The "concept" of the Holy Trinity was not coined by St. Patrick. He merely taught it. You really do not know as much as you believe you do. Oh and by the way, I don't recall seeing the name Eliseo Soriano in the Bible to use your own standard for truth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians:Is The Trinity Truly Biblical(A Separate Thread)
- Thread starter ChristineES
- Start date
The "concept" of the Holy Trinity was not coined by St. Patrick. He merely taught it. You really do not know as much as you believe you do. Oh and by the way, I don't recall seeing the name Eliseo Soriano in the Bible to use your own standard for truth.
source: Jesus is God
Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”1
“Immanuel” literally means: “God with us.” See also Matthew 1:23
Isaiah 9:6: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
John 8:58-59: "‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”
His title was “I am” -- which was the same title used for Jehovah God in Exodus 3:14
John 10:30-33: “‘I and the Father are one.’
Also, from John 1. "...the Word was God." "...the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
Matthew 28:18 "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
Jesus was God born on earth. His soul was God. The reason He spoke to the Father as if they were separate is because of the humanity inherited from His mother Mary. It was necessary for Him to take on some humanity to save the human race. This is where the apparent separation arises from. But when Jesus arose back to heaven, He is now the face of God. He is God, as He has always been.
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!"
Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”1
“Immanuel” literally means: “God with us.” See also Matthew 1:23
Isaiah 9:6: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
John 8:58-59: "‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”
His title was “I am” -- which was the same title used for Jehovah God in Exodus 3:14
John 10:30-33: “‘I and the Father are one.’
Also, from John 1. "...the Word was God." "...the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
Matthew 28:18 "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
Jesus was God born on earth. His soul was God. The reason He spoke to the Father as if they were separate is because of the humanity inherited from His mother Mary. It was necessary for Him to take on some humanity to save the human race. This is where the apparent separation arises from. But when Jesus arose back to heaven, He is now the face of God. He is God, as He has always been.
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!"
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
Michel, you are opening a can of worms on your part.
first, my preacher's name is not suppose to be in the bible, but he reads the bible and preaches everything in it. He get's persecuted by our government becasue of it.
Which reminds me, "the servent is not greater than his master, if i was persecuted and so will you" so, the name of my preacher is not in the bible, but the state of his life is.The state of our church is very much in the bible as well.
Second, the name of my church is in the bible, because we associated ourselves with the church that is written. CAN YOU FIND "THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHRUCH ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE?"
If you do not believe in what is written in the bible you are not Christian. You have evaded the verses i have presented to you, and resorted to personal attacks. dont attack personalities. let us focus on doctrine. and chrsitian doctrine is the bible.
The Christ you claim to believe is in the bible. so, who do you really beleive? St patrick?
I was pointing out the error you were in when claiming that the Holy Trinity was the concept of St. Patrick.There is nothing wrong with that.You claim not to be able to believe anything St. Patrick said because his name is not in the Bible but you can believe your preacher even though his name is not in the Bible either. Do you even see the duplicity in that? While you take shots at the Catholic Church you get indignant when the source of your group is questioned. I can see this isn't going anywhere though because even relevant scripture that I have pointed out is denied by you if it does not meet your anti Catholic bias and interpretation. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is closed. God's Church did not start yesterday though it is good that you profess God and Jesus. I will pray for you as well. Good day sir.
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
THE POINT IS THIS. ARE ST PATRICKS WORDS IN THE BIBLE? nope!
DOES MY PREACHER AND MY SELF QUOTE WORDS FROM THE BIBLE? absolutely!
so who is biblical? Patrick or Eliseo soriano?
what point in the above analogy do you not understand?
This conversation is closed because you can never biblically defend the Trinity. humbly admit you're wrong .sir.
for "blessed are the humble for theirs the kingdom of heaven"
The church did not start yesteday, that is why i repeatedly said WE ASSOCIATED OURSELVES WITH THE CHURCH IN THE BIBLE.
which part of that statement do you not understand?
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
I think it is not whether the source's name is written in the Bible or not that makes sense for Christians to believe him. Instead, it is the the Scriptures where the source is basing his teachings.
I would say that we should believe even a child who reads and quotes the scripture rightfully but we should not believe a saint or even an angel from heaven who teaches "another gospel" other than Jesus Christ and the apostles have taught. (see Galatians 1:8-10)
regards,
4nashiym
uss_bigd
Well-Known Member
There you go...
I thought it was supposed to be whether The Trinity was biblical or not, not whether St. Patrick was an Apostle or not but... 
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
All this talk about St. Patrick is getting me thirsty.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
"One flesh" does not indicate a multiplicity of beings. It indicates one being.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying: That the family unit is one being -- one flesh -- with two or more separate persons. The Trinity is much the same.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, I'm not. It is the consensus of the Church. Patrick was born into a Christian family somewhere ont he nothwest coast of Britain in about 390. When he was about 21, he tells us that he took holy orders as both presbyter and bishop. (Lesser Feasts and Fasts, 1994, The church Hymnal Corp., NY)
All bishops are consecrated in the apostolic succession, meaning that they carry the same authority as the original 12. It's always been this way. James, the brother of Jesus, was the bishop of Jerusalem, for Pete's sake. I can't help it if you choose to ignore this tradition of the Church, as it was maintained by the apostles, and has been maintained by the apostles, ever since. That's your problem, not mine.
Paul meant that the apostles were "last" in terms of place, not in terms of time. Read it in context.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You're so far off base, it's pathetic. First of all, Roman Catholic Church isn't a name, it's a descriptor. Ask any Catholic. They'll tell you that they're a member of "the Church."
You don't associate yourselves with the "Church that is written," or you would acssociate yourselves with the Church that recognizes the succession of bishops.
None of this is important to the argument at hand. Fact is, the Trinity is ancient -- as ancient as the NT writers. They incorporated that theology into their writings, implicitly, but not explicitly. It is that implicit theology that later apostles drew out of the scriptures and made explicit in the doctrine of the Trinity.
As you said, "Christian doctrine is in the Bible," as the Trinity certainly is implied. "If you do not believe what is written in the Bible, you are not Christian."
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
* * * * * * * * * * STAFF ADVISORY * * * * * * * * * *
Some comments throughout the thread are starting to get personal. Please help keep the topic on the ideas and not those presenting them.
Thanks for your cooperation!
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
OK, now I'm confused. I guess I don't understand your concept of the trinity. How do you define it exactly; and is it possible to explain it in non-vague terms so that I can understand you?
Doesn't the trinity mean that they are NOT separate? Thanks.
Charity
Let's go racing boys !
OK, now I'm confused. I guess I don't understand your concept of the trinity. How do you define it exactly; and is it possible to explain it in non-vague terms so that I can understand you?
Doesn't the trinity mean that they are NOT separate? Thanks.[/quote
Has anyone ever thought of using the psychoanalytic theory of personality to explain this concept?
Id present from birth let's use this to represent God since He was present at the beginning
Ego this is the reality principle let's use this to represent Jesus (since he was real)
Superego the component of personality which holds our moral standards that we get from family and society, and lets us know right from wrong. Let's use this to represent The Holy Spirit(also called the Holy Ghost, and the Comforter) The Comforter is to teach all things and bring all things to remembrance (John14:26)
Does this not give us all three personalities in one body. )(
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
I guess since I have always believed in the three as separate beings, two with tangible bodies, and one as a spirit,--then all other versions are just to complicated to suit me. The concept of the Godhead is so much simpler than the Trinity. But I've always preferred logic.OK, now I'm confused. I guess I don't understand your concept of the trinity. How do you define it exactly; and is it possible to explain it in non-vague terms so that I can understand you?
Doesn't the trinity mean that they are NOT separate? Thanks.[/quote
Has anyone ever thought of using the psychoanalytic theory of personality to explain this concept?
Id present from birth let's use this to represent God since He was present at the beginning
Ego this is the reality principle let's use this to represent Jesus (since he was real)
Superego the component of personality which holds our moral standards that we get from family and society, and lets us know right from wrong. Let's use this to represent The Holy Spirit(also called the Holy Ghost, and the Comforter) The Comforter is to teach all things and bring all things to remembrance (John14:26)
Does this not give us all three personalities in one body. )(
I still don't understand why trinitarians don't see, or agree to the logic of the godhead. One explains some of the scriptures, the other explains ALL of the scriptures relating to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
I have close friend who converted from Protestantism to Mormonism years ago, and she said switching from the Trinity to the Godhead was difficult for her at first. Just a major change from what she used to believe. But, to me, it's just logic.