What Trinitarian churches teach about the Trinity

[Soapy]

Jesus was just asking a question about Psalm 110 and wasn't inserting Himself as YHWH into the Psalm. However for Jews who did see the Psalm as Messianic, He was pointing out that the Messiah was called the Lord of David. (and by Lord I do not mean YHWH).

I

Yes, ‘Lord’ is just a TITLE of a great and revered entity… It does not mean ‘GOD’ let alone ‘YHWH’. You can see that ‘YHWH’ is called ‘Lord God’, and Jesus is called ‘Lord Jesus Christ’. This is because the extrapolation is:

• ‘YHWH, The great and revered GOD’

and:

• ‘Jesus, the great and revered CHRIST’

- to wit: YHWH is great God and Jesus is great Christ!!

Too many trinitarian (and maybe others who are nog good with language!!!) refuse to acknowledge the difference between a NAME, a TITLE, and an Adjective (let alone a SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVE). Even reading what they see here would not encourage or spur them to investigate - actually, maybe they do but when they see it speaks against them they abandon the truth of their error!!

Trinitarians have, sadly, claimed that: ‘Since the Father is called Lord, and Jesus is also called Lord, then Jesus must be GOD’!!! Wow, So false - talk of straining at swallowing a gnat!!!

But they don’t see that they are thence claiming that Jesus is the Father…. And/Or that the Father is Jesus: ‘I and the Father are ONE’…. Oh boy!!!

Remember also, it is an improper sentence to say:

• ‘Jesus and the Father ARE GOD’
• ‘Jesus and the Father IS GOD’

That part is from those who say ‘God IS Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’ For the others who say that God is a manifestation of the three at different times, it is clear they are deluded since Jesus appears at the same time as the Holy Spirit.

Remember that with all these nonsense, there is ONLY ONE WHO IS NEVER SEEN: The Father. Which is qualified by:

• ‘No one has ever seen the Father AT ANY TIME… the Son of God who is closest to Him, he has MADE HIM KNOWN TO YOU!!’

which is quite right because Jesus’ TESTIMONY was exactly to make known the testimony OF THE FATHER TO MANKIND!!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They all say that God is three distinct persons. Some examples of how they explain that are in post #18.

Sure. Trinitarians teach one God, meaning one essence, but three distinct persons. Was there some comment you wanted to make on this?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus was just asking a question about Psalm 110 and wasn't inserting Himself as YHWH into the Psalm. However for Jews who did see the Psalm as Messianic, He was pointing out that the Messiah was called the Lord of David. (and by Lord I do not mean YHWH).

I

The only Jews who see Psalm 110 as messianic are Jews who have become Christians. Religious Jews understand that Psalm 110 is about David (or a few, Abraham).

 

[Brian2]

The only Jews who see Psalm 110 as messianic are Jews who have become Christians. Religious Jews understand that Psalm 110 is about David (or a few, Abraham).

When Jesus asked the question about Psalm 110 none of the Jewish teachers could answer, and it seems that is because they saw David in Psalm 110 calling the Messiah his lord. The idea that it was not a Messianic Psalm does not seem to be an option for them in those days.

 

[blü 2]

I’ve decided that it’s time for some lessons about the Trinity. It isn’t as simple as I thought it was. What I mean by “Trinitarian churches” is churches that say they believe in The Trinity, more or less what people call “mainstream churches.” I’ll start with Methodist churches as an example.


- God (www.umc.org)

One key word here is “distinct.”

---

(later)

More examples. The bolding in all of these is mine.

Another example, from the Catholic Answers Encyclopedia


Southern Baptist:


Evangelical Lutheran:


Presbyterian:


Episcopal:


They all say that God is three distinct persons. Some examples of how they explain that are in post #18.

Whichever way you look at it, three distinct persons mean three distinct wills hence mean three distinct gods. If the Father is God and the Son is God and the Son is not the Father then you have two gods. Add the Ghost and you have three.

If they don't have three distinct wills, if they only have one will, then you have one god who has three distinct manifestations, like an actor playing three characters.

Perhaps the most pertinent point here, though, is that there are five versions of Jesus in the NT ─ those of Paul and the respective authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John ─ and each of those five specifically denies that he's God and never claims to be God.

The pressure to elevate Jesus (as the central character of Christianity) to God status arose after the gospels were written. Such a promotion seems a natural enough development ─ something we might expect from the psychology of groups ─ but it didn't become official till the 4th century, and its official form "that the one God exists in three persons and one substance" is incoherent (or as the Churches put, "a mystery in the strict sense", in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed").

 

[Soapy]

Sure. Trinitarians teach one God, meaning one essence, but three distinct persons. Was there some comment you wanted to make on this?

So you are saying that God is an Essence?

What is ESSENCE or an ESSENCE?

 

[Soapy]

Whichever way you look at it, three distinct persons mean three distinct wills hence mean three distinct gods. If the Father is God and the Son is God and the Son is not the Father then you have two gods. Add the Ghost and you have three.

If they don't have three distinct wills, if they only have one will, then you have one god who has three distinct manifestations, like an actor playing three characters.

Perhaps the most pertinent point here, though, is that there are five versions of Jesus in the NT ─ those of Paul and the respective authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John ─ and each of those five specifically denies that he's God and never claims to be God.

The pressure to elevate Jesus (as the central character of Christianity) to God status arose after the gospels were written. Such a promotion seems a natural enough development ─ something we might expect from the psychology of groups ─ but it didn't become official till the 4th century, and its official form "that the one God exists in three persons and one substance" is incoherent (or as the Churches put, "a mystery in the strict sense", in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed").

Correct!!

It is clear that the trinity ideology doesn’t work and so some clever group came up with the idea that if it is said that anyone who questions the (lack of) veracity of the trinity ideology then it’s because their minds are ‘not intelligent enough’ to understand the depth of God’s being. In other words, ‘It’s a mystery to all mankind’!!!

Funnily, that actually includes the very groups who came up with the delusion of a trinity IN GOD…

I have asked so many questions like:

1. Is ‘God’ a Person?
2. What is the definition of ‘God’?
3. What is ‘Essence [of God]?
4. How is Jesus the Son OF GOD, and the Holy Spirit the Spirit OF GOD, but the Father is NOT Father OF GOD?
5. How is Jesus SON of the Father yet was never BORN from the Father… ‘Born’ does not mean ‘Procreated’ (do they understand what that means?) but actually like, ‘Adopted from humanity BY the Father to do His works’. Note that Angels are CREATED to do His works, and are therefore ‘Heavenly Spirit Sons’

I could list many more but this should suffice for now!

But the point is that I have not received any credible answers from Trinitarians that answer the questions above… and did good reason, since to answer in credibility would mean denying the trinity ideology and incriminate their belief in it… (Plead the Fifth, as they do!!!?)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you are saying that God is an Essence?

What is ESSENCE or an ESSENCE?

Me personally? I made absolutely no comment about my personal views.

The question was, what do TRINITARIANS think.

The Nicene Creed uses the word Homoousios, which means "of the same substance," or "essence." What does that mean? I'm not entirely sure, but it certainly doesn't mean similar, since there is an entirely different word in Greek that means "of similar substance" and it was not used. I think this statement in the Creed makes it clear that although they believe the three persons of the godhead are distinct, they ALSO think they share the same substance. IOW, their claim of "One God, three persons."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When Jesus asked the question about Psalm 110 none of the Jewish teachers could answer, and it seems that is because they saw David in Psalm 110 calling the Messiah his lord. The idea that it was not a Messianic Psalm does not seem to be an option for them in those days.

I don't know what to tell you, Brian. Jews, who had already been studying this text for centuries by Jesus day, do NOT think it is about the messiah. Remember that the Psalm was written by a Jew, about a Jew, for Jews to read. It's OUR psalm. I would think we would have the clearest understanding what it means. Would you trust a Hindu's interpretation of the gospel of John?

The next question is whether Jesus actually said this.
1. Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek. What you are reading is a TRANSLATION, and translations often make mistakes. In order to know what Jesus actually said (and therefore meant) you would have to know what he said in Aramaic, and we just DON'T KNOW.
2. You are assuming that the gospels are historically accurate. They are not. They are collections of legends. It's possible that not only did Jesus not say this, but that he didn't even say something similar. My guess is that this particular story John had its origins not in history, but in the fact that by the time it was written in 90-100 CE, the idea that Jesus was a god was already circulating among Greek converts, so the story was created to support that idea.

 

[questfortruth]

all say that God is three distinct persons.

Jesus answered: “Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
John 14:9, Father an Jesus are both distinct and unseparatable.

 

[Brian2]

I don't know what to tell you, Brian. Jews, who had already been studying this text for centuries by Jesus day, do NOT think it is about the messiah. Remember that the Psalm was written by a Jew, about a Jew, for Jews to read. It's OUR psalm. I would think we would have the clearest understanding what it means. Would you trust a Hindu's interpretation of the gospel of John?

The next question is whether Jesus actually said this.
1. Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek. What you are reading is a TRANSLATION, and translations often make mistakes. In order to know what Jesus actually said (and therefore meant) you would have to know what he said in Aramaic, and we just DON'T KNOW.
2. You are assuming that the gospels are historically accurate. They are not. They are collections of legends. It's possible that not only did Jesus not say this, but that he didn't even say something similar. My guess is that this particular story John had its origins not in history, but in the fact that by the time it was written in 90-100 CE, the idea that Jesus was a god was already circulating among Greek converts, so the story was created to support that idea.

I suppose the only question should be whether Jesus actually said it.
He was a Jew speaking to Jews and I believe that the author of that gospel was a Jew also, who knew what Jesus said and what the other Jews believed etc.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I suppose the only question should be whether Jesus actually said it.
He was a Jew speaking to Jews and I believe that the author of that gospel was a Jew also, who knew what Jesus said and what the other Jews believed etc.

I realize that it is a common assumption, including among some scholars, that the gospel of John was written by a Jew. I would disagree with that. I think it is far more likely to have been written by a Gentile, or at best a Hellenized Jew living out in the diaspora. My reasoning is as follows: of all the four gospels, John is the most antisemitic and anti-Judaism. It's always "The Jews this," and "the Jews that" and the this and that is never complimentary. Additionally, the author seems to be more familiar with Greek philosophy than Jewish thinking, as we see in the opening verses about Logos. It was written by someone with a definite agenda to divide Christian believers from their Jewish roots, to set up "the Jews" as the enemy. Remember that it was written approximately 90-100 CE, when Christianity was going through its great differentiation from Judaism.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, I’ll put it a different way. Some things that Jesus teaches us to do that look like worshipping Jesus as a god, to other people sometimes, are actually worshipping God by showing devotion to His Son.

There's a difference between worshiping God and obeying his Son. Even bowing down to him, as one might to a king. They are both connected. Meaning it clarifies the meaning of what Jesus said when he said he and the Father are one. Thanks for your comment there. But worship in its entirety remains for the Father and God of Jesus.

 

[Soapy]

There's a difference between worshiping God and obeying his Son. Even bowing down to him, as one might to a king. They are both connected. Meaning it clarifies the meaning of what Jesus said when he said he and the Father are one. Thanks for your comment there. But

worship in its entirety remains for the Father and God of Jesus.

True!

We ARE instructed to ‘Bow the knee’ to Jesus Christ … after he brings the world to rights.

‘Bowing [the knee]’ is a little used word of high significance - ‘Obeisance’. It means:

• ‘To show reverence to one of great authority’ …
• ‘In Praise, in Glorification, in Honour’

and IS NOT THE SAME AS WORSHIP!

A King, A Magistrates, A High Priest, A Great Teacher, A Master, A Hero…

In Scriptures, we see BOTH GOD and Jesus Christ given ‘Praise, Honour, and Glory’… BUT ONLY GOD IS GIVEN WORSHIP (Rev 5:12-14)

• ‘In a loud voice they were saying: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!
• Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever.

The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.’
But read Rev 4:8-11:

• ’Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “’Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,’ who was, and is, and is to come.
• Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever,
• the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
• You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being. [BY YOUR WORD all things were created: You spoke a word and it was so… ‘Let there be light and there was light…’]

The kings remove their crowns (symbol of power and authority) and cast it IN SUBMISSION before ‘Him who sat on the throne’ (The greater authority). There is no indication (and would be wrong) to cast their crowns before the ‘Lamb looking as though slaughtered!)

Trinitarians try deceitfully to twist the two things together by purposely mis-reading the verse so as to say that both:

1. ‘He who sat on the throne’ and
2. ‘The Lamb standing in front and centre of the throne looking as though slaughtered’

are the same person and thus both received worship…. Even a courtesy but honest reading of the verses shows that if is not true.

But with the insistence of the trinity reading of it, what does that tell the world about trinitarian mindset related to their ideology?

 

[Brian2]

I realize that it is a common assumption, including among some scholars, that the gospel of John was written by a Jew. I would disagree with that. I think it is far more likely to have been written by a Gentile, or at best a Hellenized Jew living out in the diaspora. My reasoning is as follows: of all the four gospels, John is the most antisemitic and anti-Judaism. It's always "The Jews this," and "the Jews that" and the this and that is never complimentary. Additionally, the author seems to be more familiar with Greek philosophy than Jewish thinking, as we see in the opening verses about Logos. It was written by someone with a definite agenda to divide Christian believers from their Jewish roots, to set up "the Jews" as the enemy. Remember that it was written approximately 90-100 CE, when Christianity was going through its great differentiation from Judaism.

Personally I see the author of John's gospel as the apostle John and the reason he uses "Jews" at times in his gospel could be because he did not remember if they were Pharisees or scribes or lawyers or Sadducees etc. He seems to use the word "Jews" in places where other gospels may use the more specific terms. And really, something like that would not be antisemitic imo unless someone was looking for an excuse to justify their pre existing antisemitism.
However, all that said, it is in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 22:45) where Jesus asks the Pharisees why David calls the Messiah "lord" is the Messiah is the son of David.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Personally I see the author of John's gospel as the apostle John and the reason he uses "Jews" at times in his gospel could be because he did not remember if they were Pharisees or scribes or lawyers or Sadducees etc. He seems to use the word "Jews" in places where other gospels may use the more specific terms. And really, something like that would not be antisemitic imo unless someone was looking for an excuse to justify their pre existing antisemitism.
However, all that said, it is in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 22:45) where Jesus asks the Pharisees why David calls the Messiah "lord" is the Messiah is the son of David.

Any Jew in the first century living in Judea, Samaria, or Galilee would be very familiar with the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots.

Here is the thing. If the author is a Jew from that area, they think of themselves as a Jew. They would have thought of Jesus as a Jew. They would have thought of the disciples as Jews. They would NOT have thought of "the Jews" as the "other." This is why it's such a dead giveaway that the gospel of John was probably NOT written by a Jew, or at least not a Jew in the Land.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

 

[Brian2]

Any Jew in the first century living in Judea, Samaria, or Galilee would be very familiar with the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots.

Here is the thing. If the author is a Jew from that area, they think of themselves as a Jew. They would have thought of Jesus as a Jew. They would have thought of the disciples as Jews. They would NOT have thought of "the Jews" as the "other." This is why it's such a dead giveaway that the gospel of John was probably NOT written by a Jew, or at least not a Jew in the Land.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

The thing is that the term "the Jews" in John's gospel was not referring to the Jewish race. Jesus and the apostles and 99.9% of the people in the gospels were Jews after all. When John says something like "And the Jews came to Jesus and asked........" it clearly does not refer to the Jewish people, but to those Jews who rejected Jesus and wanted to cause problems for Him and to accuse Him and show that He was wrong. Anyone who reads John's gospel should be able to see that, even if the term "the Jews" might be initially confusing and even seem to be anti semitic. It is only anti semitic if it refers to the Jewish people as a whole and their culture etc.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The thing is that the term "the Jews" in John's gospel was not referring to the Jewish race. Jesus and the apostles and 99.9% of the people in the gospels were Jews after all. When John says something like "And the Jews came to Jesus and asked........" it clearly does not refer to the Jewish people, but to those Jews who rejected Jesus and wanted to cause problems for Him and to accuse Him and show that He was wrong. Anyone who reads John's gospel should be able to see that, even if the term "the Jews" might be initially confusing and even seem to be anti semitic. It is only anti semitic if it refers to the Jewish people as a whole and their culture etc.

When ANYONE refers to "the Jews," they are making a remark about Jews in general, the People of Israel. It is grossly incorrect to think one can refer only to a limited set of religious leaders, yet use the term "the Jews." It just doesn't work. It would be like me making the remark "The Americans accept evolution," when in fact only a subset do.

 

[Brian2]

When ANYONE refers to "the Jews," they are making a remark about Jews in general, the People of Israel. It is grossly incorrect to think one can refer only to a limited set of religious leaders, yet use the term "the Jews." It just doesn't work. It would be like me making the remark "The Americans accept evolution," when in fact only a subset do.

That would be the case these days yes.
John uses the term in places where the other gospels use "chief priests" and "elders" etc and because of that and the fact that pretty much everyone in the gospels were Jews, it can be seen that John was not using the term "the Jews" to refer to Jews in general.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That would be the case these days yes.
John uses the term in places where the other gospels use "chief priests" and "elders" etc and because of that and the fact that pretty much everyone in the gospels were Jews, it can be seen that John was not using the term "the Jews" to refer to Jews in general.

Look, you have only two possible arguments that you can make.

The first is that you can say John botched it. He kept saying "the Jews" when in fact he was NOT referring to the People of Israel, but only to a small group of religious leaders. IOW that he misused the term. It looks like you are opting for this, although you seem to be under the misunderstanding that this is somehow okay to do.

OR, you can say that John is antisemitic, dishing out a constant stream of accusations against us Jews.

You pick.