The Trinity

[outhouse]

The idea of a deity with three heads like a hydra is a complete nonsense to me, I can't see the point of such a concept.

people trying to define a self procliamed deity they never knew or witnessed


I agree its nonsense and as a small child it soured my whole view of the biblical reality. As a child this flaw left the door open for me to walk out into reality and get the real picture of what actually happened so many people put bind faith into.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I believe in that the One True God is Triune. 1+1+1=1.

 

[Tonymai]

Trinity crudely speaking is a corporation of three persons of Deity. Father, Son, Spirit (thought, word, action). The minimum required social group which functions at impersonal level (Laws of existence) to maintain the actuality. Three persons of Deity are infinite personalities.

From finite personality perspective, it is not possible to generate infinite from a single number 1. All number system must have at least two basic symbols. However, when there are two, the union of the two implies a third reality. Well there are even more complicated explanations.

 

[Shermana]

And what is a 'person"?

 

[Tonymai]

A person is an absolute unique being in existence who can know and worship God who is the original person, and who endows the quality of persons to other beings.

 

[Shermana]

If a person is a unique being, that means you disagree with the original position of the Trinity as "one being in three persons".

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A person is an absolute unique being in existence who can know and worship God who is the original person, and who endows the quality of persons to other beings.

Is a person even an 'it' or an 'itself' ?________

We might call a ship as a she but the boat or ship is still an 'it' not a person.

Since God's spirit is an 'it' according to Romans [8 vs16,26] and Numbers [11 vs16,17,25], then it is not a person, but it is God's powerful active force as used at Genesis 1v2 in creation and used as a helper in the Christian congregation.

 

[icebuddy]

I believe in that the One True God is Triune. 1+1+1=1.

God is beyond basic math. 1x1x1=1

Rom 12:4 Just as our bodies have many parts and each part has a special function,
Rom 12:5 so it is with Christ's body. We are many parts of one body, and we all belong to each other.

1Cr 12:14 Yes, the body has many different parts, not just one part.
1Cr 12:15 If the foot says, "I am not a part of the body because I am not a hand," that does not make it any less a part of the body.
1Cr 12:16 And if the ear says, "I am not part of the body because I am not an eye," would that make it any less a part of the body?
1Cr 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, how would you hear? Or if your whole body were an ear, how would you smell anything?
1Cr 12:18 But our bodies have many parts, and God has put each part just where he wants it.
1Cr 12:19 How strange a body would be if it had only one part!
1Cr 12:20 Yes, there are many parts, but only one body.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all part of the body of God Jehovah. Are we to think our bodies are more complex than Gods?

2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
2Cr 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
2Cr 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

How do you honor the Image of God? It is not a wise thing to look to the Image of God and say, "Not God".

Jhn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Dont forget that we are the ones who did not get to see Jesus face to face, but does that change things?

Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

What did Thomas say to Jesus that we should be saying today?

Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Our interpitation of Romans 10:13 will explain our belief. is Romans 10:13 telling us to call upon Jesus or some other name?

Rom 10:14 ¶ How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Who then are the disiples going to preach and teach about? Who ever they do, is what name should be called upon in Rom 10:13.

2Cr 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

Believe as you want, but i warn those that might be looking to the image of God and saying, "Not God". Ask yourself a question: What does the Devil want you to do? Look to the image of God and say, "NOT GOD" or say, "My God"?

In Love,
Tom

 

[Shermana]

Actually Romans 10:13 is highly misquoted quite often, it is a recitation of Joel 2:32 and it should be LORD in upper case in this sense, not lower case Lord, which Jesus is. The Father is the one who saves, Jesus does not save directly, he brings to salvation. He is called the Savior, just as the Father has sent "saviors" to deliver the Israelites. Yashua means "Yah saves". It is not a pro Trinity verse except for those who like drawing the LORD and Lord connection out of context.

Thus, it is to call on the name of the Father, not the "Lord Jesus".

 

[InChrist]

Actually Romans 10:13 is highly misquoted quite often, it is a recitation of Joel 2:32 and it should be LORD in upper case in this sense, not lower case Lord, which Jesus is. The Father is the one who saves, Jesus does not save directly, he brings to salvation. He is called the Savior, just as the Father has sent "saviors" to deliver the Israelites. Yashua means "Yah saves". It is not a pro Trinity verse except for those who like drawing the LORD and Lord connection out of context.

Thus, it is to call on the name of the Father, not the "Lord Jesus".

I believe the context of the passage is entirely about Jesus Christ and calling on His name to be saved and the quotes from Joel and Isaiah are there to verify that Jesus Christ is the only Savior whose name must be called upon As Peter also states:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 4:8-12

He is also the prophesied foundational stone which when rejected caused Israel to stumble as was foretold, just as you are also stumbling over Him. Jesus is not just a savior. The scriptures repeatedly portray Him as the one and only Savior whom one must receive or reject.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I believe the context of the passage is entirely about Jesus Christ and calling on His name to be saved and the quote from Joel and Isaiah are there to verify that Jesus Christ is the only Savior whose name must be called upon As Peter also states:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 4:8-12

He is also the prophesied foundational stone which when rejected caused Israel to stumble as was foretold, just as you are also stumbling over Him. Jesus is not just a savior. The scriptures repeatedly portray Him as the one and only Savior whom one must receive or reject.

May I have an amen?

 

[Shermana]

I believe the context of the passage is entirely about Jesus Christ and calling on His name to be saved and the quotes from Joel and Isaiah are there to verify that Jesus Christ is the only Savior whose name must be called upon As Peter also states:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 4:8-12

He is also the prophesied foundational stone which when rejected caused Israel to stumble as was foretold, just as you are also stumbling over Him. Jesus is not just a savior. The scriptures repeatedly portray Him as the one and only Savior whom one must receive or reject.

That's exactly why I brought this up, Paul is not referring to Jesus but to the Father here. Your idea is based on a presumption and a misundestanding of what it means to "Call upon". What do you suppose was the meaning of Joel in the first place? What salvation was he speaking of there? Is it different now than then from what Paul quoted? It's a very common misunderstanding. I also think there's a misunderstanding of "Calling on a name" and "no other name under heaven given among men". As well, you don't seem to understand what I meant as the Father as the source of Salvation and Yashua as the one who brings to Salvation. It has to do with his sacrificial status as well.

Yashua is the Savior in the sense that he was the Anointed Christ, the Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53:10, and the message bearer of the will of the Father. Paul quotes Joel for a reason, and then there's the issue of the context of the rest of the passage of Joel. It's very important to recognize what Joel 2:32 orginally meant by Salvation and by who, otherwise you must bite the bullet and accept that your interpretation involves Paul twisting the original meaning of the passage to suit another context which it didn't originally mean.

You are welcome to believe this, but it distorts the reason why Paul would be quoting Joel to his audience at the time, as if he had changed the context of the original verse to suit his own doctrine.

 

[InChrist]

That's exactly why I brought this up, Paul is not referring to Jesus but to the Father here. Your idea is based on a presumption and a misundestanding of what it means to "Call upon". What do you suppose was the meaning of Joel in the first place? What salvation was he speaking of there? Is it different now than then from what Paul quoted? It's a very common misunderstanding. I also think there's a misunderstanding of "Calling on a name" and "no other name under heaven given among men". As well, you don't seem to understand what I meant as the Father as the source of Salvation and Yashua as the one who brings to Salvation. It has to do with his sacrificial status as well.

Yashua is the Savior in the sense that he was the Anointed Christ, the Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53:10, and the message bearer of the will of the Father. Paul quotes Joel for a reason, and then there's the issue of the context of the rest of the passage of Joel. It's very important to recognize what Joel 2:32 orginally meant by Salvation and by who, otherwise you must bite the bullet and accept that your interpretation involves Paul twisting the original meaning of the passage to suit another context which it didn't originally mean.

You are welcome to believe this, but it distorts the reason why Paul would be quoting Joel to his audience at the time, as if he had changed the context of the original verse to suit his own doctrine.

I am sorry, Shermana, that I don't have time right now to give a thorough response to this. I must get offline for now and go do something else. I will just say that I believe Joel Ch. 2 is in reference to the return of Christ to Jerusalem to save the remnant of Israel.

 

[Mark2020]

That's exactly why I brought this up, Paul is not referring to Jesus but to the Father here.

You are saying that Acts 4:12 refers to the Father?

 

[Shermana]

You are saying that Acts 4:12 refers to the Father?

How ironic, a perfect example of possible deliberate misreading, or genuine confusion. Clearly you can see that this is about Romans 10 and differentiating "Lord" from "LORD". Paul was referring to the Father in Romans 10 when he quotes Joel. Perhaps you didn't read where I said there's a difference between "No other name under Heaven" and "Calling upon a name". If you'd like to get into this, you'll have to start by explaining what Joel 2:32 is about.

Acts 4:12 has nothing to do with "Calling upon his name". A major difference. Acts 4:12 refers to the son, who is the only name under Heaven who serves as the Guilt Offering.

 

[Mark2020]

How ironic, a perfect example of possible deliberate misreading, or genuine confusion...

It looked so because you quoted Acts 4:8-12 . You've already twisted so many facts so this one didn't look that far.
And by the way, thanks for the laughs:
'deliberate misreading', 'genuine confusion', ...

 

[icebuddy]

Actually Romans 10:13 is highly misquoted quite often, it is a recitation of Joel 2:32 and it should be LORD in upper case in this sense, not lower case Lord, which Jesus is. The Father is the one who saves, Jesus does not save directly, he brings to salvation. He is called the Savior, just as the Father has sent "saviors" to deliver the Israelites. Yashua means "Yah saves". It is not a pro Trinity verse except for those who like drawing the LORD and Lord connection out of context.
Thus, it is to call on the name of the Father, not the "Lord Jesus".

The whole point is that Jesus is Jehovah... Read Jer 23:5,6

The Eternal Word that always existed with God and was God became flesh (1John 1:1-5) also (John 1:1-3)

 

[Shermana]

The whole point is that Jesus is Jehovah... Read Jer 23:5,6

The Eternal Word that always existed with God and was God became flesh (1John 1:1-5) also (John 1:1-3)

No it isn't. The whole reason I posted all that was to show that Jesus was NOT YHWH. And John 1:1c, once again, should be read as "And a god was the word". The very context of "salvation" in Joel 2:32 is quite different than what most Christians preach as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14780372/Non-trinitarian-Translations-of-John-11

And Jer 23:5-6 only proves my case all the more. Thanks for bringing it up. His name will be called "Yah is our righteousness". It's sort of like the name Melchezdiek. And Obadiah. (Obadi-yah). Many have Yah in their names to define what he does. And it describes Yashua as a King whom he will send. Jeremiah 23:5-6 is great proof-text AGAINST the Trinity.

 

[icebuddy]

No it isn't. The whole reason I posted all that was to show that Jesus was NOT YHWH. And John 1:1c, once again, should be read as "And a god was the word".

Sounds like something out of the New World Translation. (A Jehovahs Witness bible)

Anyways, I totaly disagree with you on this. Gods word cannot be seperated from God, but rather it subsists eternaly in God. Everything God creates, does, he does through his Word. To honor Gods Word is to honor God himself. When a prophet speaks Gods word, he makes the Word vissable to mankind. Yet Jesus is the Word made flesh. (1John1-1-5)

However, since you say the word is "a god", do you believe the word to be Eternal and to always have existed? Are you aware of passages that say No god was created before nor after YHWH? Is 43:10

Jeremiah 23:5-6 is great proof-text AGAINST the Trinity.

Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

What is your understanding of the Trinity? Also, Jesus isnt just a prophet or a man with a name simalar to Gods... Jesus is the Image of God and I will warn everyone like yourself that to look to the Image of God and say "NOT GOD" is dangerous. Your Jesus is giving off an image of "Lesser God" from what i can see. Is your Jesus exactly expressing the Fathers very being or not? God has given us an Image of himself to Worship, honor, call Jehoavh, call God, and love as we love God.

in Love,
Tom

 

[Mark2020]

And Jer 23:5-6 only proves my case all the more. Thanks for bringing it up. His name will be called "Yah is our righteousness". It's sort of like the name Melchezdiek. And Obadiah. (Obadi-yah). ....

Jer 23:6
בְּיָמָיו תִּוָּשַׁע יְהוּדָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח וְזֶה־שְּׁמֹו אֲ*שֶׁר־יִקְרְאֹו יְהוָה צִדְקֵנוּ
In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteousness.

This is Yahweh not Yah, I don't think this name was given to anyone else.

NASB Word Usage
GOD (314), LORD (6399), LORD'S (111).