Hands up who believes in the Trinity!

[Ronald]

Oh, you've said enough Ronald.

I think I will concentrate on loving and serving.

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." NIV

You recall your post 104? Is this your trump card?
What you have said to me is I don't know, I don't want to know and don't confuse me with the facts. I asked a question! I will not accept admonishment for asking a ligitimate question. A question you have refused to answer or even conscider. I have not questioned your faith love or salvation, so what are you infering? That I am the goat?
You are certainly a Christian!!! No doubt about it!

 

[jeffrey]

I really do admire your sincerity, and am not trying to put you on the spot. But if the Trinity makes so much sense to you, perhaps you could help me understand it too. Could we start with the question of God's essence? What do you believe God's essence is?

I've never looked upon God as an essence, so please, give of your definition of essence and your definition of God's essence then I wil do my best to answer your question.

 

[jeffrey]

Let me also in back to John. The Apostle John was most likely the closest Apostle to Jesus. he was 'The one Jesus loved'. He was the only one of the Apostles that was there at Jesus' death. He most probably spent more time with Jesus, talking to him, got to know him better then anyone else ever has and most likely ever will. His Gospel shows a tenderness towards Jesus that is different then the other Gospels. Look at Revelations. Who can truely understand all of that. So when he said that "The Word was with God and the Word was God.' I tend to think he knew what he was talking about. More then any other person could.

 

[Katzpur]

I've never looked upon God as an essence, so please, give of your definition of essence and your definition of God's essence then I wil do my best to answer your question.

Okay, let's use the word "substance" instead of "essence." I've actually heard both of these used before. The Nicene Creed, for example, states:​

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."​

​

And according to the Athanasian Creed:​

"...And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance... [and in reference to Christ:] God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.​

To me, both the words "essence" and "substance" describe physical makeup. In other words, I understand these statements from the Creeds as describing the physical unity of the Father and the Son. This is what I'm trying to understand.​

 

[jeffrey]

Essence. When God said "I AM." Is good enough for me. I am a child of God. there is much I do not understand. And to attempt to understand something that our brains are not capable of doing, you get into trouble. Case in point. Go sit in front of the mirror. Now concentrate real hard on the fact that 'Time has always been'... Keep thinking about it.... Now notice the smoke coming from your ears... There are alot of things that we don't understand that we accept. Like Jesus raising from the dead. How he do that?

 

[jeffrey]

Kathryn, I think you trying to read to much into it. Scott would be the best person on this forum to ask that. He has his own sticky thread on Catholic Beliefs. I PM'D him yesterday and am awaiting his reply. He said He's been busy and to give him a couple days. But it won't hurt to post this question in his thread.

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

"And then on the third day He rose again, and at the end of the World He will come to judge the living and the dead ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES." The last part is stated in prayer because IT HASN't HAPPENED YET.


Time in the simplest ontology would be justified in three dimensions, but by objectivism there are other ways for conseding three froms for Self-becoming within the ESSENTIAL God created world. This first part is stated in the introduction by WORD because IT HAS HAPPENED ALREADY. But such time is only "scripture".


So what is not the existence of three dimensional time but rather the essence of Reality for God's passage from the beginning to the end? The three forms of objectivity is of the capacity to REBUILD the world for man in and at Love. Why? because it has happened before and judgment states for both warning and promise in the future.
But God himself whether promise or warning makes it Good for all time. I believe in the holy spirit the third form of the Blessed Trinity for no real reason but how could I not, now that I am dumb buffoon to believe in that "right hand" thing.

This fulfilled finitization of Man in the midst of God giving birth to his Son is the fallibility of we can organize to keep our promise back at God. The prupose starts with the holy spirit; doesn;t end with IT, or at least I don't think it has to.

Case closed; I believe in the Blessed Trinity; implicitly the Bible does too, like for the implicit nature Life goes on for It.:woohoo:

 

[Katzpur]

Kathryn, I think you trying to read to much into it.

Funny you'd say that, because my main criticism of the Creeds is that they seem to me to be unnecessarily complicated expansions and extrapolations of what was initially a very simple, straightforward concept. I believe mankind has made God far more mysterious than He ever wanted to be. Of course we can't fully understand Him, but the purity of the scriptures in explaining His nature is entirely adequate, in my opinion.

Scott would be the best person on this forum to ask that. He has his own sticky thread on Catholic Beliefs. I PM'D him yesterday and am awaiting his reply. He said He's been busy and to give him a couple days. But it won't hurt to post this question in his thread.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out, and thanks again for your reply.

Kathryn

 

[Hirohito18200]

Funny you'd say that, because my main criticism of the Creeds is that they seem to me to be unnecessarily complicated expansions and extrapolations of what was initially a very simple, straightforward concept.
Kathryn

While I actually agree with you on your stance on the nature of Jesus (at least that he is not God), his divinity and therefore the nature of God was in question even in his day, when he was accused of being everything from the messiah to a teacher to a demon-possessed witch lol. The politics sure didn't help things, though, thats for sure.

I have one question, for the more bible-literate. Didn't the OT prophecies imply that the jewish messian would be a man? I know he's "100% both" lol, but they never *to my knowledge* said anything about the messiah being God. Excuse my ignorance.

And I think Ronald's point is a good one, although i think its importance might be overstated since it is the translation would be causing the contradiction not the original text, and the translation error could have been innocent, we never know.

 

[Scuba Pete]

so what are you infering?

I inferred nothing. I merely quoted scripture. If the scripture offended you, I would take it up with God post haste. He does have a knee mail address.

But possibly you missed the POINT of the scripture. God no where commended people for having the "right dogma". No, he was impressed with those who went out of their way to serve their fellow man. I would much rather concentrate on doing good, then trying to work my way to heaven through my doctrine.

See if you can fill in the blank here: "For I desire ______________ and not sacrifice". If you have to look up the scripture, it just might mean that your focus is skewed. But that's between you and God.

You are certainly a Christian!!! No doubt about it

Thanks for the kind compliment!

 

[Scuba Pete]

my main criticism of the Creeds is that they seem to me to be unnecessarily complicated expansions and extrapolations

I have the same issues with them. In lieu of the NT, they are simply not needed.

 

[Hirohito18200]

I have the same issues with them. In lieu of the NT, they are simply not needed.

I'm sure that they were useful for power consolidation at the time, but now they just get in the way of things, or at least create unnecessary divisions. They do, however, create easy justification for a lot of dogma that has survived today. *gets lost imagining how the middle ages would have been different if Arius had won out...*

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

*gets lost imagining how the middle ages would have been different if Arius had won out...*

mmm....me too.....

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Ok don't answer the rest but thats ok....What does it mean to pour out? Have you heard the expression of someone thats really upset, it can be said " they poured their hearts out " did she relly pour her heart out ?..

Also to pour out can also mean [verb] Give tongue to--Articulate either verbally or with a cry or a shout or noise..POUR OUT --UTTER, EXPRESS

When was the Holy Spirit poured out ?

Acts 2:1 On the day of penticost All the believers were meeting together in one place 2 suddenly there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm and it filled the House where they were sitting 3 Then what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them. 4 And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages.." AS THE HOLY SPIRIT GAVE THEM THIS ABILITY"

When the Holy Spirit was poured out, all it means is that the Holy Spirit gave them the ability to speak in other tongues..

Got a few more scriptures...
John 20:22*
When Jesus had said this, He breathed on them. He said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit

Acts 2:4,17,33
They were all filled with the Holy Spirit. Then they began to speak in other languages which the Holy Spirit made them able to speak.

17 In the last days, God said, I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.

33 Now he sits on the throne of highest honor in heaven, at God's right hand. And the Father, as he had promised, gave him the Holy Spirit to pour out upon us, just as you see and hear today.

Acts 7:55
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily upward into heaven and saw the glory of God, and he saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God's right hand.

Psalm 104:30
When you send forth your Spirit,[a] they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
Footnotes: [a] Or breath

1 Corinthians 2:12*
We have not received the spirit of the world. God has given us His Holy Spirit that we may know about the things given to us by Him.

Galatians 5:16
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

 

[true blood]

Let me also in back to John. The Apostle John was most likely the closest Apostle to Jesus. he was 'The one Jesus loved'. He was the only one of the Apostles that was there at Jesus' death. He most probably spent more time with Jesus, talking to him, got to know him better then anyone else ever has and most likely ever will. His Gospel shows a tenderness towards Jesus that is different then the other Gospels. Look at Revelations. Who can truely understand all of that. So when he said that "The Word was with God and the Word was God.' I tend to think he knew what he was talking about. More then any other person could.

I've seen many times people proclaim that this "disciple whom Jesus loved" was the Apostle John and as so often people have assumed this to be correct and have made a doctrine out of it when in truth The Word of God never tells us who this disciple was so why make a doctrine out of it? The argument can more convincingly be that this disciple was Lazarus. I have sound reasons to back this up if you care to debate it. I'm not saying in any way that Jesus did not love John, he surely did. Just that never does the written Word emphatically declare his love for John as an individual. However, the Word does state this of Lazarus. In multiple verses, yet not once John. Why do the "trinity believers" make a doctrine out of it?

 

[glasgowchick]

Got a few more scriptures...
John 20:22*
When Jesus had said this, He breathed on them. He said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit

Acts 2:4,17,33
They were all filled with the Holy Spirit. Then they began to speak in other languages which the Holy Spirit made them able to speak.

17 In the last days, God said, I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.

33 Now he sits on the throne of highest honor in heaven, at God's right hand. And the Father, as he had promised, gave him the Holy Spirit to pour out upon us, just as you see and hear today.

Acts 7:55
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily upward into heaven and saw the glory of God, and he saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God's right hand.

Psalm 104:30
When you send forth your Spirit,[a] they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
Footnotes: [a] Or breath

1 Corinthians 2:12*
We have not received the spirit of the world. God has given us His Holy Spirit that we may know about the things given to us by Him.

Galatians 5:16
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Hi TSMS, I have answered your question on the "Pouring out of the Spirit" did you not read my answer...Since you have mentioned the Scripture again in Act 17 it doesn't look like you have read the reply. As for the rest of the Scriptures, what have they to do with the the Pouring out of the Spirit ?...Please deal with one issue at a time..Would you read my reply again and get back to me thankyou...

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Hi TSMS, I have answered your question on the "Pouring out of the Spirit" did you not read my answer...Since you have mentioned the Scripture again in Act 17 it doesn't look like you have read the reply. As for the rest of the Scriptures, what have they to do with the the Pouring out of the Spirit ?...Please deal with one issue at a time..Would you read my reply again and get back to me thankyou...

I have read it and i thought that that scripture you used actually backs my point. that's why i quoted it again. you see, it says that they were filled with holy spirit and began speaking in tongues. they recieved the gift of the spirit. just like other ones have recieved the holy spirit that was given them by God. so in that sense, it is God's force that enabled or activated them to speak in other languages, or for ones to perform amazing works etc. also, again, read verse 17
King James Version

***17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Note that it says that God will pour out some of his spirit. and that's what he did...


and the reason that i quoted the other scriptures it to show that the spirit is used as a force from God to accomplish his purpose.

 

[James the Persian]

I have read it and i thought that that scripture you used actually backs my point. that's why i quoted it again. you see, it says that they were filled with holy spirit and began speaking in tongues. they recieved the gift of the spirit. just like other ones have recieved the holy spirit that was given them by God. so in that sense, it is God's force that enabled or activated them to speak in other languages, or for ones to perform amazing works etc. also, again, read verse 17
King James Version

***17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Note that it says that God will pour out some of his spirit. and that's what he did...


and the reason that i quoted the other scriptures it to show that the spirit is used as a force from God to accomplish his purpose.

If the Holy Spirit is nothing more than an impersonal force why is it that the Scriptures always refer to Him in personal language? It seems to me that you are confusing the gift of the Holy Spirit (i.e. the gifts given to us by the Holy Spirit) with the Holy Spirit Himself.

James

 

[jeffrey]

I've seen many times people proclaim that this "disciple whom Jesus loved" was the Apostle John and as so often people have assumed this to be correct and have made a doctrine out of it when in truth The Word of God never tells us who this disciple was so why make a doctrine out of it? The argument can more convincingly be that this disciple was Lazarus. I have sound reasons to back this up if you care to debate it. I'm not saying in any way that Jesus did not love John, he surely did. Just that never does the written Word emphatically declare his love for John as an individual. However, the Word does state this of Lazarus. In multiple verses, yet not once John. Why do the "trinity believers" make a doctrine out of it?

Next You'll tell me John did not write his Gospel, Or Revelations, that he wasn't there when Jesus died. You side stepped the question. It seems you are talking the parts of the Bible you wish to believe and ignoring the rest.

 

[glasgowchick]

I have read it and i thought that that scripture you used actually backs my point. that's why i quoted it again. you see, it says that they were filled with holy spirit and began speaking in tongues. they recieved the gift of the spirit. just like other ones have recieved the holy spirit that was given them by God. so in that sense, it is God's force that enabled or activated them to speak in other languages, or for ones to perform amazing works etc. also, again, read verse 17
King James Version

***17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Note that it says that God will pour out some of his spirit. and that's what he did...


and the reason that i quoted the other scriptures it to show that the spirit is used as a force from God to accomplish his purpose.

Hi,, you see I used that Scripture on the "Pour out" issue because I once heard a jws say " How can you pour out a person" Since You believe that the Holy Spirit is Gods active force I thought by you using that scripture in the first place that was the same point you were going to head for...

You gave me a Scripture and said note that it says God will pour out Some of His Spirit and thats what he did...I see it says, that God said I will pour out my SPIRIT ON ALL FLESH....Was that just a slip on your part