The Trinity

[sojourner]

The Father knows things that Jesus doesn't, is that included in the answer?

well, Jesus and the Father are two separate people. I doubt they'd have all the same info...unless they were a two-headed monster, which we know isn't true.

 

[outhouse]

As far as you know.

as far as anyone knows.

next you will define prophets as miraculous, today we call them all crazy like harold camping.

Constantine was the temporal ruler, not the spiritual ruler.

he ruled over the bishops and ruled over the bitter debate among bishops on just how divine jesus was.

please learn the real history on the trinity. even wiki gives decent details

There are multiple shreds in the gospels. Would you like to discuss them one by one?

there was a holy spirit in the OT and then it magically changed to holy ghost in the NT

followers of judaism today do not call god and his spirit duality, and they are the ones in my opinion that created the deity and his spirit. And they look at there god as one who can change into spirit form if im not mistaken

this only became a issue when the son comes into the picture, its still highly contested today and not followed by all christians

 

[Shermana]

well, Jesus and the Father are two separate people. I doubt they'd have all the same info...unless they were a two-headed monster, which we know isn't true.

If they are two different people with two different minds and two different positions, that means they are not the same being, no matter what kind of Nicean wordplay is used.

 

[InChrist]

If they are two different people with two different minds and two different positions, that means they are not the same being, no matter what kind of Nicean wordplay is used.

No, they are not two different Beings. They are ONE Being, two different Persons. This is not wordplay. In a human family the dad has a higher position of authority than the son. They are both equal or the same in their nature as human beings, yet they are two different individual people. God the Father holds a higher position of authority than God the Son, they are different Persons, but they are both equal in the nature of their Being.

 

[InChrist]

As I've said before, there is no such thing as "The" Godhead, the word "Theotetos" translates to "godhood", and so does the word "Godhead" in its original olde English translation. All this talk about "natures" was 4th century Greek wordplay. What is "nature"?

If there is a separate "aspect" of the Father which is "greater" in authority and position than another, that would mean another BEING altogether.

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for pushing the issue of the alleged mistranslation of the word Godhead. It caused me to think about it and to do further research. First, let me say that I believe the scriptures are the inspired Word of God and God is capable of making sure that the message He intended to communicate was preserved through the ages. Secondly, I don’t agree with your conclusion that Godhead is a mistranslation. Nevertheless, other versions are even more clear and precise in stating that in Christ dwells all the fullness of Deity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “The word under consideration here, “theotes”, is not the same word as is found at Romans 1:20, “theiotes”. This difference is striking and purposeful. One cannot translate “theotes” as a simple quality or attribute - it refers instead to the actual essence of deity, not simply to its attributes. The most extensive passage on this important idea is found in Trench’s “Synonyms of the New Testament”: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]...yet they (“theiotes” and “theotes&#8221 must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; “theotes” being from “theos”, and “theiotes”, not from “to theion”, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to “theos”, but from the adjective “theios” ... But in the second passage (Col. ii.9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses “theotes” to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son;... “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The concept here put forth is striking. It is impossible to conceive of a higher view of Christ. This statement, however, is not inconsistent with Paul’s overall theology. Benjamin B. Warfield, while discussing Paul’s conception of Christ, wrote: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]... we are told not only that (naturally) in Him all the fulness dwells (Col. i.19), but, with complete explication, that “all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily” (Col. ii.9); that is to say, the very Deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness, has its permanent home in Our Lord, and that in a “bodily fashion,” that is, it is in Him clothed with a body. He who looks upon Jesus Christ see, no doubt, a body and a man; but as he sees the man clothed with the body, so he sees God Himself, in all the fulness of His Deity, clothed with the humanity. “ [/FONT]
“There is little need to further elaborate on the obvious meaning of “theotetos”. Let it suffice to say that such scholars as Alford (7), Nicoll (8) and A. T. Robertson (9) all view it in similar manner. Even a cursory glance at how some of the major translations render the word bear this out: ... we are told not only that (naturally) in Him all the fulness dwells (Col. i.19), but, with complete explication, that “all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily” (Col. ii.9); that is to say, the very Deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness, has its permanent home in Our Lord, and that in a “bodily fashion,” that is, it is in Him clothed with a body. He who looks upon Jesus Christ see, no doubt, a body and a man; but as he sees the man clothed with the body, so he sees God Himself, in all the fulness of His Deity, clothed with the humanity. (6)
[FONT=&quot]There is little need to further elaborate on the obvious meaning of “theotetos”. Let it suffice to say that such scholars as Alford (7), Nicoll (8) and A. T. Robertson (9) all view it in similar manner. Even a cursory glance at how some of the major translations render the word bear this out: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]RSV:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily... [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]NIV:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form... [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]NEB:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For it is in Christ that the complete being of the Godhead dwells embodied... [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Barclay:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For it is in Christ that godhead in all its completeness dwells in bodily form. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Amplified:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead), continues to dwell in bodily form - giving complete expression of the divine nature. “[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Excerpts from:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Colossians 2:9 & the New World Translation[/FONT]
Cult Help and Information - Home

 

[Shermana]

No, they are not two different Beings. They are ONE Being, two different Persons. This is not wordplay. In a human family the dad has a higher position of authority than the son. They are both equal or the same in their nature as human beings, yet they are two different individual people. God the Father holds a higher position of authority than God the Son, they are different Persons, but they are both equal in the nature of their Being.

The idea of "one being" being "Two persons" sounds like multiple personality syndrome or some attempt to try to reconcile the clearly distinct two minds and personas into some "Superbeing" which amounts to Tritheism. If they are equal in the "nature" of their Being, that's another story, they are still different beings, of different authority, and minds,and wills and thoughts. So if you're presenting some Polytheistic "dual minded dual personad monad triad" that's your personal belief, I'll stick to Philo's view of the Logos.

 

[Shermana]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for pushing the issue of the alleged mistranslation of the word Godhead. It caused me to think about it and to do further research. First, let me say that I believe the scriptures are the inspired Word of God and God is capable of making sure that the message He intended to communicate was preserved through the ages. Secondly, I don’t agree with your conclusion that Godhead is a mistranslation. Nevertheless, other versions are even more clear and precise in stating that in Christ dwells all the fullness of Deity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “The word under consideration here, “theotes”, is not the same word as is found at Romans 1:20, “theiotes”. This difference is striking and purposeful. One cannot translate “theotes” as a simple quality or attribute - it refers instead to the actual essence of deity, not simply to its attributes. The most extensive passage on this important idea is found in Trench’s “Synonyms of the New Testament”: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]...yet they (“theiotes” and “theotes&#8221 must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; “theotes” being from “theos”, and “theiotes”, not from “to theion”, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to “theos”, but from the adjective “theios” ... But in the second passage (Col. ii.9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses “theotes” to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son;... “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The concept here put forth is striking. It is impossible to conceive of a higher view of Christ. This statement, however, is not inconsistent with Paul’s overall theology. Benjamin B. Warfield, while discussing Paul’s conception of Christ, wrote: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]... we are told not only that (naturally) in Him all the fulness dwells (Col. i.19), but, with complete explication, that “all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily” (Col. ii.9); that is to say, the very Deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness, has its permanent home in Our Lord, and that in a “bodily fashion,” that is, it is in Him clothed with a body. He who looks upon Jesus Christ see, no doubt, a body and a man; but as he sees the man clothed with the body, so he sees God Himself, in all the fulness of His Deity, clothed with the humanity. “ [/FONT]
“There is little need to further elaborate on the obvious meaning of “theotetos”. Let it suffice to say that such scholars as Alford (7), Nicoll (8) and A. T. Robertson (9) all view it in similar manner. Even a cursory glance at how some of the major translations render the word bear this out: ... we are told not only that (naturally) in Him all the fulness dwells (Col. i.19), but, with complete explication, that “all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily” (Col. ii.9); that is to say, the very Deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness, has its permanent home in Our Lord, and that in a “bodily fashion,” that is, it is in Him clothed with a body. He who looks upon Jesus Christ see, no doubt, a body and a man; but as he sees the man clothed with the body, so he sees God Himself, in all the fulness of His Deity, clothed with the humanity. (6)
[FONT=&quot]There is little need to further elaborate on the obvious meaning of “theotetos”. Let it suffice to say that such scholars as Alford (7), Nicoll (8) and A. T. Robertson (9) all view it in similar manner. Even a cursory glance at how some of the major translations render the word bear this out: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]RSV:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily... [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]NIV:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form... [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]NEB:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For it is in Christ that the complete being of the Godhead dwells embodied... [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Barclay:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For it is in Christ that godhead in all its completeness dwells in bodily form. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Amplified:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead), continues to dwell in bodily form - giving complete expression of the divine nature. “[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Excerpts from:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Colossians 2:9 & the New World Translation[/FONT]
Cult Help and Information - Home

The word "Deity" in this case as well refers to the Qualitative aspect that "Godhead" refers to. A qualitative noun is not the same as an object.

Thus, "Christ in the fullness of deity" means "In the fullness of godhood", whatever "godhood" means, since angels are referred to as "gods" as in Psalm 136:2. Even the evil one is referred to as a "god" in 2 Cor 4:4, so whatever "godhood" and "deity" means is clearly a qualitative reference to something that angels are referred to as, while being an Earthly being.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

By the saying that the Father knows things the Son does not, I would look to the mystery of who Christ is: total obedience to the Father's will. In other words, the entire will of the Blessed Trinity is the will of the Father (aside from the human will the Son gains in the incarnation). But the Trinity does not have three "uncreated" wills, as it were.

So God's will about any specific event in the future is specifically what the Father wills, not the Son. The Son can only assent to it.

 

[outhouse]

for those of you guessing how the trinity is to be defined

Its best you go back and read the creeds where ancient man dictates the exact formula they have told you how to interpret it by.

many of you are botching it badly based on personal belief

 

[sojourner]

If they are two different people with two different minds and two different positions, that means they are not the same being, no matter what kind of Nicean wordplay is used.

No it doesn't. And that's plainly worded in the creed: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ...begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

Two Persons -- one Being. That's the mystery of the Trinity.:yes:

 

[sojourner]

The idea of "one being" being "Two persons" sounds like multiple personality syndrome or some attempt to try to reconcile the clearly distinct two minds and personas into some "Superbeing" which amounts to Tritheism. If they are equal in the "nature" of their Being, that's another story, they are still different beings, of different authority, and minds,and wills and thoughts. So if you're presenting some Polytheistic "dual minded dual personad monad triad" that's your personal belief, I'll stick to Philo's view of the Logos.

Communities have "being," don't they? Sure they do! Families have "being." Two people get married, have a child, and become a family. The Trinity is the perfect example of God-as-community. There is one Being -- the community that is God -- consisting of three distinct Persons.

 

[ninerbuff]

Communities have "being," don't they? Sure they do! Families have "being." Two people get married, have a child, and become a family. The Trinity is the perfect example of God-as-community. There is one Being -- the community that is God -- consisting of three distinct Persons.

What if there is a second child? Then it's a quadry?

 

[InChrist]

What if there is a second child? Then it's a quadry?

God is not a man who procreates children as humans do, despite what Mormonism teaches. God gave the scriptures so we would have information defining who God is and to correct false ideas. God is Spirit and the spiritual Being of God is composed of three Persons. If God did not communicate this truth to humanity we would have no way of knowing and would continually come up with wrong concepts from our own imagination as already so often happens when the Bible is ignored or the scriptures are twisted and taken out of context from the whole counsel of God’s Word.

 

[idav]

First off the holy spirit has less support in being a separate being that Jesus has. God is spirit and it makes no sense that God has a spirit when he is spirit! Jesus explained a duality with God and never mentioned a need for the holy spirit in order to be one with god. What Jesus does mention is our ability to be one with God also as Jesus is. We could be part of this potential duality that Jesus experienced. God should not need a second or third party to do his work for him. The idea of an avatar is fairly simple and christians mess it all up complicating it beyond belief. I'll go with the hindu version.

 

[sojourner]

What if there is a second child? Then it's a quadry?

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that with the Trinity.

 

[ninerbuff]

God is not a man who procreates children as humans do, despite what Mormonism teaches. God gave the scriptures so we would have information defining who God is and to correct false ideas. God is Spirit and the spiritual Being of God is composed of three Persons. If God did not communicate this truth to humanity we would have no way of knowing and would continually come up with wrong concepts from our own imagination as already so often happens when the Bible is ignored or the scriptures are twisted and taken out of context from the whole counsel of God’s Word.

Yeah, yeah. If it's spiritural then how can this "3 persons" thing be when a "person" is human? DUH. This is about as clear as mud. Lest I forget, you'll remind me that I'm blind because I disbelieve.
Face it, NO ONE has really any idea of this god that the religious speak of. Gotta wait till you die to find out.

 

[ninerbuff]

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that with the Trinity.

Lol, then maybe you should use a different example than that of a family of 3.

 

[kepha31]

Communities have "being," don't they? Sure they do! Families have "being." Two people get married, have a child, and become a family. The Trinity is the perfect example of God-as-community. There is one Being -- the community that is God -- consisting of three distinct Persons.

Allow me to embellish your post.

"In seeking to understand the traditional family, Christians should keep in mind that not only are individual persons created in the image of God, but so is the family itself. The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity.

The creeds teach that while there is one God, He exists in three distinct persons. The bible, on the other hand, reveals that man is made in the 'image of God'. From these two truths, therefore, we can acknowledge that the complete image of God is found in the Triune understanding of Him.

This understanding of His Triune nature is reflected by the human family whose personal relationships approach the likeness of the Trinity.
There are multiple demonstrations of this truth.

Consider the unity of the Trinity which is reflected in the unity of the family. Or the "family of persons" which is found in both. The persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ' while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children.

There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son, or in other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as "love".

The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son. This is why perhaps Jesus says to the Apostles: " Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.

The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.

And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child)..."
http://catholic-legate.com/articles/antitrinity.html

 

[Muffled]

we agree on the point that they are most certainly three separate persons...although we dont view the holy spirit as a person, it is Gods power... but Jesus and God are most definitely separate individuals in our understanding of the bible.

the angels and Jesus and the bible writers repeatedly call him a 'son'... it would make no sense to do this if he were God himself.

There is no evidence supporting this view.

This does not agree with the statement of Jesus that He is the Holy Spirit. That makes Him quite personal.

Jesus is God in the flesh so the evidence is that they can't be separate individuals.

On the contrary. Gods view of Himself can be different from other peoples view of Him but God recognizes that existence in a body having been born of a virgin makes Him a son.

 

[Muffled]

I would say in purpose the Godhead is 1+1+1 = 1

In entity it's 1+1+1 = 3

As long as one perceive those entities as conceptual and not physical.

In spirit the Father, Son and Paraclete are one.