The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

[sojourner]

Matthew 3:
17 Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”
are they together or separate ?

Why would you assume from the text that they are separate?

 

[cataway]

Matthew 3:
17 Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”
are they together or separate ?

Why would you assume from the text that they are separate?

the voice came from heaven and yet Jesus was on earth hummm maybe
you cold watch a few episodes of sesame street to learn together and apart.

 

[sojourner]

the voice came from heaven and yet Jesus was on earth hummm maybe
you cold watch a few episodes of sesame street to learn together and apart.

Snark much? Is your ability to envision so two-dimensional that you can’t imagine God to be anything other than a being in particularity?

 

[cataway]

Snark much? Is your ability to envision so two-dimensional that you can’t imagine God to be anything other than a being in particularity?

ah ,your asking me to believe i can change God into a form that pleases me. after all that is what the majority of mankind has done. even the ones that claim to be believe in a trinity of gods are doing that. it is some what ironic they dont all agree what the make up of the trinity is.

 

[firedragon]

ah ,your asking me to believe i can change God into a form that pleases me. after all that is what the majority of mankind has done. even the ones that claim to be believe in a trinity of gods are doing that. it is some what ironic they dont all agree what the make up of the trinity is.

You are right.

The study of the sociology of religion and even cognitive science of religion which is kind of a new topic are all surrounded by discussion and research-based hypotheses saying exactly the same thing. People change God. They even make God look like them. God even takes the colour of your skin. Jesus is white, but no he is dark.

I don't, of course, believe in a trinity, but am I doing worse than that? I don't really know. I must question myself.

After all, why look at another persons thimble while i may have a plank in my eye?

Peace.

 

[Soapy]

Matthew 3:
17 Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”
are they together or separate ?

• "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.“ (Isaiah 42:1)

The SERVANT of God....
God is no ones SERVANT.

I see that there are some here who are (as far as these few postings) true disciples of Christ.

Thank you.

 

[Soapy]

You are right.

The study of the sociology of religion and even cognitive science of religion which is kind of a new topic are all surrounded by discussion and research-based hypotheses saying exactly the same thing. People change God. They even make God look like them. God even takes the colour of your skin. Jesus is white, but no he is dark.

I don't, of course, believe in a trinity, but am I doing worse than that? I don't really know. I must question myself.

After all, why look at another persons thimble while i may have a plank in my eye?

Peace.

Firedragon, try to write a storyline in your mind that starts at the beginning, works through a middle, and has a purposeful end... a recovered ‘word of God’.

Trinity cannot do that.

Trinity cannot explain why ONE OF THE RULERS in the HEAVENLY TRINITY claims as a REWARD, the earthly throne of a human, King David.... it never attempts (and I get no answer) to explain why on earth (sorry!!) GOD who rules ENDLESS BODILESS SPIRIT HEAVEN should choose to demote himself to rule over (in relation to HEAVEN) physically limited CREATION?

But think this: Adam, Father of all mankind, should rise to RULE OVER as HEAD OVER THE CREATED world.. the IMAGE OF GOD, ruling over the creation of God AS A REWARD...

Makes more sense..

But Adam sinned... who is God going to make KING over his creation... The SECOND ADAM... the LAST ADAM.. if this last Adam failed then the world is destroyed...

Satan set a challenge to God that man can rule by himself... does not need God. God said, go ahead, test man... that is why we see so much trouble in the world... Satan is testing and tempting us in EVERY WAY and we see each time he fails EVENTUALLY... our self-governing turns to rags...

After all testing and tempting is done - Hence the length of the time since Jesus was raised up to heaven) - Satan will have been proved totally wrong and thus can have no complaint that, ‘If only man had been able to do this, of that, or the other...’. No, his way will be shown to fail - and he and all who follow him will be destroyed.

The second/Last Adam ensures that justice is served - and as a reward, he will serve as KING over creation with the ELITE as his ministers.

But he, though king over creation, is still honourable and reverently HIGH PRIEST to ‘HIM WHO SITS ON THE [Heavenly] THRONE surrounded by impenetrable light’... a high priest serves the true GOD DIRECTLY...

Jesus cannot be GOD and HIGH PRIEST TO GOD.

 

[firedragon]

Firedragon, try to write a storyline in your mind that starts at the beginning, works through a middle, and has a purposeful end... a recovered ‘word of God’.

Trinity cannot do that.

Trinity cannot explain why ONE OF THE RULERS in the HEAVENLY TRINITY claims as a REWARD, the earthly throne of a human, King David.... it never attempts (and I get no answer) to explain why on earth (sorry!!) GOD who rules ENDLESS BODILESS SPIRIT HEAVEN should choose to demote himself to rule over (in relation to HEAVEN) physically limited CREATION?

But think this: Adam, Father of all mankind, should rise to RULE OVER as HEAD OVER THE CREATED world.. the IMAGE OF GOD, ruling over the creation of God AS A REWARD...

Makes more sense..

But Adam sinned... who is God going to make KING over his creation... The SECOND ADAM... the LAST ADAM.. if this last Adam failed then the world is destroyed...

Satan set a challenge to God that man can rule by himself... does not need God. God said, go ahead, test man... that is why we see so much trouble in the world... Satan is testing and tempting us in EVERY WAY and we see each time he fails EVENTUALLY... our self-governing turns to rags...

After all testing and tempting is done - Hence the length of the time since Jesus was raised up to heaven) - Satan will have been proved totally wrong and thus can have no complaint that, ‘If only man had been able to do this, of that, or the other...’. No, his way will be shown to fail - and he and all who follow him will be destroyed.

The second/Last Adam ensures that justice is served - and as a reward, he will serve as KING over creation with the ELITE as his ministers.

But he, though king over creation, is still honourable and reverently HIGH PRIEST to ‘HIM WHO SITS ON THE [Heavenly] THRONE surrounded by impenetrable light’... a high priest serves the true GOD DIRECTLY...

Jesus cannot be GOD and HIGH PRIEST TO GOD.

I think your "anti trinity" agenda has become your God so you are obsessed with it so much that you have lost all sense of relevance. You are replying to a comment and making a thesis against trinity to a person who already doesnt believe in a trinity.

Anyway, I can see that relevance is down the drain and the meaning of the word is out the window.

There is no last Adam. It makes no sense, neither is it biblical. The Bible calls people Ben Adham. Jesus calls himself Benn Adham, but in a different language, Aramaic so it is Bar Nashaa. He does not call himself Adam or the last Adam. Neither does the Bible "quote Jesus" calling himself some Last Adam. You are making your own theology up, but your theology is not biblical. If you are referring to the Corinthians statement of the last adam, you should also realise that it's written in Greek and that is why the intermingling of adam and man doesn't sound strange to you. But if it's in Hebrew it will be the same word adam. In the Greek language, you would see the words Anthropos and adam, even in the Septuagint genesis, but in Hebrew, if you analyse the Adam episode, both episodes of man and Adam are one single word, Adam. So its misrepresented.

Use some analytics. Do you understand what eschatology is? The word eschatology comes from the Greek word eschatos and "Eschatos Adam" means "last Adam". Take this back to a palatable language and you will think if it means eschatos as in the man of eschatology or the man who brings the end. Ho Eschatos Adam. Anyway, you are taking this simple sentence into another level. Jesus is called Second Adam, and New Adam. And of course, I understand the recapitulation theory yet I completely disagree. And it's irrelevant to the question at hand anyway.

I am no Trinitarian, my friend. But sometimes we wish to discuss another person's theology from their perspective to get some insights and views from all sorts of people because sometimes lay people can bring out some point that could blow the minds of scholars. So the discussion doesn't necessarily have to be an anti-trinitarian attack. There could be other threads for that. Its all fine.

Theoretically, monotheism is simply mono-theism. One God. Trinity concept itself is still "One God". You can go around all the world and make up all kinds of attacks on it and we can see all the strategies by Muslims, anti-trinitarian Christians, atheists, etc, etc. But its still, one God. So its always monotheism.

The biggest problem with people is that their anti-heretic sentiments are so strong that they think its always "Either agree or disagree" in every discussion. I completely disagree with the Trinity. But I understand it and wished to have some views on the topic raised, that's it. Understanding something is not "agreeing".

You don't have to agree with another religion, but you can understand it.

 

[syo]

I detect that you are not very acquainted with scriptures. I detect that you are a just saying things that a church rhetoric has taught you.

‘Orthodox Christian’? There is no such thing?
You may CLAIM or be taught to claim that there is such a thing but in truth there is only one TRUE CHRISTIAN and that Christian does not have a TITLE because it does not need one.

A Christian should believe one thing... the only thing ... that The Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ is our only Lord.

If you believe that then you are Christian... anything else is ANTICHRIST.

So, in Christ there is no ‘orthodox’ or ...whatever the other titles out there are!!! Do you see (the bold bits as) a verse that says something similar in the scriptures?

‘Son God’... what is a ‘Son God’? Aren’t Son Gods pagan ideology? Sure are... Hercules, etc.

There will always be similarities between believes robbed from one to make another. The romans robbed the Greeks of their Gods because they’d own we’re not as exciting... so what are you saying if a pagan god is CLAIMED to have ’endless love’... what are you saying that the true God and HIS CHRIST do not show ‘endless lives... in fact why did you even say that... your suggestion is that the ONLY TRUE GOD AND HIS CHRIST do not show ‘endless love’ when no one even mentioned anything about ‘Love’!!!

Oh no, not you as well... why are Trinitarians so bad at reading and understand... I absolutely never ever said, nor would ever say.. that Jesus Christ is ‘just a man’... that what you said is PURE TRINITARIAN...

I have written EXTENSIVELY that Jesus is a man born SINLESS, HOLY, And INNOCENT, the Last Adam, born of the Seed of a WOMAN... the seed enlivened by the breath of the Holy Spirit of the Father... WOW, if someone is claiming that this makes Jesus ‘just a man’, then we need better education in our schools.

It’s a song by ‘Blackeye Peas’:

• People killin' people dyin'
  Children hurtin', I hear them cryin'
  Can you practice what you preachin'?
  Would you turn the other cheek again?
  Mama, mama, mama, tell us what the hell is goin' on
  Can't we all just get along?
  Father, father, father help us
  Send some guidance from above
  'Cause people got me, got me
  Questioning
  (Where's the love)

I understand you disagree that the Son/Jesus is God. Oh well.

 

[sojourner]

ah ,your asking me to believe i can change God into a form that pleases me. after all that is what the majority of mankind has done. even the ones that claim to be believe in a trinity of gods are doing that. it is some what ironic they dont all agree what the make up of the trinity is.

That’s what the biblical writers did — haven’t you noticed? In Genesis, God is completely anthropomorphized. God went walking in the garden, and Adam and Eve recognized God physically. Then, Elijah looked for God In an earthquake, and was unable to look at God. God is a mother hen, God is an Eagle. Then, in the NT, God is a Spirit, then a dove, then flame, then Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

The second/Last Adam ensures that justice is served - and as a reward, he will serve as KING over creation with the ELITE as his ministers.

Your whole diatribe was an epic fail theologically, but this bit is especially heinous. My God! Have you ever read Matthew? There is no “elite.” The whole Gospel is constructed to show us that there is no us/them as you suggest here. Your posts are theological codswallop. Please — please — I beg you: leave theology and exegesis to us professionals. You’re making hamburger of the Faith.

 

[cataway]

That’s what the biblical writers did — haven’t you noticed? In Genesis, God is completely anthropomorphized. God went walking in the garden, and Adam and Eve recognized God physically. Then, Elijah looked for God In an earthquake, and was unable to look at God. God is a mother hen, God is an Eagle. Then, in the NT, God is a Spirit, then a dove, then flame, then Jesus.

no, yet i see ya are tiring to make it look that way

 

[cataway]

Your whole diatribe was an epic fail theologically, but this bit is especially heinous. My God! Have you ever read Matthew? There is no “elite.” The whole Gospel is constructed to show us that there is no us/them as you suggest here. Your posts are theological codswallop. Please — please — I beg you: leave theology and exegesis to us professionals. You’re making hamburger of the Faith.

“elite” or "the elite" is not a bad word or a bad way to identify a special group of people. perhaps you would prefer the "elect " ?? it identify's those that will serve with Jesus in the kingdom

 

[sojourner]

no, yet i see ya are tiring to make it look that way

Of course you don’t. Your cult wouldn’t allow it.

 

[sojourner]

“elite” or "the elite" is not a bad word or a bad way to identify a special group of people. perhaps you would prefer the "elect " ?? it identify's those that will serve with Jesus in the kingdom

No one is “special” apart from anyone else. That’s Matthew’s point.

 

[cataway]

No one is “special” apart from anyone else. That’s Matthew’s point.

Actually there is .Jesus called attention to another group when he said: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.” (Joh 10:16) These are not of the “little flock” (Lu 12:32), but they too must approach Jehovah through Jesus Christ and be baptized in water.
The vision given to the apostle John, as recorded in Revelation, harmonizes with this when, after showing John the 144,000 “sealed” ones, it turns his eyes to “a great crowd, which no man was able to number.” These are shown as having “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,” indicating faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Lamb of God. (Re 7:9, 14) They are therefore given favorable recognition, “standing before [God’s] throne,” but are not those whom God selects to be the “sealed” 144,000. As to this “great crowd,” the vision goes on to point out that they serve God day and night and will be protected and will be cared for by him.—Re 7:15-17.

 

[cataway]

Of course you don’t. Your cult wouldn’t allow it.

Snarky?? hummm

 

[sojourner]

Actually there is .Jesus called attention to another group when he said: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.” (Joh 10:16) These are not of the “little flock” (Lu 12:32), but they too must approach Jehovah through Jesus Christ and be baptized in water.
The vision given to the apostle John, as recorded in Revelation, harmonizes with this when, after showing John the 144,000 “sealed” ones, it turns his eyes to “a great crowd, which no man was able to number.” These are shown as having “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,” indicating faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Lamb of God. (Re 7:9, 14) They are therefore given favorable recognition, “standing before [God’s] throne,” but are not those whom God selects to be the “sealed” 144,000. As to this “great crowd,” the vision goes on to point out that they serve God day and night and will be protected and will be cared for by him.—Re 7:15-17.

I see you’re unfamiliar with the practice of exegesis. Instead you make “mush gospel.” How unfortunate. None of this informs Matthew. But, now you mention it, John does agree with me: bring “others” and make them one.

However, your cult thrives on going against this call to oneness, creating division between human beings, insisting that an arbitrary number, gleaned from a highly symbolic and mythic account, is somehow concrete. You find all this talk of equity threatening. How sad.

 

[sojourner]

Snarky?? hummm

Snark? Where? Please explain.

 

[Soapy]

I think your "anti trinity" agenda has become your God so you are obsessed with it so much that you have lost all sense of relevance. You are replying to a comment and making a thesis against trinity to a person who already doesnt believe in a trinity.

Anyway, I can see that relevance is down the drain and the meaning of the word is out the window.

There is no last Adam. It makes no sense, neither is it biblical. The Bible calls people Ben Adham. Jesus calls himself Benn Adham, but in a different language, Aramaic so it is Bar Nashaa. He does not call himself Adam or the last Adam. Neither does the Bible "quote Jesus" calling himself some Last Adam. You are making your own theology up, but your theology is not biblical. If you are referring to the Corinthians statement of the last adam, you should also realise that it's written in Greek and that is why the intermingling of adam and man doesn't sound strange to you. But if it's in Hebrew it will be the same word adam. In the Greek language, you would see the words Anthropos and adam, even in the Septuagint genesis, but in Hebrew, if you analyse the Adam episode, both episodes of man and Adam are one single word, Adam. So its misrepresented.

Use some analytics. Do you understand what eschatology is? The word eschatology comes from the Greek word eschatos and "Eschatos Adam" means "last Adam". Take this back to a palatable language and you will think if it means eschatos as in the man of eschatology or the man who brings the end. Ho Eschatos Adam. Anyway, you are taking this simple sentence into another level. Jesus is called Second Adam, and New Adam. And of course, I understand the recapitulation theory yet I completely disagree. And it's irrelevant to the question at hand anyway.

I am no Trinitarian, my friend. But sometimes we wish to discuss another person's theology from their perspective to get some insights and views from all sorts of people because sometimes lay people can bring out some point that could blow the minds of scholars. So the discussion doesn't necessarily have to be an anti-trinitarian attack. There could be other threads for that. Its all fine.

Theoretically, monotheism is simply mono-theism. One God. Trinity concept itself is still "One God". You can go around all the world and make up all kinds of attacks on it and we can see all the strategies by Muslims, anti-trinitarian Christians, atheists, etc, etc. But its still, one God. So its always monotheism.

The biggest problem with people is that their anti-heretic sentiments are so strong that they think its always "Either agree or disagree" in every discussion. I completely disagree with the Trinity. But I understand it and wished to have some views on the topic raised, that's it. Understanding something is not "agreeing".

You don't have to agree with another religion, but you can understand it.

Hmm... I write to another person on another thread concerning this, ‘Understanding another religion’.

This is DANGEROUS territory.

When you start ‘understanding’ an untruth, you will get drawn into that untruth.

Sojouner screams that I am arguing against trinity because I dong understand it. Believe me, I DO understand ... that it is non-sequitor ...

When I ask trinity persons to show their truth I find it all disjointed... unexplained... just verses tossed together with no meaningful conclusion (non-sequitur!!)

You can see in this or whichever thread that sojouner does not answer with meaningfulness - this is absolutely typical of what I encounter FOD YEARS from Trinitarians. What happens next is they cause a scene and call the moderators and “I” get thrown out of the forum - because the forums are predominantly run BY TRINITARIANS!!

I am saddened to read that you disagree with what I wrote (even more that you think opposing trinity is wrong... the way I do it, anyway!) and even worse saddened to read that you think that Jesus is not the ‘Last Adam’. I use ‘second Adam’ also because it emphasises that he is that... but also the LAST: second and last.

I feel it is perfect sense:

1. The BODY of Adam is created from the dust of the earth (notice ‘DUST’... inert material)
2. The body was likewise inert, non-living - until the breath of life was put into him : the Spirit that enlivens the inert body. This is an event carried out by God using his (The Father’s) spirit... his HOLY spirit
3. Adam was thus-wise Sinless and Holy, innocent, and pure
4. Adam dutifully followed every command YHWH GOD gave him to do... this is the definition of a perfect spiritual SON. Luke 3:38 calls him ‘Son of God’... (tick that term and it’s definition)
5. But Adam later sinned... no longer perfect... following his own course ... no longer ‘Son of God’
6. God is angered and thinks of destroying his creation. But relents. He proposes that mankind can redeem itself if an equally innocent, pure, holy, and sinless man can be found to act as a blood sacrifice to quell the destruction - all die, even those who did not commit a sin against the law...
7. But God (like any perfect designer) knows that things might not go to plan totally especially when you have a third party that you are depending on. So God puts into place a contingency plan: redemption through a second Adam... But since man is sinful (and it would be seen as eternally sinful) the redemption would need to come through an equally sinless, holy, innocent, and pure man... made in the fashion of the first Adam (and then no more - Hence also, Last Adam)
8. The prophecy was then annualised by ceremonies of killing a pure-bred Innocent meek lamb symbolising the ‘Christ’ event.
9. So, time went on. God reminded his people that he promised them a saviour, a Christ. He spoke saying prophesiely:
   1. “Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved on whom I will put my spirit and who will bring justice to the nations” (Isaiah 42:1)
10. This verse contains a complete snapshot of Jesus Christ to come:
    1. A servant of God is to come...
    2. God will CHOOSE HIM from among his brethren (i.e. He is MAN)
    3. God will ANOINT this man with holy oil as priests did in the past to consecrate a king-to-be of a priest/prophet-to-be. Jesus will be BOTH...
11. By the way, ‘Jesus’ is just an anglicised corruption of ‘Joshua’ and both have the same meaning: ‘He will save his people’, which is why the angel Gabriel was told to tell Mary to name her son to be born, ‘Jesus’ (iesous/Yeshua)
12. When no saviour was found from among the seed of adam (in the fullness of time) God PUT FLESH ON THE BONES OF HIS PROMISED WORD and the SECOND ADAM, the contingency, was effected
13. The spirit of God overshadowed Mary and her inert seed (egg) was ENLIVENED by the Holy Spirit - “Therefore the Child to be born SHALL BE called, Holy, Son of the God Most High“

... the major rest is as you know it...!

So, sacrifice and death of a pure, unblemished, sinless, innocent, sacrificial lamb (one death to end all previous endless reminder sacrifices) paid for the sin of Adam that condemned all mankind to eternal death irrespective of their lawfulness!

Jesus’ resurrection proved that God could resurrect the dead - and he invested that ability in Jesus for use at the end of time:

• ‘Just as the Father has life in him so he has made for the sin to have life in himself‘
  
• The ‘Eternal Father’: Jesus raises the dead and judges them. Those that he judges as worthy he ’Gives them ETERNAL LIFE’.. and so he is their ‘ETERNAL FATHER’ (‘Father’ means: ‘He who gives life...’)

A bit long but there is still much I haven’t said.