Is God triune? Bible versus Quran.

[YeshuaRedeemed]

 

[Trailblazer]

That video is a debate between a Christian who believes in the Triune God and an Atheist who denies the Gods of Christianity and Islam.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

I am sorry. I did not mean to be wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am sorry. I did not mean to be wrong.

No problem. I just wanted people to know what the debate was about.
It is a Christians vs. an Atheist.

 

[Earthling]

@YeshuaBought Have you read the Bible and do you think it supports the trinity? Have you researched the history of the trinity? Have you watched that video?

 

[Deeje]

@YeshuaBought What do you believe? Has God got three separate parts? Can different parts of God be in different places at once and him still be a single entity? Can one part of God converse with another part of himself and remain a single entity? Can one part of God know things that the other parts don't? How would you answer?

 

[Trailblazer]

I listened to that entire video, all 2 hours and 27 minutes of it, so I feel obligated to say something about it. It was not much different from any Christian vs. Atheist debates I have seen. The Christian made some good points, the Atheist made some good points, but if if was a neutral third party, I cannot say either argument would be convincing. There is no way I could ever buy into Christianity and the argument that Jesus was God in the flesh or that there is a Holy Spirit that is the third Person of the Trinity who communicates in some way by living inside of people. It is an untenable belief for any logical person living in the age of reason.

In my opinion, the Atheist had grounds for leaving Christianity after 19 years of being a minister, and probably many more years of being a Christian before that. If Christianity was the only way to believe in God, I would be an agnostic or a deist. Moreover, this Christian could not provide any reason that made any sense at all as to why the other monotheistic religions could not also be the truth from God. The Bible certainly is not a good reason why Christianity is more likely to be the truth than Islam, given the Bible is not as reliable or an authentic as the Holy Qur'an and it has many more contradictions and inconsistencies. The double-talk of this Christian cannot change the reality that the Bible is contradictory and internally inconsistent.

Moreover, there is not way that the Bible represents the actual actions of God, but if it did, that malevolent God would not be a God I would ever believe in. Sending Jesus in to clean up the mess in the kitchen later just does not cut it, not for any rational person.

I believe that the Bible might actually be historical facts but much of it is simply stories that convey spiritual truths. As the Atheist debater said, the Prodigal Son and the story of Adam and Eve were just stories written by men to make a point, not factual information. There was no talking snake.

A good point that the Atheist made is that the fact that Christians cannot agree among themselves about so many things, especially whether Jesus was God incarnate, is by itself a good enough reason to indicate that the Bible can have manifold meanings, since it is interpreted differently by different people. The Christian rebuttal was that this is meaningless since that does not mean there cannot be one meaning that is correct, but why does he believe that his denomination of Christianity is right and all the others are wrong? All Christians say that.

From my point of view, both the Christian and the Atheist were wrong even though they both made some legitimate points. The Christian was going great guns until he suggested that Jesus created the universe and then God entered into the world as a man so God could make Himself personal, both untenable beliefs. The whole belief that Jesus is the Only Way is an untenable belief because that would mean that God allowed two thirds of the world population to be lost in error, and that God did not care about all the people of other religions. In that case, God could not be just or benevolent. That fact completely eluded the Christian, but it did not elude the Atheist. That was one reason he said he could not believe in the Christian God.

It is just a shame that the Atheist has considered the possibility that there is a One God that is behind all the religions, a God that cares about everyone. This God reveals more truth in every age through a new Messenger who is sent with a new message that suits the needs of the times. That Messenger revitalizes the spiritual verities of all the previous religions; He does not change them because they are eternal. This represents the Bahai Faith beliefs in a nutshell. It is the only logical position and the only way religion can ever work for everyone.

All the answers necessary to clarify the issues surrounding the Bible and the other issues the Atheist raised as to why a God cannot exist are addressed by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. It is such a shame that people consider the Bible the only source of truth about God after over 2000 years. Atheists say there is no evidence that God exists and that is why they do not believe in God, but I think that the Bible and the baneful effect it has had on their minds is probably the reason for many atheists.

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.

Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths. Take heed that ye do not vacillate in your determination to embrace the truth of this Cause—a Cause through which the potentialities of the might of God have been revealed, and His sovereignty established. With faces beaming with joy, hasten ye unto Him. This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have never found the concept of a triune god comprehensible. Even when I was a Christian it was never an important part of my faith. Christ as a Messenger of God makes much more sense.

I respect the right of others to believe as they will.

The most sensible explanation of the three elements of the trinity for me is from the Baha'i Faith.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 113-115

 

[Oeste]

Hi YB,

There is no way I would have the time to look through the entire video. It would have been better to have summarized the more salient points and presented your views here.

However, in response to your question, "Is God Triune?", the answer is yes and this is supported by scripture.

 

[Oeste]

What do you believe? Has God got three separate parts? Can different parts of God be in different places at once and him still be a single entity? Can one part of God converse with another part of himself and remain a single entity?

Good questions to ask any modalist but they don't apply to the Trinity. In the Trinity there are no "parts" of God.

Can one part of God know things that the other parts don't? How would you answer?

Jesus is fully man and fully God, not "part man, part God". Christian Christology was pretty much set forth through the Chalcedoneon creed (autumn of 451) as a response to rampant heresies that Jesus foretold would pop up in the church, such as Sabellianism, Tritheism, and Adoptionism.

The vast majority of argument against the Trinity on this forum are not arguments against the Trinity at all, but against one of the heresies.

 

[Oeste]

I have never found the concept of a triune god comprehensible.

I've noticed a lot of folks here seem to have the same problem. I hope to address this through a new thread when I get some time. I'll let you know.

 

[Deeje]

Good questions to ask any modalist but they don't apply to the Trinity. In the Trinity there are no "parts" of God.

Jesus is fully man and fully God, not "part man, part God". Christian Christology was pretty much set forth through the Chalcedoneon creed (autumn of 451) as a response to rampant heresies that Jesus foretold would pop up in the church, such as Sabellianism, Tritheism, and Adoptionism.

The vast majority of argument against the Trinity on this forum are not arguments against the Trinity at all, but against one of the heresies.

The trinity is a concept you either accept or reject. It either makes sense to you or it is a blasphemy of the worst order.

In my study of the Bible I have addressed every excuse that trinitarians have ever put forward in support of the trinity and I have rejected every single one as a distortion of scripture and a complete ignoring of all the verses that prove that Jesus is not God but "the son of God".

Nowhere did Jesus ever say he was God and nowhere do we find "God the Son" written in any scripture.

 

[Oeste]

The trinity is a concept you either accept or reject.

It either makes sense to you or it is a blasphemy of the worst order.

Lots of people think the Trinity "doesn't make sense" but that doesn't mean they've committed "...a blasphemy of the worst order".

Ok...sorry, I just couldn't help it. But "blasphemy"?....Really Deeje??

Nowhere did Jesus ever say he was <not> God and nowhere do we find "God <not> the Son" written in any scripture.

See my bold, above

 

[Deeje]

Lots of people think the Trinity "doesn't make sense" but that doesn't mean they've committed "...a blasphemy of the worst order".

Ok...sorry, I just couldn't help it. But "blasphemy"?....Really Deeje??

Yes, it is blasphemy to reduce the Supreme God to being something human, as if his law demanded that the ransom paid was so far above what was necessary that it was a ridiculous amount overkill.

Why would God need to come to earth in a fleshly body when he has so many willing servants to carry out his will and purpose? The reason why he chose his "firstborn" son (the "beginning of God's creation" in heaven Revelation 3:14) is because he had witnessed rebellion in heaven as well as on earth....so he needed someone completely trustworthy to carry out the assignment to rescue Adam's children and serve as king in returning the redeemed human race back to their God. The ransom that was required, was a perfect, sinless human life, offered to cover the sin of a once perfect sinless man. Adam died for his own sin, but Jesus died for all his children who inherited the sin he passed onto them. (Roman 5:12)

Matthew 20:28..." just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

The "first Adam" was 100% human and the "last Adam" had to be too. (1 Corinthians 15:45) He did not have to be God to pay the price. Where do people get the idea that did?

Nowhere in scripture do we find Jesus and His Father portrayed as one being. There is not even a twosome, let alone a threesome. There is unity of thought and purpose, but there is only one God and Jesus isn't him.
After his return to heaven, Jesus still calls his Father "my God" (Revelation 3:12) How does God have a God?

If Jesus is equally God and equally man, can you tell me how Jesus can call his Father "the only true God" and not include himself...or any other 'person'. (John 17:3) In making that statement in prayer, Jesus never mentioned the holy spirit. Why does everlasting life not include "knowing" the holy spirit?

He also said..."You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

If Jesus was equally God, how could the Father be greater than he is?

How does Jesus tell satan to worship God "alone" when he was asked to do an act of worship to the devil? Jesus quoted scripture in each one of his replies to satan...he said "it is written" and in each case "YHWH" was the God he referred to. (Deuteronomy 10:20; Deuteronomy 8:3; Deuteronomy 6:16) But nowhere in all of scripture is Jesus ever called YHWH.

Nowhere did Jesus ever say he was <not> God and nowhere do we find "God <not> the Son" written in any scripture.

See my bold, above

You're funny..... It doesn't ever call Jesus "God the Son" because he never once made that claim. That only came about when the trinity was adopted into the Roman Catholic church as doctrine over 300 years after Jesus died. Before then it was mooted by some, but largely rejected by the church body. Only after much controversy was it ever made official doctrine.....the offshoot of course, was that Mary could now be called "the Mother of God"....which was just another blasphemy.

On the occasion where the Jews were going to stone Jesus for claiming to be God, Jesus response is clear.....

"The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

The Jews were already accusing Jesus of blasphemy, so what did he have to lose in confessing to be God right there and then?
All he said was "I am the Son of God"...not "God the Son". He also said that God himself called human judges in Israel "gods" (Psalm 82:1,6) because of their divine authority to render judgment on his behalf.

Jesus is called a "god" in the same sense. (John 1:1) But to put the son in the place of the Father IS blasphemy.
When you really take the trinity apart with other scripture (not just the ones where you can infer it) you will see that it hasn't got a leg to stand on.

For example.....Jesus is the appointed "mediator between God and men". Why? Because sinful man cannot come before God without a 'go-between'. But if Jesus is God, why do we not need a mediator between us and him?

If John 1:18 says that "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."....think for a moment what that is saying.....No man has seen God at any time", yet how many saw Jesus?

Jesus is called "the only begotten God".....but we know that God cannot be "begotten" by anyone because he has always existed.

What does it mean to be in the "bosom" of the Father? The expression “bosom of the Father" alludes to a person’s reclining in front of another on the same couch at a meal. Guests reclined on their left side with a pillow supporting their left elbow, leaving the right arm free. Usually three persons occupied each couch, but there could be as many as five. The head of each one would be on or near the breast, or bosom of the person behind him. The person with no one at his back was considered in the highest position and the one next to him in the second place of honor. The Father is the one with no one at his back. Jesus is in a second place of honor.

Jesus is also the one who was sent to his fellow Jews to "explain" the Father to them, because the Jewish leaders had lost sight of who he really was. Their oral traditions and rigid adherence to the letter of the law had given the Jewish people a false impression of what God required of them.....not mere performance, but genuine heartfelt worship.

This is a very serious issue....and one we can't afford to get wrong.

 

[Oeste]

Why would God need to come to earth in a fleshly body when he has so many willing servants to carry out his will and purpose?

Because no one is good but God alone. (Luke 18:18-19)

The reason why he chose his "firstborn" son (the "beginning of God's creation" in heaven Revelation 3:14)

I like the Apostolic Bible on this better:

​

Jesus is the source of creation, not a created source.

The ransom that was required, was a perfect, sinless human life, offered to cover the sin of a once perfect sinless man. Adam died for his own sin, but Jesus died for all his children who inherited the sin he passed onto them. (Roman 5:12)

We have a problem here then...If all this created Jesus did was cover the sin of a once perfect sinless man, who on earth covered the life of a once perfect sinless woman? If the Son of God covers Adam. when can we expect the Daughter of God to cover Eve?

Remember, there were two sinless humans in the garden. Is Jesus considered a "twofer" in WT Christology?

Matthew 20:28..." just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Yes, scripture says he gave His life for many. But what scripture giveth, the WT taketh away, at least for its members. So for you it reads "..to give His life a ransom for many (but just their inherited sin)."

The "first Adam" was 100% human and the "last Adam" had to be too. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

No problem here. We agree!

He did not have to be God to pay the price. Where do people get the idea that did?

Being God Jesus paid the price for all mankind, not just Adam. Look, you not only have Jesus a bit short covering Eve, you have him too short to cover anyone else’s sin. That’s what happens when you make Jesus a man and nothing more.

After his return to heaven, Jesus still calls his Father "my God" (Revelation 3:12) How does God have a God?

God doesn’t have a God. Jesus as man has a God but Jesus as God does not.

If Jesus is equally God and equally man, can you tell me how Jesus can call his Father "the only true God" and not include himself...or any other 'person'. (John 17:3)

Why do you call the Father “the only true God” here when the Watchtower calls Jesus “a God” and considers the judges of Israel, whom God mocked as “Gods”, as more Gods? Are they true Gods, false Gods, or neutral Gods that stand behind, next to, or in front of God?

In making that statement in prayer, Jesus never mentioned the holy spirit. Why does everlasting life not include "knowing" the holy spirit?

That’s an odd thing to ask, even for a Witness. Without the Spirit, how do you obtain life???

He also said..."You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

If Jesus was equally God, how could the Father be greater than he is?

Because Jesus was equally man, so of course the Father would be greater.

How does Jesus tell satan to worship God "alone" when he was asked to do an act of worship to the devil? Jesus quoted scripture in each one of his replies to satan...he said "it is written" and in each case "YHWH" was the God he referred to. (Deuteronomy 10:20; Deuteronomy 8:3; Deuteronomy 6:16) But nowhere in all of scripture is Jesus ever called YHWH.

Do you really want me to post an avalanche of scripture showing Jesus is Yaweh? We’ve been through this before.

You're funny.....

It doesn't ever call Jesus "God the Son" because he never once made that claim. That only came about when the trinity was adopted into the Roman Catholic church as doctrine over 300 years after Jesus died.

I’m not sure where you’re getting these wild ideas from. When did the Roman church change scripture to read “God the Son”, and when did your Organization change it to read “God, not the Son”?

Before then it was mooted by some, but largely rejected by the church body. Only after much controversy was it ever made official doctrine.....the offshoot of course, was that Mary could now be called "the Mother of God"....which was just another blasphemy.

Which is the greater “blasphemy”….professing a doctrine that Mary is mother not of the Father, the Holy Spirit, or Jesus as God, but of Jesus the Christ, or is it professing God promised something that He did not, like the “Creator’s Promise” that a certain generation would not pass, appearing in the corner of the Awake magazine?

On the occasion where the Jews were going to stone Jesus for claiming to be God, Jesus response is clear.....

"The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

Well this goes back to the question I asked before. Was Jesus saying he was no better or worse than the false Gods of Israel, and if so, exactly how many Gods does this add to the Watchtower pantheon?

The Jews were already accusing Jesus of blasphemy, so what did he have to lose in confessing to be God right there and then?

Didn’t they have stones in their hands Deeje???

All he said was "I am the Son of God"...not "God the Son". He also said that God himself called human judges in Israel "gods" (Psalm 82:1,6) because of their divine authority to render judgment on his behalf.

God mockingly called them Gods because they abused their authority.

Jesus is called a "god" in the same sense. (John 1:1)

Wow! Jesus is called “a god” in the same sense of the evil judges of Israel! And how did this god, who was in the same sense a god like the abusive judges of Israel, die for Adam’s sin?

But to put the son in the place of the Father IS blasphemy.

That’s something you can take up with the modalists.

Jesus is the appointed "mediator between God and men". Why? Because sinful man cannot come before God without a 'go-between'. But if Jesus is God, why do we not need a mediator between us and him?

Jesus is the perfect ‘go-between’ because Jesus is both man and God. If he were just one or the other then yeah, you would be correct.

If John 1:18 says that "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."....think for a moment what that is saying.....No man has seen God at any time", yet how many saw Jesus?

They saw Jesus in his physical, not his fully glorified body.


It’s late!

 

[1AOA1]

There is no way I could ever buy into Christianity and the argument that Jesus was God in the flesh

That's what Christianity finds and accepts.

Moreover, this Christian could not provide any reason that made any sense at all as to why the other monotheistic religions could not also be the truth from God.

If the Christian life is called a monotheistic religion then to be a monotheistic religion is to be from God and a part of same. They would need to qualify as being a part of that same life to be called "other monotheistic religions."

A good point that the Atheist made is that the fact that Christians cannot agree among themselves about so many things, especially whether Jesus was God incarnate, is by itself a good enough reason to indicate that the Bible can have manifold meanings, since it is interpreted differently by different people.

It is from the Bible itself that the meaning of interpretation and the meaning of people are derived.

 

[Trailblazer]

“There is no way I could ever buy into Christianity and the argument that Jesus was God in the flesh.”

That's what Christianity finds and accepts.

That does not mean that is what the Bible actually says, or what Jesus said. Jesus never claimed to be God. God cannot become a man because that would be out of keeping with the nature of God.

If the Christian life is called a monotheistic religion then to be a monotheistic religion is to be from God and a part of same. They would need to qualify as being a part of that same life to be called "other monotheistic religions."

We are all from God and onto God we shall return. Nobody is part of God. God has always been and will forever be separate from His creation. God has no partners.

“And now concerning thy reference to the existence of two Gods. Beware, beware, lest thou be led to join partners with the Lord, thy God. He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory. To this every atom of the universe beareth witness, and beyond it the inmates of the realms on high, they that occupy the most exalted seats, and whose names are remembered before the Throne of Glory.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192

It is from the Bible itself that the meaning of interpretation and the meaning of people are derived.

I do not understand what you mean. The Bible does not interpret itself. It is just words on a page until someone reads the words and assigns a meaning to them. Every Christian assigns different meanings to verses and there is no reason to think anyone is any more correct than anyone else.

 

[1AOA1]

Moreover, there is not way that the Bible represents the actual actions of God, but if it did, that malevolent God would not be a God I would ever believe in. Sending Jesus in to clean up the mess in the kitchen later just does not cut it, not for any rational person.

There is no malevolence in the abolishment of sin or in the salvation of the soul by God even in those times when the physical would be harmed. In the life of Christ's disciples we learn of the remission of sin.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no malevolence in the abolishment of sin or in the salvation of the soul by God even in those times when the physical would be harmed. In the life of Christ's disciples we learn of the remission of sin.

I was not implying that there is malevolence in the abolishment of sin or in the salvation of the soul by God.
I was saying that if God actually did what was attributed to Him in the Bible that God would be malevolent. But I do not believe God did any of that. They are just stories used to convey spiritual truths.

 

[1AOA1]

I do not understand what you mean. The Bible does not interpret itself. It is just words on a page until someone reads the words and assigns a meaning to them.

The meaning or description assigned to that viewed process ("assigns a meaning") is biblically based and derived.

Every Christian assigns different meanings to verses and there is no reason to think anyone is any more correct than anyone else.

If "assigning a meaning" is what the process is called in one place then other processes must first qualify as being like it to also be called "assigning a meaning."