The Trinity Doctrine: Help me out, Christians

[LadyForCamus]

Only if you're suggesting that the hebrew and christian mythical narratives are somehow derivative of or related to......greek myth.

Is that what you're suggesting, Hugs?  Well knock me over with a feather!



Meanwhile, a talking snake with arms and legs is a dragon in any language, lol.  If you're telling me that the dragon in rev isn;t the same dragon as the one in genesis...then you;re just adding another dragon..so now there are three instead of two.  Like I said, dragons popping out the demonhole.

LOL.  Huggy’s total number of dragons increases exponentially every time he responds!  If he keeps going at this pace, the entire Bible is going to be dragons, all the way down.  😛

[Haipule]

Baptism is a transliteration of the Greek baptismos. It is not translated. The word was used to effect a change. It was NOT a ecclesiastical word.

Nicander, a physician who lived years before the NT was written said first you baptO(dip) the vegetable in boiling water and then baptismos(submerge) the vegetable in a vinegar solution to preserve vegetables as a pickle.

Back in the day they would baptO their spears in animal blood to identify the spear with blood. They would baptismos cloth in die, such as purple, to identify the cloth with royalty. 

So baptismos was used to effect a change to whatever was submerged.

In the "Great Commission" the students of Jesus were told to make students and to submerge them in the teaching of the Father, Son and pure breath of God's Word.

The NT had not yet been written so Jesus' students used water to teach their students of the change. Water was just a teaching tool. But once Romans 6 was written seemed pointless and water baptism is only mentioned twice in the epistles and only negatively.

I gots my own way of pickling myself!

[Cyberman]

Me too...

[Haipule]

Me too...

AHHH! So your filled with the spirit. Good on ya mate! However, real men drink gin, tequila and whiskey. It's a manly pursuit like smoking cigars. Vodka is for girls! It's time you man up! However, I love a good vodka as well. It's part of my feminine side!

[Cyberman]

[Godscreated]

It doesn't matter whether God would be God without one of the Persons of God, God is who He is and that means He is unchanging, He has always been triune and He always will be. This puts an end to arguing about the nature of God, it has been established eternally.

I'm not sure you even know what I'm arguing. I never argued that Christians like you don't believe that God is eternally triune. Unless I'm missing your point here.

You were arguing God wasn't triune and that He was triune and I showed that God has always been triune in my post.

Second you have stated that all three "are fully the one God." This isn't correct and you know it, you've stated it that way because you know you can use it endlessly to argue with. The correct statement is that the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God, this means they are all of one nature, of one mind. By using "one" the way you did separates them from each other and that isn't possible.

It wasn't my intention to describe the triune God as God comprising ontologically separate Persons. I thought I was doing Christians like you a favor by stressing that each of the Persons of God are that one and same God, that they are all that one Being.

You posted it that way and you were arguing it that way, so the best I can tell is that you intentionally meant that each one is a separate God and that is not true, by nature being triune eliminates the possibility of each being a God.

Do you agree with SteveII that each of the Persons of God are a part of God? You know, when I was a Christian, I was clearly taught that this was heresy as it minimizes the divinity of each of the Persons.

Yes and I would think that my previous post established that fact. You can't minimize God nor the three Persons who are God, He is the almighty and no matter what we say or do will minimize God in any way. Tell me how could one minimize the One who created the entire universe? Tell me what denomination did you belong to? tell me what makes you believe you were ever a Christian?

You were correct when you said the three are one God and yet they are three distinct Persons. The Father is not the head but does instruct the Son and Holy Spirit in what to do, Jesus said that He does what He sees the Father doing and Jesus also said that the Father will send the Holy Spirit after I have ascended to the Father. Jesus also said that the Father is the only one who knows when I will be sent back to claim my people, thus more proof of three separate persons.

 

What do you mean by "separate"? Do you mean they are parallel divine persons, rather than having the exact same being? I was taught that the Persons of God were distinct, but NOT separate. Distinct in terms of roles, but inseparable otherwise.

Separate - Each is an individual. Analogy, a sound system has a receiver, a amplifier, and speakers three parts combined into one system to make music. They are three divine individuals with the same nature and that is unchanging. I made this clear in my previous post. The truine God is inseparable by necessity meaning they are like minded and have the same nature yet they are three separate persons. If they were inseparable then the salvation of man kind as it is describe in the Bible would not have been possible. They are as I have said inseparable in nature and mind.

As you pointed out at Jesus baptisim, Jesus was the one baptised, the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove and sat upon His shoulder and the Father spoke and called Him my Son. Again we have three persons who are one God, they all three made themselves known and that they were in agreement with the beginning of Christ's ministry. Also let me mention that when you see the word LORD in all caps this is referring to the Trinity. As far as I have noticed when Jesus was called Lord in the NT only the 'L' is in caps. So all three are God and all three participate in discussions and decisions because they are of one mind and nature, yet the Father does instruct the Son and Holy Spirit in when they should do things. You might ask why would God do something this way, well it is a guide to how the family is to conduct itself. The father, mother and children are all equal partners in the family and all have a voice in the family, but like the heavenly Father the father of an earthly family instructs or makes a finial decision.

So you believe God is just a term for a family of divine entities? How are you different from the Mormons in this regard (aside from the eternal part)?

 How is it that you can't understand who the Trinity is and what I believe the Trinity to be. I explained this very clearly and yet you think I was speaking of God as a family, when I stated that God is three persons in one with like mindedness and one true nature. They are one God not a family. A family is made up of any number of people of three or more and being human they would never be of the same nature nor like minded. This is why I said the family is to operate like the triune God, so there would always be order to the decision making process of the family.
I notice you completely ignored the Genesis reference where God does state He is of more than one person. You also ignored that when the word LORD is in all caps that the Trinity is being referred to, why?

GC

---

"Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the Tree of Life and eat, and live forever." Notice the bold, "one of us," I can tell you this God was not taking council from the angels or any other created thing and God being the only One who was never created the the council was within the Trinity.

Oh, you can tell us that..can you..because magic book isn;t saying that.  You are.  You're the one offering assurances.  Were you there or something..party to that conversation, or maybe you and the author went to highschool? Or..hey, maybe...the hebrews were henotheists who believed in more than one god and their magic book reflects that. 50/50...I guess.

This answer to my post shows how little knowledge and logic you have of the Bible and the understanding of things said. You can't give a sound argument because you do not have one, this is why you resort to childish tactics and then pat yourself on the back because you believe you have accomplished something, when in reality you have accomplished nothing. I've said the same about evolution and you come back with the argument that we have fossils, I have the written word of God and it doesn't matter whether you accept it or not. My relationship is with God whom I know and trust not a fibble little voice from outside the family of God. 

Now that God has shown through His word that He is more than one individual and because we can understand from the rest of scripture that the Son and Holy Spirit are the other ones we have established a Trinity from the beginning of the Bible and because the Bible tells us that God is unchanging we can accept that God was a Trinity for all eternity.

Unless you're god..GC, god hasn't shown us shit.  Are you god, GC..it would be good to know..and that would explain a hell of alot......but if you are..how come you didn;t know that your chosen people were henotheists?  It seems like something god would know.  I don't see anything in genesis about "jesus".  Maybe you were talking to Baruch and you just forgot.being so long ago?  Have you informed the jews......?

Again more of your childishness, you can't even make a poor argument, and yes Jesus is mentioned in two places in the first three chapters of Genesis. Try and learn somethings about the scriptures before you get into arguing then and making yourself look foolish.

You wanted logic for the Trinity, you now have it and because I'm sure you missed it I will restate it, the three have always been and will always be because God is unchanging and God established from the beginning of time that he is a truine God and no matter how you want to see things this is the way it is and you can't change it one bit no matter what you would like it to be.

From the beginning of time....?  Well, time must have began just a short while ago, what with magic book having been written a scant few thousand years back.

 You are correct time started a few thousand years ago and the book isn't magic. It is a common sense book to help God's people to grow in a relationship with Him and it's there for the ones who want to find Him and for those who do not care it has value that you can't comprehend.

GC

[GrandizerII]

This might be your problem. They are different persons who have actions/duties ascribed to them that are not the same as the actions/duties ascribed to the other members of the Godhead.

Yes, and that is where the real distinction lies. Not in being or essence of nature.

I shouldn't have to keep quoting the Catechism here for you not to lose track, but here goes:

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

In one way--that the all are one essence (God). In the personhood question, they are not ontologically the same.

They are distinct, but NOT separate. If you believe in three separate Persons, then that is Tritheism, not Trinitarianism. The Mormons would love to have you among them, if that's the case.

Ah, you might have seen the term "Jesus is fully God" and that is true. His divinity is the essence he shares (inseparably) with the other persons of the Godhead. The inverse is not true: that God is Jesus--because that would be incomplete. God is the three all together.

"Jesus is fully God" is not equivalent to "Jesus is fully divine", it is equivalent to "Jesus is the one and only God in its entirety". The word "God" doesnt refer to an attribute.

I am fully human, and so are you. And in this sense, we both share the same nature. But in our case, there can be multiple human beings we can refer to. So you are one human being and I am another.

This cannot be the case for the monotheistic God. Jesus (or the Son) isn't just sharing the same divine nature as the other Persons of God. He is sharing the same essence (BEING). They indwell one another. They "occupy" the same "space". The distinction, once again, has nothing to do with the nature or substance of God. God is One (according to the doctrine), not THREE.

Yea, the links you posted go on and on about one God in essence consisting of three persons. When discussing one of those persons, you will be discussing part of the Godhead.

Steve, don't you think that if this were the case, the official texts would just say that instead of being all vague about it. Personhood, in the context of the Trinity, does NOT imply part.

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

If this is a little ambiguous to understand, here's a Christian who will explain this to you:

Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God; he is all of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of the being of God; he is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, “When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone” (Ibid., 252).

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/wha...he-trinity

Your key phrase "...each one being fully the one God" makes no sense. You actually worded a logical contradiction into it to make it sound so and claimed this is mainstream belief on the Trinity.

No, Steve, what you're defending might be logical (tritheism), but Trinitarianism is not. That's why when you saw that phrase, even you realize that doesn't sound right. I didn't force that into the doctrine. That's mainstream Christianity for you. "Jesus is fully God" means: "Jesus is that ONE God".

---

You were arguing God wasn't triune and that He was triune and I showed that God has always been triune in my post.

"God has always been triune" is what you assert without proof or demonstration, but seriously, what the fuck does this have to do with whether or not the Trinity is illogical? If I tell you that a "square circle" is illogical, do you respond by saying "well, the square circle has always been a square circle"?

You posted it that way and you were arguing it that way, so the best I can tell is that you intentionally meant that each one is a separate God and that is not true, by nature being triune eliminates the possibility of each being a God.

On the contrary, when you're the one arguing that the Persons of God are separate from each other, then it is you who is arguing for three Gods.

Yes and I would think that my previous post established that fact. You can't minimize God nor the three Persons who are God, He is the almighty and no matter what we say or do will minimize God in any way.

If you say that Jesus is just a part of God, then you are guilty of minimizing him in your conception.

Separate - Each is an individual. Analogy, a sound system has a receiver, a amplifier, and speakers three parts combined into one system to make music. They are three divine individuals with the same nature and that is unchanging. I made this clear in my previous post. The truine God is inseparable by necessity meaning they are like minded and have the same nature yet they are three separate persons. If they were inseparable then the salvation of man kind as it is describe in the Bible would not have been possible. They are as I have said inseparable in nature and mind.

Your analogy would not be suitable for the doctrine of the Trinity. The Persons of God do not share the divinity of God among themselves. They are each God in its entirety. In your analogy, is the receiver the whole system? Is the amplifier the whole system? Are the speakers the whole system?

If you don't want to come off as a Tritheist, don't say Jesus is a part of God.

How is it that you can't understand who the Trinity is and what I believe the Trinity to be. I explained this very clearly and yet you think I was speaking of God as a family, when I stated that God is three persons in one with like mindedness and one true nature. They are one God not a family. A family is made up of any number of people of three or more and being human they would never be of the same nature nor like minded. This is why I said the family is to operate like the triune God, so there would always be order to the decision making process of the family.

If you believe that God is the set of all the Persons of God, and each Person of God is just an element of God, then yes, in this case, God refers just to the family of these divine beings (in your belief). If you don't like that, you're free to adjust your beliefs to match what the official texts on the Trinity say.

I notice you completely ignored the Genesis reference where God does state He is of more than one person. You also ignored that when the word LORD is in all caps that the Trinity is being referred to, why?

Because it has shit all to do with my argument?

[vorlon13]

Not a single human father/son pair shares the characteristics of the God/Jesus pair. It is spectacularly confusing (and incorrect) to invoke a human father/son relationship as in any way "explaining" God's relationship to Jesus. Or Jesus' relationship to God.

What if God had surrendered a rib of His own and fashioned Jesus from that ?

Isn't that a better and more correct description than comparing their relationship to a (human) father and son ? Unfortunately, Scripture doesn't provide that example and yet it conveys way better what the Trinitarians here are trying to duck tape and wire tie together as an explanation.

[The Grand Nudger]

This answer to my post shows how little knowledge and logic you have of the Bible and the understanding of things said. 

I'm filing this, and everything that followed, in the "I can't bring myself to acknowledge that I was speaking directly out of my own asshole" category.

and this...

 You are correct time started a few thousand years ago and the book isn't magic.

in the "I wouldn't know if I was speaking out of my own asshole, anyway"...category.

[Crossless2.0]

This answer to my post shows how little knowledge and logic you have of the Bible and the understanding of things said. 

I'm filing this, and everything that followed, in the "I can't bring myself to acknowledge that I was speaking directly out of my own asshole" category.

and this...

 You are correct time started a few thousand years ago and the book isn't magic.

in the "I wouldn't know if I was speaking out of my own asshole, anyway"...category.

I had considered making a post in which I listed every word from GC's post that he evidently doesn't understand how to correctly use -- e.g., showed, established, fact, knowledge, logic, etc.

Then I decided that life is too short to sift through this simpleton's brain droppings. Fuck it. He's a lost cause and has been since day one. I have better things to do.