The Trinity

[Muffled]

This is post #2045 in a thread devoted to wrapping our minds around what is too big for us to fully comprehend. No one has yet to definitively show that God cannot be one God, yet three Persons. No one has yet to definitively show that posing God as a trinity is in any way fallacious or dangerous. the thread's been active for nearly 4 years, and the original poster is banned. One really has to begin to wonder: What's the point???!!!

I don't believe that God couldn't be three persons, only that He is not three persons.
There is more than one definition of "person" but the Trinity only fitss the one that says a member of the trinity. Any other most often used definition doesn't fit. For instance there is only one person who is God only in the flesh and that is Jesus. There are thousands of people who are God with us but that does not seem to qaulify as one person to me. There is only one Spirit (of God) and that would mean one person unless one were able to show that the Spirit displayed separate personal characteristics and I don't believe that is the case.

I believe I did but it is so long ago it might have been on another thread.

I believe God finds it blasphemous and that He is not pleased with it. I believe it is dangerous to provoke God.

I believe the point is that it is worth talking about.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Can you be more specific about your confusion?

I didn't say I was confused.

 

[Benoni]

The trinity is a religious lie or it would be mentioned in the Bible.

No where does it say there is a trinity.

No where does it say the Father is the first person of the trinity.

No where does it say Jesus is the second person of the trinity or the Holy Spirit or Spirit of truth is the third peson of the trinity.

God is a spirit not a person. Yes Jesus was a person for 33 years but He sure is not a person now. A person is a human made of flesh.

God is one not three persons. Read your Bible and reject your religious beliefs not based on scripture.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes Jesus was a person for 33 years but He sure is not a person now. A person is a human made of flesh.

Just curious... when did Jesus stop being a person? We know He had flesh and bones when He appeared to His Apostles after His resurrection, and we know that He had flesh and bones during the 40 days He spent with them after that, and we know that He was seen ascending Heavenward with flesh and bones. When did He get rid of them, and where did He put them, and how will be go about getting them again when He returns to Earth?

 

[Juanster]

My Learned Friend,
Based upon what is described in the Bible I have no other choice but to agree with your conclusions. "Let us create Man in Our Own Image". From this point we are instructed that from the dust of the Earth a three dimensional single entity is molded, with all of the attributes of the Molder, an exact likeness in everyway, except one; Immortality Male/Female/Ego/Sou/Shakana. IYO, how accurate is this with the Hebrew rendition?

If one is to use the full intent of mathematical notation (including set theory) the correct notation would be 1 (is less than or equal to) 1+1+1 (which is less than or equal to 3).

If however, we use the full implications of mathematical theory as a projection of the G-dhead then we must deal with one very important notion form the ancient Hebrew description of G-d. That is the word “ehad” to describe the numerical “oneness” of G-d. If we assume the numerical singularity of “ehad” then the “oneness” of G-d becomes by definition the least common dominator of the whole. This would mean that G-d cannot be divided or differentiated into any “sub” persons or distinctions – such as “Father” “Son” and “Holy Ghost”.

If in contrast, “ehad” is plural unity, as in marriage when a man and a woman become “one flesh” then “ehad” does not assume the number theory definition of the “whole” or “counting” numbers and cannot be use as scriptural proof that G-d is singular. The point here is that according to all possible variant readings of “ehad” the “Biblical” interpretation of “one G-d” is contradicted in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Zadok

 

[kjw47]

Just curious... when did Jesus stop being a person? We know He had flesh and bones when He appeared to His Apostles after His resurrection, and we know that He had flesh and bones during the 40 days He spent with them after that, and we know that He was seen ascending Heavenward with flesh and bones. When did He get rid of them, and where did He put them, and how will be go about getting them again when He returns to Earth?

Mary didn't recognize Jesus outside the tomb--because he was not in his mortal body that died at that point--Later he appeared in that body to help Thomas to believe--Jesus also walked through a locked door--no physical body can do that.
In Noahs day--angels were coming down appearing as mortals and having sex with women--who gave birth to the nephlim( giants) -- that means angels could appear as mortal at will--but obviously that was stopped after the flood. But Jesus could appear as mortal anytime any place--no one knows. Jesus was raised in the spirit--the king of kings of Gods kingdom--he is not still a little lower than the angels.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Mary didn't recognize Jesus outside the tomb--because he was not in his mortal body that died at that point--Later he appeared in that body to help Thomas to believe--Jesus also walked through a locked door--no physical body can do that.
In Noahs day--angels were coming down appearing as mortals and having sex with women--who gave birth to the nephlim( giants) -- that means angels could appear as mortal at will--but obviously that was stopped after the flood. But Jesus could appear as mortal anytime any place--no one knows. Jesus was raised in the spirit--the king of kings of Gods kingdom--he is not still a little lower than the angels.

Hmm... You're saying no physical body could walk through a door? What about no physical body could walk on water? Or no physical body could be carried away onto a high mountain? Or no physical body could be raised from the dead (Lazarus)? I think it is safe to say that "With God, nothing shall be impossible."

In Luke 24 after his resurrection one of the times Jesus appears to his apostles it goes:
"36And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

It seems that Jesus is making a clear distinction that he is NOT a spirit, that he is a tangible being. After that he eats with them.

I don't see any place in the Bible that it teaches Jesus was going to abandon his body. He taught that he was going to take it up again.


John 10:
"17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."


It seems from my point of view that the most reasonable understanding of this passage is that when Jesus is resurrected he will be in a similar form to before his death. Why would we think that after he takes his life again he would do so as a spirit? Seeing how spirits cannot die, how could "take it up again" be referring to his spirit? Just my thoughts.


I'm not sure I follow you about the angels having sex with humans. Apparently I'm ignorant of where this idea comes from.

 

[Muffled]

The trinity is a religious lie or it would be mentioned in the Bible.

No where does it say there is a trinity.

No where does it say the Father is the first person of the trinity.

No where does it say Jesus is the second person of the trinity or the Holy Spirit or Spirit of truth is the third peson of the trinity.

God is a spirit not a person. Yes Jesus was a person for 33 years but He sure is not a person now. A person is a human made of flesh.

God is one not three persons. Read your Bible and reject your religious beliefs not based on scripture.

i believe this is the null hypothesis and virtually unprovable. It is like saying Moses is a Jew is a lie because it doesn't say he is in the Bible.

I believe the Trinity is in the Bible and it is not necessary for the Bible to state that it is there.

I believe this to be true but it does not negate the existence of the Trinity as one person.

I have read my Bible many times and base my beliefs on it in conjunction with what the Holy Spirit tell me.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

i believe this is the null hypothesis and virtually unprovable. It is like saying Moses is a Jew is a lie because it doesn't say he is in the Bible.

I believe the Trinity is in the Bible and it is not necessary for the Bible to state that it is there.

It is not necessary for the Bible to state that Jesus is a Jew but it gives plenty of evidence that he is one. He follows their customs. He was born to a Jewish family, and he lives the law of Moses. So it would be natural to assume he is a Jew.

On the other hand it would not make sense to assume that Jesus is a Mormon. Just because the Bible never says that he is a Mormon doesn't mean it's a lie. But that also doesn't mean I can safely say he is one. Mormons didn't even exist until the 1800's. So everyone would think I would be crazy to say that he was one.

As crazy as it sounds, the concept seems the same to us nontrinitarians. When people claim to believe in the trinity we are confused. From our point of view (which I believe has a great deal of supporting evidence) the trinity was a fabricated idea adopted centuries after Christ. To us the lack of Biblical support for the idea IS a very important point. It seems like an irrational leap of logic to go from what the Bible portrays to what the creeds say.

Not only that, but before Constantine chose one sect of Christianity to promote and forcibly stamped out the others many of the fathers did NOT believe in the trinity.

So if the Bible doesn't seem to teach the trinity, and the early Christians did not believe in the trinity, and not until much later did the idea become popular and accepted, we feel that it would not make sense to believe in the trinity in lieu of further (read "any") evidence to support it.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. We all know that doesn't work (let's admit it, people get on religious forums to argue and debate, not to actually challenge and examine their own thinking). But I hope that clearly illustrates why we think the "null hypothesis" is an important one in this instance.

 

[Katzpur]

Mary didn't recognize Jesus outside the tomb--because he was not in his mortal body that died at that point--Later he appeared in that body to help Thomas to believe--Jesus also walked through a locked door--no physical body can do that.

First off, I think it far more likely that Mary didn't initially recognize Jesus because she wasn't exactly accustomed to seeing resurrected beings. Secondly, you are using the terms "physical" and "mortal" interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing.

But Jesus could appear as mortal anytime any place--no one knows. Jesus was raised in the spirit--the king of kings of Gods kingdom--he is not still a little lower than the angels.

I think what you're saying here is that, even though Jesus specifically pointed out to His Apostles that He had a body of flesh and bones and was not merely a spirit, it was all just some kind of a dog and pony show He was putting on for them. It sounds like you believe that He wasn't really what He insisted He was. If that kind of reasoning works for you, well... okay.

 

[kjw47]

Hmm... You're saying no physical body could walk through a door? What about no physical body could walk on water? Or no physical body could be carried away onto a high mountain? Or no physical body could be raised from the dead (Lazarus)? I think it is safe to say that "With God, nothing shall be impossible."

In Luke 24 after his resurrection one of the times Jesus appears to his apostles it goes:
"36And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

It seems that Jesus is making a clear distinction that he is NOT a spirit, that he is a tangible being. After that he eats with them.

I don't see any place in the Bible that it teaches Jesus was going to abandon his body. He taught that he was going to take it up again.


John 10:
"17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."


It seems from my point of view that the most reasonable understanding of this passage is that when Jesus is resurrected he will be in a similar form to before his death. Why would we think that after he takes his life again he would do so as a spirit? Seeing how spirits cannot die, how could "take it up again" be referring to his spirit? Just my thoughts.


I'm not sure I follow you about the angels having sex with humans. Apparently I'm ignorant of where this idea comes from.

In the days of Noah--the nephlim were the offspring of fallen angels and mortal women--they were giants--very violent.

No flesh lives in heaven-- its a dwelling for spirit beings. How can one who was made to be a little lower than angels--rule over them as king? Jesus went back to being his spirit being( Michael)

 

[Katzpur]

No flesh lives in heaven

I'm sure you're thinking of the verse which states, "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The phrase "flesh and blood" is mentioned in several different verses in both the Old and New Testaments and without exception refers to "mortal man." The phrase "flesh and bones" is mentioned only once, and that is when Jesus specifically states that He is a being of "flesh and bones." He was saying that He had a corporeal form, which is not to say that He was a mere mortal. There is nowhere in scripture were we are told that Jesus Christ, a being of flesh and bones could not or does not live in Heaven.

You didn't respond to any of my comments in my last post. I hope you still will and that you will also respond to this question: Why would Jesus have pretended to be something He was not? The fact that His Apostles initially believed they'd seen a spirit is pretty strong evidence that He could have appeared to them in spirit form to show them that He was truly alive (because He definitely didn't correct them and tell them that had He been merely a spirit, they couldn't have seen Him). Instead of doing that, however, He appeared to them in bodily form and specifically pointed out to them that He was not merely spirit. And yet you seem to reject this fact and believe instead that He was appearing to them as something He was not. Why would He have need to deceive them into thinking He had a corporeal form if He really didn't?

 

[kjw47]

I'm sure you're thinking of the verse which states, "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The phrase "flesh and blood" is mentioned in several different verses in both the Old and New Testaments and without exception refers to "mortal man." The phrase "flesh and bones" is mentioned only once, and that is when Jesus specifically states that He is a being of "flesh and bones." He was saying that He had a corporeal form, which is not to say that He was a mere mortal. There is nowhere in scripture were we are told that Jesus Christ, a being of flesh and bones could not or does not live in Heaven.

You didn't respond to any of my comments in my last post. I hope you still will and that you will also respond to this question: Why would Jesus have pretended to be something He was not? The fact that His Apostles initially believed they'd seen a spirit is pretty strong evidence that He could have appeared to them in spirit form to show them that He was truly alive (because He definitely didn't correct them and tell them that had He been merely a spirit, they couldn't have seen Him). Instead of doing that, however, He appeared to them in bodily form and specifically pointed out to them that He was not merely spirit. And yet you seem to reject this fact and believe instead that He was appearing to them as something He was not. Why would He have need to deceive them into thinking He had a corporeal form if He really didn't?

No I wasn't thinking of that verse---its reality--flesh lives on earth--- spirits live in heaven. A being who is made lower than the angels most assuredly cannot be their king if he is lower in status--Jesus was raised a spirit--Jesus can appear as a mortal at will.

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus was raised a spirit

Why do you say that Jesus was raised a spirit when the scriptures clearly state precisely the opposite -- that He had a body of flesh and bones?

Jesus can appear as a mortal at will.

And why would He have had any reason at all to appear as something He was not? What could He have possibly accomplished by pretending to have a body that He did not have?

 

[james2ko]

Why do you say that Jesus was raised a spirit when the scriptures clearly state precisely the opposite -- that He had a body of flesh and bones?

And why would He have had any reason at all to appear as something He was not? What could He have possibly accomplished by pretending to have a body that He did not have?

Perhaps to ease the fears of the terrified disciples?

Luk 24:37 But the whole group was startled and frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost (NLT)!
​

 

[Katzpur]

Perhaps to ease the fears of the terrified disciples?

Luk 24:37 But the whole group was startled and frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost (NLT)!
​

And it would be somehow less frightening to see a resurrected being with 3-day old wounds in his hands, feet and sides? Yeah, right.

Jesus appeared as a resurrected being because He was a resurrected being. He spent 40 days among His Apostles as a resurrected being and ascended into Heaven as a resurrected being. And still, Jehovah's Witnesses continue to insist that it was all just deception on His part.

 

[james2ko]

And it would be somehow less frightening to see a resurrected being with 3-day old wounds in his hands, feet and sides? Yeah, right.

Apparently so. They were actually less afraid after Christ pointed out His wounds than they were when they initially saw Him. In fact, they were so unafraid they stuck around and granted His request for something to eat.

Jesus appeared as a resurrected being because He was a resurrected being. He spent 40 days among His Apostles as a resurrected being and ascended into Heaven as a resurrected being. And still, Jehovah's Witnesses continue to insist that it was all just deception on His part.

Good thing I'm not a JW

 

[Katzpur]

Apparently so. They were actually less afraid after Christ pointed out His wounds than they were when they initially saw Him. In fact, they were so unafraid they stuck around and granted His request for something to eat.

That they did. Once they realized that their Master was truly alive again, they must have been ecstatic beyond anything we can possibly imagine. Jesus had no need to deceive them. He didn't deceive them. He told them who He was, He demonstrated to them who He was, He spent the next 40 days among them and they watched as He ascended into Heaven. At no time did He say, "Hey... there's something I've got to tell you. I've just been playing with your heads. I'm not real after all." Look, I know we're never going to agree on this, so I'm willing to let it drop. I'm even willing to let you have the last word. I'm just saying that it's a whole lot easier to just believe Jesus was being honest than to try to justify His being deceitful.

Good thing I'm not a JW

Okay, you're not a JW. Just someone who is 100% with the JWs on every point of doctrine I've ever seen you post on.

 

[james2ko]

That they did. Once they realized that their Master was truly alive again, they must have been ecstatic beyond anything we can possibly imagine. Jesus had no need to deceive them. He didn't deceive them. He told them who He was, He demonstrated to them who He was, He spent the next 40 days among them and they watched as He ascended into Heaven. At no time did He say, "Hey... there's something I've got to tell you. I've just been playing with your heads. I'm not real after all." Look, I know we're never going to agree on this, so I'm willing to let it drop. I'm even willing to let you have the last word. I'm just saying that it's a whole lot easier to just believe Jesus was being honest than to try to justify His being deceitful. Okay, you're not a JW. Just someone who is 100% with the JWs on every point of doctrine I've ever seen you post on.

I never said Christ deceived them. That came from your preconceived notion that I hold the same beliefs as JW's. Not sure where 100% came from. We actually have a lot in common with the Mormons. In fact, you thought I was a Mormon, remember?

 

[CG Didymus]

Why do you say that Jesus was raised a spirit when the scriptures clearly state precisely the opposite -- that He had a body of flesh and bones?

Okay, Jesus has a body of flesh and bone, but flesh can't live in heaven? And then for the trinitarians, God/Jesus has a physical body, but somehow God is Spirit? So trinitarians are Poly-spiritual body believers plus one body made of flesh and bone?