Trinity Confusion

[Soapy]

I was watching a Tv programme on the God-Channel, this morning and heard a presenter say this (I’m paraphrasing as I can’t write word for word!)

“God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ… My sins went from me to Jesus on the cross and he paid for my sins as though it were his. Then he died, rose from the dead, went back to being with God in Heaven. Now I can have a wonderful relationship with God because of what Jesus did!”

Can you dissect what this person was talking about in relation to God and Jesus - How Jesus is God in flesh but yet takes sin into himself - yet God abhors sin!

And, how Jesus, who is God, according to the speaker, went back TO GOD even though Jesus WAS GOD (he claimed).

And the speaker is grateful to GOD (who is Jesus) for what Jesus did for him!

Is this convoluted ideology or am I missing something.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I was watching a Tv programme on the God-Channel, this morning and heard a presenter say this (I’m paraphrasing as I can’t write word for word!)

“God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ… My sins went from me to Jesus on the cross and he paid for my sins as though it were his. Then he died, rose from the dead, went back to being with God in Heaven. Now I can have a wonderful relationship with God because of what Jesus did!”

Can you dissect what this person was talking about in relation to God and Jesus - How Jesus is God in flesh but yet takes sin into himself - yet God abhors sin!

And, how Jesus, who is God, according to the speaker, went back TO GOD even though Jesus WAS GOD (he claimed).

And the speaker is grateful to GOD (who is Jesus) for what Jesus did for him!

Is this convoluted ideology or am I missing something.

Yes: either a) the speaker is speaking incoherently or b) you have misunderstood the premises that the speaker holds and therefor you cannot accurately understand what the speaker is saying.

My guess -not just in regards to yourself or to this scenario, but in most situations where we think that someone is talking pure nonsense- is (b).

If we wish to understand beyond our own views, we should analyse ourselves as critically as we do others.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[cataway]

I was watching a Tv programme on the God-Channel, this morning and heard a presenter say this (I’m paraphrasing as I can’t write word for word!)

“God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ… My sins went from me to Jesus on the cross and he paid for my sins as though it were his. Then he died, rose from the dead, went back to being with God in Heaven. Now I can have a wonderful relationship with God because of what Jesus did!”

Can you dissect what this person was talking about in relation to God and Jesus - How Jesus is God in flesh but yet takes sin into himself - yet God abhors sin!

And, how Jesus, who is God, according to the speaker, went back TO GOD even though Jesus WAS GOD (he claimed).

And the speaker is grateful to GOD (who is Jesus) for what Jesus did for him!

Is this convoluted ideology or am I missing something.

swish cheese

 

[Soapy]

Yes: either a) the speaker is speaking incoherently or b) you have misunderstood the premises that the speaker holds and therefor you cannot accurately understand what the speaker is saying.

My guess -not just in regards to yourself or to this scenario, but in most situations where we think that someone is talking pure nonsense- is (b).

If we wish to understand beyond our own views, we should analyse ourselves as critically as we do others.


Humbly,
Hermit

Please analyse the speakers words.

 

[Sir Joseph]

I was watching a Tv programme on the God-Channel, this morning and heard a presenter say this (I’m paraphrasing as I can’t write word for word!)

“God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ… My sins went from me to Jesus on the cross and he paid for my sins as though it were his. Then he died, rose from the dead, went back to being with God in Heaven. Now I can have a wonderful relationship with God because of what Jesus did!”

Can you dissect what this person was talking about in relation to God and Jesus - How Jesus is God in flesh but yet takes sin into himself - yet God abhors sin!

And, how Jesus, who is God, according to the speaker, went back TO GOD even though Jesus WAS GOD (he claimed).

And the speaker is grateful to GOD (who is Jesus) for what Jesus did for him!

Is this convoluted ideology or am I missing something.

You heard and translated correctly Soapy, and for someone unfamiliar with the Christian faith's Gospel message, I understand how crazy it sounds. Realize, that the whole 1 God in 3 Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) idea is too perplexing for any of our minds to fully comprehend. But, that doctrine has been derived from a Bible that holds much evidence for Divine authority.

Let me try some explanation for a subject that could consume a life time of learning.

Suppose for discussion that God exists - a rational assumption according to certain laws of science that mandate a supernatural creator for the natural universe (ie: Law of Causality, 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis, Law of Information Science).

If God wanted something or someone to love, serve, worship, or glorify Him, our creation would be justified. Thus, He created the world and universe for man in order to please Him.

In order for man to truly love God, he was given free will to embrace or reject him. God foreknew that man's nature would be sinful, but provided a method of repentance and forgiveness through the shedding of blood. For 4000 years, this was done (inadequately) through the sacrifice of animals. From the beginning though, God knew that he would send a part of Himself as a one/time, ultimate sacrifice for man's sin. To satisfy God's Holy nature, that sacrifice had to be sinless, extraordinary, and in some way it seems, a part of God Himself. It was found in Jesus 2000 years ago when He appeared on the world stage in a supernatural manner.

Suppose you were God and wanted to touch or engage with your creation of human beings. Given the capability, would it not be most reasonable to join your creation in some supernatural way to become both fully God and fully man? Such is the case for Jesus. Don't expect to understand the physical/spiritual mechanics of making this happen. But realize that if God could create the universe and all life as we know it, both physical and spiritual, it's reasonable to accept his ability to manifest himself in the form of Jesus.

There is no dispute among serious scholars that Jesus lived, was crucified, and buried in a Jerusalem tomb. His life, death and miracles are attested by both Biblical and secular historians. The validity of Jesus being the Son of God and Savior of the world though depends upon His resurrection. Did he overcome death and thus prove himself as the true sacrificial Messiah for all mankind's sin? There's evidence for that too, but that's too much to discuss here.

In short:

God made man in His image to have a relationship with Him.

Man rebelled with sin and broke that relationship.

God provided a plan of redemption through his son Jesus, a part of himself, by offering a perfect, adequate sacrifice - to pay the price needed for justification of man to God.

Jesus has now become the only way acceptable to God for justification and salvation.

The Gospel message of good news, that God became man and saved us from our sin, may not sound like the way we'd do things if we were running the universe. But, we don't have a universe. The important thing is that we know and love our Creator as he has loved us by dying for us. That means accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of one's life and eternal soul.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was watching a Tv programme on the God-Channel, this morning and heard a presenter say this (I’m paraphrasing as I can’t write word for word!)

“God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ… My sins went from me to Jesus on the cross and he paid for my sins as though it were his. Then he died, rose from the dead, went back to being with God in Heaven. Now I can have a wonderful relationship with God because of what Jesus did!”

Can you dissect what this person was talking about in relation to God and Jesus - How Jesus is God in flesh but yet takes sin into himself - yet God abhors sin!

And, how Jesus, who is God, according to the speaker, went back TO GOD even though Jesus WAS GOD (he claimed).

And the speaker is grateful to GOD (who is Jesus) for what Jesus did for him!

Is this convoluted ideology or am I missing something.

Please show me any Christian doctrines that make sense.

 

[101G]

I was watching a Tv programme on the God-Channel, this morning and heard a presenter say this (I’m paraphrasing as I can’t write word for word!)

“God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ… My sins went from me to Jesus on the cross and he paid for my sins as though it were his. Then he died, rose from the dead, went back to being with God in Heaven. Now I can have a wonderful relationship with God because of what Jesus did!”

Can you dissect what this person was talking about in relation to God and Jesus - How Jesus is God in flesh but yet takes sin into himself - yet God abhors sin!

And, how Jesus, who is God, according to the speaker, went back TO GOD even though Jesus WAS GOD (he claimed).

And the speaker is grateful to GOD (who is Jesus) for what Jesus did for him!

Is this convoluted ideology or am I missing something.

one word, "ECHAD". ... (smile), Oh how simple. YIKES!

101G.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I can’t help but feel that we’re going round in circles @Soapy. You must apply the trinity-view for it to make sense; there is little point in you trying to understand it otherwise.

“God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ… My sins went from me to Jesus on the cross and he paid for my sins as though it were his. Then he died, rose from the dead, went back to being with God in Heaven. Now I can have a wonderful relationship with God because of what Jesus did!”

God incarnated as the Son, in the form of Christ… as Christ, God experienced (not just witnessed) human sin, because - incarnated in Christ- sin was experienced in first person and understood from a human perspective (as a man in despair, Christ on the cross, too experienced [human] doubt in the Divine, in Its Will and in Its plan. On the cross, Christ learned why Man at times loses faith and what that loss can mean to Man). Human sin, became Christ’s own. Thanks to this, Man’s sins were forgiven and the relationship between Man and God is forever different.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Soapy]

I can’t help but feel that we’re going round in circles @Soapy. You must apply the trinity-view for it to make sense; there is little point in you trying to understand it otherwise.


God incarnated as the Son, in the form of Christ… as Christ, God experienced (not just witnessed) human sin, because - incarnated in Christ- sin was experienced in first person and understood from a human perspective (as a man in despair, Christ on the cross, too experienced [human] doubt in the Divine, in Its Will and in Its plan. On the cross, Christ learned why Man at times loses faith and what that loss can mean to Man). Human sin, became Christ’s own. Thanks to this, Man’s sins were forgiven and the relationship between Man and God is forever different.


Humbly,
Hermit

You mean that God had to learn about what he created in his own image? You mean that God had weaknesses and could be subject to sin?

Wow! That’s news to me. I read that God was immune to temptation. Also, how could God become man if God is immutable?

But that’s not the point. The man said that GOD DIED and was raised up again BY GOD (unsaid but implied)… So did Jesus become God again after he was raised up from the dead by God and placed in the seat of honour NEXT TO GOD despite God saying,

• ‘Beside me there is no God’?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

You mean that God had to learn about what he created in his own image? You mean that God had weaknesses and could be subject to sin?

Wow! That’s news to me. I read that God was immune to temptation. Also, how could God become man if God is immutable?

But that’s not the point. The man said that GOD DIED and was raised up again BY GOD (unsaid but implied)… So did Jesus become God again after he was raised up from the dead by God and placed in the seat of honour NEXT TO GOD despite God saying,

• ‘Beside me there is no God’?

I mean that the Son showed a perspective, yes. That is what the trinity is: 3 perspectives in God.

 

[Soapy]

I mean that the Son showed a perspective, yes. That is what the trinity is: 3 perspectives in God.

It is what the TRINITY is… but it isn’t what the scriptures says.

It’s what the trinity church, and offspring of the Roman Catholic Church, preaches. And we know that the Catholic Church is already condemned but like Satan, must remain until Jesus comes back so as to show who are the true believers!

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

know that the Catholic Church is already condemned but like Satan, must remain until Jesus comes back so as to show who are the true believers!

Oh dear

 

[Soapy]

Oh dear

Yes. It’s clear that Catholic trinitarianism is false ideology but the Bible also makes it clear that the majority will be deceived by believing the lie. The ‘Lie’ cannot refer to pagan beliefs since that is already false and does not pretend to be anything else. The ‘Lie’ must reference something that appears true but is in fact false… the exact definition of Catholicism (and it’s sprogs).

There are many examples of what God wants us to know which are written in the Bible as analogies and repeated prophecies. For instance, trinity keeps saying that God put himself in a flesh body and came into the world to save his own creation. I argue that such an act is false salvation. God REQUIRED salvation to be be means of a SINLESS MAN who could REMAIN SINLESS. Now God (who is unsinnable) CANNOT perform such role and claim to be such a saviour.
Can you imagine a Principle of a school who requires at least one pupil to pass the highest mark in an exam. He dresses himself in the school uniform and FAKES being a pupil in order to pass the exam and gain the school the highest credit…. No!!
Further, Scriptures tells of an example by way of a Master of a house who sends his servants to the people managing his estate who are doing bad works. Each servant he sends is ignored, beaten, or killed by the people. Finally he send HIS SON who the people know and should respect but instead they kill him, too, but not before at least some believe the son and are saved from the wrath of the Master.
Do you notice that the Master did not send HIMSELF in disguise!!! He sent his Son!
Now, we aren’t talking of a procreated son - The Son is, in fact, one from the servants who has greatly pleased the Master, and the Master adopts him AS A SON:

• ‘You are my Son; This day I have become your Father’

God prophesied about through the prophet Isaiah:

• ‘Behold my servant in whom I am well pleased; my chosen one. I will put my spirit on him and he will bring justice to the people’ (Isaiah 42:1)

You won’t find Trinitarians using this verse since it speaks against their false ideology.

Does any of this evidence point to God (the Master) being the one, or does God SEND a saviour?

Does God ANOINT HIMSELF with his own spirit?

Let’s get back to trinity. What is it? Three in one who is God - all three are God… and God is immutable (again, you won’t find trinity talking about this). THEY WILL SAY that Jesus did not change from being God when he came as man in flesh…. But what do you see? ‘GOD CHANGED IN BECOMING A MAN’!

Now, I ask these question which NO TRINITARIAN EVER ANSWERS (you will see why!):

• Is Jesus GREATER than God because he IS BOTH GOD AND MAN? Or…
• Is Jesus LESS than God BECAUSE he IS BOTH GOD AND MAN?
• How did Jesus SEPARATE himself from an immutable threesome to become different from the other two but yet remain EXACTLY the same as he was before (and God remained exactly the same)?

But rather, God poured out His spirit on a man whom he greatly admired, calling him, ‘Son’ (A [true] Son is one whom does exactly what the Father directs him to do). We know this from Isaiah 42:1 and it is witnessed at Jesus’ baptism at the river Jordan, and reminded by the apostles in Acts 10:37-38.

But Trinitarians never speak of these links since it destroys their claims. Instead, the concentrate on mistranslated verses and even ADDING verses to scriptures to try to persuade their falsehoods… Jesus himself sends a warning to those who do such thing (See Revelation 22:19).

And note carefully, By this you will know them; for everyone who confesses with his tongue that Jesus has come in the flesh is of God’

But trinity confesses that ‘GOD CAME IN THE FLESH’… how is that reckoned in the Spirit of Truth (Which is The Spirit of God sent out in all the world)… TRUTH is out there for everyone so no one can say, ‘I did not know!’.

 

[Jimmy]

I was watching a Tv programme on the God-Channel, this morning and heard a presenter say this (I’m paraphrasing as I can’t write word for word!)

“God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ… My sins went from me to Jesus on the cross and he paid for my sins as though it were his. Then he died, rose from the dead, went back to being with God in Heaven. Now I can have a wonderful relationship with God because of what Jesus did!”

Can you dissect what this person was talking about in relation to God and Jesus - How Jesus is God in flesh but yet takes sin into himself - yet God abhors sin!

And, how Jesus, who is God, according to the speaker, went back TO GOD even though Jesus WAS GOD (he claimed).

And the speaker is grateful to GOD (who is Jesus) for what Jesus did for him!

Is this convoluted ideology or am I missing something.

Jesus walks earth today in the flesh.

 

[Trailblazer]

You mean that God had to learn about what he created in his own image? You mean that God had weaknesses and could be subject to sin?

Wow! That’s news to me.

It's news to me too.

 

[Soapy]

It's news to me too.

Sometimes people’s purposely ridiculous responses require equal purposely ridiculous responses (Once only, though!).

The responder knows purposely well that what they says was malicious - What use is a forum that purports to be allowing people to seek the truth if there is no moderation of deliberately false responses. I mean, there are responses that are mistakenly wrong and are worthy of meaningful correction - but ones that are deliberate only cause offence and frustration, which, though testing the lasting powers of the truth seeker, should only be allowed so many times and to a limited extent of ridicule.

 

[Soapy]

Sometimes people’s purposely ridiculous responses require equal purposely ridiculous responses (Once only, though!).

The responder knows purposely well that what they says was malicious - What use is a forum that purports to be allowing people to seek the truth if there is no moderation of deliberately false responses. I mean, there are responses that are mistakenly wrong and are worthy of meaningful correction - but ones that are deliberate only cause offence and frustration, which, though testing the lasting powers of the truth seeker, should only be allowed so many times and to a limited extent of ridicule.

In other forums, such responses are ‘Collapsed’ setting them as hidden but readable only if an individual desires to read them.

 

[exchemist]

I was watching a Tv programme on the God-Channel, this morning and heard a presenter say this (I’m paraphrasing as I can’t write word for word!)

“God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ… My sins went from me to Jesus on the cross and he paid for my sins as though it were his. Then he died, rose from the dead, went back to being with God in Heaven. Now I can have a wonderful relationship with God because of what Jesus did!”

Can you dissect what this person was talking about in relation to God and Jesus - How Jesus is God in flesh but yet takes sin into himself - yet God abhors sin!

And, how Jesus, who is God, according to the speaker, went back TO GOD even though Jesus WAS GOD (he claimed).

And the speaker is grateful to GOD (who is Jesus) for what Jesus did for him!

Is this convoluted ideology or am I missing something.

You are missing something: something close to the heart of Christianity itself. But I think you are intentionally cultivating your ignorance, since discussions of the Atonement abound, for anyone genuinely interested in learning what Christianity teaches.

 

[exchemist]

You heard and translated correctly Soapy, and for someone unfamiliar with the Christian faith's Gospel message, I understand how crazy it sounds. Realize, that the whole 1 God in 3 Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) idea is too perplexing for any of our minds to fully comprehend. But, that doctrine has been derived from a Bible that holds much evidence for Divine authority.

Let me try some explanation for a subject that could consume a life time of learning.

Suppose for discussion that God exists - a rational assumption according to certain laws of science that mandate a supernatural creator for the natural universe (ie: Law of Causality, 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis, Law of Information Science).

If God wanted something or someone to love, serve, worship, or glorify Him, our creation would be justified. Thus, He created the world and universe for man in order to please Him.

In order for man to truly love God, he was given free will to embrace or reject him. God foreknew that man's nature would be sinful, but provided a method of repentance and forgiveness through the shedding of blood. For 4000 years, this was done (inadequately) through the sacrifice of animals. From the beginning though, God knew that he would send a part of Himself as a one/time, ultimate sacrifice for man's sin. To satisfy God's Holy nature, that sacrifice had to be sinless, extraordinary, and in some way it seems, a part of God Himself. It was found in Jesus 2000 years ago when He appeared on the world stage in a supernatural manner.

Suppose you were God and wanted to touch or engage with your creation of human beings. Given the capability, would it not be most reasonable to join your creation in some supernatural way to become both fully God and fully man? Such is the case for Jesus. Don't expect to understand the physical/spiritual mechanics of making this happen. But realize that if God could create the universe and all life as we know it, both physical and spiritual, it's reasonable to accept his ability to manifest himself in the form of Jesus.

There is no dispute among serious scholars that Jesus lived, was crucified, and buried in a Jerusalem tomb. His life, death and miracles are attested by both Biblical and secular historians. The validity of Jesus being the Son of God and Savior of the world though depends upon His resurrection. Did he overcome death and thus prove himself as the true sacrificial Messiah for all mankind's sin? There's evidence for that too, but that's too much to discuss here.

In short:

God made man in His image to have a relationship with Him.

Man rebelled with sin and broke that relationship.

God provided a plan of redemption through his son Jesus, a part of himself, by offering a perfect, adequate sacrifice - to pay the price needed for justification of man to God.

Jesus has now become the only way acceptable to God for justification and salvation.

The Gospel message of good news, that God became man and saved us from our sin, may not sound like the way we'd do things if we were running the universe. But, we don't have a universe. The important thing is that we know and love our Creator as he has loved us by dying for us. That means accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of one's life and eternal soul.

On one point of detail, there is no "Law of Biogenesis" in modern science. Nor, unless I'm much mistaken, is there a "Law of Information Science".

It is a matter of opinion whether one regards the so-called "laws of nature* " as being evidence of a creator. It is a metaphysical question, not one "mandated" by anything in science.

* Most of these "laws" have been formulated by individual scientists, are only approximate, and are not always obeyed .

 

[Soapy]

You are missing something: something close to the heart of Christianity itself. But I think you are intentionally cultivating your ignorance, since discussions of the Atonement abound, for anyone genuinely interested in learning what Christianity teaches.

Ok, tell me about it, thanks.