The Trinity

[Muffled]

I understand why the Protestants are uncomfortable with the term; it's really suspect if you take it out of the context of Mary being crowned for her faith and humility, much the same way that we all will be. And there is a fringe group within Catholicism who is demanding that the Pope make a "Co-Redemptrix" dogma; i.e. this small number of Catholics believe that every single grace of God comes to us through Mary.

Actually, the word "heresy" means to choose to follow another false belief once one has already come to know the Truth, and the word also refers to sectarianism and cutting oneself off; i.e. creating a divide.

What analogies would you use that Sabellius didn't? And could you interpret the analogies? I'm not entirely sure what it is you exactly believe.

Sabellius said that God was like actors in a play. They had the clothing and makeup of another person but they were not that person. The problem is that three person require three actors but God is one. Now if he had likened it to an actor who played three person he would have been correct. I am no saying tha God is palying with us but He does portray Himself in different ways. I believe one could say that the Trinity is three figures of person but the reality is that God is only one person.

 

[sojourner]

Dear sojourner,
The Trinity is based on state mandates as shown in the previous note. If you like state mandates, I think you will love Obamacare. Messiah Hussein is just another dictator who usurps the power of a Republic, just as was done by Julius Caesar, the 1st Pontifex Maximus, who changed the Times, as well as Constantine, who changed the Time and the Laws, as Pontifex Maximus, as well as Pope Gregory, who changed the Time (calendar), as Ponifex Maximus, and Hitler who usurped the German Republic, for a dictatorship, and was more of a god figure. The Trinity is a state imposed mandate, mandated in 381 A.D. by Theodosius. It has pagan roots, and state sponsorship. The "Soo.. What?", is that is the topic of this forum. One should not be unknowing of history, or they will repeat it.

...Aaaaand the true colors of the fear mongering, paranoia-infested conservative come bolting out of the nether regions of human reason.


Great.

 

[2ndpillar]

...Aaaaand the true colors of the fear mongering, paranoia-infested conservative come bolting out of the nether regions of human reason.

Great.

Dear sojourner,
How is your job at the White House going? I like your idea of if you can't argue someone's point on merit, just denigrate your opponent, and then hope everyone believes what you say. Say hi to Valery Jared for me. When you play golf with Hussein, make sure you keep on eye on his score card.

-Joseph Goebbels of the 3rd German Reich, spiritual father of our current dictator.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

 

[metis]

Dear sojourner,
The Trinity is based on state mandates as shown in the previous note. If you like state mandates, I think you will love Obamacare. Messiah Hussein is just another dictator who usurps the power of a Republic, just as was done by Julius Caesar, the 1st Pontifex Maximus, who changed the Times, as well as Constantine, who changed the Time and the Laws, as Pontifex Maximus, as well as Pope Gregory, who changed the Time (calendar), as Ponifex Maximus, and Hitler who usurped the German Republic, for a dictatorship, and was more of a god figure. The Trinity is a state imposed mandate, mandated in 381 A.D. by Theodosius. It has pagan roots, and state sponsorship. The "Soo.. What?", is that is the topic of this forum. One should not be unknowing of history, or they will repeat it.

Congrats on maybe the most bizarre post I've seen in a long time. Kudos.

 

[Shiranui117]

Sabellius said that God was like actors in a play. They had the clothing and makeup of another person but they were not that person. The problem is that three person require three actors but God is one. Now if he had likened it to an actor who played three person he would have been correct. I am no saying tha God is palying with us but He does portray Himself in different ways. I believe one could say that the Trinity is three figures of person but the reality is that God is only one person.

Actually, Sabellius' position was that God was one actor playing three roles, and that He switches between them.

 

[sojourner]

Dear sojourner,
How is your job at the White House going? I like your idea of if you can't argue someone's point on merit, just denigrate your opponent, and then hope everyone believes what you say. Say hi to Valery Jared for me. When you play golf with Hussein, make sure you keep on eye on his score card.

-Joseph Goebbels of the 3rd German Reich, spiritual father of our current dictator.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

See what I mean?

 

[abishaiwarsaw6]

the three are in agreement and have different functions, like the branches of our government.

 

[2ndpillar]

the three are in agreement and have different functions, like the branches of our government.

Dear abish,
I am not sure what country you are from. In the U.S., apparently no branch of government is in agreement within it's own branch, and certainly not in agreement with other branches of the government. It balance of power seems to be based on who has the most minutes on their cell phone. Obama: 'I've got a pen, and I've got a phone' [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

 

[kjw47]

Actually, Sabellius' position was that God was one actor playing three roles, and that He switches between them.

Sabellius should have listened to Jesus and he wouldn't have been in such darkness--- Jesus clearly teaches---John 17:1-6--- the one who sent Jesus( John 5:30) = THE ONLY TRUE GOD-- -------- Paul teaches the same at 1 cor 8:6--- this is bible truth---the trinity translations were filled with misleading errors that contradict Jesus---look.

 

[Shiranui117]

Sabellius should have listened to Jesus and he wouldn't have been in such darkness--- Jesus clearly teaches---John 17:1-6--- the one who sent Jesus( John 5:30) = THE ONLY TRUE GOD-- -------- Paul teaches the same at 1 cor 8:6--- this is bible truth---the trinity translations were filled with misleading errors that contradict Jesus---look.

And Hebrews 1 contradicts your position very strongly.
Yes, Sabellius was a heretic; the very events of Scripture refute his position. On that note, I agree with you completely. But the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses, that Jesus is the Archangel Michael, is also contradicted plainly by Scripture.

From Hebrews 1:
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”?

Or again,
“I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son”?

6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”

7 Of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10 And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.[a]
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?


This is abundant proof that Jesus is not the Archangel Michael, nor is He any angel at all.


And you seem to be hung up on the issue of "translation". Faith in the Holy Trinity existed centuries before the Scriptures were ever translated from their original languages; even with the original Greek, you had faith in the Trinity. Those who the apostles personally taught, oversaw, kept in touch with and appointed as bishops of the churches over a span of decades also taught the divinity of Christ. The Trinity wasn't being taught by outsiders. It was being taught by those hand-picked and personally taught by the Apostles. The early Church had a problem of defending Christ's humanity. Nobody in the Church whatsoever had a problem with Jesus being divine in the earliest days of Christianity; it was His humanity that needed to be safeguarded against the likes of the Docetists. Only later do we see Adoptionist beliefs coming onto the stage.

 

[kjw47]

And Hebrews 1 contradicts your position very strongly.
Yes, Sabellius was a heretic; the very events of Scripture refute his position. On that note, I agree with you completely. But the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses, that Jesus is the Archangel Michael, is also contradicted plainly by Scripture.

From Hebrews 1:
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”?

Or again,
“I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son”?

6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”

7 Of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10 And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.[a]
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?


This is abundant proof that Jesus is not the Archangel Michael, nor is He any angel at all.


And you seem to be hung up on the issue of "translation". Faith in the Holy Trinity existed centuries before the Scriptures were ever translated from their original languages; even with the original Greek, you had faith in the Trinity. Those who the apostles personally taught, oversaw, kept in touch with and appointed as bishops of the churches over a span of decades also taught the divinity of Christ. The Trinity wasn't being taught by outsiders. It was being taught by those hand-picked and personally taught by the Apostles. The early Church had a problem of defending Christ's humanity. Nobody in the Church whatsoever had a problem with Jesus being divine in the earliest days of Christianity; it was His humanity that needed to be safeguarded against the likes of the Docetists. Only later do we see Adoptionist beliefs coming onto the stage.

1 thess 4:16------ upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel---Is it his voice? Or does he borrow Michaels voice?

The greek word proskenaue--had 4 meanings from greek to English--1) worship to God--2) obeisance to king-- plus 2 others---

The Messiah is Gods appointed king--obeisance is the correct usage of that word for the Messiah, not worship--that was a major trinity based error.

 

[Shiranui117]

1 thess 4:16------ upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel---Is it his voice? Or does he borrow Michaels voice?

The verse also says that Jesus will descend with the sound of the trumpet of God. Is Jesus a trumpet now, too?

The Messiah is Gods appointed king--obeisance is the correct usage of that word for the Messiah, not worship--that was a major trinity based error.

The Greeks knew full-well what the word meant. And they interpreted it as worshipping Jesus. A 21st-century American isn't going to know Koine Greek better than a 1st-century native speaker of the language.

 

[kjw47]

The verse also says that Jesus will descend with the sound of the trumpet of God. Is Jesus a trumpet now, too?


The Greeks knew full-well what the word meant. And they interpreted it as worshipping Jesus. A 21st-century American isn't going to know Koine Greek better than a 1st-century native speaker of the language.

The trumpet is to warn the earth of what is coming.

I believe the following is truth.

No Catholicism translators after 1000 years of refusing( unchristlike) to let the flocks read Gods word for themselves erred under the guise of heresy being held over their heads, no one had a clue as to what was truth by then--they held the original councils because they didn't have a clue. This was the birth of the foretold great apostasy--and by their actions( bloodguilt amassed to the heavens) are far removed from God or his son---all the branches are in the same boat. translation wasn't done until well after the 1200,s to English--it was kept in latin--and certain words had more than one meaning.

 

[Shiranui117]

The trumpet is to warn the earth of what is coming.

And the archangel is heralding the return of Christ. Christ Himself is not the archangel, just as how He is not the trumpet; the trumpet and archangel descend with Christ.

I believe the following is truth.

No Catholicism translators after 1000 years of refusing( unchristlike) to let the flocks read Gods word for themselves erred under the guise of heresy being held over their heads, no one had a clue as to what was truth by then--they held the original councils because they didn't have a clue. This was the birth of the foretold great apostasy--and by their actions( bloodguilt amassed to the heavens) are far removed from God or his son---all the branches are in the same boat. translation wasn't done until well after the 1200,s to English--it was kept in latin--and certain words had more than one meaning.

Meanwhile, in the East with the Orthodox Churches, wherever the Orthodox Faith went, it was translated into the native language of the peoples. Greek remained the language of the people in various parts of the Orthodox world, and the Egyptians had the Bible and everything else in Coptic. The Antiochians used Aramaic and Syriac, and eventually Arabic for the Bible and Liturgy/Qurbano. Sts. Cyril and Methodius created an alphabet for the Slavic peoples, for the sole purpose of translating the Bible and Liturgy into Slavonic. The Russians either created alphabets for the indigenous tribes they encountered as they spread eastward, or simply created a variation of the Cyrillic alphabet for them. One of the first things the Russians did when they began colonizing Alaska was to translate the Bible and Liturgy into Aleut and the languages of other Native American tribes, and within years, the first native Aleut priests were being ordained!

The strange phenomenon in Catholicism to keep the Bible and Mass in Latin, a language unknown to the common people, was not the case in Orthodoxy, where we have a strong tradition of keeping things in the language of the people--Greek for the Greeks; Romanian for the Romanians; Slavonic for the Serbians, Russians, Ukrainians and Bulgarians; Arabic and occasionally Syriac or Aramaic for the Antiochians; and English for us in the English-speaking world.

Also, there were versions of the Bible in Gothic and Old English that we know of and even contain manuscripts for--the Bible of Ulfilas (in the Gothic language), and several versions of the Bible in Old English dating from roughly the 700's to pre-Wycliffe. So the Roman Catholic tendency to keep things entirely in Latin hasn't always been the case--and indeed, Augustine and the other Latin Fathers actually strongly argued for making the Bible available to all, and routinely encouraged people to read and study the Scriptures. The same is the case with the Eastern Fathers--everyone was strongly urged by their priests and bishops to study and contemplate the Scriptures whenever they got the chance, even if the people could only afford to buy one individual book of the Bible, or even if they had to ask someone who did have a Bible or a book of the Bible, to read the Scriptures to them. The Fathers said that we should study Scripture as much as we can, contemplate it, and emulate it. So, far from being forbidden by the Church to read the Bible, it has always been the custom of the Church (perhaps excluding the Roman Church during the medieval period) to encourage and exhort the people to study the Scriptures.

 

[Muffled]

Actually, Sabellius' position was that God was one actor playing three roles, and that He switches between them.

I believe that wouldn't work either because God can play all three roles simultaneously and has no need to do any switching.

 

[Muffled]

the three are in agreement and have different functions, like the branches of our government.

I believe God is not three but that He is one so naturally He plays all three roles in agreement since He is not schizophrenic.

I don't believe this is a hard and fast division. Certainly God has a purpose in each role.

I believe this is unlikely considering that our branches are not often in agreement and reflect divergent beliefs coming from many individuals.

 

[Muffled]

1 thess 4:16------ upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel---Is it his voice? Or does he borrow Michaels voice?

The greek word proskenaue--had 4 meanings from greek to English--1) worship to God--2) obeisance to king-- plus 2 others---

The Messiah is Gods appointed king--obeisance is the correct usage of that word for the Messiah, not worship--that was a major trinity based error.

I TH. 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;

So by the same logic that is used to say Jesus is an Archangel then Jesus must be a shout. I believe this is not resonable logic.

Then the passage does not name Jesus directly but refers to Him as God: I Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

 

[icebuddy]

I TH. 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;

Muffled,
I agree with you that taking this verse to say Jesus is Micheal the Arch angel is bizare... Heres what my studies with prayer have shown me

Micheal is "One of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13) and Jesus is unique and not one of many... If we read Rev 14:14-15 we will see that Micheal was with Jesus doing the shouting. Rev 19:17 also shows this. Just as John is "The Voice" in the wilderness (john 1:23), the Arch-angel is the Loud voice with Jesus. Jewish tradition says there are 7 Archangels and Micheal is one of them ( 2Thes 1:7) with Jesus at 1Thes 4:16...

I had an extra min to spare...

In Love

 

[Sue D.]

The Trinity -- 1st mentioned in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said "Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness...." Then in John 17 "After Jesus said this, He looked toward heaven and prayed "Father, the time has come, glorify Your Son that your Son may glorify You." Thus we see that Jesus Christ is praying to God, His Father. And the Holy Spirit comes to indwell each believer at the time of salvation -- to seal us until we are united with Jesus Christ.
And I agree -- Michael the Archangel is Not Jesus Christ.

 

[kjw47]

The Trinity -- 1st mentioned in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said "Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness...." Then in John 17 "After Jesus said this, He looked toward heaven and prayed "Father, the time has come, glorify Your Son that your Son may glorify You." Thus we see that Jesus Christ is praying to God, His Father. And the Holy Spirit comes to indwell each believer at the time of salvation -- to seal us until we are united with Jesus Christ.
And I agree -- Michael the Archangel is Not Jesus Christ.

The teaching of a trinity contradicts Jesus' truths--he clearly teaches--the one who sent him( John 5:30) = THE ONLY TRUE GOD= ( John 17:1-6)the Father--verse 6 = YHWH(Jehovah) --- believe Jesus---Paul did-1 cor 8:6)