Christians: The Trinity Fails to Describe God.

[Terry Sampson]

Okay, so precisely what are you hot and bothered about? If it's not our difference of opinion regarding the topic of this thread, then what is it?

You butting into my attempt to offer Jacob some advice. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

And your understanding of these rules is incorrect.

No they ain't. And if you really thought so, you wouldn't have said:

Well, that can be easily remedied,

when Jacob's omission has been taken care of, you can put your hostility to bed for awhile.

What hostility? I'm happier than a pig in the slop you've been shoveling into this thread.

I'm here to debate the topic of the OP.

Maybe, maybe not. But the only reason you started bangin' at my door is because you didn't like what I said to Jacob, and you don't appear to be able to get over it until you've persuaded me to leave, which I would have done before you showed up and got huffy with me.

I don't really object. I just think Jacob's age is beside the point. You're proof that wisdom doesn't necessarily come with age.

Ha! And you're proof that not every old woman has to make sense, much less possess wisdom.

Funny, you didn't actually point out which of his assertions were incorrect. You might want to start there.

Start where? In a matter involving irreconcilable differences that cannot and never will be reconciled in this world, correct and incorrect assertions are trivial red herrings. I'm not going to start anywhere. Move on to your fussing over the Trinity with any idiot who want to fuss with you over the Trinity.

 

[Sunstone]

Since you thought it so important to alert @Sunstone to this thread, perhaps he can clarify for you ...the purposes of this forum, Same Faith Debates" ...

@Katzpur, I would ordinarily kick this over to the mods because they are the good folks who handle most of the day-to-day heavy lifting when it comes to moderation. My job as an administrator is more in line with helping to set Forum policy, plan for the future, finalize certain decisions, and so forth, although I do now and then help out the mods when things get busy. So, first off, do you want a consensus mod decision on this, or do you trust my lone judgment?

To be sure, the mods work by consensus. At least three mods must be in agreement for a decision to be made.

If both you and @Terry Sampson agree to abide by my decision, I will give an "unofficial" ruling in this case of whether you are allowed to debate in this thread. But you both must agree to abide by it, or it would be best I think to kick this over to the mods.

Your two make the call.

 

[Sunstone]

@Terry Sampson, please see post #42 and let me know your decision.

 

[Katzpur]

You butting into my attempt to offer Jacob some advice. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, I hurt your feelings then! So sorry! I had no idea you were so fragile.

But the only reason you started bangin' at my door is because you didn't like what I said to Jacob, and you don't appear to be able to get over it until you've persuaded me to leave, which I would have done before you showed up and got huffy with me.

Huffy? You haven't seen anything yet, pal. At any rate, now that you have explained what all the hubbub was about, I'll just sit back and watch you spitball yourself silly.

 

[Katzpur]

@Katzpur, I would ordinarily kick this over to the mods because they are the good folks who handle most of the day-to-day heavy lifting when it comes to moderation. My job as an administrator is more in line with helping to set Forum policy, plan for the future, finalize certain decisions, and so forth, although I do now and then help out the mods when things get busy. So, first off, do you want a consensus mod decision on this, or do you trust my lone judgment?

To be sure, at least three mods must agree in order for a decision to be made.

If both you and @Terry Sampson agree to abide by my decision, I will give an "unofficial" ruling in this case of whether you are allowed to debate in this thread. But you both must agree to abide by it, or it would be best I think to kick this over to the mods.

Your two make the call.

Sure. I'm good with a consensus mod decision. I also trust your lone judgment, so either one is fine with me. I'm just basing what I told Terry concerning the Same Faith Debate forum rules on (a) my own past experience as a moderator and (b) the precedent that has been set in the Same Faith Debates forum over the years. (As we speak, there are a number of ongoing threads in the Same Faith Debates forum where the thread title does not specify who the thread is directed to.)

 

[Sunstone]

***MODERATION POST***

Please calm down, friends. I know these issues are vitally important to you, but we're all human here. Please treat each other with greater respect.​

 

[Terry Sampson]

@KatzpurYour two make the call.

I'm gonna save you a lotta grief, I hope.
I initially called your attention to this thread, AFTER Katzpur jumped in and groused about my one and only post to the OP author, Jacob Samuelson. [cf. my post to Jacob at #15, and Katzpur's post #18 to me.] I called your/Moderator attention SOLELY BECAUSE I hoped to get prompt moderator attention in case things turned ugly or crazy in this thread. Unfortunately, your rational and reasonable mind didn't show up in time.

Be that as it may, I'm going to do now what I intended to do before Katzpur showed up. I'm outta here.

 

[Sunstone]

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

Just now spotted your flag in my notifications. I've been preoccupied for a few hours with other work. Sorry for the delay in responding to you.

 

[Sunstone]

I

Be that as it may, I'm going to do now what I intended to do before Katzpur showed up. I'm outta here.

You're call, of course.

 

[Sunstone]

@Terry Sampson @Katzpur

My apologies for not getting around to this thread sooner. As it happened, I was dealing with several other issues. I tend to be very focused when I have a whole lot of work to do. At times, I don't check my notifications for hours. For faster attention in the future, try Site Feedback or reporting posts.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

As I understand the Trinity teaching, all three persons are said to equal one God as well as each other. Yet Jesus said the Father is greater than he is. So to me, it means he and the Father, although one in purpose and united, are not equal. Jesus made that clear at John 14:28 when he said: "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."

 

[rational experiences]

Today humans from all religious beliefs read from books and then argue.

Claiming today my argument about conditions historically are correct and they claim and even know they state all about Jesus about 2000 years ago.

And yet science says, formulas, themes, stories, theories, design, built design, own and operate the design, machine that says God O the planet in all conditions of all theories…….the same as before.

Says today I am doing a new beginning.

For surely none of you think you are talking on behalf of how you claim a planet created historically? Or do you think you are?

So today a scientist with his new machine, owning his other machine.

As if like Stephen Haw KING says....wants to replace life on Earth by a machine condition...which means our total Destroyer removal.

And says....yes the Bible talks about the Destroyer, yet that is not the topic you care to impose.

You talk about how creation exists created....so that somehow you can copy it and think self sane when you claim it.

So the bible says that from the point of nothing in God...seeing God is actually discussed, proving that they never were talking about just the state nothing.

Another topic none of you even mention.

Today you say "in the beginning there was coal". And I created as the Creator, congratulating self...electricity he says.

That is the beginning that science today wants to give God. As his term theme in thinking conscience, not consciousness, the Creator.

 

[Katzpur]

As I understand the Trinity teaching, all three persons are said to equal one God as well as each other. Yet Jesus said the Father is greater than he is. So to me, it means he and the Father, although one in purpose and united, are not equal. Jesus made that clear at John 14:28 when he said: "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."

True, the early Christian creeds do say that the Father and the Son are "co-equal." As you pointed out, the Bible clearly states that the Father is greater than the Son. Furthermore, the Father sent the Son; the Son did not send the Father. The Son prays to the Father; the Father does not pray to the Son. The Son does the Father's will; the Father does not do the Son's will. While the two may share the same divine attributes, they are clearly not "co-equal" in the way the creeds say they are.

 

[Katzpur]

Today humans from all religious beliefs read from books and then argue.

Claiming today my argument about conditions historically are correct and they claim and even know they state all about Jesus about 2000 years ago.

And yet science says, formulas, themes, stories, theories, design, built design, own and operate the design, machine that says God O the planet in all conditions of all theories…….the same as before.

Says today I am doing a new beginning.

For surely none of you think you are talking on behalf of how you claim a planet created historically? Or do you think you are?

So today a scientist with his new machine, owning his other machine.

As if like Stephen Haw KING says....wants to replace life on Earth by a machine condition...which means our total Destroyer removal.

And says....yes the Bible talks about the Destroyer, yet that is not the topic you care to impose.

You talk about how creation exists created....so that somehow you can copy it and think self sane when you claim it.

So the bible says that from the point of nothing in God...seeing God is actually discussed, proving that they never were talking about just the state nothing.

Another topic none of you even mention.

Today you say "in the beginning there was coal". And I created as the Creator, congratulating self...electricity he says.

That is the beginning that science today wants to give God. As his term theme in thinking conscience, not consciousness, the Creator.

What exactly is a "spiritualist," @rational experiences? Is that a kind of Christian? I know it's not the name of a specific Christian denomination, but do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

 

[rational experiences]

What exactly is a "spiritualist," @rational experiences? Is that a kind of Christian? I know it's not the name of a specific Christian denomination, but do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

My first self labelling as taught is baby human who grows into an adult human.

Natural and spiritual first and original spiritual self.

Taught God concepts but disagrees with them by consideration that they do not support conscious healing and personal growth. Involved with personal humanity spirituality concepts, human health and the reasoning of the causes of phenomena.

Without greed, elitism, personal status, but a general communing equal living basis...humanity.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

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

Good Ol' Terry, I mean no disrespect to you sir. I think you might be too busy worrying about how other Christians don't believe the same way you do, that you don't even consider "your personal" thing. This "traditional Christian". Are you referring to Catholics? Orthodox? Protestants? Baptists? Anabaptist? Baptist? Lutherans? Non-Denominational? Reformist? Jews that followed Christ? Sorry man! I think you need to take your own friendly advice here, and that is to understand what Christian really means.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

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.

So you honestly believe that God, a being, sort of like a slug, can remove parts of Himself or Essence into three beings, call one part Son, one part Father, and One part Spirit, whenever he wants to and conjoin himself again. Sounds slimy to me. Can you prove it with scriptures or is this just what you have learned over spiritual and mental conditioning.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm gonna save you a lotta grief, I hope.
I initially called your attention to this thread, AFTER Katzpur jumped in and groused about my one and only post to the OP author, Jacob Samuelson. [cf. my post to Jacob at #15, and Katzpur's post #18 to me.] I called your/Moderator attention SOLELY BECAUSE I hoped to get prompt moderator attention in case things turned ugly or crazy in this thread. Unfortunately, your rational and reasonable mind didn't show up in time.

Be that as it may, I'm going to do now what I intended to do before Katzpur showed up. I'm outta here.

Why did you suppose that the tread might turn Ugly or crazy. unless you intended to provoke the situation even further than you already had.?
The tone and content of your posts seem to have indeed achieved that end.

It is not at all unusual for some folk to belittle and attack LDS posts on sight. Over the years this has been a contentious issue, and during my spell as a moderator required some tightening of the forum rules. especially in regard to rules 3 and 9.

These forums are well respected for their good nature and respect for others beliefs. How to incite moderation, by provoking retaliation should not be the aim of any member.

Debating and disagreements are best conducted in a friendly manner and should never descend into ad hominems and demeaning insults.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What exactly is a "spiritualist," @rational experiences? Is that a kind of Christian? I know it's not the name of a specific Christian denomination, but do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

There are a number or Spiritualist churches in the uk most were founded in the Victorian period when Spiritualism in all its forms were a common belief
We have a local one in Saddleworth... this is their face book page... Saddleworth Spiritualist Church Group

which might give you some flavour as to what they are now about... they have morphed quite a long way from their original form.

Extracted from their aims.......

"As a member of the SNU (Spiritualist’s National Union) our aim is to provide evidence of life after death with a wide variety of Mediums demonstrating this in our services. We offer a programme of regular services. healing and other events each week and everyone is invited. "

 

[Kenny]

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

"Wait, What!?" Common sense? With God? Common sense says, "I cannot walk on water!" Common sense says "Keep your two mites, elderly lady!" Common sense says "We walk by sight and not by faith".

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.

Apparently you have made up your mind! Are you open to discussion? Or is this a closed deal?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Trinity/tri-unity is indeed in the scriptures, not from a council. The council met to affirm what they believed was true, rebuking heresy (heresy is unbiblical doctrine).

Both testaments show God's plural nature, and even Jewish prayer and liturgy shows it. Be encouraged, for Jesus said unless you believe IAM He, you cannot be saved!