Hands up who believes in the Trinity!

[Katzpur]

I was attempting to be nice. Why should God be limited to our physics and our understanding? God made the rules, but that does not mean he himself is limited to that. You must expand your mind to what is possible for God, not us. And do you not agree that God can do what ever he wishes, without limitations?

I'm sorry if I came across as sarcastic, and hope you will accept my apology. I appreciate your attempting to be nice, and respect your opinion, even if it is different from mine. As a matter of fact, I very much enjoy conversations with Catholics because they are, as a rule, among the most courteous and tolerant of all Christians. I don't see our disagreement as one in which I am limiting God in any way. As far as I'm concerned, the concept that God is either corporeal or non-corporeal -- but not both -- is simply a matter of fact.

I certainly do agree that God made the rules. I also agree that He can do whatever He wishes. On the other hand, I sincerely believe that He wants us to know Him, the way any truly loving father would want his children to know him. I believe that traditional Christianity has made Him far more mysterious than He ever wanted to be. Obviously, we are not able to fully comprehend the nature of God. But, when I read the Creeds, I find God to be less and less "knowable" as time goes by. I have little complaint with the Apostles Creed, for instance. The Nicene Creed paints a picture of a God who is so much more "incomprehensible" than the God of the scriptures. And by the time you get to the Athanasian Creed, you feel like you're reading some kind of a legaleze document. I hardly think God would recognize Himself in that Creed.

My beliefs about the nature of God are perhaps the main reason why I reject "orthodox" Christianity. I see the Creeds as an uninspired and man-made attempt to force God into a mold that the neo-platonist minds of the fourth and fifth centuries said He had to fit into. I don't believe for one minute that the first century Christians saw God in the same way that the majority of Christians do today. If you were able to point me to any first-century documents which describe God in the way the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds do, I'd be more than interested in reading them.

God bless,
Kathryn

 

[jeffrey]

Kathryn. 1st, my wife loves your avatar. We have a kitten that looks almost identical to that. As far as the creeds go, forgive me, I'm not familiar with them. We've only been Catholic for a few months. Raised Baptist, but disagreements with their stance on gays and thinking that a Harry Potter Book our son was reading was a devil book. As far as the Trinity, my belief is that they are all the same. Different but same. I agree that sometimes people try to read to much into things. But I also believe that no matter how you believe in God, as long as you believe and follow the basic teachings of Jesus, That's all that matters. End justifies the means thing. I wish I had my Bible with me, for I'd quote from James. In the 1st part, it discusses to respect other Christians and their beliefs. I know that when you pray, Jesus hears you just as much as when I pray.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Kathryn. 1st, my wife loves your avatar. We have a kitten that looks almost identical to that. As far as the creeds go, forgive me, I'm not familiar with them. We've only been Catholic for a few months. Raised Baptist, but disagreements with their stance on gays and thinking that a Harry Potter Book our son was reading was a devil book. As far as the Trinity, my belief is that they are all the same. Different but same. I agree that sometimes people try to read to much into things. But I also believe that no matter how you believe in God, as long as you believe and follow the basic teachings of Jesus, That's all that matters. End justifies the means thing. I wish I had my Bible with me, for I'd quote from James. In the 1st part, it discusses to respect other Christians and their beliefs. I know that when you pray, Jesus hears you just as much as when I pray.

Hi, sorry to butt in. I don't want to tar you all with the same brush, but i find that this is a problem with a lot of trinitarians, not all, but a lot. they don't seem to be familiar with the creeds. i agree with kathryn with what she says about the athanasian creed too.
If one were to read the bible cover to cover, with no prior knowledge of the trinity, would they conclude that there is a trinity with everything that that entails? the simple answer is, no.
It is something that was brought along by man after the establishment of the original congregations, developed over the centuries into the teaching that we have today. you will see in the history of the various councils that they were headed by such people as Constantine, who wasn't a christian and worshipped the sun, like his father, and emperor theodosius. and what guided their decisions? Was it the Bible or was it clerical and political considerations? To quote E.W Hopkins 'the final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.'
there are a million an one scriptures that go against every line of the athanasian creed and the rest of the trinity teachings that it should be as clear as day that the trinity is not a bible teaching! but i suppose this is where 2 Corintians 4:4 is fullfilled in all it's detail.

 

[jeffrey]

If your talking about a concept related to the trinity, you are most likely correct. But the trinity itself, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the same, All the Father, just different parts, then I do disagree.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

If your talking about a concept related to the trinity, you are most likely correct. But the trinity itself, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the same, All the Father, just different parts, then I do disagree.

ok, do you wan't me to show you all the scriptures that show that they are not the same? it's a long list you know...by the way, please difine the word 'same'. what is your definition of it too? please difine equal too. thanks.

 

[jeffrey]

ok, do you wan't me to show you all the scriptures that show that they are not the same? it's a long list you know...by the way, please difine the word 'same'. what is your definition of it too? please difine equal too. thanks.

1st. the Apostles' Creed is something I pray as part of the Rosary. still trying to memorize it. Lol. The Trinity is the 3 parts of God. All 3 are just as important as the other. All 3 are part of the same. And as stated in the Gospel of John, "He was with God and He is God." So, are you saying there are 3 Gods?

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

1st. the Apostles' Creed is something I pray as part of the Rosary. still trying to memorize it. Lol. The Trinity is the 3 parts of God. All 3 are just as important as the other. All 3 are part of the same. And as stated in the Gospel of John, "He was with God and He is God." So, are you saying there are 3 Gods?

Just a side point on prayer....Matthew 6:7*(New Living Translation)

7"When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again.

Anyhow, no, i'm not saying there are 3 God's. Infact i don't believe the the holy spirit is a god. i believe it's God's active force. and to repeat, i don't believe Jesus is God. There is one Almighty God, then there is his son, seperate from him and in subjection to him. it makes so much more sense to believe that. the questions i could pose about what Jesus said, could go on.
For instance, if he was God, why say that he does nothing of his own initiative? Why did he say before his death, 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'? why did he say that the father is greater then he is? Why did he sit at the right hand of God? Why did he call his father his God? Why did the voice from heaven at the transfiguration say 'this is my son the beloved, listen to him'? who did he pray to? why did he ask at his death, 'father, why have you forsaken me?'? who resurrected him?
Also, why are there no visions of heaven that mention the holy spirit sat next to God? What was the reason Jesus came to earth in the first place? Why did the Isrealites not worship a trinity? why is God stated to be Jesus' head, as in the headship arrangement? How come the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus Might God, not Almighty God? like i said, i could go on... :sarcastic

 

[glasgowchick]

Just a side point on prayer....Matthew 6:7*(New Living Translation)

7"When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again.

Anyhow, no, i'm not saying there are 3 God's. Infact i don't believe the the holy spirit is a god. i believe it's God's active force. and to repeat, i don't believe Jesus is God. There is one Almighty God, then there is his son, seperate from him and in subjection to him. it makes so much more sense to believe that. the questions i could pose about what Jesus said, could go on.
For instance, if he was God, why say that he does nothing of his own initiative? Why did he say before his death, 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'? why did he say that the father is greater then he is? Why did he sit at the right hand of God? Why did he call his father his God? Why did the voice from heaven at the transfiguration say 'this is my son the beloved, listen to him'? who did he pray to? why did he ask at his death, 'father, why have you forsaken me?'? who resurrected him?
Also, why are there no visions of heaven that mention the holy spirit sat next to God? What was the reason Jesus came to earth in the first place? Why did the Isrealites not worship a trinity? why is God stated to be Jesus' head, as in the headship arrangement? How come the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus Might God, not Almighty God? like i said, i could go on... :sarcastic

You said that you believe in one TRUE GOD ? You also believe that Jesus is " a god" with a small "g" correct? Is Jesus a true God or a false God ?

So My questions being if Jesus is NOT God then ?

Why does God call Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8
why is the phrase to call apon the name of the Lord [ Hebrew YHWH ie Psalm 116: 4 ] used only for God in the Old Testament, and translated into Greek in the LXX As call apon the name of the Lord [ Greek Kurios ] applied to Jesus in the NT [ 1Cor1:2 ] if Jesus is not God in The flesh.

Why does the Apostle John say that Jesus was---Calling on His own Father making himself equal with God [ John 5:18 ]

How was it possible for Jesus to know all things [ John 21:17]

How can Jesus know all men [ John 16:30 ]

How can Jesus be everywhere [Matt 28:20 ]

How can Jesus The Christ dwell in you [ Col 1:27 ]

How can Jesus give Eternal [ Micah 5:1-2 ]

How can Jesus be the one who gives Eternal life [ John 10:27-28]

How can he be our only Lord and master [ Jude 4]

How can Jesus be called the mighty God [Isaiah 9:6 ] if there is only one God in existence [ Isaiah 44: 6-8 45:5 ]

How can Jesus be called the mighty God in [Isaiah 9:6] and God also be called the Mighty God in [Isaiah 10:21]

I too could go on and on.....

 

[glasgowchick]

You said that you believe in one TRUE GOD ? You also believe that Jesus is " a god" with a small "g" correct? Is Jesus a true God or a false God ?

So My questions being if Jesus is NOT God then ?

Why does God call Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8
why is the phrase to call apon the name of the Lord [ Hebrew YHWH ie Psalm 116: 4 ] used only for God in the Old Testament, and translated into Greek in the LXX As call apon the name of the Lord [ Greek Kurios ] applied to Jesus in the NT [ 1Cor1:2 ] if Jesus is not God in The flesh.

Why does the Apostle John say that Jesus was---Calling on His own Father making himself equal with God [ John 5:18 ]

How was it possible for Jesus to know all things [ John 21:17]

How can Jesus know all men [ John 16:30 ]

How can Jesus be everywhere [Matt 28:20 ]

How can Jesus The Christ dwell in you [ Col 1:27 ]

How can Jesus give Eternal [ Micah 5:1-2 ]

How can Jesus be the one who gives Eternal life [ John 10:27-28]

How can he be our only Lord and master [ Jude 4]

How can Jesus be called the mighty God [Isaiah 9:6 ] if there is only one God in existence [ Isaiah 44: 6-8 45:5 ]

How can Jesus be called the mighty God in [Isaiah 9:6] and God also be called the Mighty God in [Isaiah 10:21]

I too could go on and on.....

Sorry mis-print Micah:5 1-2 how can Jesus be Eternal...

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

You said that you believe in one TRUE GOD ? You also believe that Jesus is " a god" with a small "g" correct? Is Jesus a true God or a false God ?

So My questions being if Jesus is NOT God then ?

Why does God call Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8
why is the phrase to call apon the name of the Lord [ Hebrew YHWH ie Psalm 116: 4 ] used only for God in the Old Testament, and translated into Greek in the LXX As call apon the name of the Lord [ Greek Kurios ] applied to Jesus in the NT [ 1Cor1:2 ] if Jesus is not God in The flesh.

Why does the Apostle John say that Jesus was---Calling on His own Father making himself equal with God [ John 5:18 ]

How was it possible for Jesus to know all things [ John 21:17]

How can Jesus know all men [ John 16:30 ]

How can Jesus be everywhere [Matt 28:20 ]

How can Jesus The Christ dwell in you [ Col 1:27 ]

How can Jesus give Eternal [ Micah 5:1-2 ]

How can Jesus be the one who gives Eternal life [ John 10:27-28]

How can he be our only Lord and master [ Jude 4]

How can Jesus be called the mighty God [Isaiah 9:6 ] if there is only one God in existence [ Isaiah 44: 6-8 45:5 ]

How can Jesus be called the mighty God in [Isaiah 9:6] and God also be called the Mighty God in [Isaiah 10:21]

I too could go on and on.....

Good questions, and i will get back to you on them when i get the time. that's not a cop out, by the way. but one thing i will say to one of the questions, just off the top of my head, the one in John 21:17. it seems to me that Peter was simply saying in answer to Jesus' repeated questions that of course he loved Jesus, and was saying that Jesus should know that. and just to show that he doesn't absolutely everything, look at Mathew 24:36 (New International Version)

*** 36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

So that's pretty conclusive, i'd say. like i said, i'll come back to your questions when i have a bit more time, but if you have time and aren't in work, could you try and answer my questions? Thanks...

 

[jeffrey]

I'll sit back and let you do this, glasgowchick! Your doing better then me! P.S. My wife is originally from Hereford and loves the Glasgow accent.

 

[James the Persian]

Just had to chime in because I noticed the clarion cry of most if not all of the early heresiarchs has been raised here (and in reference to what looks like an Arian belief system nonetheless). What I mean by this is the 'it just makes more sense like this' argument. Granted, this may be the case, but who says that the nature of God, Who is beyond all creation, ought to make sense to one of His creations? I'd go so far as to say that if God is completely comprehensible to man then He can't really be God. Most of the early heresies seem to have been based on such an over-rationalisation of Revelation.

James

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Just had to chime in because I noticed the clarion cry of most if not all of the early heresiarchs has been raised here (and in reference to what looks like an Arian belief system nonetheless). What I mean by this is the 'it just makes more sense like this' argument. Granted, this may be the case, but who says that the nature of God, Who is beyond all creation, ought to make sense to one of His creations? I'd go so far as to say that if God is completely comprehensible to man then He can't really be God. Most of the early heresies seem to have been based on such an over-rationalisation of Revelation.

James

So, when Jesus said that everlasting life means taking in knowledge of God and the one whom he sent forth, he meant any amount or form of knowledge...it doesn't matter exactly what you believe, as long as you have a bit of knowledge that there is a God etc, then that'll do? how could we possibly get everlasting life, if we didn't know and have accurate knowledge as to who God really is?

 

[James the Persian]

So, when Jesus said that everlasting life means taking in knowledge of God and the one whom he sent forth, he meant any amount or form of knowledge...it doesn't matter exactly what you believe, as long as you have a bit of knowledge that there is a God etc, then that'll do? how could we possibly get everlasting life, if we didn't know and have accurate knowledge as to who God really is?

You misunderstand. We do know of the nature of God because it was revealed to the Apostles and through them to the Church, that doesn't mean that that truth must be easily comprehensible - it isn't. The revealed nature of God taught in the Church from the beginning was Trinitarian (even before the term Trinity was coined). I can show you this from early Church Fathers as far back as St. Ignatios of Antioch, but if you don't accept that that's how to interpret Scripture you're unlikely to accept Patristic arguments either. This is the problem you get when you throw out all of the non-Scriptural Tradition of the Church.

What I was saying was not that we don't know God's nature but that we cannot discover it by human logic - you cannot philosophise your way to knowledge of God. That was the mistake of most of the early heresiarchs (about the only exceptions I can think of are the Gnostics) and has been the mistake of many theologians up to today, especially outside of the Apostolic churches. Some things you have to just take on trust and Revelation - that's why Christianity is a faith and not a philosophy.

James

 

[jeffrey]

Thank You, James, I've learned alot here. And ShouldMakeSense, please understand what Matthew was refering to. It was about the Pharisees praying in public, for others to see, not about "Chanting" as I presume in reference to saying the Rosary. The 1st time I prayed the Rosary, WOW! The feeling that came over me when I got to the end. Unbelievable!

 

[glasgowchick]

Good questions, and i will get back to you on them when i get the time. that's not a cop out, by the way. but one thing i will say to one of the questions, just off the top of my head, the one in John 21:17. it seems to me that Peter was simply saying in answer to Jesus' repeated questions that of course he loved Jesus, and was saying that Jesus should know that. and just to show that he doesn't absolutely everything, look at Mathew 24:36 (New International Version)

*** 36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

So that's pretty conclusive, i'd say. like i said, i'll come back to your questions when i have a bit more time, but if you have time and aren't in work, could you try and answer my questions? Thanks...

Hi TSMS..Your questions are reasonable questions as mine are too..On the one hand your questions are focused on the Humanity of Jesus leaving out Jesus divinity and mines are on His Divinity although I recognise both. So maybe, what I thought I would do is see how they look together...This is called the basic christian doctrine by mathew slick...

Jesus is God in Human flesh, He is not half God and half man. He is fully man and fully divine, That is Jesus has two natures , Divine and Human. Jesus is the word who is God and was with God and was made flesh [ John 1:1,14 ] This means that in the single person of Jesus is both human and divine nature. The divine nature was not changed..It Was not altered..He is not merely a man who had God with Him, Nor is he a man who manifested the God principle. " He is God the second person of the trinity." The son is the radiance of Gods Glory and the exact representation of His Being sustaining all things by his powerful word [ Heb1:3 ] Jesus two natures are not mixed together. Nor are they combined into a new God-man nature, They are seperate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic union. The following chart may help you see the two natures Of Jesus in "Action"

GOD
He is worshipped [ Mathew 2:2,11 14:33 ]

MAN
He worshiped the Father [ John 17 ]

God

He was Called God [ John 20:28 Hebrews 1:8 ]

Man

He was called man [ Mark 15:39 John 19:5 ]

GOD

He was called Son of God [ Mark 1:1 ]

MAN

He was called Son of Man [John 9:35-37 ]

GOD
He is prayed to [Acts 7:59 ]

MAN

He prayed to the Father [ John 17 ]

GOD

He is sinless [ IPeter 2:22 Hebrew 4:15 ]

MAN

He was tempted [ Matt 4:1 ]

GOD

He knows all things [ John 1:17 ]

MAN
He grew in wisdom [ Luke 2:52 ]

GOD
He gives Eternal life

MAN

He died [ Romans 5:8 ]

GOD
All the fulness of diety dwells in Him [Col 2:9 ]

Man

He had a body of flesh and bones [ Luke 24 :39 ] .

Well I hope this has answered your questions all in one go..I can't do any better than that...

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

You misunderstand. We do know of the nature of God because it was revealed to the Apostles and through them to the Church, that doesn't mean that that truth must be easily comprehensible - it isn't. The revealed nature of God taught in the Church from the beginning was Trinitarian (even before the term Trinity was coined). I can show you this from early Church Fathers as far back as St. Ignatios of Antioch, but if you don't accept that that's how to interpret Scripture you're unlikely to accept Patristic arguments either. This is the problem you get when you throw out all of the non-Scriptural Tradition of the Church.

What I was saying was not that we don't know God's nature but that we cannot discover it by human logic - you cannot philosophise your way to knowledge of God. That was the mistake of most of the early heresiarchs (about the only exceptions I can think of are the Gnostics) and has been the mistake of many theologians up to today, especially outside of the Apostolic churches. Some things you have to just take on trust and Revelation - that's why Christianity is a faith and not a philosophy.

James

ah...sorry about the missunderstanding. one point tho. where you say 'This is the problem you get when you throw out all of the non-Scriptural Tradition of the Church.', it made me think of the warnings about the apostacy that was to set in, warned of by Jesus and the apostles. they said that it would come from within the congregation. and this is how i feel alot of the 'non-scriptual' teachings arose. so much so, that they veered from the true teachings of the apostles. however, please don't think that i'm saying that is the case with St. Ignatios of Antioch, as i'm not familiar with him and his teachings. it's just some food for thought.

 

[glasgowchick]

I'll sit back and let you do this, glasgowchick! Your doing better then me! P.S. My wife is originally from Hereford and loves the Glasgow accent.

Hi , Oh I don't like my accent LOL!!!!!!! I think it is awful slang...But tell your wife thanks....

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

...Well I hope this has answered your questions all in one go..I can't do any better than that...

uhm...don't kill me now, but i'm sorry, no it hasn't. in fact i got some more...
and as far as the scriptures he used, i'm not sure what he's trying to say/prove. if anything, those scriptures disprove the trinity.
you see, i've read many different explanations on the trinity, how it's like a clover, three hats for one head, the family, how it's like an egg etc,etc. but they don't use scriptures propperly to back it up. i understand what they are tying to say but using illustrations, but they are not in harmony with the rest of the scriptures...

 

[glasgowchick]

uhm...don't kill me now, but i'm sorry, no it hasn't. in fact i got some more...
and as far as the scriptures he used, i'm not sure what he's trying to say/prove. if anything, those scriptures disprove the trinity.
you see, i've read many different explanations on the trinity, how it's like a clover, three hats for one head, the family, how it's like an egg etc,etc. but they don't use scriptures propperly to back it up. i understand what they are tying to say but using illustrations, but they are not in harmony with the rest of the scriptures...

No I won't kill you But Let me ask you this one question.

Isaiah 40:3 " Listen it's the voice of someone shouting. clear the way through the wilderness for the Lord [ Jehovah ]Make a straight highway through the waste land for our GOD....

Mal 3:1...Behold I am going to send my messenger and he will clear the way before me and the Lord whom you seek, will suddenly come into his temple and the messager of the covenant in whom you delight, behold he is coming says the Lord [ YHWH] of hosts

Notice that according to the quotes above John the baptist was sent to prepare the way for Jehovah..Isaiah 40:3 says that John is to clear the way for Jehovah, In Mal 3:1 It is God that says "He will clear the way before me"

Yet we see that the fullfillment of these verses is found in the arrival of Jesus ?
Clearly,, the Bible prophecies that John the baptist will prepare the way of Jehovah, yet it is Jesus that arrives on the scene How can that Be ?..thanks