Christians: The Trinity Fails to Describe God.

[Jacob Samuelson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it all started, I believe at the First Council of Nicaea, where scholars from all over the Roman Empire, invited by Constantine to argue tirelessly over a unified decision of the nature of God. The result came as a creed as follows (copied from wikipedia):

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of one being with the Father," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., "of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

This has been enveloped to what we know as the Trinity for modern Christianity. The last part (part 3) still ambiguous today.

Is God the Father and God the Son the same being?

The Trinity says yes using that same scripture the bishops used in John 10:30, where the Father is One with the Son and the Son with the Father. They are the same being. For there can only be One God. And that God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father and His spirit is the Holy Ghost.

At the same time, someone with reason and common sense is looking at this and saying, "Wait, What!?"

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

The answer is we cannot. Or we can try to by bending a whole lot of scripture to a very uncomfortable and confusing way making the whole meaning of God to everyone as clear as mud.

So the only question really to answer, is what do we do about the whole Monotheism thing we got going for us? What about all the times God tells us that there is only One God? How can Jesus be God and this Father figure be God, and this Holy Spirit be God? Would that make us believe in three Gods, without the idea of the Trinity?

I think accepting this almost 2000 year old man-made creed for such a long time has really messed up Christians idea of God.

Christ had to encounter a similar situation with the Jews, when he was asked a similar question of His divinity. in John 10:33-35. We learn that not only is Jesus defending Psalms 82:6, He is renouncing the Jews understanding of what they thought was blasphemous when he pronounced himself as the Son of God directly from Psalms.

God was never meant to be a singular being. We don't have a First and Last name as "God" in the Bible. It never says God is only one being. It does say that there is only one God, but God is not a name of a being, it is a title.

God represents a collection of spiritual beings whose whole purpose is righteousness. Genesis 1:26 (notice the Us and We pronouns) The Father, who is known as Elohim, The Son, Jesus or Jehovah, and The Holy Ghost. These are the head of the institution which is called God.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. They work together to achieve the same goal which makes them part of the same organization which is God.

Notice that even though there are multiple beings under this Godship, there is still only One God. One singular organization whose goal is the salvation of their creations.

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

 

[rational experiences]

Use of conscious awareness story telling.

Originally science and machine AI encoded extra UFO mass radiation never existed.

Just gases burning for natural light without UFO mass coming/entering as unnatural radiation, as it is SEEN.

Natural gases burning as light own radiating conditions, but the radiation is not seen.....light is seen.

A UFO proves it is not light....it is extra radiation which is a metal mass.

Jesus Christ adult Father male human body, talks God and Father.

Jesus, non sexual Father, meaning male DNA sacrificed.....talks God and Father.

Father adult human being male, inventor/designer of the states and statements human owned, human built, human designer, human owned/operated science machines and discussed laws in natural. Machine laws designed for machine not owner of any natural laws.....they became machine laws...totally different.

When you are life attacked, then you are forced to use common sense about the information of being consciously aware, who did it, what caused, why are you life harmed when your Father human holy spiritual life created you in the act of sex.

Act of sex not God.

Science does not include the act of human sex for it is not God.

Rational human use of thinking and telling of stories/themes for theories for machines. Only owned by human beings.....machines are never owned by God.

 

[Super Universe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it all started, I believe at the First Council of Nicaea, where scholars from all over the Roman Empire, invited by Constantine to argue tirelessly over a unified decision of the nature of God. The result came as a creed as follows (copied from wikipedia):

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of one being with the Father," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., "of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

This has been enveloped to what we know as the Trinity for modern Christianity. The last part (part 3) still ambiguous today.

Is God the Father and God the Son the same being?

The Trinity says yes using that same scripture the bishops used in John 10:30, where the Father is One with the Son and the Son with the Father. They are the same being. For there can only be One God. And that God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father and His spirit is the Holy Ghost.

At the same time, someone with reason and common sense is looking at this and saying, "Wait, What!?"

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

The answer is we cannot. Or we can try to by bending a whole lot of scripture to a very uncomfortable and confusing way making the whole meaning of God to everyone as clear as mud.

So the only question really to answer, is what do we do about the whole Monotheism thing we got going for us? What about all the times God tells us that there is only One God? How can Jesus be God and this Father figure be God, and this Holy Spirit be God? Would that make us believe in three Gods, without the idea of the Trinity?

I think accepting this almost 2000 year old man-made creed for such a long time has really messed up Christians idea of God.

Christ had to encounter a similar situation with the Jews, when he was asked a similar question of His divinity. in John 10:33-35. We learn that not only is Jesus defending Psalms 82:6, He is renouncing the Jews understanding of what they thought was blasphemous when he pronounced himself as the Son of God directly from Psalms.

God was never meant to be a singular being. We don't have a First and Last name as "God" in the Bible. It never says God is only one being. It does say that there is only one God, but God is not a name of a being, it is a title.

God represents a collection of spiritual beings whose whole purpose is righteousness. Genesis 1:26 (notice the Us and We pronouns) The Father, who is known as Elohim, The Son, Jesus or Jehovah, and The Holy Ghost. These are the head of the institution which is called God.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. They work together to achieve the same goal which makes them part of the same organization which is God.

Notice that even though there are multiple beings under this Godship, there is still only One God. One singular organization whose goal is the salvation of their creations.

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

God and Jesus are not the same being.

The Trinity is God, the Eternal Son, and Spirit. Jesus is not one of the Trinity. I know you won't be able to accept this because you want the universe to be simple. I'm sorry but it's not.

Jesus is a son of God, just as any man is a son of God and any woman is a daughter of God.

Humans always think everything said by Jesus was meant only for them. Lucifer had started a rebellion by this time. I and the Father are one means that whatever Jesus speaks is the same thing you would hear from God. Whatever Jesus does is the same thing that God would do. Jesus was saying this to humans as well as the angels. God did not intervene in the rebellion so Jesus was giving warning to the rebel angels that what He said and did had the approval of God.

Also, there is another reason Jesus said that, I'm going to simplify this so it's not as confusing to you. It has to do with the soul. Inside each of us is a fragment of God, so, Jesus, had/has a fragment of God inside of Him. All sentient beings with a normal brain have this God fragment inside of them but we may not keep it if we don't choose to be good.

Only God is to be worshipped. No other member of the Trinity should be worshipped, not Jesus, and certainly not Jesus earth mother Mary. In your present state of evolution your prayers are mostly practice. They do not return energy to God. When you get to heaven you will be more evolved and you will be able to see the effect of your prayer returning energy to God.

Genesis 1:26 - This is highly distorted. What it means is that angels selected humanity to be the upright with arms and legs prototype for a sentient being. Having dominion over means that man will be given intelligence. Usually only one animal type is selected to receive intelligence and evolve into the upright/arms/legs prototype on each inhabited planet. No other animal has equal intelligence as humans on the earth.

The Elohim are angels. The angels were on the earth in the old days.

God is NOT a collection of beings and Jesus is not Jehovah.

 

[questfortruth]

Correct me if I'm wrong,

The 3=1 holds in Spiritual Sense.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

The 3=1 holds in Spiritual Sense.

Mathematically, it doesn't, which I think is the point of my post. The Trinity, which by design is supposed to logically help the common understanding of God, is not logical. And no offense, but everything holds in a spiritual sense, considering the spirit is so diverse in nature.

 

[questfortruth]

Mathematically, it doesn't, which I think is the point of my post. The Trinity, which by design is supposed to logically help the common understanding of God, is not logical. And no offense, but everything holds in a spiritual sense, considering the spirit is so diverse in nature.

It is logical and fact. The Love makes from two beings one being in spiritual sense. This being is called couple.

 

[rational experiences]

God and Jesus are not the same being.

The Trinity is God, the Eternal Son, and Spirit. Jesus is not one of the Trinity. I know you won't be able to accept this because you want the universe to be simple. I'm sorry but it's not.

Jesus is a son of God, just as any man is a son of God and any woman is a daughter of God.

Humans always think everything said by Jesus was meant only for them. Lucifer had started a rebellion by this time. I and the Father are one means that whatever Jesus speaks is the same thing you would hear from God. Whatever Jesus does is the same thing that God would do. Jesus was saying this to humans as well as the angels. God did not intervene in the rebellion so Jesus was giving warning to the rebel angels that what He said and did had the approval of God.

Also, there is another reason Jesus said that, I'm going to simplify this so it's not as confusing to you. It has to do with the soul. Inside each of us is a fragment of God, so, Jesus, had/has a fragment of God inside of Him. All sentient beings with a normal brain have this God fragment inside of them but we may not keep it if we don't choose to be good.

Only God is to be worshipped. No other member of the Trinity should be worshipped, not Jesus, and certainly not Jesus earth mother Mary. In your present state of evolution your prayers are mostly practice. They do not return energy to God. When you get to heaven you will be more evolved and you will be able to see the effect of your prayer returning energy to God.

Genesis 1:26 - This is highly distorted. What it means is that angels selected humanity to be the upright with arms and legs prototype for a sentient being. Having dominion over means that man will be given intelligence. Usually only one animal type is selected to receive intelligence and evolve into the upright/arms/legs prototype on each inhabited planet. No other animal has equal intelligence as humans on the earth.

The Elohim are angels. The angels were on the earth in the old days.

God is NOT a collection of beings and Jesus is not Jehovah.

Says a living bio human being male, born and alive only by 2 human being parents, not of your ownership (self) who had sex....you are sperm and an ovary, baby formed human life.

Science however does not use natural order or natural being, for science is not natural order and natural being. Why you do not use correct information.

God is the body of gases that pressurized to form stone in space.
Earth heavenly gases out of stone can never pressurize to form stone...otherwise no heavenly body would exist.

God and the theme Heavenly spirit not the same gases.

Therefore you cannot use the heavenly gases relating to stone history of its gases...for they are NOT THE SAME.

Male human adult reasoning. The reason I got life attacked/sacrificed and had my human bio life image put into the clouds, is that God the stone was fission ground removed into sink holes...the immortal tombs of God spirit emptied out....water mass formed new dead human images.....and loss of Nature use of ground water, put both newly imaged animal life attacked and my adult life attacked into the cloud mass.

A long time ago in Moses...animal life and baby life sacrificed was put into the Ark UFO radiation attack heavenly image.

Therefore to have a new male adult image put into the heavens, I lost my previous baby cloud image and had to update my own Father science human image in the clouds.

All life was being sacrificed on the stone altar of God "self combusted" as it stated...burnt as a sacrifice.

It is what the UFO body does when radiation mass touches the ground, it burns/scorches the ground body, stone, bushes, animals or humans in attack. Makes sink holes and then disappears.

That information then made the humans believe that the human spirit came out of the hot UFO ark landing on the ground...as dead spirits.

So did you return today from a dead spirit brother scientist? Or do you live in a cold water oxygenated atmospheric body that should not be changed?

That sort of Satanic inanity is what medical biologist science, Healer sciences argued against. For nuclear science might claim but I am not religious science, when you are.

God gas sacrifice owned by stone....owns natural light. We live in saved spirit natural light in water/oxygen. If you tried to give us direct light, the gases would burn us to death. Science says light, burning gases and saved light, water/oxygen natural light conditions. You can not own that theme in a science nuclear reaction....oh but wait a minute you do.

Yet ground fission in natural atmospheric water mass is where you first got that idea....why the ground is crop circle UFO attacked/water cooled...as a portion of science machine cause still occurs in natural FIRST owner of fusion.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

God and Jesus are not the same being.

The Trinity is God, the Eternal Son, and Spirit. Jesus is not one of the Trinity. I know you won't be able to accept this because you want the universe to be simple. I'm sorry but it's not.

Jesus is a son of God, just as any man is a son of God and any woman is a daughter of God.

Humans always think everything said by Jesus was meant only for them. Lucifer had started a rebellion by this time. I and the Father are one means that whatever Jesus speaks is the same thing you would hear from God. Whatever Jesus does is the same thing that God would do. Jesus was saying this to humans as well as the angels. God did not intervene in the rebellion so Jesus was giving warning to the rebel angels that what He said and did had the approval of God.

Also, there is another reason Jesus said that, I'm going to simplify this so it's not as confusing to you. It has to do with the soul. Inside each of us is a fragment of God, so, Jesus, had/has a fragment of God inside of Him. All sentient beings with a normal brain have this God fragment inside of them but we may not keep it if we don't choose to be good.

Only God is to be worshipped. No other member of the Trinity should be worshipped, not Jesus, and certainly not Jesus earth mother Mary. In your present state of evolution your prayers are mostly practice. They do not return energy to God. When you get to heaven you will be more evolved and you will be able to see the effect of your prayer returning energy to God.

Genesis 1:26 - This is highly distorted. What it means is that angels selected humanity to be the upright with arms and legs prototype for a sentient being. Having dominion over means that man will be given intelligence. Usually only one animal type is selected to receive intelligence and evolve into the upright/arms/legs prototype on each inhabited planet. No other animal has equal intelligence as humans on the earth.

The Elohim are angels. The angels were on the earth in the old days.

God is NOT a collection of beings and Jesus is not Jehovah.

I cannot accept what I don't understand. Sorry, I am very lost in what you are trying to say. I get the whole Jesus being the Son of God as we are the Children of God. but everything else kind of fell through like an cracked egg.

Do you believe that as Children of God, we are inheritors of God by legal definition?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

It is logical and fact. The Love makes from two beings one being in spiritual sense. This being is called couple.

Ok so than you do agree with me that, the institution of God, which is exactly what you described as mulitple beings belonging to the same cause and that is love. Correct? God is Love as Love is what unites these three separate beings together in a same cause.

 

[questfortruth]

God is Love as Love is what unites these three separate beings together in a same cause.

Correction: unites into one being. God is not only Love, but also Personality. Because Spirit of all what comes from God is Essence of God.

 

[rational experiences]

Male adults as humans claim in God science themes....I am the Father, I am the son, as (Jesus) claim and I am the Holy spirit.

Holy conditions a male human scientist said to never change. Water, a bio existence, holy, never change the spirits of holiness.

Jesus Christ...Holy ox symbolism, regeneration of the Holy oxygen, by Tree of Life.

Theme, inheritance of life sacrificed the Adam/Eve story. Kicked out of the Nature Garden for irradiating/burning it by UFO metal.

Males living on Earth today. I am a Father as an adult. I have human sex to reproduce my baby son. We both need the atmospheric spirits to be HOLY.

2012 known male adult science prediction...maths probabilities by knowing the gases (spirit), returning/returned and put back as a Saviour theme. Wander star stone asteroid gas. STone released, like Earth God....gases put back by mass into out of space.

What blocked the Sun UFO attack to Earth originally.....asteroid gases...moon theme.

O God the stone o moon the little Saviour origins.

Not male inferred at all...science inferred first.

Then science attacked/burnt out Saviour star history, gases, gets attacked.

That theme is not the return of the Saviour, it is Salvation.
Hunters & Collectors - When The River Runs Dry Lyrics | AZLyrics.com

Hell Rivers, UFO irradiated heated metal release, stone removed, cold gases put back by Wandering Star Saviour. The known science theme to be saved is an asteroid stone mass returned body.
Romans 3:8
8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

Ask yourself how many times did Jesus be sacrificed on the cross of wood?

The real answer ONCE.

Do you today honour that holy story?

No says the satanic sciences, we expect to do it constantly for a machine reaction.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it all started, I believe at the First Council of Nicaea, where scholars from all over the Roman Empire, invited by Constantine to argue tirelessly over a unified decision of the nature of God. The result came as a creed as follows (copied from wikipedia):

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of one being with the Father," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., "of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

This has been enveloped to what we know as the Trinity for modern Christianity. The last part (part 3) still ambiguous today.

Is God the Father and God the Son the same being?

The Trinity says yes using that same scripture the bishops used in John 10:30, where the Father is One with the Son and the Son with the Father. They are the same being. For there can only be One God. And that God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father and His spirit is the Holy Ghost.

At the same time, someone with reason and common sense is looking at this and saying, "Wait, What!?"

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

The answer is we cannot. Or we can try to by bending a whole lot of scripture to a very uncomfortable and confusing way making the whole meaning of God to everyone as clear as mud.

So the only question really to answer, is what do we do about the whole Monotheism thing we got going for us? What about all the times God tells us that there is only One God? How can Jesus be God and this Father figure be God, and this Holy Spirit be God? Would that make us believe in three Gods, without the idea of the Trinity?

I think accepting this almost 2000 year old man-made creed for such a long time has really messed up Christians idea of God.

Christ had to encounter a similar situation with the Jews, when he was asked a similar question of His divinity. in John 10:33-35. We learn that not only is Jesus defending Psalms 82:6, He is renouncing the Jews understanding of what they thought was blasphemous when he pronounced himself as the Son of God directly from Psalms.

God was never meant to be a singular being. We don't have a First and Last name as "God" in the Bible. It never says God is only one being. It does say that there is only one God, but God is not a name of a being, it is a title.

God represents a collection of spiritual beings whose whole purpose is righteousness. Genesis 1:26 (notice the Us and We pronouns) The Father, who is known as Elohim, The Son, Jesus or Jehovah, and The Holy Ghost. These are the head of the institution which is called God.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. They work together to achieve the same goal which makes them part of the same organization which is God.

Notice that even though there are multiple beings under this Godship, there is still only One God. One singular organization whose goal is the salvation of their creations.

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

The concept of the Trinity started way before the council of Nicaea. The first person to coin the phrase was Tertullian. The council just wanted to bring consensus on the nature of the relationship between Jesus and God. Also, the phrases that they used at the council can only really be understood if one understands what they meant by them at the time as modern understanding of the terms won't do justice to what they meant.

Also the idea of the Trinity has evolved over time to the extent that todays Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, both of which have the same origins, disagree with what the Trinity is.

The idea of God being a Trinity does make sense depending on how one understands the nature of God. If one cares about a mathematical understanding of God that 1 = 1 then it doesn't make sense. But if a person sees God as a fluid being, which was the understanding of what gods were in the ancient middle east, then the concept called the Trinity makes sense, as well as the abilities of the Holy Spirit, but it also might mean that the Trinity is too limiting a concept.

 

[rational experiences]

Probability and prediction. O God the stone O moon history released spirit gas to o...a small body.

O Earth stone mass plus o moon, how much stone mass allows Earth to exist.

Form sink holes, the moon releases gases.

Why science said "blood moon" as an observed caused warning.

o moon plus stone mass that keeps Earth owner of its Heavens is x by, amount of stone mass that will return to Earth.

o moon releases some of its owned gases...….asteroid Saviour stone falls swiftly...releasing what males probability said was gas removed, want of gas put back as a methodology. Spirit of the saviour he says.

A portion of the gases remain as stone as the moon is the original Saviour. How a stone mass hits Earth by probability calculations.

 

[Prophetic_Response]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it all started, I believe at the First Council of Nicaea, where scholars from all over the Roman Empire, invited by Constantine to argue tirelessly over a unified decision of the nature of God. The result came as a creed as follows (copied from wikipedia):

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of one being with the Father," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., "of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

This has been enveloped to what we know as the Trinity for modern Christianity. The last part (part 3) still ambiguous today.

Is God the Father and God the Son the same being?

The Trinity says yes using that same scripture the bishops used in John 10:30, where the Father is One with the Son and the Son with the Father. They are the same being. For there can only be One God. And that God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father and His spirit is the Holy Ghost.

At the same time, someone with reason and common sense is looking at this and saying, "Wait, What!?"

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

The answer is we cannot. Or we can try to by bending a whole lot of scripture to a very uncomfortable and confusing way making the whole meaning of God to everyone as clear as mud.

So the only question really to answer, is what do we do about the whole Monotheism thing we got going for us? What about all the times God tells us that there is only One God? How can Jesus be God and this Father figure be God, and this Holy Spirit be God? Would that make us believe in three Gods, without the idea of the Trinity?

I think accepting this almost 2000 year old man-made creed for such a long time has really messed up Christians idea of God.

Christ had to encounter a similar situation with the Jews, when he was asked a similar question of His divinity. in John 10:33-35. We learn that not only is Jesus defending Psalms 82:6, He is renouncing the Jews understanding of what they thought was blasphemous when he pronounced himself as the Son of God directly from Psalms.

God was never meant to be a singular being. We don't have a First and Last name as "God" in the Bible. It never says God is only one being. It does say that there is only one God, but God is not a name of a being, it is a title.

God represents a collection of spiritual beings whose whole purpose is righteousness. Genesis 1:26 (notice the Us and We pronouns) The Father, who is known as Elohim, The Son, Jesus or Jehovah, and The Holy Ghost. These are the head of the institution which is called God.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. They work together to achieve the same goal which makes them part of the same organization which is God.

Notice that even though there are multiple beings under this Godship, there is still only One God. One singular organization whose goal is the salvation of their creations.

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

The Godhead is a mystery to me. I only understand it by faith, though I'd like to understand it better.

I think the difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and perhaps the doctrine of the Godhead are the degrees of separation. The Trinity divides the Father, Son and Spirit apart from each other and claimes they're still fully God separately. That's three gods.

The Father, Son and Spirit are fully God combined with each other. To remove one from the equation, though impossible, would render the Godhead incomplete and not fully God.

So even though Jesus didn't know as a man when He would return, but His Father did, collectively the Godhead is all-knowing.

 

[Terry Sampson]

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

LOL!

• Hey, Kid, let Ol' Terry give you a little "friendly" advice.
• You've identified your religion as "Christ - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". That's not a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, but it is "your personal" thing.
• You've chosen, in this thread, to challenge the "traditional Christian" doctrine of the Trinity. IMO, that's not a reasonable thing to do for a couple of reasons:
  • Foremost reason: No traditional Christian is going to take anything an LDS Restorationist Christian says about the Trinity seriously, nor should they, given the fancy dancing you have to do to explain why your own theology is rational, reasonable, and Scriptural.
  • Consequently, either you're "preaching", as it were, to other LDS Restorationists which, although it may be a reasonable thing to do, seems like an odd thing, to me, to do; or
  • you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested.
  • Now, if you're preaching to other LDS Restorationists, you've at least chosen the correct forum to do it in: i.e. the "same faith debate" forum. But if that's the case, then allow me to ask a respectful question: "Do LDS Restorationists actually 'debate' the Trinity among themselves?"
  • If, on the other hand, you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested, you're either doing it in the wrong forum or you have failed to read the "special rules" governing posting in the "Same Faith Debates" forum.
• My "friendly" advice":
  • Next time you want to start a thread, consult one of your LDS elders and see what they think about what you want to do.
  • And read the special rules governing the forum that you want to post in. In this case, the rules that you would do well to read are @Same Faith Debates - Special Rules

 

[Super Universe]

I cannot accept what I don't understand. Sorry, I am very lost in what you are trying to say. I get the whole Jesus being the Son of God as we are the Children of God. but everything else kind of fell through like an cracked egg.

Do you believe that as Children of God, we are inheritors of God by legal definition?

God created Himself, then He created the Son, then God and the Son both created Spirit. They are not the same beings nor are they mathematically equal.

Using math, God would be all numbers, the Son would be a 2, and Spirit would be a 3. The lower number has more capability in the universe.

 

[Katzpur]

@Jacob Samuelson, I rated your OP a winner because when I read it, I thought, "I couldn't have put it better myself. Well done!" And then -- after I'd read your post and rated it a winner -- I noticed your religion.

 

[Katzpur]

LOL!

• Hey, Kid, let Ol' Terry give you a little "friendly" advice.

Wow. What a condescending response. Here's Ol' Katzpur's "friendly" advice to you:

You've identified your religion as "Christ - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". That's not a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, but it is "your personal" thing.

You've identified your religion as "Creedalist Xian," which clearly states that your beliefs about the nature of God are founded on the manmade creeds of the 4th, 5th and subsequent centuries, and not to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His contemporaries.

You've chosen, in this thread, to challenge the "traditional Christian" doctrine of the Trinity. IMO, that's not a reasonable thing to do for a couple of reasons:

• Foremost reason: No traditional Christian is going to take anything an LDS Restorationist Christian says about the Trinity seriously, nor should they, given the fancy dancing you have to do to explain why your own theology is rational, reasonable, and Scriptural.
• Consequently, either you're "preaching", as it were, to other LDS Restorationists which, although it may be a reasonable thing to do, seems like an odd thing, to me, to do; or
• you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested.
• Now, if you're preaching to other LDS Restorationists, you've at least chosen the correct forum to do it in: i.e. the "same faith debate" forum. But if that's the case, then allow me to ask a respectful question: "Do LDS Restorationists actually 'debate' the Trinity among themselves?"
• If, on the other hand, you're preaching to heathen who either agree with you or aren't interested, you're either doing it in the wrong forum or you have failed to read the "special rules" governing posting in the "Same Faith Debates" forum.

As a 15-year veteran of this forum and as a 13-year veteran of another similar online forum, I have found it fascinating to see over the years how many self-professed Christians actually don't believe in the God of the post-apostolic creeds. People of numerous different Christian denominations have questioned for years how God is both three in one and one in three, and have decided to use their God-given intelligence and ability to reason to come to the conclusion that this doctrine is absolutely not of God at all. Now you've been here long enough yourself to have seen the numerous threads that have been started on the Trinity, most of them by non-LDS Christians. They have resulted in a lengthy discussions in which both sides of the argument have been supported by people of various Christian persuasions. There hasn't been such a thread in a while now, so maybe it's time for another one.
[/quote]Whoa! I think you're the one who needs to read the @Same Faith Debates - Special Rules! The only mistake Jacob made was not to specify that this particular debate is open only to Christians. For the purposes of this forum, "Same Faith" can mean a number of different things. The OP simply needs to make it clear whether he wants "Same Faith" to refer to all Abrahamic Religions, Christianity or to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That would prohibit Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, atheists, etc. from contributing. If you think that all Christians see eye-to-eye on this or any other "Christian" doctrine, you've got another think coming. In other words, it's "Same Faith Debates," not "Same Christian Denomination Debates."

Maybe Jacob just did such a great job of explaining why the doctrine of the Trinity is so convoluted and confusing that you'd like to see restrictions put on who, outside of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, can participate. A lot of non-Trinitarians aren't going to accept everything Jacob has said, but they are definitely on the same page as he is in rejecting your Creedal God.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Wow. What a condescending response.

Ha! A feisty Mormon. I've never met one of them before. Must be my lucky day.

[ @Sunstone et aliae: Moderators, keep an eye on this thread, I'm expecting trouble. ]

When I call someone a "kid", it's because I know or have good reason to believe that they are quite a bit younger than me. I'm going on 72. Check Jacob's profile page: how old is he, huh? Gee, what do I see?

27 years old.

I was about 45 years old when that boy was born. So, as far as I am concerned, I was within my God-given rights to call Jacob a "kid." It weren't an insult; I've called a good number of RFers, "kid" or "kiddo": Rider, PopeAdope, susanblange, Eddi, Shadow Wolf, et al. Was it overly presumptuous familiarity on my part? Maybe so, but I took a chance that it wouldn't be taken as an offense.
There are a good number of old farts here that I wouldn't call "kid": Revoltingest, Terrywoodenpic, and Albert Tanner.
Bottomline for the confused: Get a grip, sister; your pettycoat is showing. But don't bother apologizin', Dear, 'cause I'm going to spitball you before I'm done with you.

[Note: In deference to your poor eyesight at your advanced age, I've decided to use larger, bold print for the bulk of this post. I don't want you to think that I'm trying to slip anything by you.]

 

[Terry Sampson]

Here's Ol' Katzpur's "friendly" advice to you:

Do tell.

You've identified your religion as "Creedalist Xian," which clearly states that your beliefs about the nature of God are founded on the manmade creeds of the 4th, 5th and subsequent centuries, and not to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His contemporaries.

• Good Lord, girl. Didn't anybody ever tell you? When you wade in the insanity marshes, you ought to wear high-top waders: takes less work to hose you down, if and when you get pulled out.
• My self-identification is, indeed, "Creedalist Xian"; however, that self-imposed label doesn't really "clearly state" anything, much less that my "beliefs about the nature of God are founded on the manmade creeds of the 4th, 5th and subsequent centureies, and not to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His contemporaries.
• If you really wanted to know what the label "Creedalist Xian" clearly states, you could have just asked before you made a fool of yourself.
• It so happens that I do indeed subscribe to one of the traditional Christian Creeds: i.e. the Apostle's Creed. The fact that you dismiss all traditional Christian Creeds carte blanche and affirm the teachings of Jesus Christ and his contemporaries, raises an intriguing question: What the hell do you think that Creed says that was not among the teachings of Jesus' contemporaries and can, therefore, be rejected?