God's Trinity

[sojourner]

I don't think the concept really needs to be that hard. We can start with the Holy Spirit (this is not a ghost). It is actually the spirit of holiness, or the spirit of God. It is much like the breath of God (spirit and breath come from the same word). So it is part of God.

Jesus is seen as the incarnation of God. It is God, but just in human form. One can think of it like an avatar of God.

Really then, we kind of get into the idea of monism, which is one God, with many different forms.

I disagree. We believe that Jesus is Emmanuel -- "God with us." That constitutes more than just an "avatar." It's an "avatar" only in the sense that humanity is the imago Dei. But Jesus is more than that. Yes, Jesus is fully human, but Jesus is unique in that he is also fully God -- not a picture, not a likeness, not a model, not a stand-in. God.

 

[sojourner]

How is Jesus as the incarnation of G-d any different than Modalism or what Oneness Pentacostals believe?

Because Jesus is God Incarnate -- not a "model," or a "type," or a "part."

Why would an Avatar call G-d His Father in the first place?

It wouldn't. Happily, Jesus isn't an avatar. He was a human being. As a fully human being, Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

Why would He say "Let me return to you" if He was just an incarnation and not a separate soul?

Because that's what human beings do: Return to the Father, that is, pass from particularity to universality.

Why would Jesus not know the day or hour if He was an incarnation?

Why would any human being not know?

Clearly, if he has a separate mind and knowledge base, He's not an incarnation but an entirely separate mind/soul.

Clearly, as the bible says, he didn't regard Divinity a thing to be grasped, but humbled himself.

 

[sojourner]

How about the fact that the Father was considered to be the actual father himself as the one who conceived with Mary to produce Yashua in the first place?

How about the fact that this "fact" isn't biblical. At all? Mark doesn't discuss the birth at all. John doesn't talk about Mary being pregnant. Matthew says that the baby is from the Holy Spirit. Luke merely says that Mary will "conceive." None of them say that the Father conceived with Mary.

God limits G-d's self all the time? Feel free to elaborate and provide scriptural examples.

How about Psalm 85:3, for starters?

 

[outhouse]

No. What translation are you even using? Or source?

Looking at the Greek in the NT, it says spirit. It is the Holy Spirit in the NT as well. It doesn't change from the OT to the NT.

fair enough, I should have clarified the ghost was never used in the OT, and more of a different translation then anything else.

wiki-holy ghost

The term Holy Spirit appears at least 90 times in the New Testament, but only three times in the Old Testament

 

[fallingblood]

fair enough, I should have clarified the ghost was never used in the OT, and more of a different translation then anything else.

wiki-holy ghost

The term Holy Spirit appears at least 90 times in the New Testament, but only three times in the Old Testament

And it is the same term, Holy Spirit. There is no difference.

 

[fallingblood]

I disagree. We believe that Jesus is Emmanuel -- "God with us." That constitutes more than just an "avatar." It's an "avatar" only in the sense that humanity is the imago Dei. But Jesus is more than that. Yes, Jesus is fully human, but Jesus is unique in that he is also fully God -- not a picture, not a likeness, not a model, not a stand-in. God.

I can see that. Now, I don't agree, but then again, my view is not a standard view.

 

[Shermana]

I disagree. We believe that Jesus is Emmanuel -- "God with us." That constitutes more than just an "avatar." It's an "avatar" only in the sense that humanity is the imago Dei. But Jesus is more than that. Yes, Jesus is fully human, but Jesus is unique in that he is also fully God -- not a picture, not a likeness, not a model, not a stand-in. God.

Emmanuel can also mean "God is with us", and it's simply just a Hebrew name like "Ezekiel" which means "God strengthens", it doesn't mean that His name implies He is God among us anymore so than Ezekiel would mean that Ezekiel was God doing the strengthening.

And what exactly does "Fully God" mean? If God is a being and "god" is a title of being, wouldn't you want to say "fully god" with a lower case g? Otherwise, your definition of "God" becomes an adjective.

 

[Shermana]

]How about the fact that this "fact" isn't biblical. At all? Mark doesn't discuss the birth at all. John doesn't talk about Mary being pregnant.

Excuse me? Did you not remember where Mary was called out for being pregnant before being married? What does John have to do with this? If Matthew mentions it but John doesn't, does that somehow bolster your case? Or did you just not remember this part:

English Standard Version (©2001)
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

New Living Translation (©2007)
This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew says that the baby is from the Holy Spirit. Luke merely says that Mary will "conceive." None of them say that the Father conceived with Mary.

Okay fine, you can make the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father, but I guess we disagree on why Jesus refers to the Father as His Father. Should he have called the Holy Spirit His Father? Does this mean that Jesus is not the literal "Son of G-d"? Good luck selling that one to the establishment. You'd have a harder time than with my view.

How about Psalm 85:3, for starters?

And what do you suppose is the context? You are comparing Him holding back his wrath to limiting his physical being and knowledge in Avatar form, are you serious? You think that works? Try again, I don't interpret this at all as "limiting himself", how do you in any way view this as limiting himself?

New International Version (©1984)
You set aside all your wrath and turned from your fierce anger.

 

[garrydons]

How do you guys explain God's Trinity? For me is something that I will never understand until I will with him.

There is only One true God of Israel. "Hear O Isreal, the Lord our God, the Lord is One". So there is no such thing as "Trinitarian God". Yes the Almighty Father can manifest into Yeshua, but Yeshua is not a separate God. The Holy Spirit is not another person of God but the power of God. Does this make sense?

 

[sojourner]

Emmanuel can also mean "God is with us", and it's simply just a Hebrew name like "Ezekiel" which means "God strengthens", it doesn't mean that His name implies He is God among us anymore so than Ezekiel would mean that Ezekiel was God doing the strengthening.

Isn't Ezekiel doing the strengthening? Doesn't God usually work through human agency?

And what exactly does "Fully God" mean? If God is a being and "god" is a title of being, wouldn't you want to say "fully god" with a lower case g? Otherwise, your definition of "God" becomes an adjective.

If you can't figure this out and feel you have to twist semantics in order to help make it more confusing, there's no help for you.
You know what "fully God" means.

 

[sojourner]

Okay fine, you can make the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father,

Thank you. There is a distinction.

I guess we disagree on why Jesus refers to the Father as His Father. Should he have called the Holy Spirit His Father?

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

And what do you suppose is the context? You are comparing Him holding back his wrath to limiting his physical being and knowledge in Avatar form, are you serious? You think that works? Try again, I don't interpret this at all as "limiting himself", how do you in any way view this as limiting himself?

God limits God's Self in that God does not punish us as we deserve.

 

[sojourner]

There is only One true God of Israel. "Hear O Isreal, the Lord our God, the Lord is One". So there is no such thing as "Trinitarian God". Yes the Almighty Father can manifest into Yeshua, but Yeshua is not a separate God. The Holy Spirit is not another person of God but the power of God. Does this make sense?

None whatsoever. Perhaps if you understood what the doctrine actually says, you could better refute it.

 

[outhouse]

God limits God's Self in that God does not punish us as we deserve.

does he punish us at all?

only believers?

non believers?

the whole world?


only Israel?


Only ancient men?

 

[sojourner]

does he punish us at all?

only believers?

non believers?

the whole world?


only Israel?


Only ancient men?

I don't believe God punishes us at all. I think we've outgrown that aspect of how we view God. But the question was: Where in the Bible does it say that God limits God's Self? I was simply showing where.

 

[fallingblood]

does he punish us at all?

only believers?

non believers?

the whole world?


only Israel?


Only ancient men?

A study of Job would answer these questions. No, God does not punish us.

 

[Shermana]

A study of Job would answer these questions. No, God does not punish us.

Okay, so you think all the times that it says G-d lays wastes and devestates those who provoke his fierce anger, that he wasn't punishing them. You guys must have some very strange interpretations of all those times it specifically says that G_d punishes.

 

[fallingblood]

Okay, so you think all the times that it says G-d lays wastes and devestates those who provoke his fierce anger, that he wasn't punishing them. You guys must have some very strange interpretations of all those times it specifically says that G_d punishes.

I pointed to Job for a reason.

 

[Shermana]

I pointed to Job for a reason.

So you think Job was the rule and not the exception? You'd have to ignore vast swaths of what the rest of the books say to arrive at this conclusion. Heck, you'd have to throw out all of Isaiah and Jeremiah just for starters. And if your logic is that Ha-Satan is the one who does the punishing, it's still under G-d's authorization.

 

[fallingblood]

So you think Job was the rule and not the exception?

I think the book of Job makes a great theological argument against the idea that God just punished people.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, so you think all the times that it says G-d lays wastes and devestates those who provoke his fierce anger, that he wasn't punishing them. You guys must have some very strange interpretations of all those times it specifically says that G_d punishes.

They're stories -- not factual history.