Holes in the trinity

[Desert Snake]

You say Jesus is God. But Jesus is God's son. Do you believe in the trinity that God and Jesus is one and that Jesus is God's son? How? The definition of son is someone born to or adopted. That means a beginning. Do you believe God has a beginning?

'son and 'father' here does not imply a separation in the Godhead. That's why Jesus said He was in the father, and the father in Him.

 

[Desert Snake]

God, in other words, Jesus in Spirit form, manifested as Jesus the man, via Mary.

 

[Bodhitharta]

'son and 'father' here does not imply a separation in the Godhead. That's why Jesus said He was in the father, and the father in Him.

That would only make sense if he didn't say the believers were also in him and he in them.

 

[Desert Snake]

That would only make sense if he didn't say the believers were also in him and he in them.

I disagree. The way Jesus puts it, the believers, in Jesus are able to know the father through Jesus. Jesus has a different relationship to the father, than us. This is why Jesus is 'different' from us as well; if Jesus were not part of the Godhead then why would Jesus say He would be how we, ie the rest of us, would know the father?

 

[Bodhitharta]

I disagree. The way Jesus puts it, the believers, in Jesus are able to know the father through Jesus. Jesus has a different relationship to the father, than us. This is why Jesus is 'different' from us as well; if Jesus were not part of the Godhead then why would Jesus say He would be how we, ie the rest of us, would know the father?

Jesus was known to be a MAN by his disciples, he was annointed yes but he was simply a man approved by God.

 

[e.r.m.]

You say Jesus is God. But Jesus is God's son. Do you believe in the trinity that God and Jesus is one and that Jesus is God's son? How? The definition of son is someone born to or adopted. That means a beginning. Do you believe God has a beginning?

I've heard an option (not conclusive or definitive) that Son of God is a title. It may not mean son in the way we understand. I'm more partial to when Jesus said he and the Father are one John 10:30. I think of it more in the sense of unity. The Bible never says trinity.

 

[e.r.m.]

You say Jesus is God. But Jesus is God's son. Do you believe in the trinity that God and Jesus is one and that Jesus is God's son? How? The definition of son is someone born to or adopted. That means a beginning. Do you believe God has a beginning?

A good rule of thumb is that in most cases, when a term or catchphrase is made up that is not in the Bible, it takes on a life of its own and it will deviate from scripture somewhere down the line.
1. Trinity.
2. Discipling someone.
3. Accepting Jesus as personal savior.
4. 5 finger plan of salvation.
5. Slain by the Spirit.
6. Sacraments.
7. Judaizers.

These are a but a few non-scriptural phrases from different groups, you may or may not be not be familiar with all of them. They've all taken a life of their own, because they are not anchored in scripture.

As with all of them, Trinity tries to package up an idea into a pill and make it more digestible. Trinity is easier than to say than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each and every time. But you see the cost of convenience. Best way to avoid these is to stick only with what the scriptures say explicitly.

 

[Muffled]

First-what verses do you believe change the meaning considerably?

Second-HaShem, I believe, did directly intervene in the "birth" of Israel--the nation. He orchestrated it beginning with the calling of Abraham. In the same way He orchestrated the espousal (marriage) of Yosef and Miriam and that she would conceive at the very first time she and Yosef had intercourse.

In that HaShem orchestrates things to occur that lead to other things, He does directly participate in everything. Maybe I am not understanding what your understanding of the term "only begotten" implies. Yeshua is the only, one, single of his kind, chosen to be the Messiah, King and High Priest. I believe the term "only begotten" is used in this context.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one. I believe being the same person tends to alter the understanding of father and son that is usually held by physical people.

I don't beleive I have ever seen a verse saying that the nation was begotten.

I believe this is pure fantasy.

I believe begotten means that the person has been formed by a conception. Since God is not physical He can't provide a physical portion to the conception from Himself but He can provide it by creating one and that direct intervention makes Jesus the only begotten son of God. IE no-one else has had God directly intervene in their conception by way of a creation. I believe that is why He is called the firstborn of all creation.

 

[Muffled]

I've heard an option (not conclusive or definitive) that Son of God is a title. It may not mean son in the way we understand. I'm more partial to when Jesus said he and the Father are one John 10:30. I think of it more in the sense of unity. The Bible never says trinity.

I believe the Bible does naot have to say trinity for many to exist. We call this one Trinity because it is God.

 

[Muffled]

A good rule of thumb is that in most cases, when a term or catchphrase is made up that is not in the Bible, it takes on a life of its own and it will deviate from scripture somewhere down the line.
1. Trinity.
2. Discipling someone.
3. Accepting Jesus as personal savior.
4. 5 finger plan of salvation.
5. Slain by the Spirit.
6. Sacraments.
7. Judaizers.

These are a but a few non-scriptural phrases from different groups, you may or may not be not be familiar with all of them. They've all taken a life of their own, because they are not anchored in scripture.

As with all of them, Trinity tries to package up an idea into a pill and make it more digestible. Trinity is easier than to say than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each and every time. But you see the cost of convenience. Best way to avoid these is to stick only with what the scriptures say explicitly.

I believe poor conceptions of things does not imply that the things are inherently poor.

 

[truthofscripture]

Indeed I do.

 

[sojourner]

Best way to avoid these is to stick only with what the scriptures say explicitly.

Bad advice. Since the scriptures have layers of meaning, they were never intended to be read only explicitly. There are tons of implicit meanings in the texts that are just as important to understand.

 

[sojourner]

As with all of them, Trinity tries to package up an idea into a pill and make it more digestible. Trinity is easier than to say than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each and e

A good rule of thumb is that in most cases, when a term or catchphrase is made up that is not in the Bible, it takes on a life of its own and it will deviate from scripture somewhere down the line.
1. Trinity.
2. Discipling someone.
3. Accepting Jesus as personal savior.
4. 5 finger plan of salvation.
5. Slain by the Spirit.
6. Sacraments.
7. Judaizers.

These are a but a few non-scriptural phrases from different groups, you may or may not be not be familiar with all of them. They've all taken a life of their own, because they are not anchored in scripture.

As with all of them, Trinity tries to package up an idea into a pill and make it more digestible. Trinity is easier than to say than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each and every time. But you see the cost of convenience. Best way to avoid these is to stick only with what the scriptures say explicitly.

The incursion of "Bible only" thinking into the development of doctrine didn't take place for the first 1500 years of the church's existence. Meaning that it has only been insinuated into the practice of doctrinal development for the last 500 years. Meaning that to adopt this way of thinking is to stray from the way the first Anointed-believers thought about how to develop doctrine.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe the Bible does naot have to say trinity for many to exist. We call this one Trinity because it is God.

Trinity doesn't mean anything in and of itself, since it's not an original term. It means whatever the fleeting mind (individually and socially) attach to it any given time.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe poor conceptions of things does not imply that the things are inherently poor.

I don't understand. Would you please elaborate?

Thank you.

 

[e.r.m.]

Bad advice. Since the scriptures have layers of meaning, they were never intended to be read only explicitly. There are tons of implicit meanings in the texts that are just as important to understand.

These are tricky waters to navigate and cannot be nailed down with a great degree of certainty. When Jesus was telling the people to give to Caesar's what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, I get the impression he was almost putting down the measly taxes Caesar would get, in comparison to what we owe God. But I cannot confirm he meant it that way. I can only call it a guess. Many false doctrines are created because people state their guesses as facts.

 

[e.r.m.]

As with all of them, Trinity tries to package up an idea into a pill and make it more digestible. Trinity is easier than to say than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each and e


The incursion of "Bible only" thinking into the development of doctrine didn't take place for the first 1500 years of the church's existence. Meaning that it has only been insinuated into the practice of doctrinal development for the last 500 years. Meaning that to adopt this way of thinking is to stray from the way the first Anointed-believers thought about how to develop doctrine.

Granted, the word Bible isn't in the Bible. I'm not going to discuss canon. But what was decided to be canon was decided in the 300s. The catholic church did not decide to go by Bible only at that time, but there was good reason to. A lot of what they taught later on conflicted with what was in the canon. I don't say that we shouldn't follow good commentaries, which are based on the Bible and give great examples on how to apply the scriptures. But once they contradict the Bible, they've gone too far. When people use non-Biblical phrases, they often take on a life of their own and create concepts contradictory to scripture, much like 'Corban' contradicted 'Honor your father and mother'.


The first century church devoted themselves to the apostles teachings Acts 2:42. This is what we do through their writings.

 

[truthofscripture]

Trinity doesn't mean anything in and of itself, since it's not an original term. It means whatever the fleeting mind (individually and socially) attach to it any given time.

The trinity doctrine is not scriptural, in fact the scriptures eliminate any possibility of such. The trinity doctrine is solely a pagan belief, adopted in the early 4th century by a pagan Emperor, and injected into his new state religion, the Roman Church, later called the Roman Catholic church. All other sects adopted it after that. Realize that Galations chapter 5 says all sects are works of the flesh.

 

[moorea944]

I disagree. The way Jesus puts it, the believers, in Jesus are able to know the father through Jesus. Jesus has a different relationship to the father, than us. This is why Jesus is 'different' from us as well; if Jesus were not part of the Godhead then why would Jesus say He would be how we, ie the rest of us, would know the father?

What is the Godhead anyhow? Most people say it's God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. I dont see that at all. So how can we know what the Godhead is? Well, it's simple, we find it in 1 Cor 11 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." And that is the Godhead. But people dont want to believe in that, because it doesnt put Jesus co-equal with our Creator. God is over Jesus. Now and always.

 

[Desert Snake]

What is the Godhead anyhow? Most people say it's God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. I dont see that at all. So how can we know what the Godhead is? Well, it's simple, we find it in 1 Cor 11 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." And that is the Godhead. But people dont want to believe in that, because it doesnt put Jesus co-equal with our Creator. God is over Jesus. Now and always.

You could just as well have said, 'Xianity is wrong'. Because, that's really all you're proving. Xian beliefs were aound before they compiled the texts, and Jesus is deific either in totality, or even for very trinitarian groups, is part of the godhead that is considered monotheistic. So, the beliefs come before the verses, essentially, and in the beliefs, there is a Godhead.
The problem, really, is that you seem to be trying to use the very texts of a religion, to disprove said religion... it doesn't work.