Debate me on the trinity.

[blü 2]

And you won't (can't) comprehend ... that is, the 'natural man'

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God ..
for they are foolishness to him .. and he cannot understand them .. because they are spiritually appraised .... I Cor 2:14 <><

http://dadmansabode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=630#p630
On what basis should I think that was an accurate statement about reality? It reads like an a defensive statement, an attempt at self-justification; it makes no case argued from evidence.

But if you have one, I'll happily discuss it.

 

[Cleary]

On what basis should I think that was an accurate statement about reality? It reads like an a defensive statement, an attempt at self-justification; it makes no case argued from evidence. But if you have one, I'll happily discuss it.

It reads like an a what ??

 

[blü 2]

It reads like an a what ??

The passage you quoted reads like a defensive statement, an attempt at self-justification. It offers no evidence-based argument as to why anyone should think it were an accurate statement about reality.

I said that before and invited you to make a reasoned and evidence-based case in defense of the statement if you wished. That offer's open, but of course it's a matter for you.

 

[Cleary]

the passage you quoted reads like a defensive statement an attempt at self-justification It offers no evidence-based argument as to why anyone should think it was an accurate statement about reality said that before and invited you to make a reasoned and evidence-based case in defense of the statement if you wished that offer's open but of course it's a matter for you

And you (blu 2) won't (can't) comprehend ... that is, the 'natural man'

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God ..
for they are foolishness to him .. and he cannot understand them .. because they are spiritually appraised .... I Cor 2:14 <><

give it up blu 2 ..... you'll never see the sense of it < see what I mean folks < God's word on display

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities,
His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse .... Romans 1:20 <><

 

[Katzpur]

because ..............

Someone please explain Hebrews 1:2.

...Please.

"...Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds..." I'm not sure what exactly you're questioning, but to me this means that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, created the universe under His Father's direction, that He later came to earth, bearing witness of the Father and ultimately inheriting all His Father has. Do you disagree with me there?

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, I would like to know how people reconcile this scripture which places Jesus Christ as being present at the creation of the world... Yet at the same time, deny that Christ is a *part* of God.

My problem with describing Jesus Christ as being "part" of God is that it implies that He is not fully God, but only a segment of Him. I see both Jesus Christ and His Father as being "God," but then I see "God" as the title by which we refer to both of them. I don't believe they are physically part of a single substance but are "one" in will, purpose, mind and heart. In other words, I might say that I don't believe that God the Father was born to Mary in Bethlehem or that her baby was only part of "God."

(Since you are a Catholic, I trust we can have a respectful dialogue on our differences. Sometimes this is next to impossible to do with an evangelical Christian. )

 

[Cooky]

My problem with describing Jesus Christ as being "part" of God is that it implies that He is not fully God, but only a segment of Him. I see both Jesus Christ and His Father as being "God," but then I see "God" as the title by which we refer to both of them. I don't believe they are physically part of a single substance but are "one" in will, purpose, mind and heart. In other words, I might say that I don't believe that God the Father was born to Mary in Bethlehem or that her baby was only part of "God."

(Since you are a Catholic, I trust we can have a respectful dialogue on our differences. Sometimes this is next to impossible to do with an evangelical Christian. )

That's also the Catholic position. Poor wording on my part.

 

[blü 2]

And you (blu 2) won't (can't) comprehend ... that is, the 'natural man'

Okay, I'll bite. How do you define 'natural man' here?

give it up blu 2 ..... you'll never see the sense of it < see what I mean folks < God's word on display

I asked you for a reasoned argument, not an unsupported quote.

But if you don't have a reasoned case to make, please just say so.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities,
His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse .... Romans 1:20 <><

'eternal', 'divine', are imaginary qualities.

And if you know your bible, you'll know it describes throughout a Bronze Age cosmology, a flat earth immovably fixed in the center of creation, a hard dome over it (the 'firmament') that you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed so that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth; no concept of the moon as a satellite orbiting the earth, no concept of a heliocentric solar system, no concept of stars as extremely distant suns, no concept of galaxies.

I'm simply asking you to make sense instead of quoting things that don't.

 

[Katzpur]

'eternal', 'divine', are imaginary qualities.

Excuse me for butting in here, but do you have a reasoned argument for this statement?

 

[Cooky]

"...Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds..." I'm not sure what exactly you're questioning, but to me this means that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, created the universe under His Father's direction, that He later came to earth, bearing witness of the Father and ultimately inheriting all His Father has. Do you disagree with me there?

Nope. I agree.

 

[Katzpur]

That's also the Catholic position. Poor wording on my part.

Okay, so now I'm confused. I thought the Catholic position was that the three persons of the Trinity were all part of a single substance. To me, that implies that there is literally no distinction between them, and that's where my disagreement with the Trinity comes in. Or maybe we're just using the word "substance" differently.

 

[blü 2]

Excuse me for butting in here, but do you have a reasoned argument for this statement?

I would if I knew what real qualities 'eternal' and 'divine' were actually intended to denote in this context; but until someone clues me up, alas, my reply is stalled.

 

[Sky Rivers]

I disagree with it and believe it is fundamentally wrong.

I don't accept the trinity. I don't accept that God is three persons. I accept that God is singular, Jesus Christ is his visible form (Word), and the Holy Ghost is God, working in men. I'm not "Oneness" or "Modest" either. I'm Christian, Non-denominational.

 

[Sky Rivers]

I am a Muslim

Interesting user name...

 

[Sky Rivers]

Because Jesus said to baptize nations in the name of "the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"...

...This is where, in Matthew 28: 18-19, the understanding of a "Holy Trinity" came to exist.

The three were conjoined by the Word of God in scripture, therefore it is safe and acceptable to consider the three as very closely related... it is scriptural.

Why do you suppose God wanted the world to know that it is proper to baptize in the name of those three? Surely there must be good reason for being informed on this important information.

Also, let's consider the Divine nature of being responsible for judging all souls, which Jesus will do. No mere "prophet" could be responsible for such a Divine task.

Also consider:

• In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
• He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
• He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias — a step long since taken by all the Apostles — but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelationfrom the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).
• Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

Scripture is correct and all three have the same name. Think about it? The name of the Father. The name of the Son. The name of the Holy Ghost. What name is this? It's the name which we know today, since it's the only one so heavily blasphemed and taken in vain. The name is Jesus Christ. It is the name by which demons tremble. It is the name by which we are saved. It is the name by which we may call on and our prayers will be heard... and it's the name known and preached through the world.

 

[Vee]

**MOD POST**
​

RULE 4 REMINDER:


Off-topic content is not allowed on the forums. This includes (but is not limited to) posting links or images without discussion-promoting commentary, having a signature that violates signature size guidelines, posts that deviate significantly from a thread topic or its intent, repetitious non-conversational posts, and any other habits deemed spammy by the staff.

Thank you for you cooperation.

Vee,
On behalf of the staff

 

[Clear]

I did not care to enter the debate but simply wanted to make two points.


Regarding "A" trinity : I believe that almost all Christians believe 1) that there is a Lord God (the father); 2) believe in Jesus and 3) they believe that a Holy Spirit exists. I do not think there is much controversy among the various Christian movements over whether these three entities (i.e. the “trinity”) exist, but rather the core controversy regards their individual natures and their relationship to one another. An overly simple description of this controversy is whether these three entities are actually THREE SEPARATE entities, or if they are ONE SINGLE entity having three separate manifestations.

I thought I would add a single point regarding the concept of "one-ness".


1) A single point regarding the concept of "oneness" and translation / interpretation of the word denoting "one" or "oneness".

Jesus, in speaking to his Father in prayer, asked for a blessing upon his disciples “… that they may be one, as we are…”. (Jn 17:11)

If Jesus was praying in a form of Hebrew, then he is probably not using the numerical term “one”, but probably the conceptual term “yachad” (i.e. one in purpose and thought and heart…). This was a common religious term applied to those who are gathered upon a single principle, such as those who committed to the same religious covenant.

יחד (yachad) as it describes the type of “one ness” and “unity” of the The Father and his son and the Holy Spirit is often and easily confused with the english numerical term, “one”. While “yachad” may be three individuals who are united in a single cosmic purpose (as is the early Christian “Godhead” of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), it may refer to any number who are similar united upon a single covenant and purpose. For example, a cluster of grapes is also called a "yachad", because the individuals grapes have a common connection.

In fact, when the Jewish association of Messianics in Qumran formed, they designated themselves a ‘yachad’. To avoid mis-connotations of using various possible english “semi-equivalents”, the “Wise, Abegg and Cook translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls decided not to use the word “community”, but rather they used “yachad”, which was one of the society’s most common self-designations. It is very clear that this “oneness” of a yachad is not a numerical designation, but a conceptual unity of multiple individuals.

For examples, when CHARTER (1QSa, 1Q28a) describes the banquet–feast in the latter days associated with the arrival of the Messiah, it is “a banquet held by the society of the yahad”. This “one-ness” involves a number of individuals.

In describing the PROOF TEXTS of 4Q175 one shared concept which partly created this “oneness” of faith was the societys’ expectations for the coming of the prophet who was like Moses (the greatest prophet); the royal scion of David and a high priest... They were "yachad" and "united" on this point.

In 4Q177, describes the time "...when the men of the yachad flee...". They fled in unison and share in their exile from their land. They are even sharing a “oneness” in the experiences of exile.

1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 8 describes this unity of the partly as a shared and united acceptance of a covenant of justice; a covenant of “upholding the covenant of eternal (divine) statutes.” . It says that as this way “…is perfected among the men of the Yahad, each walking blamelessly with his fellow”, each person being “… guided by what has been revealed to them.”

The concept of “oneness” of a “yachad” is not simply a temporary or societal term, but an eternal religious concept much like the concept of a Christian heaven where individuals are united in living eternal social principles and live together in joy and harmony for ever. Heaven is another type of “yachad”.

That "one-ness" of multiple individuals as a "yachad" was, historically, a principle of "one ness" in heaven as well as an earthly principle is made clear in early texts. For example, in the "Priestly blessing for the last days" in 1Q28b, 1QSb Col. 4 the text says : “…May you abide forever as an angel of the Presence in the Holy habitation to the glory of the God of hosts. May you serve in the temple of the kingdom of God, ordering destiny with the angels of the presence, a society of the yahad with the holy ones forever, for all the ages of eternity.”

This society of individuals who have become “one” in purpose; one in heart and sentiment and even one in mind and thought as it regards this shared covenant is the concept underlying both Jesus’ prayer for his disciples and it’s great example of the ‘yachad’ which forms the Christian God-head and “unity” involving God the Father, his Son and the Holy Spirit.


The second point that I wanted to make is that my "title" / "name" on the forum is CLEAR. I am not CLEARY

(Cleary is a different poster in case anyone confused us.)

Clear
σιδρακω

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, I would like to know how people reconcile this scripture which places Jesus Christ as being present at the creation of the world... Yet at the same time, deny that Christ is a *part* of God.

The angels were present , too (Job 38:7); does that mean they are God?

Jesus himself prayed to his God, @ John 17:5 --"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. " Again, it establishes his existence....not his deification. Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus, "the beginning of God's creation", so Jesus has existed a long, long time.

 

[blü 2]

I don't accept the trinity. I don't accept that God is three persons. I accept that God is singular, Jesus Christ is his visible form (Word), and the Holy Ghost is God, working in men. I'm not "Oneness" or "Modest" either. I'm Christian, Non-denominational.

Then you have the great advantage over the mainstream Trinitarians in thinking of something that might be logically coherent, a single being with three distinct customary kinds of manifestation.

Marks for that.

Of course it's not without problems: Jesus being his own Father, for instance, or saying on the Cross, 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?' &c.

And Jesus denies, 17 or more times, that he's God, and, for what it's worth,Paul agrees.

But that sort of thing can happen anywhere, not just in theology.

 

[Workman]

IMO..
Trinity is an explanation of How three will make ONE..

When one finally finds the understanding of the mind to give unto God..it means you have found the father in heaven..
Now one must be open minded of these words..they do not mean what you expect..
Heaven is also in ones mind..
When signing of the Trinity, it shows you where Father is located..by placing touch of the head and mentions ‘In the name of the father’.

The Father is located in the head/heaven(mind)..as being the will of the father is the will of your whole family/your whole body.

The Son is Jesus..placing touch of hand in the middle chest..referring Jesus as your Heart(and also to mention this is the ONLY way to heaven(mind) is through your heart(Jesus)..when one has found these two in him/her to control for God.. Then it will be the understanding of both to do its WILL through Your Holy Spirit..your Left and right arms/hands..when you find all three of them and do its Will..you than become A MAN..which mentions at the end of The trinity..Aman/Amen(A MAN...this is when one will born A Man for now we are not worthy to be called MAN..we are...
WHO(man)=Human


All three(3) are all located inside you(1).