Christians: The Trinity Fails to Describe God.

[Sandra Jayne]

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.

Yes you are quite right. Constantine wanted to appease all those who were fighting with him so he polluted the early Christian beliefes. The belief in a triad of gods was popular among many cultures hence the trinity becaame a doctrine of christianity, a false one I should add.
I don't think the holy spirit is a 'person', there is never a sighting of it in heaven and on the day of pentecost everyone was filled with the spirit at the same time. It makes more sense that it is an 'force' for want of a better word sent from God.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Are you unaware of the other heresies the early councils rebuked, besides anti-trinitarian doctrine? For example, the Arians, who said "sin is only of the body, not the soul, so fornicate"? Is it okay if even the early Roman Catholic councils, despite the often-heretical nature of Roman Catholicism, stood up and said, "most Christians believe in a trinity, let's read the scriptures together to see"?

In takes Bible mining and 85 years of experience to see the trinity? At Jesus's baptism, the Spirit, Father and Son were all present and accounted for simultaneously.

I don't think the amount of years one studies scripture makes any difference whether one recognises the truth in the scriptures. People can become fixated on one point and I notice you did not address points made in previous posts.

It is always suspect when posts aren't addressed but just come out with another bible verse they think supports their belief, that is no good. One has to consider the whole of the scriptures and what it says not just base a whole belief on just one verse.which by the way only means God's spirit not an independent being.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Jacob Samuelson


I agree that the model of God the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit being one individual envisioned and then adopted by later christian movements does not, in my opinion, have any historical or rational or logical advantage over the earlier model of the trinity as three individual beings.

I just wanted to make a couple of other points.


1) MODERN CHRISTIANS DO NOT USE THE SAME BIBLICAL TEXT AS EARLY CHRISTIANS

The early Christians were not reading the same text offered to us by readers of modern bibles. This, itself causes discrepancy and errors in theology.

For example, Ken S offered the following as “biblical” in support of a position. The problem is, the example is not “biblical”.

Ken S offers a quote of Phillipians 2:7 which is quoted as : “7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), (POST #65)
(gk 7ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· )

This narrative is not found in any authentic Greek biblical source text. “Κενοω εαυτον” does not mean “to strip of all privileges and rightful dignity” but it simply means to “empty” ones self. The creator/translator of this text is simply adding text that represents their own theology rather than translating the actual text. When a “translator” contaminates the text in this way, they are no longer “translating”, but are instead, integrating their own theology to the text rather than offering the theology of the writer.

Adding theology to a narrative which doesn’t exist in the original biblical text does not make the resulting text or it’s theology position “biblical’.

Similarly, the very next verse adds even more contamination to it’s text. Vs 8 of the proffered text read : “He abased and humbled Himself [still further] ...(POST #65)

The Greek texts reads simply that he made himself “low” (humble) (gk 8 …. ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν). It does not say “abased and humbled…”. There is no “and”. There is no "abased". There is no “still further” in the Greek biblical source text. Such additions are simply more examples where a person who creates a bible, is laying their own theology onto the text they are creating. This is not “translating”, but instead is “commenting”. Such additions are not historical “biblical” text to the degree that they do not represent authentic text.


ERRONEOUS TEXTS ENCOURAGE ERRONEOUS THEOLOGICAL MODELS
One problem such errors and contaminations produce is that they affect the theological models that readers of such texts create. We all read into the text our own theology. IF we believe the members of the trinity are the same being, then that is what we tend to read into the text. IF we believe the members of the trinity are different than one another, then that is what we tend to read into the text.



READING MODERN THEOLOGICAL MODELS INTO THE TEXT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE THEOLOGY OF THE WRITER AND THE READERS

Ken S provides us with another example.

Regarding John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Ken reads this text and asks : “If he had to be "restored" or glorify me with what I had "with thee before".. doesn't it dictate that he wasn't was he used to be?” (post #65) This is in support of personal modern theological beliefs.

The early Judeo-Christians, given the early theological model where God the Father and the son are different would have understood this same text inside their own early worldviews where Jesus was a different individual, where this Messiah/Son existed with God before the world was created, and who had a degree of Glory during this pre-creation existence.


2) THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MODEL WHERE GOD AND THE SON ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.

In the earlier theological model (before the triune type trinity was created and taught), in early Judeo-Christian literature, Jesus not only existed with God as the Logos, but did indeed have honor in his association with god the Father. This model seems more logical and more consistent with the earliest Judeo-Christian literature in my estimation.


For example, when the prophet Enoch, sees both the Father and the son in pre-creation heaven, he sees God the Father and the Son (who is with the Father) and these two individuals thusly : “And his head [the father] was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels.”

The Prophet Enoch then asked regarding the Son : “And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, [...] “Who is this, and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”. 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. (Enoch 46:1-6)

In early Judeo-Christian literature, Not only are the Father and the Son separate individuals, but it is clear that the Father has authority and delegates to and directs the accomplishment of much of his Plan to the Son.

In the early Judeo-Christian model, the Son had a degree of Glory in the beginning with his Father

It is clear that because of the superlative nature of the Son and because of his position and accomplishments, he had Glory and honor in heaven with his Father. It is especially for his role as Messiah that he was honored. For example, in The second treatise of the Great Seth, Jesus related regarding his glory that “The whole house of the Father of Truth rejoiced that I am the one who is from them.... And they all had a single mind, since it is out of one. They charged me since I was willing. I came forth to reveal the glory to my kindred and my fellow spirits.”

Regardless of the messiah Jesus' degree of Glory before creation, in early literature, Jesus is still subservient to and directed by his Father to accomplish the will of the Father : The prophet Isaiah says : ”And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...[...]... 16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah)

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

It is only inside of this earlier theological model of the Father and Son as separate individuals, that much of the earliest Literature can make any sense.

For example, in the discourse of Abbaton, written by Archbishop Timothy in Jerusalem (thus it was a very orthodox doctrinal discourse), Jesus is describing to his apostles regarding the creation episode and, the creation of Adam’s body. Jesus describes the Father took clay and made Adams body, and before putting Adams spirit into the lifeless body, “he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.”


The Father knows that men will fall and much injustice will be done and it is at this point that Jesus volunteers to be the redeemer of mankind. Jesus describes his separate desires as he approaches the Father and volunteers to be the redeemer in the following words : "And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfill Thy command.” God the Father then accepts the Messiahs offer and places a spirit into Adams body and thus, inaugurates the Fathers plan for mortality.

Gos of Bartholomew describes the Choosing of the Son as messiah, thusly, “Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life, everyone who came to me. And he called me Jesus, that I might heal every sin of the ignorant and give to men the truth of God. “ The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV

The earliest christian sermon by the colleague of the apostle Peter (and Paul) speaks of this choosing of Jesus, saying, “.... may the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through him to be his own special people.. (1 Clement 64:1)

Similarly Jewish Enoch describes this choosing of the Messiah by the Father. “At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time (Lit “before the beginning [or “head”] of days,”), 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. 5 All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him: they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. 6 For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of the Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. 7 And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression (together with) all its ways of life and its habits in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life.” 1st Enoch 48:1-7

The Sethian literature describes this wonderful occasion of Joy and honor of the Son : “…. The whole house of the Father of Truth rejoiced that I am the one who is from them.... And they all had a single mind, since it is out of one. They charged me since I was willing. I came forth to reveal the glory to my kindred and my fellow spirits.” The second treatise of the Great Seth;

Having volunteered and having been chosen as Messiah in this early model, this Savior is authorized and SENT to accomplish his role as Messiah by the Father, who retains all authority. Thus Bartholomew describes the Lord Jesus as a “lamp, never extinguished…. who at the command of the Father gave up your life above and completed your work, who changed the dejection of Adam into joy and overcame the sorrow of Eve with gracious countenance...” The Gospel of Bartholomew chap IV

In early Judeo-Christian decensus literature, (after the Father gives his son the command to descend through the heavens to earth) describes how the son adjusts his glory to that of the lower worlds as he descends so that his glory is not recognized. (Asc of Isaiah vs 7-11). The text says : “I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Load Christ, who will be called Jesus, "Go out and descend through all the heavens. You shall descend through the firmament and through that world as far as the angel who (is) in Sheol, but you shall not go as far as Perdition.”



3) THERE ARE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES IN EARLY BIBLICAL TEXTS


John 1:18 for example : The early Greek reads : “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he declared him. (gk Θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης Θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον τοθ πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.”)

What did this text mean to John, the ancient Christian author who wrote this; what did it mean to the earliest Christian who copied it; and to the earliest Christian who read this scripture?

Did the early Christian believe that this “only begotten God” who was in the bosom of the Father was the same as the Father or did they believe it referenced a different God who was an “only begotten God”? Did such texts indicate a plurality of Gods (i.e. different individuals) or did "only Begotten God" apply to the Father as well? (i.e. three manifestations of a single God). I am suggesting that the earliest Judao-Christian sacred texts relate the three in the Godhead as individuals (i.e. "three" really means "three").

It is the LATER Christian texts that increasingly relate to the God head as a "tri-une" (i.e. "three" really means "one") of individuals and, I agree with the part of the premise that relates to the illogic of this later theory of a "tri-une" God. I do not see any historical advantage to the later theory of a “Tri-une” God where all individuals are the same being.

I hope your journey is good Jacob

Clear
σισεειω

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think the amount of years one studies scripture makes any difference whether one recognises the truth in the scriptures. People can become fixated on one point and I notice you did not address points made in previous posts.

It is always suspect when posts aren't addressed but just come out with another bible verse they think supports their belief, that is no good. One has to consider the whole of the scriptures and what it says not just base a whole belief on just one verse.which by the way only means God's spirit not an independent being.

"A verse I think supports my belief"?

You are saying that when the Son, Father and Spirit appear in the same verse, that is not a good helpful tool to explain the trinity?

You are saying it's wrong to mention a verse where Father, Son and Spirit are in one place simultaneously, when someone says, "I've never found the trinity in the Bible, reading for many years"? It's not appropriate for Bible believers to encourage one another with verses they've read?

 

[metis]

What exactly does "essence" mean, though? Does it refer in any way to physical make-up or just to immaterial attributes and qualities?

All of the above, much like a cat is more than just a collection of body parts.

 

[Clear]

WHAT IS THE LOGICAL, RATIONAL EXPLANATION OF "ESSENCE' AS IT APPLIES TO A TRINITY THEORY?
@metis said : “Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the "essence" of God the Father but are not specifically God the Father. “

@Katzpur replied : “What exactly does "essence" mean, though? Does it refer in any way to physical make-up or just to immaterial attributes and qualities? “

metis explained : “All of the above, much like a cat is more than just a collection of body parts.”.


Hi Metis, I can’t tell if your comment has underlying humor (which I think is very clever), or if it has a hint of seriousness as well (I suspect both).

However this explanation of "essence" reveals the difficulty of the triune theory.

Like the explanation that "3 actually equals 1", this later theory of the three individuals being one is difficult to explain with any specificity, in a rational and logical manner since we have no actual natural examples where three individuals are one, or where either experience or logic can either explain or make rational this theory to individuals who do not already believe in it. I still can't tell what is specifically meant by "essence" in the "three is really one" theory.


BOTH HISTORISTS AND MODERNISTS USE THE SAME SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT DIFFERENT THEORIES
For example, @BilliardsBall says to @Sandra Jayne : “You are saying that when the Son, Father and Spirit appear in the same verse, that is not a good helpful tool to explain the trinity?”.

The problem is that the triunist christians use this verse in an attempt to show the three individuals (God,Son,Spirit) are all “one” (as in the later Christian movements) is correct while the historist Christians use the same verse to show they are separate individuals (as in the earlier Judeo-Christian movement).


USE AND MISUSE OF THE WORD "HERESY"
The word “Heresy” is thrown about by competing theorists. The tri-une version would have been heresy to the earlier historist Christians who believed they were individuals while the “three individuals” version becomes heresy to the more modernist Christians who adopted the "tri-une" theory. To this extent, heresy IS subjectve.



I still cannot see any advantage of the later version where the three in the Godhead (Father, Son, Spirit) are the same individual (or parts of one individual) over the early version where the three are simply individuals.


Clear
ακδρφυω

 

[metis]

I still can't tell what is specifically meant by "essence" in the "three is really one" theory.

Let me use another example:
I am a son, a father, and a husband, so am I three people?

Obviously not, but my "essence" is that of all three.

 

[Katzpur]

Let me use another example:
I am a son, a father, and a husband, so am I three people?

No, you are not three people, but that's not the point. A man can both be a son and have a son. But in either case, there are two distinct individuals. If you are a son, then you have a father who is not the same being as you. If you are a father, then you have a son who is not the same being as you.

Obviously not, but my "essence" is that of all three.

In other words, you're a human being, so you have the characteristics of a human being. You're not the same human being as any other human being, though. Any actual relationship involves at least two distinct individuals.

In John 1:1, for instance, we read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Both the Father and the Son (i.e. "the Word") could be "God" if "God" is seen as a collective noun denoting one entity consisting of more than one individual (e.g. a team, a jury, a congregation) and if "God" is seen as a title that is aptly applied to both individuals who share, not only that title, but all of the attributes of divinity. Since the word "with" means to be accompanied by another person or thing, the Son (i.e. "the Word") could not conceivably be "with" God (i.e. the Father) unless the were two distinct individuals.

 

[metis]

No, you are not three people, but that's not the point. A man can both be a son and have a son. But in either case, there are two distinct individuals. If you are a son, then you have a father who is not the same being as you. If you are a father, then you have a son who is not the same being as you.

The "son(s) of God" was a common expression of Jewish men referring to themselves, and this approach was "borrowed" by the early Church. The issue of Jesus supposedly being "God's only son" refers to the HS impregnating Mary.

 

[Clear]

Let me use another example:
I am a son, a father, and a husband, so am I three people?

Obviously not, but my "essence" is that of all three.

No, you are not three people. You are a single individual who is a son of a Father who is an entirely different individual than you are. You are a Father to a child who is an entirely different individual than yourself. You are a husband of a spouse who is an entirely different individual than yourself.

What you are calling your "essence" in this example is merely several labels, applied to a SINGLE individual. If you applied another twenty labels to yourself, you remain a single individual.



I agree with Katzpur. Post #88 is a good example of the logical disconnect tri-unists must make to support their theory that “3 is really 1” in natural, logical life.

1) Actual familial relationships are not the same as labels we apply to those relationships.

In natural reality, one can be a son, but only if they have a Father. And in natural, real life, one's father is an entirely different person. (A person is not their own father.)
One can be a father, but only if they have a child. And, in natural, real life, one's son is an entirely different person. ( a person is not their own child).
One can be a husband, but only if they have a spouse. And, in natural, real life, one's spouse is an entirely different person. ( a person is not their own spouse)

In a familial relationships, the son, father and spouse may logically, have a hundred labels applied to them and roles they fulfill. They may be bakers, lawyers, dish-washers, baseball players, lovers, friends, enemies, etc. No matter which labels nor how many roles applied to an individual, this does not logically support the premise that “3 is really 1”.


2) Individuals do not have all of the same characteristics

A man who is a son to a Father, a husband to a spouse and a father to a son does not have the same characteristics as his own son, his own spouse and his own Father. Similarly, Jesus and his Father are different in multiple ways..

For examples

Jesus does not have the same authority as his Father. Jesus does not give himself authority.

Jesus does not know all that the father knows. Jesus cannot inform himself of his fathers knowledge.

Jesus is sent by the Father to do the Fathers will. The Father is not sent by Jesus.

Jesus subject his will to the will of the Father. The Father does not subject his will to any other being.


I honestly do not see any advantage of the “3 is really 1” theory of the Christian Godhood over the earlier Judeo-Christian model where the 3 individuals are 3 individuals. I honestly think that the earlier Judeo-Christian descriptions of the Godhead where Jesus and God his father are different individuals is more logical than the later Christian theories.

Clear

 

[Katzpur]

Personally, I find the biblical scriptures to present a Creator God unique, distinct from that presented by any of the religions of the world; a Being of both diversity and unity. God’s triune Nature is stamped throughout His creation as testimony. While it may not be easy to comprehend the Trinity or triune nature of God, this in itself does not negate the truth and I think to outright reject the Trinity is to reject the biblical God.

That is a demonstrably false statement. Just for starters, the "biblical God" is comprised of a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost. In the Bible, Jesus clearly states that His Father is greater than He, and that His Father is also His God. The creeds state that the Father and the Son are "co-equal," which is a direct contradiction to what the Bible says. And that's just for starters.

“In Romans:1:20
Paul argues that God's "eternal power and Godhead" are seen in the creation He made. God's eternal power—but His Godhead? Yes, as Dr. Wood pointed out years ago in The Secret of the Universe, the triune nature of God is stamped on His creation. The cosmos is divided into three: space, matter and time. Each of these is divided into three. Space, for instance, is composed of length, breadth and width, each separate and distinct in itself, yet the three are one. Length, breadth and width are not three spaces, but three dimensions comprising one space. Run enough lines lengthwise and you take in the whole. But so it is with the width and height. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is all of space—just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is each God.

Time also is a trinity: past, present and future—two invisible and one visible. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is the whole. Man himself is a triunity of spirit, soul and body, two of which are invisible, one visible. Many more details could be given of the Godhead's triunity reflected in the universe. It can hardly be coincidence.

Nobody's suggesting that there are not three divine persons within the Godhead. And yes all three are "God," -- individually and collectively. So why try to complicate matters by insisting that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. The unity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is in their will and purpose, in their absolute oneness of resolve and aspiration. They are "one" as a husband and wife are supposedly one. Matthew 19:5-6 actually refers to a married couple (two distinct persons) as "one flesh." It says, "And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh." Do you seriously believe that you and your husband are "one flesh" or is this statement intended to emphasize the unity you supposedly want out of your marriage?

The Hebrew word elohim (gods) occurs about 2,500 times in the Old Testament, while the singular form occurs only250 times and most of those designate false gods. Genesis:1:1
reads, "In the beginning, elohim created the heaven and the earth"; i.e., literally, "gods created the heaven and the earth." Though a single noun is available, yet the plural form is consistently used for God. And in violation of grammatical rules, with few exceptions, singular verbs and pronouns are used with this plural noun. Why?

At the burning bush it was elohim (gods) who spoke to Moses. Yet elohim did not say, "We are that we are," but "I AM THAT I AM" (Ex 3:14). One cannot escape the fact that, all through the Bible, God is presented as a plurality and yet as One, as having both diversity and unity. This is unique among all the world's religions!

You may believe that it was Elohim who said, "I AM THAT I AM" in the Old Testament and that it was Jesus Christ who said the same thing in the New Testament. I believe that it was Jehovah (the name by which the pre-mortal Jesus Christ was known in the Old Testament) who made that statement in the Old Testament and reiterated in the New Testament. I could easily provide you with at least a dozen more instances proving that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus Christ of the New Testament and that neither one is God the Father.

To reject the Trinity is to reject the God of the Bible.“

That is utter nonsense. If a person accepts everything the Bible has to say about God, He doesn't need to also accept the mumbo-jumbo of the creeds, too. And if you genuinely believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you can't simultaneously say, "There is no definitely source of truth other than the Bible, which is complete and inerrant -- except for the Christian creeds." You can't have it both ways, and that's where Protestant theology falls on its face.

 

[Katzpur]

The "son(s) of God" was a common expression of Jewish men referring to themselves, and this approach was "borrowed" by the early Church. The issue of Jesus supposedly being "God's only son" refers to the HS impregnating Mary.

I'm not the what point you're actually trying to make here. Christianity's earliest Jewish converts would have said that all human beings are the children of God and that He is the Father of the spirits of each and every one of us. In that respect, you're right. Jesus wasn't God's only Son, but He definitely was God's "Only Begotten Son." Jesus had a literal mother, Mary, and a literal father, God. Each of us is the spirit son or daughter of God but the physical son or daughter of our mortal parents. None of this, though, really is an argument for or against the Creedal Triune God.

 

[InChrist]

That is a demonstrably false statement. Just for starters, the "biblical God" is comprised of a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost. In the Bible, Jesus clearly states that His Father is greater than He, and that His Father is also His God. The creeds state that the Father and the Son are "co-equal," which is a direct contradiction to what the Bible says. And that's just for starters.

Nobody's suggesting that there are not three divine persons within the Godhead. And yes all three are "God," -- individually and collectively. So why try to complicate matters by insisting that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. The unity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is in their will and purpose, in their absolute oneness of resolve and aspiration. They are "one" as a husband and wife are supposedly one. Matthew 19:5-6 actually refers to a married couple (two distinct persons) as "one flesh." It says, "And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh." Do you seriously believe that you and your husband are "one flesh" or is this statement intended to emphasize the unity you supposedly want out of your marriage?

You may believe that it was Elohim who said, "I AM THAT I AM" in the Old Testament and that it was Jesus Christ who said the same thing in the New Testament. I believe that it was Jehovah (the name by which the pre-mortal Jesus Christ was known in the Old Testament) who made that statement in the Old Testament and reiterated in the New Testament. I could easily provide you with at least a dozen more instances proving that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus Christ of the New Testament and that neither one is God the Father.

That is utter nonsense. If a person accepts everything the Bible has to say about God, He doesn't need to also accept the mumbo-jumbo of the creeds, too. And if you genuinely believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you can't simultaneously say, "There is no definitely source of truth other than the Bible, which is complete and inerrant -- except for the Christian creeds." You can't have it both ways, and that's where Protestant theology falls on its face.

Thanks for you thoughts, but I never said anything about the creeds, just the Trinity or triune nature of God. My view is based on the Bible, I don’t give much thought to the Protestant creeds.
I also believe it was the Son who revealed Himself (Yahweh) in the OT and Jesus in the NT, but this in no way negates the Tri-une God revealed in the scriptures as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus prayed to His Father in heaven who was greater positionally while Jesus lowered Himself to become flesh and live on earth amping humanity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

WHAT IS THE LOGICAL, RATIONAL EXPLANATION OF "ESSENCE' AS IT APPLIES TO A TRINITY THEORY?
@metis said : “Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the "essence" of God the Father but are not specifically God the Father. “

@Katzpur replied : “What exactly does "essence" mean, though? Does it refer in any way to physical make-up or just to immaterial attributes and qualities? “

metis explained : “All of the above, much like a cat is more than just a collection of body parts.”.


Hi Metis, I can’t tell if your comment has underlying humor (which I think is very clever), or if it has a hint of seriousness as well (I suspect both).

However this explanation of "essence" reveals the difficulty of the triune theory.

Like the explanation that "3 actually equals 1", this later theory of the three individuals being one is difficult to explain with any specificity, in a rational and logical manner since we have no actual natural examples where three individuals are one, or where either experience or logic can either explain or make rational this theory to individuals who do not already believe in it. I still can't tell what is specifically meant by "essence" in the "three is really one" theory.


BOTH HISTORISTS AND MODERNISTS USE THE SAME SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT DIFFERENT THEORIES
For example, @BilliardsBall says to @Sandra Jayne : “You are saying that when the Son, Father and Spirit appear in the same verse, that is not a good helpful tool to explain the trinity?”.

The problem is that the triunist christians use this verse in an attempt to show the three individuals (God,Son,Spirit) are all “one” (as in the later Christian movements) is correct while the historist Christians use the same verse to show they are separate individuals (as in the earlier Judeo-Christian movement).


USE AND MISUSE OF THE WORD "HERESY"
The word “Heresy” is thrown about by competing theorists. The tri-une version would have been heresy to the earlier historist Christians who believed they were individuals while the “three individuals” version becomes heresy to the more modernist Christians who adopted the "tri-une" theory. To this extent, heresy IS subjectve.



I still cannot see any advantage of the later version where the three in the Godhead (Father, Son, Spirit) are the same individual (or parts of one individual) over the early version where the three are simply individuals.


Clear
ακδρφυω

That's not "trouble" to indicate the correct understanding of a verse. Most verses have binary interpretations only--Jesus rose or didn't, Christians have assurance or not.

No one can accept "the historist" interpretation that there are three gods in Jesus's baptism, since we have countless clear statements in both testaments that God is one/a singular plural unity. Jewish people reject the trinity because of the many singular/oneness statements of the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for you thoughts, but I never said anything about the creeds, just the Trinity or triune nature of God. My view is based on the Bible, I don’t give much thought to the Protestant creeds.
I also believe it was the Son who revealed Himself (Yahweh) in the OT and Jesus in the NT, but this in no way negates the Tri-une God revealed in the scriptures as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus prayed to His Father in heaven who was greater positionally while Jesus lowered Himself to become flesh and live on earth amping humanity.

You may not have specifically mentioned the Creeds, but the OP started this thread with a discussion of what took place at the First Council of Nicaea, which was the establishment of the creed which defined God as what has forever more been referred to as "the Trinity." Is it the word "Trinity" that appeals to you? The Godhead of the Bible was made up of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost -- all divine, one in unity of will and purpose, but still retaining their individuality. I have underlined one sentence in your response. I'm glad we can agree on everything you said in that statement, as it is absolutely accurate according to the Bible. It is not accurate in terms of how "the Trinity" has been defined ever since the early Christian Counsels took it upon themselves to set down on paper the official nature of the God that must be worshipped by all who call themselves Christian. In "the Trinity," the Father and the Son are co-equal. In "the Godhead," they are not -- even though they are equal as to their divine nature.

 

[Katzpur]

That's not "trouble" to indicate the correct understanding of a verse. Most verses have binary interpretations only--Jesus rose or didn't, Christians have assurance or not.

Well, surprise, surprise! Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus rose from the dead, just like all other Christians. So what does this have to do with the OP?

No one can accept "the historist" interpretation that there are three gods in Jesus's baptism, since we have countless clear statements in both testaments that God is one/a singular plural unity. Jewish people reject the trinity because of the many singular/oneness statements of the Hebrew scriptures.

How about we try to approach this logically? What exactly is a "singular plural unity"?

 

[Clear]

Billiardsball said : “That's not "trouble" to indicate the correct understanding of a verse.” (post #95)

The historic Christians’ “correct” understanding of scriptures is different than your personal interpretation. Why should your personal interpretation of scriptures take priority over than of the Christians in the earliest time periods? For example, Clement was an actual colleague of the Apostles Peter and of Paul. Why would Clements claim regarding original doctrine not have priority over your personal interpretations and your doctrines?


Billiardsball said : “No one can accept "the historist" interpretation that there are three gods in Jesus's baptism, since we have countless clear statements in both testaments that God is one/a singular plural unity. ” (post #95)

This is a silly claim when the fact that the issue is so hotly debated for over 1700 years is evidence to the contrary. Obviously the earlier doctrine that Jesus and God the Father were separate individuals was accepted by the earliest Christian movement. If the historic Christians had not believed and accepted this doctrine, it would not be the predominant doctrine in so much of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature.

The later creation of and adoption of the “three is really one” theory of the Godhead became popular, but to say “no one can accept” the interpretation that Jesus is different than God the Father is incorrect.


Billiardsball said : “Jewish people reject the trinity because of the many singular/oneness statements of the Hebrew scriptures. ” (post #95)


Modern Muslims also reject the Christian trinity as do hindus, athiests, and a host of others. So what? This point is irrelevant since we are speaking of Christian doctrine. The earliest Judeo-Christians in their literature, taught that Jesus was not the same individual as his Father. They taught that the Holy Spirit was not the same as Jesus.

Since early Judeo-Christians in their literature taught that Jesus was a different individual than God, the Father, and since this doctrine is consistent with their interpretation of scriptures, then why does your personal theory and your personal interpretation take priority over the beliefs of the earliest Judeo-Christians?


Clear
νεσισιω

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There have been some very good arguments in this thread some more realistic than others.
With out repeating every one again, I suggest all the evidence we need is in the Bible itself.
Nowhere does it come out and say God his Son and the Holy spirit are one and the same individual Nor does it delve into and esoteric reasoning showing that they are linked as one being or share one substance. All that was introduced long after Jesus Death, and after the formation of the various early churches.

Nicaea was the crunch point, when a consensus was demanded by the emperor, to decide the Status and Deity of Jesus and how to reconcile this with the legitimacy of "one God"
The "Committee" decision became what we now understand as the trinity and it was expressed in what we call the Nicene creed.
That even to this day, no one truly understands it, is secondary to the fact that from that day onward it was a required belief for a majority of Christians.
Those bishops that disagreed, and there were many of them, as it was a close run thing, were declare heretical and persecuted or executed, and their churches dispersed or converted.

However Right up to the present time forms of Unitarian churches still exist. In Ireland they take the form of the "Non Subscribing Presbyterians" ( meaning that they do not subscribe to the Westminster confession.)

The artifice of the Trinity concept, achieved the confirmation of the Deity of Jesus, God and the Holy spirit as one being, with out venturing into the "Forbidden" world of Polytheism.

I do not have a problem with people suggesting that God his Son and the Holy Spirit makes Christianity a Polytheistic religion. If that is the reality so be it.
However my own belief is that of the Unitarian persuasion. Of worshiping God, and following the teachings of Jesus his son, and being guided by the Holy spirit. I do not need to understand their exact relationship any further than that...and that is the position we find in The Bible

 

[metis]

In that respect, you're right. Jesus wasn't God's only Son, but He definitely was God's "Only Begotten Son." Jesus had a literal mother, Mary, and a literal father, God. Each of us is the spirit son or daughter of God but the physical son or daughter of our mortal parents. None of this, though, really is an argument for or against the Creedal Triune God.

That's a non-sequitur in terms of your response to my last post, so I guess we aren't communicating too well. The above in no way goes against the Trinitarian concept.

Finally, I personally don't believe in the Trinitarian concept, but neither do I disbelieve in it. However, it is logical as far as what it teaches if one truly understands the concept of "essence" as applied here, but just because it's logical doesn't mean that it is correct. To me, it's at least somewhat similar to the Hindu concept of "manifestations", such as the "manifestations of Brahma" that still just posits one God (Brahma) but having Him taking different forms.