The Trinity

[sojourner]

Try to read next time before just replying and read it carefully.

Take your own advice.

Meaning they are two ''Different persons'' even ''IF'' he had a divine nature of god in-him

Here's what I said:

That Being is revealed in three persons.

You cannot say that Jesus(p) is the same being as the Holy-Spirit, because Jesus(p) was flesh and was a '''Different'' Person according to the scriptures and teachings of the church.

Three persons -- one Being. I believe I just did say it.

 

[F0uad]

Take your own advice.

Here's what I said:


Three persons -- one Being. I believe I just did say it.

Then i come to the conclusion that you belief in something that isn't logical or understandable the One-ness should be understandable and Logical (this is different from comprehend god in essence be sure not to mix it)

First you don't want to look into the Definition of Persons then you try to hammer your taught into it what makes no sense. You actually have to approach this with a Biased mind and argue. And Not say ''i say this therefore it is so''.

Now tell me if i am wrong...

You belief in One Being(person) who separated himself into three different beings(persons) right?

Do you come to the same conclusion that its ILLOGICAL and not UNDERSTANDABLE?
Because if a Being ''makes himself'' into three different beings the One-ness
automatically disappears because he gets separated into DIFFERENT BEINGS!

 

[sojourner]

the One-ness should be understandable

Why? Is not the One-ness God? And if God, beyond our knowing?

You belief in One Being(person) who separated himself into three different beings(persons) right?

Nope. I believe in one God, who is Being, revealed in three Persons.
I do not believe in One Being who separated himself into three different beings (persons).

Do you come to the same conclusion that its ILLOGICAL and not UNDERSTANDABLE?

Nope.

Because if a Being ''makes himself'' into three different beings the One-ness
automatically disappears because he gets separated into DIFFERENT BEINGS!

Yeah, but that's not what happens. There's a fundamental difference between "being" and "person" -- a difference that's obviously eluding you.

 

[F0uad]

Why? Is not the One-ness God? And if God, beyond our knowing?

Nope. I believe in one God, who is Being, revealed in three Persons.
I do not believe in One Being who separated himself into three different beings (persons).

Nope.

Yeah, but that's not what happens. There's a fundamental difference between "being" and "person" -- a difference that's obviously eluding you.

This gets boring ok i will try it once more and hopefully you will understand what i am getting to if not i am dropping it.

First of all God is One we both agree on this but were you go in error is saying he divided himself into three ''DIFFERENT'' PERSONS ask any person who knows basic English and a little of math that if you have ONE BEING who separates himself into other persons/beings that are DIFFERENT he longer is not one any-more, maybe one in purpose but not by CONCEPT, PERSON or BEING!

Now your just playing with words what is the difference by Revealing and Separating we can clearly see from the scriptures they are ''Different'' so he had to Separate for examples the knowledge, power etc.. became all limited.

A person means someone has a ''Different'' Personality we can assume that is a being that is Different has its own Personality also a different word from Personality is Person-hood.

Now if you don't take my word for it go to wikipedia or google and find out what a Person means in english.
Also here is a link to Trinitarianism maybe you will finally understand what i am saying after reading that.

-Goodluck

 

[sojourner]

This gets boring ok i will try it once more and hopefully you will understand what i am getting to if not i am dropping it.

First of all God is One we both agree on this but were you go in error is saying he divided himself into three ''DIFFERENT'' PERSONS ask any person who knows basic English and a little of math that if you have ONE BEING who separates himself into other persons/beings that are DIFFERENT he longer is not one any-more, maybe one in purpose but not by CONCEPT, PERSON or BEING!

Now your just playing with words what is the difference by Revealing and Separating we can clearly see from the scriptures they are ''Different'' so he had to Separate for examples the knowledge, power etc.. became all limited.

A person means someone has a ''Different'' Personality we can assume that is a being that is Different has its own Personality also a different word from Personality is Person-hood.

Now if you don't take my word for it go to wikipedia or google and find out what a Person means in english.
Also here is a link to Trinitarianism maybe you will finally understand what i am saying after reading that.

-Goodluck

Thanks for being snotty. It's really helpful to the argument at hand.

I never "went into error" by saying:

he divided himself into three ''DIFFERENT'' PERSONS

God didn't divide God's Self. God is one. You're the one saying "God divided himself" by insisting that I said it.

ask any person who knows basic English and a little of math that if you have ONE BEING who separates himself into other persons/beings that are DIFFERENT he longer is not one any-more, maybe one in purpose but not by CONCEPT, PERSON or BEING!

Here's where you're off. I have always maintained: One Being -- three persons: God is revealed in three Persons. That's fundamentally different from what you said above.

we can clearly see from the scriptures they are ''Different''

How are they different? Can you pull up some texts that say so?

we can assume that is a being that is Different

We can? I don't.

Also here is a link to Trinitarianism maybe you will finally understand what i am saying after reading that.

I've studied it for more than 20 years. I've lived it for more than 50. I think, by reading your post here, that it's you who don't understand.

 

[F0uad]

I will in reply in red, shortly and wont go in details because this becomes a little annoying

Thanks for being snotty. It's really helpful to the argument at hand.

I never "went into error" by saying:

God didn't divide God's Self. God is one. You're the one saying "God divided himself" by insisting that I said it.

Hmm sorry i assumed you went with the Trinity view of Christianity this is what the discussions are about though, could you maybe clearly say what you mean by saying Revealed himself into three persons instead of becoming three beings?

Here's where you're off. I have always maintained: One Being -- three persons: God is revealed in three Persons. That's fundamentally different from what you said above.

Let me ask you something lets start with God is ''One Being'' now lets say for a example this being ''Becomes three Individuals who are different from each other'' are they not three different Beings/Gods then?

How are they different? Can you pull up some texts that say so?

Wait are you assuming that the Father = The son vice versa? If you do you really do not follow the Trinity Creed (Etymology). I already gave examples that the son is not like the father in knowledge: Matthew 24:36 nor in power: Matthew 12:28, nor in authority: John 5:19, John 5:30, John 8:28 nor in greatness: John 14:28 nor in goodness: Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19
And the list goes on and on but i find this question irrelevant because we both know they are not the same person and this is also the teachings of Christians in ''GENERAL'' Its actually blaspheming saying that Jesus(p) is the father or the spirit and don't forget blaspheming against the spirit is a unforgiven sin according to the bible.

We can? I don't.

Stop picking out one line or a couple of words and then reply on that but reply on the whole idea/context of what i am telling or saying. If you don't then your the most uneducated person i ever met? Someone tells you that ''Different'' means ''Different'' do you still insist that the person meant something else then ''Different'' you make no sense :no:

I've studied it for more than 20 years. I've lived it for more than 50. I think, by reading your post here, that it's you who don't understand.

To be honest i think you will never learn or at-least try to grasp what the Majority of the Population is trying to say but hey who am i to judge, anyway i hope you have much more years to go on and finally will realise when you open your eyes that the Trinity could never been understand because its a false teaching that was never preached before the Council of Nicea at-least by the followers of Jesus(p) or by him.



Ps: Sorry if i sound harsh and good-luck finding the truth about the trinity in this live or the next one.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've studied it for more than 20 years. I've lived it for more than 50. I think, by reading your post here, that it's you who don't understand.

I respect your experience, but that doesn't matter [with respect to the debate].

It's not like you and our friend are discussing the Trinity for the first time in history.

The Trinity is perhaps the most difficult doctrine in orthodox Christianity, and Christians fought over its meaning for about 500 years before coming to some kind of agreement. Even today, there are disagreements.

But it's obvious that our friend doesn't have a basic grasp on the doctrine of the Trinity - mostly because of a bias against it and secondly, he doesn't have the competence to choose good sources [*obviously*]. If he did have good sources, he would be addressing criticisms that actually are aimed toward the doctrine rather than his own straw man.

Shorter: This guy could understand the basic tenants of the Trinity in a very short amount of time (a few hours?) - but after years of study in Christian theology, it would obviously mean a bit more.

 

[outhouse]

it doesnt matter who you really are or what you study.

The trinity is a off the wall problem as to where no solution would work.

A mortal man was deified, and this posed a problem with what to do with Yahweh and jesus and retain monotheism.

Constantine forced a choice and duality was born.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

it doesnt matter who you really are or what you study.

The trinity is a off the wall problem as to where no solution would work.

A mortal man was deified, and this posed a problem with what to do with Yahweh and jesus and retain monotheism.

Constantine forced a choice and duality was born.

Dude, Yahweh was long, long gone by the time Constantine showed up.

 

[outhouse]

Dude, Yahweh was long, long gone by the time Constantine showed up.

it was my understanding that Yahweh existed from the Shasu tribe originally. Worshipped by ancient hebrews from their beggining originating from Edom.

When ancient hebrews the monotheistic tradition after 622BC Yahweh became the one god.


So who or what was gods name before the duality with jesus???

 

[outhouse]

your messing with my head!!!! make the demons stop !!!!! LOL


Names of God in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some Christians use the Hebrew names Elohim, El-Shaddai, and Adonai.
Names based on the tetragrammaton are also in use. Jehovah appears in Tyndale's Bible, the King James Version, and other translations from that time period and later. Jehovah's Witnesses make consistent use of Jehovah.[1] Yahweh is used in the modern Sacred Name Movement, such as the Assemblies of Yahweh.
Many English translations of the Bible translate the tetragrammaton as LORD, following the Jewish practice of substituting the spoken Hebrew word 'Adonai' (translated as 'Lord') for YHWH when read aloud.[2] The Septuagint mainly used the Greek word Kyrios (Greek: Κύριος, meaning 'lord') to translate YHWH. As this was the Old Testament of the Early Church, the Christian practice of translating the divine name as 'Lord' derives directly from it.
In Messianic Judaism, sometimes considered a form of Christianity, God is often referred to as HaShem, meaning "the Name". The Trinity is called ha'Elohiym, and the three persons of the Trinity are called Father, Yeshua, and Ruach haQodesh.
I Am that I Am is a common English translation (King James Bible and others) of the response God used in the Bible when Moses asked for His name (Exodus 3:14).
The New World Translation of the Bible, by the Jehovah's Witnesses also uses the term "Jehovah" in the New Testament

 

[angellous_evangellous]

it was my understanding that Yahweh existed from the Shasu tribe originally. Worshipped by ancient hebrews from their beggining originating from Edom.

When ancient hebrews the monotheistic tradition after 622BC Yahweh became the one god.


So who or what was gods name before the duality with jesus???

In Christianity, Yahweh became "God the Father," or just "God."

The Church Fathers didn't stop writing in Greek and write out Yahweh in Hebrew.

What do you mean by "the duality with Jesus?"

 

[outhouse]

In Christianity, Yahweh became "God the Father," or just "God."

understood, as far as father. I just thought they reffered to the father as being Yahweh.

The Church Fathers didn't stop writing in Greek and write out Yahweh in Hebrew.

I think I see, what your saying now.


if im following write, he took on the greek name for father [Kyrios]

What do you mean by "the duality with Jesus?"

well for what 75 ish years there was duality first before the trinity was locked in. understanding the trinity concept became mainstream in 400 AD

as in 325 AD the council of Nicea made/defined Jesus to be the same substance as the father, thus the duality was born before adding the trinity

 

[sojourner]

Hmm sorry i assumed you went with the Trinity view of Christianity this is what the discussions are about though, could you maybe clearly say what you mean by saying Revealed himself into three persons instead of becoming three beings?

Well, I am a Trinitarian. What you need to understand is that Trinitarians believe that one God is revealed in three Persons -- as I said.

Let me ask you something lets start with God is ''One Being'' now lets say for a example this being ''Becomes three Individuals who are different from each other'' are they not three different Beings/Gods then?

No, and I think this is where you're getting confused. That's the real difficult thing about the Trinity is that it's one God -- three Persons. The three are not different Gods -- they are the same God. Don't confuse "persons" with "being."

Wait are you assuming that the Father = The son vice versa? If you do you really do not follow the Trinity Creed (Etymology). I already gave examples that the son is not like the father in knowledge: Matthew 24:36 nor in power: Matthew 12:28, nor in authority: John 5:19, John 5:30, John 8:28 nor in greatness: John 14:28 nor in goodness: Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19
And the list goes on and on but i find this question irrelevant because we both know they are not the same person and this is also the teachings of Christians in ''GENERAL'' Its actually blaspheming saying that Jesus(p) is the father or the spirit and don't forget blaspheming against the spirit is a unforgiven sin according to the bible.

I never said that Jesus is the Father. They are two different Persons, yet they are the same God.
You have to remember that Jesus was also fully human, even as he is fully Divine. When Jesus deals with the world as Jesus, of course he's limited. Philippians 2 tells us that he humbled himself, being born in human form. That's why there's a limit to power, goodness, etc.

Stop picking out one line or a couple of words and then reply on that but reply on the whole idea/context of what i am telling or saying. If you don't then your the most uneducated person i ever met? Someone tells you that ''Different'' means ''Different'' do you still insist that the person meant something else then ''Different'' you make no sense :no:

They are different only in terms of their Persons -- not in terms of their Divinity.

To be honest i think you will never learn or at-least try to grasp what the Majority of the Population is trying to say but hey who am i to judge, anyway i hope you have much more years to go on and finally will realise when you open your eyes that the Trinity could never been understand because its a false teaching that was never preached before the Council of Nicea at-least by the followers of Jesus(p) or by him.

Trinity isn't something "to be understood." That's why it's a "mystery" -- because it can't be understood. Like A_E says, the church has debated this for a long, long time and never fully come to an understanding of it. But get something straight: The not-understanding isn't because it's a "false teaching." It isn't. It was preached before Nicea -- long before, because precursors of it appear in the Didache. As far back as John there was some understanding of Jesus' Divine nature, as John 1 attests. Christians were in Britain as early as the second century, and they were patently Trinitarian. It really isn't a Constantine thing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

understood, as far as father. I just thought they reffered to the father as being Yahweh.





I think I see, what your saying now.


if im following write, he took on the greek name for father [Kyrios]






well for what 75 ish years there was duality first before the trinity was locked in. understanding the trinity concept became mainstream in 400 AD

as in 325 AD the council of Nicea made/defined Jesus to be the same substance as the father, thus the duality was born before adding the trinity

OK -

God the Father = theos o pater

pater = Greek for father

kurios = Greek for lord --- used for both God and Jesus

 

[F0uad]

Well, I am a Trinitarian. What you need to understand is that Trinitarians believe that one God is revealed in three Persons -- as I said.

No, and I think this is where you're getting confused. That's the real difficult thing about the Trinity is that it's one God -- three Persons. The three are not different Gods -- they are the same God. Don't confuse "persons" with "being."

I never said that Jesus is the Father. They are two different Persons, yet they are the same God.
You have to remember that Jesus was also fully human, even as he is fully Divine. When Jesus deals with the world as Jesus, of course he's limited. Philippians 2 tells us that he humbled himself, being born in human form. That's why there's a limit to power, goodness, etc.

They are different only in terms of their Persons -- not in terms of their Divinity.

Trinity isn't something "to be understood." That's why it's a "mystery" -- because it can't be understood. Like A_E says, the church has debated this for a long, long time and never fully come to an understanding of it. But get something straight: The not-understanding isn't because it's a "false teaching." It isn't. It was preached before Nicea -- long before, because precursors of it appear in the Didache. As far back as John there was some understanding of Jesus' Divine nature, as John 1 attests. Christians were in Britain as early as the second century, and they were patently Trinitarian. It really isn't a Constantine thing.

I can agree on the last part i was actually waiting for that answer thanks :shout
Can you also agree that the Council atleast made Jesus(p) official God as the main Christianity concept of god? And Offcourse the Second Council who put the Spirit in there.

 

[Shermana]

So what is a "person" exactly? How is it different than a manifestation in modalism? Unsurprisingly, it's the question that never gets answered by Trinitarians. It's not uncommon to see the term "person" used to describe the doctrine, but its rarer than rare to see it ever actually defined. Usually we get those "Water, ice, and steam" descriptions that are basically modalism. I think Trinitarians would be best just admitting that their doctrine and interpretations of verses are essentially Sabellianism with some Nicean wordplay tacked on, they should just join the Oneness Pentacostals, I think they have the best understanding of "Trinitarian" dogma.

As for the word "Lord", we see that the Greeks had the same habit of using the word "Lord" as we see it in English in replacement for the name, it can be difficult to determine when it applies to lower case "lord" like how David was called "Lord", and when it applies to the actual Holy name, but reading in detail, it doesn't seem Jesus ever shared the same usage of "LORD", and was only called "lord".

I challenge anyone to actually present a link that goes into detail of what "person" means without just using the term as for granted.

Also, as for Jesus being "fully divine", what does the word "Divine" actually mean? Is only The most high god (and He is called "Most high god" for a reason, because he's the highest of the gods) considered "Divine"? Are the "Angels" (called "Elohim" in the OT) not Divine? If they are, then thus it's not a problem for Jesus to be "Divine" as in "a god", a separate being, distinct from the Father, not a different "person" (whatever that actually means), but a distinct "being" altogether with a separate mind and soul altogether, but still a "divine being".

If anything the doctrine of the Trinity is based on some hollow wordsmithing, revisionist ideas of Old Israelite Theology, and twisted grammar.

 

[sojourner]

Can you also agree that the Council atleast made Jesus(p) official God as the main Christianity concept of god? And Offcourse the Second Council who put the Spirit in there.

No. They're coequal, since they're each the one God.

 

[F0uad]

No. They're coequal, since they're each the one God.

 

[Shermana]

No. They're coequal, since they're each the one God.

And what does "Coequal" mean, exactly? Is it another ambiguous and slippery term like "person"? Clearly, Jesus said that the Father was greater than him, in the same way that he said "No one born of woman is greater than John", so it wasn't just about authority as many claim.