Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[walt]

I guess I am a little bit confused.
From what I know that the "mainstream" Trinity teaches three persons who are each fully God and yet all part of one God.
You are correct in saying that if there are three different persons who are each fully God that would be three Gods and not one God.

You said that the Trinity you believe in is partialistic, which means that the three persons are only together fully God. So are you saying that together, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit = God? Isn't that like saying that they are all part of the one God?

As I think I told you before, the Baha'i Faith has a Trinity belief but it is not like the Christian Trinity belief.

We believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are connected because they are ‘one in Purpose.’
In other words, they work together, but they are separate, not all ‘part of God.’
We believe that God is forever one and cannot be divided into Three Persons.

I like the way you think, you have a very good attitude towards really good ways!

 

[walt]

Jesus gets to be the judge AT THE END OF TIME…

I AM not a JW… if that’s the best you can do then you need to rethink your attack strategy.

‘Convert you’… I’m not about CONVERTING anyone. The converting, if it comes to that, is from yourself that you’ve seen the truth and CHOOSE to change your ways towards the true way.

Your naivety is showing you up!!!

I like your persistence, you must have put in so many hours of research to get all that knowledge! I agree with most everything you say.

 

[walt]

Thank You for your kindness.. I feel so much better, when kindness keeps going.. Instead of the opposite..

So do I.
I often go around the house screaming "help me Jesus, help me God!"
I hope they are listening.

Are you feeling any better?

 

[Truthseeker]

You are always friendly!
It’s a pleasure to dialogue with you. As usual.

I appreciate you saying that.

Maybe we could discuss some issues amiably, one at a time?

I'm not sure what you are asking. If you want to discuss some issues surrounding JW, I prefer to decline. As I said I prefer to look at the Bible independently, and as a Baha'i, I would be looking through that lens, you would be looking through a JW lens, and I doubt we would really adjust our understandings from a discussion. It's hard for anyone to do that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank You for your kindness.. I feel so much better, when kindness keeps going.. Instead of the opposite..

Are you feeling any better?

I always feel better when people are kind and worse when they are mean, but most people here are kind although some aren't very nice if you disagree with them.

I am feeling better today because I finally got enough sleep. What was required was a blanket covering the living room window since I sleep in a twin day bed in the living room. It had been cloudy for the longest time so the sun did not wake me up but it finally turned sunny a few days ago and that is when my problems started. Now I have solved my problem by creating a way to hang a blanket over the window that is easy to take off during the day.

 

[Spice]

I believe the biblical Trinity is partialistic. This means that God consists of three different parts. An example of this is a triangle. It has three different corners that form one triangle. The three corners would be the three persons of the Trinity and together they are one God/triangle. Another example would be the color white. You need three different primary colors for the color white. The three primary colors would be the three persons of the Trinity and together they are God/white.

The Trinity also teaches subordination. But this subordination is NOT related to nature but only to the roles. An example of this is the human body. A human has one head and two arms. The head is the Father, the right arm is Jesus and the left arm is the Holy Spirit. In the hierarchy of roles, the Father is the first, the Son the second and the Holy Spirit the third. But in their nature they are the same!

As you can see, the biblical Trinity is partialistic, which means that the three persons are dependent on each other and are therefore only God together. They were never separate but were always together and will always be together. But the "mainstream" Trinity believed by Catholics says that the three persons are independent of each other. But then they cannot be one God! If the three persons are independent of each other then they are three different gods.

Furthermore, Catholics believe in the "Eternal Generation of the Son" which means that the Father begot the Son before the world. In other words, God has begotten another personal God. This is absolutely false and idolatry! The Son was only once begotten and that was at his human incarnation.

I've heard all those descriptions/explanations, too. It is still a very difficult concept for many to accept in any way. I even contemplate the three aspects as the Father/mind-personia + Son/ body-material + Holy Spirit/eternal essence = the same make-up as humans. Was the Trinity a 2nd century Roman concept to meet the biblical "created in His image"?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think we have been through this before. The Father and the Son are two different persons. We can agree on that. Yes. One of the breakdowns starts to occur when your organization changes the reading at John 1:1 from "god" to "a god" in your bible to support your teaching. This turns John 1:1 into a polytheistic or henotheistic teaching. Don't you see? How can you trust this tampering of the bible?

Others can be termed in the sense of 'god' besides the One True God, i.e., the one that Jesus prayed to. He answered that during an argument he had with some who accused him of being 'God.' I'm sure you remember that argument he had.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was just listening to a sermon on the radio while I was out walking. The pastor said that the only unforgivable sin is rejecting Jesus Christ as our Savior. I know that is not what the Bible says so he is wrong. The following verses says it is forgivable to speak against the Son of Man, who was Jesus.

Matthew 12:31-32 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.”

Below is what I believe those verses mean.

The Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit. According to Baha’i beliefs, the Holy Spirit is the light of God. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is detestation of the light of God, the divine perfections. In a sense then it is detestation of God since one hates the divine perfections (God’s qualities).

Jesus was a Manifestation of God who brought the Holy Spirit, which is the light of God. Jesus was a lamp of God since He reflected God’s attributes. It is forgivable to hate the lamp, because one might not recognize that the lamp is from God because they might not see the divine perfections of God in the lamp. That is why the verse says: Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven.

In those verses Jesus said it is unforgivable to hate the Holy Spirit (light of God) and one will not be forgiven in this life or in the afterlife.

I can only surmise why that is unforgivable. It is a Baha’i belief that heaven and hell are states of the soul, not geographical locations. Heaven is nearness to God and hell is distance from God. It is impossible to come near to God if one is repelled by the light of God because God does not force His love upon anyone. God only draws those near to Him those who reach out for His mercy. If one hates God they will not reach out for God’s mercy and they will thus be distant from God; in such a state they will make their own hell. Maybe that correlates with the unforgivable sin.

 

[walt]

I always feel better when people are kind and worse when they are mean, but most people here are kind although some aren't very nice if you disagree with them.

I am feeling better today because I finally got enough sleep. What was required was a blanket covering the living room window since I sleep in a twin day bed in the living room. It had been cloudy for the longest time so the sun did not wake me up but it finally turned sunny a few days ago and that is when my problems started. Now I have solved my problem by creating a way to hang a blanket over the window that is easy to take off during the day.

I'm so happy for your progress, sometimes it could be the smallest thing that turns things around for someone, maybe we feel just a little bit better! Could make a big difference! My mom just turned 85 and maybe she won't sleep good for a couple of nights but that's okay She sleeps when she watches TV a little and then a couple nights she'll have a little better sleep and all in all everything's fine for her.

 

[Brian2]

But you haven't addressed the question. The Trinity doctrine says God is one substance and three persons, and that results (as I've mentioned) in nonsense.

Since (it appears) you disagree that the Trinity Doctrine is nonsense, please explain to me whether (a) each of the Father, Jesus and the Ghost has a will distinct from the other two, or (b) does not, resulting in only one will between them (which results in them being all aspects of a single entity).

If those options don't cover your view, please explain why not and what instead, so that I can understand what you're arguing.

I would say that they have their own wills and all agree with each other.

I read the texts using usual principles of historians. The writings of Paul are not fully settled, but there's a central body of his letters that are taken to be authentic. Each of the four gospels has a distinct author. On certain points the gospels copy or paraphrase Mark, the first gospel written. On other points they go their own way.

So the NT has five versions of Jesus which disagree with each other on various points. Any attempt to pick and choose a favored "unified reading" results in a sixth version which doesn't agree with the other five but simply the editor's personal view. That may be convenient for the Christian sales department, but it's nonsense from a historian's views.

There are different historians with different views. The truth however is that because Mark does not mention Jesus birth, that does not mean that he did not know about it or that he did not agree with both Luke and Matthew.

You can't logically attribute knowledge to someone simply because you'd like to. All you have is the evidence of what they said and what they didn't say.

And as I've pointed out, this results in three distinct and incompatible versions of Jesus.

You cannot logically say that someone did not know something because they did not speak about it.

Therefore Jesus (exactly as all five versions of him said) is NOT God, but the trusted envoy of God.

Jesus came to earth as the trusted human servant of God, to do the will of God, His Father.
Phil 2 tells us that Jesus was equal to His Father before He became a man and then stepped into the creation as a man and stepped down and as a man became a servant and did not use His God attributes or have the authority of His Father while on earth.

 

[Soapy]

I value your opinion very much and also I agree with you and the scriptures you value.

The Father gives himself all the credit saying [ that you alone are the Most High over all the earth. ]
Psalms 83:18

Point of order: It s the Psalmist who, here, states the glory of God as Most High over the earth - not the Father, himself, as you stated here in error.

Jesus gives his Father all the credit as [ the only true God ].
John 17:3

True.

The Apostle Paul gives all the credit to The Father saying [ for us there is but one God the Father ] --1 Corinthians 8:6 and says [ and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ ]

True also.

Don't you agree the Father, Jesus and the Apostle Paul combined is a great lead to follow? I just try to think like they think, I let them explain it. By respecting their words as the Authority. --Your Friend.

Be careful that you are not inadvertently creating another trinity….!!

The Father: YHWH GOD is the one being accoladed, adored, Worshipped.

Jesus and Paul (and all true believers!!!!) are the ones doing the accolades, the adoring, the worshipping OF YHWH: The Father, God of Heaven. Follow the lead of these whom have tasted the pain and backlash of humanity holding to the ways that God desires of us humans.

 

[Brian2]

Brian2, I notice you stopped short of Hebrews 1:1-4 - you missed out Hebrews 1:3:

• The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven

Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory… God is more than just Glory - Jesus is only the his radiance. That which issues the radiance is greater than (NOT EQUAL TO) the radiance that it issues. A torch is greater than the light beam it radiates.

The meaning of Heb 1:3. The Son is as glorious as His Father. Why can't you understand that?

And Jesus is seated at the right hand of the majesty (God, the ruler). He who is seated at the right hand position of the ruler is NOT EQUAL to the majesty.

And verse 4:

• So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

So Jesus BECAME superior to the angels… What position was Jesus in prior to becoming superior to the angels?

And Jesus, at this point, INHERITS A SUPERIOR NAME to that which he had before…

Hmmm… it seems you erred badly by posting about Hebrews 1;1-4 and then welching on its meaning!!!

Jesus was on earth as the servant of God. He was sent and willingly came to earth to do that. (Phil 2)
Jesus rose and went to heaven to be seated on at the right hand of God and God is serving Him by putting His enemies under His feet.
Jesus inherited the name of His Father, a name which belonged to Him while He was on earth (John 16:15)
Now His Father is serving Him, just as He served His Father.

The equality of nature only means that they AGREE with the behaviours and actions of each other. But GOD cannot be the one who ADOPTS the nature of Jesus. The Father SHOWS the Son how to behave and the Son agrees to adopt that behaviour.

• “I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.” (John 14:31)

Jesus subdues his human nature so as to accept and obey the Will of his heavenly Father.

It is Jesus who adopts the nature of God because God taught him that it is the righteous way to behave.

John 14:31 is Jesus claiming to do the will of God and not His own will. So He allowed Himself to be crucified, as the Father wanted.
Jesus is perfectly like His Father and so was able to remain sinless. It would have been alien for Jesus to go against the will of His Father, even though He was a man and was tempted to sin. He overcame the temptations.

Brian2, are you saying that it’s equality that the son submits to the Father?

Is it also equality that the Father should submit to the son?

In fact, that the Father and the son should submit to the Holy Spirit?

A = B —> B = A

• Did the Father adopt the nature of the Son?
• Did the Father teach the Son?
• Did the son choose to accept the nature of the Father?

I'm saying that it is right for the Son to submit to the will of His Father.

 

[Soapy]

I would say that they have their own wills and all agree with each other.



There are different historians with different views. The truth however is that because Mark does not mention Jesus birth, that does not mean that he did not know about it or that he did not agree with both Luke and Matthew.



You cannot logically say that someone did not know something because they did not speak about it.



Jesus can to earth as the trusted human servant of God, to do the will of God, His Father.
Phil 2 tells us that Jesus was equal to His Father before He became a man and then stepped into the creation as a man and stepped down and as a man became a servant and did not use His God attributes or have the authority of His Father while on earth.

Brian2, how can Jesus have ‘God attributes’ if he is a man?

You says he ‘stepped down’ from being EQUAL to his Father… Brian2, how can a SON be EQUAL to the Father who gave him life, gave him directions in his life, taught him, and promised him glory if he carried out the works that He (the Father) gave him (the Son) to do?

Brian2, I know you understand that you are thinking wrongly since every answer you give you need to think hard and sharp in crafting a devious response.

 

[Brian2]

Brian2, where is there an end to the incredulous nonesense you present as your ‘truth’??

If Jesus’ God was his God ‘from my mother’s womb!’… and was ‘Cast upon God’ (made in His image), how can Jesus have suddenly gained a God if he was God in your belief?

Before Jesus was in his mother’s womb he did not exist except by prophesy:

• ‘Abraham foresaw my day - and was glad!’
• God anointed Jesus of Nazareth and sent him into the world. To be ‘Sent into the world’ means ‘To face adversity, sin, and death’

For a start, "Cast upon God" does not mean "made in His image". It means that Jesus relied on God from birth.
His Father was not His God before He came to earth. He was equal to God before He became a man. Then He became a man and so had a God, as other men have. He was made like other humans in all ways.

 

[Soapy]

The meaning of Heb 1:3. The Son is as glorious as His Father. Why can't you understand that?



Jesus was on earth as the servant of God. He was sent and willingly came to earth to do that. (Phil 2)
Jesus rose and went to heaven to be seated on at the right hand of God and God is serving Him by putting His enemies under His feet.
Jesus inherited the name of His Father, a name which belonged to Him while He was on earth (John 16:15)
Now His Father is serving Him, just as He served His Father.



John 14:31 is Jesus claiming to do the will of God and not His own will. So He allowed Himself to be crucified, as the Father wanted.
Jesus is perfectly like His Father and so was able to remain sinless. It would have been alien for Jesus to go against the will of His Father, even though He was a man and was tempted to sin. He overcame the temptations.

I'm saying that it is right for the Son to submit to the will of His Father.

Oh Brian2, is it too much for you?

The Son submitting to the Will of the Father means that the Son has a Will of his own and submits that Will.

The Father does not submit His Will to that if the Son, and therefore the Father is greater than the Son:

• The Lamp that shines out is greater than Light that is shone out from the Lamp.

Jesus is the Light shone from the Lamp that is God, the Father.

I notice you pick and choose which questions you want to answer - and I applaud you for it (in a backwards way!) since it’s better to NOT TRY TO ANSWER WITH DECEIT than to create ridiculous nonsense in an attempt to wriggle out ungodly claims… but you still do anyway.

 

[Brian2]

Brian2, how can Jesus have ‘God attributes’ if he is a man?

Only one man has ever been perfectly sinless, Jesus, so He was good, as His Father is. He was a man who was tempted but was able to overcome His flesh, the world, because He was also just like His Father.

You says he ‘stepped down’ from being EQUAL to his Father… Brian2, how can a SON be EQUAL to the Father who gave him life, gave him directions in his life, taught him, and promised him glory if he carried out the works that He (the Father) gave him (the Son) to do?

The Son has the nature of His Father and is equal to His Father in that way, but on earth was not in a position of authority and so was not as great as His Father.
Now He has all power and authority as so it equal to His Father, who is serving Him by putting all His enemies under His feet.
Then when all this salvation stuff is finished, the Son will again submit to His Father.

 

[Soapy]

For a start, "Cast upon God" does not mean "made in His image". It means that Jesus relied on God from birth.
His Father was not His God before He came to earth. He was equal to God before He became a man. Then He became a man and so had a God, as other men have. He was made like other humans in all ways.

It is true that to cast oneself upon another CAN ALSO mean ‘to rely on the MERCY of another’.

But the context the extract is discussing is that Jesus ‘MODELLED’ himself as a prototype of God, which is why he, Jesus, is called ‘SON’.

Brian2, what is a CAST?

• ‘From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.’ (Psalm 22:10)

‘I was cast on you’… ‘you, God, are the model that I was made to imitate: the image of God’.

Brian2, is a model, not an image of the original?
A Statue made directly from another is a CAST.

 

[blü 2]

I would say that they have their own wills and all agree with each other.

Then they only have one will, and aren't three distinct entities.

There are different historians with different views. The truth however is that because Mark does not mention Jesus birth, that does not mean that he did not know about it or that he did not agree with both Luke and Matthew.

Here's the author of Mark, about to write the purported life story of his hero. He knows that hero was born of a virgin through an astounding divine miracle, BUT HE FORGETS TO MENTION IT?

And instead he DOESN'T make his hero the son of God UNTIL AFTER JtB washes his sins off him, THEN God adopts him as [his] son, just as [he] had adopted David as his son in Psalm 2:7 (affirmed Acts 13:33)?

I respectfully put it to you that your version is untenable.

You cannot logically say that someone did not know something because they did not speak about it.

In addition to what I said above, you certainly can't logically assert that they DID know about it even though they never mentioned it.

Jesus can to earth as the trusted human servant of God, to do the will of God, His Father.

That fits the NT, and accords with the denials of all five versions of Jesus that they're God.

Phil 2 tells us that Jesus was equal to His Father before He became a man and then stepped into the creation as a man and stepped down and as a man became a servant and did not use His God attributes or have the authority of His Father while on earth.

Nowhere in the "kenosis hymn" does it say Jesus was God's equal. Indeed, the "hymn" ends with the words "11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

And there Paul also says,

Corinthian 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” –​

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

 

[Soapy]

Only one man has ever been perfectly sinless, Jesus, so He was good, as His Father is. He was a man who was tempted but was able to overcome His flesh, the world, because He was also just like His Father.

No Brian2, Jesus is not the only man who has been perfectly sinless. Adam, before he sinned, was perfectly Sinless…..! And he too, was called ‘SON OF GOD’ (Luke 3:38).

However, AFTER Adam sinned, yes, Jesus is NOW the only man who has been completely sinless… hence he, and hd alone of those of humanity, is called ‘Son of God’. Be it known to you that the holy angels of Heaven are ALSO ‘Sons of God’ and are entirely sinless.

I don’t think you thought out what you were writing else you wouldn’t have written it at all.

Please don’t embarrass yourself like this next time. THINK ONCE, TWICE, THREE TIMES… and then do not write it….!

The Son has the nature of His Father and is equal to His Father in that way, but on earth was not in a position of authority and so was not as great as His Father.
Now He has all power and authority as so it equal to His Father, who is serving Him by putting all His enemies under His feet.

Brian2, who granted Jesus all power and authority? How can Jesus be equal to him who gave him power?

And Jesus is not served by God. YHWH, The one true God is no one’s servant…!

Brian2, how can the Son be EQUAL to his Father if he has the fathers nature… The nature is FIRSTLY that of the Father. If someone else is cast upon the nature of the Father then it is NOT HIS NATURE but the FATHER’S.

Brian2, if the Father changed His nature then the Son also MUST CHANGE HIS in order to maintain the nature of the Father in him.

But,Brian2, IF THE SON changes his nature, the Fathers nature remains as it is, and does not change to imitate the Son…

Brian2, That is not EQUALITY!!

Then when all this salvation stuff is finished, the Son will again submit to His Father.

And you still say that the Son is equal to the Father??

Is ‘Floundering’ a good word to describe your state of belief at this time?

 

[Brian2]

Then they only have one will, and aren't three distinct entities.

And if they have their own wills and subject them to the will of the Father,,,,,,,,,,, thus all acting together in the one purpose?

Here's the author of Mark, about to write the purported life story of his hero. He knows that hero was born of a virgin through an astounding divine miracle, BUT HE FORGETS TO MENTION IT?

And instead he DOESN'T make his hero the son of God UNTIL AFTER JtB washes his sins off him, THEN God adopts him as [his] son, just as [he] had adopted David as his son in Psalm 2:7 (affirmed Acts 13:33)?

I respectfully put it to you that your version is untenable.

That might depend on his purpose for writing the story of Jesus. He may have wanted to have a written record of Jesus as told in sermons and teaching by Peter, and this was pretty much from the time Jesus first started appearing in public, the things that Peter knew first hand.

In addition to what I said above, you certainly can't logically assert that they DID know about it even though they never mentioned it.

The thing is that you cannot logically assert that they did not know the things left out,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so your 5 versions of Jesus are only 5 ways that different people have presented Jesus in the NT and NOT 5 different versions of Jesus which are mutually exclusive.

That fits the NT, and accords with the denials of all five versions of Jesus that they're God.


Nowhere in the "kenosis hymn" does it say Jesus was God's equal. Indeed, the "hymn" ends with the words "11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

And there Paul also says,

Corinthian 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” –​

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

The idea that Jesus was not created but was involved in the creation of all things is to make Jesus God.
The idea that Jesus is Lord in to call Jesus God.
Phil 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

From being Jesus the servant on earth, He inherits (Heb 1:4) the name that is above all names (YHWH) so that at Jesus name, we all bow in worship and confess Jesus is Lord, and that glorifies the Father.
Even while on earth Jesus owned this name (John 16:15)