The Trinity

[Wharton]

None so blind, apparently. When did I change my mind. Olympic Gold again !

"just human" is not the same as "human", as most people who read my posts would understand. I have already explained but you choose to ignore the meat of the conversation and chase the red herrings....whatever.

Are you capable of intelligently answering any questions or are you just here to rubbish JW's?

Typical JW twist. Why don't you define "just human" and "human" for the forum.

 

[Kolibri]

No. Actually you need to understand the Jewish teaching method. Go read the bible. Jesus starts when he is 30 years old. That's the age for a teacher with authority. He was a scriptural genius at 12 in the temple but had to wait until he was 30 years old as stated in scripture. He is not "baptized" by John as he had no sin and had no need to be baptized and repent.

He does, however, need a teacher with authority (John) to confirm him as a new Jewish teacher with authority, which John does along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus immediately gathers his students (talmidim) to train in his interpretation of scripture-my yoke (his interpretation of scripture) is easy and my burden light. This can be seen in scripture where the statement is made the he (Jesus) teaches with authority and not as the scribes. The people recognize that he is a teacher with authority. Scribes simply repeated another Jewish teacher with authority's interpretation of scripture. BTW, they are the FATHERS Jesus spoke of in scripture. Each had their own interpretation of scripture which was confusing.

Disciples are students. They don't get to offer interpretations of scripture or preach. They are under a teacher with authority. The 70 disciples sent forth were under Jesus. They can teach but not preach.

Etymology[edit]
The term "disciple" is derived from the Koine Greek word mathetes,[1] which means a pupil (of a teacher) or an apprentice (to a master craftsman), coming to English by way of the Latin discipulus meaning a learner while the more common English word is student. A disciple is different from an apostle, which instead means a messenger.[2][3] While a disciple is one who learns from a teacher, an apostle is one sent to deliver those teachings or a message.

The Great Commission installs the 11 as teachers with authority, no one else. That's the purpose of the Apostles. Only they are confirmed as teachers with authority. They would follow the method used by Jesus and confirm other teachers with authority to take their place. That would be called apostolic succession. If Jesus intended to use your JW teaching method, there would be no Apostles. It would be a preaching free for all which is what you have. BTW, if you bother to read Acts, you will read that the people followed the teachings of the Apostles, not Jesus, which supports the method Jesus wanted used.

You have no teacher with authority via apostolic succession in your organization to ensure that what is being preached is correct. The JW flip flops and prophecy errors are glaring examples of that.

Jesus, the apostles and their successors received their semikhah properly. Where did the governing body get theirs. LOL. They didn't. They appointed themselves as teachers with authority.

"I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom: Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times; reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching. For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome (or "healthful; beneficial.") teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. (or, "to tell them what they want to hear.") They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories. You, though, keep your senses in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelizer, (or "keep preaching the good news.") fully accomplish your ministry." - 2 Timothy 4:1-5

"For 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.' (Joel 2:32; Act 2:21) However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!'" (Isaiah 52:7) - Romans 10:13-15
Are these things just for Timothy, and the Roman congregation, and those who theoretically trace their origins to the apostles? No, all Christians are to be preachers.

Note the following:. It is the footwear of our spiritual armor to be ready to preach of the good news. That means every member of the congregation, not just a few.
"Stand firm therefore with the belt of truth fastened around your waist, wearing the breastplate of righteousness, and having your feet shod in readiness to declare the good news of peace." - Ephesians 6:14,15

Who else is going to fulfill Matthew 24:14? A clergy class isn't going to get it done. All Christians have this responsibility. Not just few.
Teachers never stop being students, and we do study the teachings of the Apostles, as found in the Bible constantly.
Your assertion that someone needs to wait till they are 30 does not hold weight.
O Jehovah our Lord, how majestic your name is throughout the earth;
You have set your splendor even higher than the heavens! (or possibly, "You whose splendor is recounted above the heavens!")
Out of the mouth of children and infants you have established strength
On account of your adversaries,
To silence the enemy and the avenger.
- Psalm 8:1,2

"When the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous things he did and the body who were shouting in the temple, 'Save we pray, the Son of David!' they became indignant and said to him: 'Do you hear what these are saying?' Jesus said to them: 'Yes. Did you never read this, "Out of the mouth of children and infants, you have brought forth praise"?'" - Matthew 21:15,16
Who is being indignant now? Are you going to shut the mouth of babes?

"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, (or "by human standards.") not many powerful, not many of noble birth, (or "from important families.") but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put strong ones to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one (Lit., "flesh.") might boast in the sight of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:26-29
Are you foolish, weak, and insignificant? Are you willing to adjust when faced with plain scripture?

 

[Kolibri]

Typical JW twist. Why don't you define "just human" and "human" for the forum.

• human - man/woman
• not just human - man but with a history of being something else before or after, but not during being human.

Jesus was a man, his human life was of equivalent value to Adam prior to his rebellion. Jesus however had a history of being Jehovah's chief spokesman, and by virtue of being Jehovah's closest relative, he would have also been Jehovah's closest friend. In sending his son to be merely human, he sent his very best.

Why would you need to ask? I question your motive.

 

[kjv4me2you]

This was not a resurrection. It was an earthquake that threw up corpses that needed to be reburied.
*** w90 9/1 p. 7 ‘Many Bodies of the Holy Ones Were Raised Up’ ***
First, whoever “the holy ones” were, Matthew did not say they were raised up. He said their bodies, or corpses, were. Second, he did not say these bodies came to life. He said they were raised up, and the Greek verb e·gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,” does not always refer to a resurrection. It can, among other things, also mean to “lift out” from a pit or to “get up” from the ground. (Matthew 12:11; 17:7; Luke 1:69) The upheaval at Jesus’ death opened tombs, tossing lifeless bodies into the open. Such occurrences during earthquakes were reported in the second century C.E. by Greek writer Aelius Aristides and more recently, in 1962, in Colombia.

This view of the event harmonizes with Bible teachings. In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the apostle Paul gives convincing proof of the resurrection, but he completely ignores Matthew 27:52, 53. So do all other Bible writers. (Acts 2:32, 34) The corpses raised up at Jesus’ death could not have come to life in the way Epiphanius thought, for on the third day thereafter, Jesus became “the firstborn from the dead.” (Colossians 1:18) Anointed Christians, also called “holy ones,” were promised a share in the first resurrection during Christ’s presence, not in the first century.—1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:14-17.

Most Bible commentators have difficulty explaining verse 53, although several of them suggest that verse 52 describes the opening of tombs by the earthquake and the exposing of newly buried corpses. For example, German scholar Theobald Daechsel gives the following translation: “And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up.”
Who were those that “entered into the holy city” a considerable time later, namely after Jesus had been resurrected? As seen above, the exposed bodies remained lifeless, so Matthew must refer to persons who visited the tombs and brought news of the event into Jerusalem.

 

[sojourner]

• human - man/woman
• not just human - man but with a history of being something else before or after, but not during being human.

Jesus was a man, his human life was of equivalent value to Adam prior to his rebellion. Jesus however had a history of being Jehovah's chief spokesman, and by virtue of being Jehovah's closest relative, he would have also been Jehovah's closest friend. In sending his son to be merely human, he sent his very best.

Why would you need to ask? I question your motive.

Sounds like a lot of tap-dancing and baseless remythologizing to me.

 

[pearl]

He was the only human who could pay the ransom. Why do you think he came to die for us? He was human and his life was given in sacrifice.
What else would you call it?

There is another way to think about this; He came to Live for us, not just to show us how to die, but how to live, how to be for
the other, how to be human, not humanly perfect, but perfectly human. Through His own human intuition He knew, as other
prophets before him, He would come to a violent end. He called His Father Abba, a term of intimate endearment, not a name one
would call a vengeful God satisfied only with the blood of his Son.

 

[JayJayDee]

There is another way to think about this; He came to Live for us, not just to show us how to die, but how to live, how to be for the other, how to be human, not humanly perfect, but perfectly human.

Yes, I agree. His life was a model left for those of the generations to come to understand what it means to love God with all that we are, and to love our neighbor as ourself....what it means to be a footstep follower of the Christ. Big shoes to fill.

Through His own human intuition He knew, as other
prophets before him, He would come to a violent end.

His words to the Jews before his execution indicated that the prophets of old were not well received either. (Matt 23:37-39) He tried to explain that he was going to die but his disciples did not fully understand many things.
Jesus was yet to teach them many things before his return to heaven.

He called His Father Abba, a term of intimate endearment, not a name one would call a vengeful God satisfied only with the blood of his Son.

Jesus never portrayed his Father as a vengeful God who was only interested on blood sacrifice. In fact he never wanted animal sacrifices at all really. (Heb 10:5, 6, 10) But it was the only way to keep reminding them that the blood of his Christ would be offered "once for all time" and that they would never need physical reminders again.

He is a God of perfect justice....and as such he abides by his own laws even if it pains him.

Isaiah explains: "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,vSmitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray,vEach of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him." (Isaiah 53:4-6)

Only through the forgiveness gained by his sacrifice was God pleased by his suffering. The good it accomplished for so many, made God proud of his son and made the redemption of mankind (plagued by the legacy left by Adam's sin,) possible.

 

[Sonofason]

God is Spirit. You gave analogy about the flesh.

If God is Spirit, then how is it that Jesus is God, since Jesus was flesh?
Or is God flesh as well as spirit?
Could it be that God is all flesh, or can He only be the flesh of Christ?

 

[Sonofason]

Jesus lived in his Spirit, in which HE RAISED HIMSELF.


You are ridiculous. You cannot help but insult. You probably know of no one who speaks more deeply than I do.

I am not intending to be insulting. I'm just trying to be reasonable. Perhaps I should consider the following verse as well. Surely it is supportive of your position, and possibly my own.

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Clearly, this prophesy tells us that Jesus is God, and that this Jesus is the Eternal Father. If indeed Jesus was the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophesy, obviously given to Isaiah by God Himself, Jesus is God. And the pendulum swings in favor of One God, who is Jesus Christ, Our Eternal Father.

I'm cutting the chord now, and the pendulum is crashing to the ground.

 

[Sonofason]

The "word" in that verse is "logos". It is talking about God's plans, thoughts or reasons. And the came real in verse 14 in His son Jesus. God did not "become" flesh. His plans did. BIG difference. You making them the exact same person. One and the same. They are not. They are the same in wills, charactor, plans. But they are not phyiscally the same. God is immortal, Jesus is a man who is mortal.

Tertullian on the Trinity

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25)."

Early church Fathers understood that there is only one God, and that this God consisted of three distinct personifications of the same God. Those being the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit. The three are distinct personifications of the same being, the same God. Each personification of God is distinct from the other, yet the three are in essence the same God. I'm a carpenter, and I am a husband. While I certainly can be characterized as a carpenter, this carpenter is a husband. This carpenter and this husband is indeed the same person. Each has qualities of his own, yet we are one.

 

[moorea944]

Tertullian on the Trinity

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25)."

Early church Fathers understood that there is only one God, and that this God consisted of three distinct personifications of the same God. Those being the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit. The three are distinct personifications of the same being, the same God. Each personification of God is distinct from the other, yet the three are in essence the same God. I'm a carpenter, and I am a husband. While I certainly can be characterized as a carpenter, this carpenter is a husband. This carpenter and this husband is indeed the same person. Each has qualities of his own, yet we are one.

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is a person and not part of God as in power? Just curious...

 

[Muffled]

You are contradicting yourself.

If Jesus is God, and he is, then he is also the Father, for there is only One God and He is the Father.

I believe I am not contradicting myself. The same being does not mean the exact same identity. In one place in scripture God identifies Himself as "I am" and in another place as Jehovah and in another place as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jabob. He is one God and the same being but with different identities. The Father is a different identity from the Son even though they are one God.

 

[Muffled]

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is a person and not part of God as in power? Just curious...

I believe God is not in parts. If a person has the power of God he has God.

 

[sojourner]

How does this:

Early church Fathers understood that there is only one God, and that this God consisted of three distinct personifications of the same God. Those being the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit. The three are distinct personifications of the same being, the same God. Each personification of God is distinct from the other, yet the three are in essence the same God.

in any way equate to this:

Clearly, this prophesy tells us that Jesus is God, and that this Jesus is the Eternal Father.

when the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons, as you stated in the first quotation? Jesus is the Son (one distinct Person); The Father is another distinct Person -- not the same Person as the Son.

 

[Sonofason]

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is a person and not part of God as in power? Just curious...

No, I'm suggesting that the Holy Spirit is "like" another person in that He exhibits and disseminates certain attributes of God that we often distinguish and separate from God's other attributes. And in the same sense, I am suggesting that Jesus is like another person as He exhibits and disseminates other attributes of God that pertain only to Himself.

One could say "Oh Holy Spirit come into my life." Similarly, one could say, Oh God let thy spirit come into my life. There is no difference between God's Spirit, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a personification of the attributes of God that are bounded up in the term that is being used.

 

[Sonofason]

How does this:

in any way equate to this:

when the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons, as you stated in the first quotation? Jesus is the Son (one distinct Person); The Father is another distinct Person -- not the same Person as the Son.

That which the Son is is fully God. But God may indeed be a great deal more than the Son of God part of God represents. I really don't know.

 

[moorea944]

I believe God is not in parts. If a person has the power of God he has God.

No, I'm suggesting that the Holy Spirit is "like" another person in that He exhibits and disseminates certain attributes of God that we often distinguish and separate from God's other attributes. And in the same sense, I am suggesting that Jesus is like another person as He exhibits and disseminates other attributes of God that pertain only to Himself.

One could say "Oh Holy Spirit come into my life." Similarly, one could say, Oh God let thy spirit come into my life. There is no difference between God's Spirit, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a personification of the attributes of God that are bounded up in the term that is being used.

Right, it is the wisdom and power of God. I lke in Luke when Gabriel is taking to Mary. "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

 

[Sonofason]

Right, it is the wisdom and power of God. I lke in Luke when Gabriel is taking to Mary. "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Yes, it's a great verse. I like it too. People read too much into the Trinity. It exists because we make it exist. When it is Mercy that we seek from God, the last characteristic of God we desire to invoke is the Justice of God. If it is the Power of God that we seek, it does us little good to think of the man Jesus aspect of God hanging on a cross, or rotting in a tomb, without also realizing that that dead man was God, and in those cold dead hands He still held the power of God.

 

[pearl]

Early church Fathers understood that there is only one God, and that this God consisted of three distinct personifications of the same God. Those being the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit. The three are distinct personifications of the same being, the same God. Each personification of God is distinct from the other, yet the three are in essence the same God. I'm a carpenter, and I am a husband. While I certainly can be characterized as a carpenter, this carpenter is a husband. This carpenter and this husband is indeed the same person. Each has qualities of his own, yet we are one.

Well said.


The attempt to live out and express the Christian faith is never a dead end, it is ongoing, which means not throwing out the past attempts but to develop them. The Trinity is the living God of love.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

It is strange that supporters of the trinity ignore the elephant in Mathew 28:19 -- What is the name of the Holy Spirit?

I mean, how can you baptize a Christian in the name of the Holy Spirit if his name is not mentioned? Furthermore, most Christians are not baptized in the name of the Father. Maybe because the name of the Father is not even mentioned in the New Testament.

Clearly the verse at Matthew 28:19 was inserted about a hundred years later (2nd century AD) to support he trinity doctrine and thus it was forced upon Christians who had disagreed.