itself from unity, as it creates the idea of other, in creating that other it also creates the concept of opposite (manifest and non-manifest, God™ the all as opposed to creation or whatever), this opposite could be expressed in many ways but for the sake of clarity for members of a binary gender species we can call these opposites male and female. We still have the initial God™ that is the source of 'I Am', but the act of 'I Am' has now created a male principle and the female principle in thought separating the previously unified singular into a trinity of creation. Not sure if that was exactly how it was written, but that would be a trinity without Jesus as God™ Unfotunately, that concept seems even more convoluted and less scripturally supported than the traditional trinity. And that’s saying a lot!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 22:54:04 GMT
Neither have I (read all the posts in the thread), just toying with something I read. If God™ is a single unity that is the totality prior to creation (which would mean that God™ would be forming creation out of itself somehow), then at the moment of 'I am' then God™ separates itself from unity, as it creates the idea of other, in creating that other it also creates the concept of opposite (manifest and non-manifest, God™ the all as opposed to creation or whatever), this opposite could be expressed in many ways but for the sake of clarity for members of a binary gender species we can call these opposites male and female. We still have the initial God™ that is the source of 'I Am', but the act of 'I Am' has now created a male principle and the female principle in thought separating the previously unified singular into a trinity of creation. Not sure if that was exactly how it was written, but that would be a trinity without Jesus as God™ Unfotunately, that concept seems even more convoluted and less scripturally supported than the traditional trinity. And that’s saying a lot! well I never said it was scripture, but I wonder how it seems convoluted to you, a singular unity that perceives of itself must also then perceive of the other but is still unchanged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 18:15:41 GMT
There is one God who has manifested himself in three formats. That one god is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. So if there is one God, who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, how can the following verses be interpreted logically. Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” ). John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Acts 7:55-56 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. From the above passages, it seems clear that the scripture intended to convey the idea that Jesus is NOT all knowing, NOT omnipotent, and NOT omnipresent. The scripture also seems to imply that Jesus has his own God (who he prays to, who abandoned him, and who sits to his left in heaven). So, if there is only one God, who knows more than Jesus, who sits on a throne to his left, who is greater than him, AND Jesus died, wasn’t around for 3 days, and prayed to his own God, then Jesus fails meet any of your criteria for Godhood! I can see why you may come to that conclusion, but it's not an accurate conclusion. The Father is God in God's true nature, which is a nature that is not angelic and not human. It is a nature that exists only unto God himself and is a nature that must be somehow separate from anything unholy. This attribute necessitates manifestation in other formats, thus... Jesus - also known as the Son of God - is God in human format, thus a different nature. This is why he refers to himself as Son of Man. He is emphasizing the human quality, because in this instance, God - who does not exist in or interact with time in the sense angels and humans do - thrust himself into the confines of time and space and down-graded himself to exist in human form. This is the format through which humans are saved, which is to say, by redefining humanity to be once again an autonomous creation, capable of choosing the Kingdom of Heaven rather than being self-exiled into the Kingdom of Satan, as it was from the fall in Eden. The Holy Spirit is God in angelic form. Notice above that the Son of Man - who came in this human format later than the angelic form - is also called Son of God. Further, all references to "sons of God" in the text refer to angels, and yet this man, Jesus, was also called Son of God, thus giving us clue to his other iteration, which, is to say, letting us know that even though the Holy Spirit and Jesus are two separate personalities (this due explicitly to their varying manifested natures), they are indeed the same being. This is why Jesus can honestly say that he and the Father are one and that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father (as, per Genesis, man is made in God's image) and why he can also be separate from God the Father. As to why the need for separation, see above: God the Father in his true state cannot abide with evil, thus he cannot be in the presence of humans as his natural self. Instead, he took on the nature of humanity, temporarily separating himself from the aspect of his holiness that cannot abide sin. But then Jesus showed his followers during the transfiguration the "true nature" of himself (his oneness with the Holy Father) that he needed to shroud from them The part that is tricky is dealing with everything based on it happening at a certain time. Once you let go of time's restraints, it's easier to see how the Son of Man didn't "know" the time and hour when he said he didn't know the time and hour. The crying out in Matthew 27 is one example of how the Father in his Holy aspect could not abide the part of himself who had taken on the burden of evil and, in fact, had to separate himself from it/Jesus. What Jesus was talking about when he phrases it "my God, your God" is addressing the Jew's overall confusion as to what was going on. This whole thing was brand new to them, and even those who had vigorously studied prophecy didn't anticipate Jesus in the manner in which he came. Because of this, Jesus (several times) reminds them that his heavenly father that he keeps referring to is the same person as the great I Am they all understood. The Father is greater than the son. Position-wise, he is the head of the trinity and he is also greater because his nature/manifestation is the true nature/manifestation compared to Jesus' more humble manifestation of a human man. The fact that Jesus is standing at the right hand of God makes perfect sense when you consider the separate manifestations and the very definition of omnipresence, but notice that in many other parts of the text, he is referred to more specifically as God's actual "right hand" as if he is one part of a continuous body. And then notice the only difference between the Father's description and the Son's description in I Corinthians 8 is that the former is the one from whom all things came and the latter is the one through whom all things came. This is not unlike me saying that everything I own came from me through the work of my own hands. My hands are part of me. And then as a sidenote to your ending remarks, Jesus wasn't "not around" for three days. He was in hell. As for my concluding statement, Jesus is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent because God is all those things and Jesus is a manifestation of God. Within the confines of time as humans understand it, he was cut off from some of his power. He was then re-married to it. Since - from his perspective - there is no constraint like time, it happened all at once.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 23, 2018 18:35:54 GMT
tpfkar It highlights that the sufficiently motivated can zip right past accepting coarse immoral fiction and embrace pure babble. There Is No God
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 23, 2018 23:37:44 GMT
yes.
one being who exists in 3 distinct persons.
|
|
gawaher
Freshman
@gawaher
Posts: 65
Likes: 16
|
Post by gawaher on Jan 24, 2018 21:36:55 GMT
An instruction on baptism by the name of three different people is not an indication that all three are equal. At best it argues that all three agree. But they are not equal because the son says that the father is greater than he is. If Only the Father Is God, then Our Lord Jesus Would Have Only Instructed to Baptize in the Name Of the Father. The situation is much worse than what you can imagine; "All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. comparativreligion.blogspot.com/2013/04/matthew-2819-trinity-is-it-valid-proof.html
|
|