Newbie has a question about trinitarianism

[frankandcathy]

Ok, I have had doubts about the doctrine of the trinity as we know it since I was a young Christian but haven't given it much thought because, in the end, it doesn't seem to matter much to my faith in Christ.

However, now that I've stumbled upon all of these discussions, let me throw a question or two out there after reading quite a bit of what has been said.

Please keep in mind that I am no theologian, have no seminary degree, but am relatively intelligent.

I have always looked at the Trinity like an apple cut into three slices. Each piece is molecularly an apple (not an orange or pear). Each piece, if taken on its own would be called “apple.” Yet all three together are also called “apple.” Are there three pieces? Of course. But they are all apple. Is each piece identical? No. Yet, they are all apple. Is that just too simplistic?

I saw that bodhitharta posted this statement, “It is important when pointing out to someone who believes in the trinity that everytime they say God they are referring to a 3 in 1 composition.”

But I don't find that a problem. It doesn't seem a problem to me to call one piece “apple” or two pieces “apple” or the whole thing “apple” unless you are wanting to distinguish between them for a specific purpose. Otherwise, it seems fine to just say, “apple.”

I don't think that if I say, “Slice #1 got a bite taken from it” this implies that all three slices got eaten or that slice #1 wasn't apple in the first place. Or that this proves that all three pieces had bites taken from them just because slice #1 did.

I am sure I am missing some logic here as this seems very simple to me. I know that all of you have spent a long time thinking about this and I've spent like 24 hours. So feel free to enlighten me but try to use small words and not get too, too heady because I could wind up chasing my own tail!

Also, (and this was my real beginning of questioning on this topic), what about the Holy Spirit? Why does he seem to play such a minor role in the New Testament? Or does he? Is it just because he doesn't have a name like “Jesus” or “Josh” or something that I think this way? I recognize Pentecost, and the other movements of the Spirit but he just seems like an under-valued player. Have I just been reading scripture wrong? I know that he is supposed to always exalt Jesus so maybe there is a deliberate down-playing? Those who are not trinitarians, what is your view of the Holy Spirit, his essence, his form, his nature, and his work/purpose? What are your thoughts on the in-dwelling in the NT versus the “resting upon” in the OT?

Oh yeah, one more thing. So, if Jesus is not God but is the son of God yet God still chooses to exalt Him above everything else and the fullness dwells in him…so what does that mean practically? Anything? I mean, he would still be Lord (or ruler). We would still be required to believe in him and confess him as ruler. We still pray in his name, right? Does that mean we're not supposed to pray to him but only to God through him? I've seen a lot of theory on the what/why but not a lot of “what difference does this make to the average Christian.”

Thanks!

[bodhitharta]

Quote (frankandcathy @ June 28 2009,15:03)

Ok, I have had doubts about the doctrine of the trinity as we know it since I was a young Christian but haven't given it much thought because, in the end, it doesn't seem to matter much to my faith in Christ.   However, now that I've stumbled upon all of these discussions, let me throw a question or two out there after reading quite a bit of what has been said. Please keep in mind that I am no theologian, have no seminary degree, but am relatively intelligent.   I have always looked at the Trinity like an apple cut into three slices.  Each piece is molecularly an apple (not an orange or pear).  Each piece, if taken on its own would be called “apple.”  Yet all three together are also called “apple.”  Are there three pieces?  Of course.  But they are all apple.  Is each piece identical?  No.  Yet, they are all apple.  Is that just too simplistic?   I saw that bodhitharta posted this statement, “It is important when pointing out to someone who believes in the trinity that everytime they say God they are referring to a 3 in 1 composition.” But I don't find that a problem.  It doesn't seem a problem to me to call one piece “apple” or two pieces “apple” or the whole thing “apple” unless you are wanting to distinguish between them for a specific purpose.  Otherwise, it seems fine to just say, “apple.”   I don't think that if I say, “Slice #1 got a bite taken from it” this implies that all three slices got eaten or that slice #1 wasn't apple in the first place.  Or that this proves that all three pieces had bites taken from them just because slice #1 did.   I am sure I am missing some logic here as this seems very simple to me.  I know that all of you have spent a long time thinking about this and I've spent like 24 hours.  So feel free to enlighten me but try to use small words and not get too, too heady because I could wind up chasing my own tail! Also, (and this was my real beginning of questioning on this topic), what about the Holy Spirit?  Why does he seem to play such a minor role in the New Testament?  Or does he?  Is it just because he doesn't have a name like “Jesus” or “Josh” or something that I think this way?  I recognize Pentecost, and the other movements of the Spirit but he just seems like an under-valued player.  Have I just been reading scripture wrong?  I know that he is supposed to always exalt Jesus so maybe there is a deliberate down-playing?  Those who are not trinitarians, what is your view of the Holy Spirit, his essence, his form, his nature, and his work/purpose?  What are your thoughts on the in-dwelling in the NT versus the “resting upon” in the OT?   Oh yeah, one more thing.  So, if Jesus is not God but is the son of God yet God still chooses to exalt Him above everything else and the fullness dwells in him…so what does that mean practically?  Anything?   I mean, he would still be Lord (or ruler).  We would still be required to believe in him and confess him as ruler.  We still pray in his name, right?  Does that mean we're not supposed to pray to him but only to God through him?  I've seen a lot of theory on the what/why but not a lot of “what difference does this make to the average Christian.”   Thanks!

The Followers of Christ Jesus have salvation for believeing in God. Jesus never taught his followers to worship any other than God(Our Father).

regarding the trinity it diminishes the reality of GOD Who is ONE GOD fully capable and without equal or partners.

It is essential that a person always looks to the MOST HIGH

Now you mentioned there is no problem with a 3 in 1 composition and you would be right if it was that simple but consider if the Apple had a will if the pieces all possessed different wills then they would not be of the same apple in other words different wills enumerate different beings.

If three beings have different wills and have equal power any type of confusion in the universe could occur according to the various wills of these God beings. Jesus had clearly said he had his own will and while he agreed to do the will of the Father the fact is ho worships God not as a god himself but as a faithful servant to whom he teaches us to pray “Thy will be done” and he tells us that calling upon his name will not warrant you salvation unless you do the will of his Father.

I will let you respond to this post before I go any further per your request to not be so wordy.

[frankandcathy]

Ok bod (may I call you “bod?”) I think I'm tracking with you here. But what about the idea of mutual submission? Doesn't that address the free will issue?

The equal power thing seems more complicated but I again consider it in terms of voluntary submission. One example would be when the scriptures tell us that Jesus was in very “form” God but didn't consider that something he should grab onto and not let go of but voluntarily allowed himself to become subject to God, even though he didn't have to. (That's my loose translation which I'm sure you might take issue with). It just seems evident to me that in that passage there is a voluntarily, free willingness to submit when he didn't HAVE to. It seems like it was Jesus' choice and so that seems to address the issue of equal power.

What about the rule by consensus? Isn't it possible for a triune government to rule by consensus? Don't we often do that as humans? Is this impossible for God?

I don't know. I hope I'm not missing or dodging your main points. What do you think?

[bodhitharta]

Quote (frankandcathy @ June 28 2009,16:35)

Ok bod (may I call you “bod?”)  I think I'm tracking with you here.  But what about the idea of mutual submission?  Doesn't that address the free will issue?   The equal power thing seems more complicated but I again consider it in terms of voluntary submission.  One example would be when the scriptures tell us that Jesus was in very “form” God but didn't consider that something he should grab onto and not let go of but voluntarily allowed himself to become subject to God, even though he didn't have to.  (That's my loose translation which I'm sure you might take issue with).  It just seems evident to me that in that passage there is a voluntarily, free willingness to submit when he didn't HAVE to.  It seems like it was Jesus' choice and so that seems to address the issue of equal power.   What about the rule by consensus?  Isn't it possible for a triune government to rule by consensus?  Don't we often do that as humans?  Is this impossible for God?   I don't know.  I hope I'm not missing or dodging your main points.  What do you think?

You certainly may call me Bod(Bodhitharta is quite alot to write each time)

It is possible for a triune government to rule by concensus but God is clear that He is Sovereign and Alone He truly is All-One.

Since you agree he didn't have to submit it shows that either there is one God that guides you to submit to Him or there are several gods who can not submit which means there would be no absolute authority and each could create whatever he wanted to create and cause chaos.

Jesus himself never claimed equality with God saying plainly that “the Father is greater I” greater is not equal to.

The fact is Jesus said that the Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD but most don't listen to Jesus.

[Lightenup]

frankandcathy,

So, welcome! Does your name reflect two becoming one flesh? I hope you find what you are looking for here. There are many opinions reflected that will get you thinking or…utterly confuse you, one or the other or both.

I think that the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is very simple:

The Father always existed and that makes Him the Most High GOD.
The Father brought forth an offspring by birth and not creation probably on day one (Light) who had a will of His own, a spirit of His own and the same nature of His Father, possibly the fullness of grace and truth, which because of His nature, He is God but not the Most High.
The Father has a personal spirit within Him which remains in Him and flows from Him filling His Son and the Son sends it to fill believers. It is the “line” of the communication and the power of the Most High GOD to all His sons, His very own personal spirit.

So, that is it. I do not agree that there is equal power between the Father and Son but I do believe they have an equal nature-grace and truth. IMO

Enjoy the smorgasbord of ideas here. I hope you stick around!

God bless,
Kathi/Lightenup/LU

[frankandcathy]

Ok. Let me think this through. I don't want to approach all passages from a trinitarian mindset but want to try to view them openly.

My thoughts go back to the apple analogy. God is clear that He is sovereign. But what if he is referring to himself as a triune God, the entire apple in relationship to creation? What if he is trying to communicate that the 3-in-1 “apple” if you will, is above all things? Versus, “Slice #1 of the apple is above all things?”

I think I understand what you are saying about submission. You seem to be saying, “Either there is one apple. Period. That apple guides you to submit to Him (forces you?). Or: There are three different apples who can choose not to submit at any given moment. Therefore, there would be no one apple in charge.” Is that right?

But I still don't know if those are the only two scenarios. What if, again, the choice was there but never exercised? What if the slices of apple could all, at any given moment, choose to do their own thing, but never made that choice? Wouldn't that make absolute authority a consensual authority between the three slices, with all three acting as one person, in one mind, as it were? All three slices, together, comprising absolute authority?

Aren't we (as many in the body) encouraged to be “of one mind” and “one spirit?” How can this be? How are so many to be of one mind? May we say that this is based upon the example set by a triune God who has the ability to function separately but chooses to function in accord?

I am wondering if our very nature as humans (being so divisive) is getting in the way of embracing such a concept as perfect harmony and submission in a triune God? I'm searching for an analogy that would make a modicum of sense. Hmmmm….

Perhaps just human government would be a good example? Let's take a tribunal. Let's say there are three military commanders about to pass a law or a judgment down to a system or person. After hearing all evidence, they confer together privately until they come to an agreement about what should be done. One of them may announce that “the court” passes such and such ruling. Now it is obvious that all three have had input and yet the term “the court” can easily be used because it implies one-mindedness, unanimity among the members. Is that not the same thing?

I have to take issue with the notion that Jesus never claimed to be God. I think he claimed to be an apple slice. Which necessarily meant he was part of the apple. What verses am I basing that on? “I and the Father are one” would be one. Or, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” I understand that this might go to the “image” issue. In the first mentioned verse, the Greek word (heis) appears to mean the primary numeral: 1. I can't envision any other meaning for that scripture. But, I'm not a Greek scholar at all.

I understand that Jesus spoke PLENTY about the Father. But I don't think that implies that he wasn't a part of the apple. The Father seems to be the name that Jesus calls Slice #1. What did he call slice #2? Son of Man maybe? Jesus? The Christ? What about Slice #3? The Holy Spirit? The Spirit of God?

I'm trying to take in the whole counsel of scripture on this and not look at an isolated thing like semantics. I am trying to look at patterns and understandings about ourselves and God (or the Godhead or whatever). The instructions to the church are speaking pretty heavily to me that there is either a duality or triuneness in God. Simply because we are so often encouraged to be one body, many parts. It seems that the Lord is trying to tell us that many can function (nay, should function) as one.

These are just my initial thoughts. Sorry about all the analogies. That's how I best understand things.

[frankandcathy]

Lightenup: Thank you! I am going to have to chew on all of those ideas for awhile!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (frankandcathy @ June 28 2009,01:34)

Ok.  Let me think this through.  I don't want to approach all passages from a trinitarian mindset but want to try to view them openly.   My thoughts go back to the apple analogy.  God is clear that He is sovereign.  But what if he is referring to himself as a triune God, the entire apple in relationship to creation?  What if he is trying to communicate that the 3-in-1 “apple” if you will, is above all things?  Versus, “Slice #1 of the apple is above all things?”   I think I understand what you are saying about submission.  You seem to be saying, “Either there is one apple.  Period.  That apple guides you to submit to Him (forces you?).  Or: There are three different apples who can choose not to submit at any given moment.  Therefore, there would be no one apple in charge.”  Is that right?   But I still don't know if those are the only two scenarios.  What if, again, the choice was there but never exercised?  What if the slices of apple could all, at any given moment, choose to do their own thing, but never made that choice?  Wouldn't that make absolute authority a consensual authority between the three slices, with all three acting as one person, in one mind, as it were?  All three slices, together, comprising absolute authority?   Aren't we (as many in the body) encouraged to be “of one mind” and “one spirit?”  How can this be?  How are so many to be of one mind?  May we say that this is based upon the example set by a triune God who has the ability to function separately but chooses to function in accord?     I am wondering if our very nature as humans (being so divisive) is getting in the way of embracing such a concept as perfect harmony and submission in a triune God?  I'm searching for an analogy that would make a modicum of sense.  Hmmmm…. Perhaps just human government would be a good example?  Let's take a tribunal.  Let's say there are three military commanders about to pass a law or a judgment down to a system or person.  After hearing all evidence, they confer together privately until they come to an agreement about what should be done.  One of them may announce that “the court” passes such and such ruling.  Now it is obvious that all three have had input and yet the term “the court” can easily be used because it implies one-mindedness, unanimity among the members.  Is that not the same thing?   I have to take issue with the notion that Jesus never claimed to be God.  I think he claimed to be an apple slice.  Which necessarily meant he was part of the apple.  What verses am I basing that on?  “I and the Father are one” would be one.  Or, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”  I understand that this might go to the “image” issue.  In the first mentioned verse, the Greek word (heis) appears to mean the primary numeral: 1.  I can't envision any other meaning for that scripture.  But, I'm not a Greek scholar at all.   I understand that Jesus spoke PLENTY about the Father.  But I don't think that implies that he wasn't a part of the apple.  The Father seems to be the name that Jesus calls Slice #1.  What did he call slice #2?  Son of Man maybe?  Jesus?  The Christ?  What about Slice #3?  The Holy Spirit?  The Spirit of God?   I'm trying to take in the whole counsel of scripture on this and not look at an isolated thing like semantics.  I am trying to look at patterns and understandings about ourselves and God (or the Godhead or whatever).  The instructions to the church are speaking pretty heavily to me that there is either a duality or triuneness in God.  Simply because we are so often encouraged to be one body, many parts.  It seems that the Lord is trying to tell us that many can function (nay, should function) as one.   These are just my initial thoughts.  Sorry about all the analogies.  That's how I best understand things.

Hi frankandcathy

Welcome.

Very good points.

WJ

[Not3in1]

Some other very interesting ideas on the Trinity can be found at this site: http://www.truthortradition.com

I don't buy all of their stuff, but they sure have done alot of research and explain things well.

Welcome! And God bless you on your search for truth.

Love,
Mandy

[NickHassan]

Hi F+C,
Welcome.

Why would you offer us a concept of God that is not in the bible?
We do not need to use our imagination to support the foolish traditional teaching of trinity.
Traditions cannot save us but the Son of God and son of man, Jesus, sent by God and filled with God's Spirit can, if we obey and follow him.

“Thy Word is truth” Jn 17

[Cindy]

Quote (bodhitharta @ June 28 2009,17:03)

Quote (frankandcathy @ June 28 2009,16:35) Ok bod (may I call you “bod?”)  I think I'm tracking with you here.  But what about the idea of mutual submission?  Doesn't that address the free will issue?   The equal power thing seems more complicated but I again consider it in terms of voluntary submission.  One example would be when the scriptures tell us that Jesus was in very “form” God but didn't consider that something he should grab onto and not let go of but voluntarily allowed himself to become subject to God, even though he didn't have to.  (That's my loose translation which I'm sure you might take issue with).  It just seems evident to me that in that passage there is a voluntarily, free willingness to submit when he didn't HAVE to.  It seems like it was Jesus' choice and so that seems to address the issue of equal power.   What about the rule by consensus?  Isn't it possible for a triune government to rule by consensus?  Don't we often do that as humans?  Is this impossible for God?   I don't know.  I hope I'm not missing or dodging your main points.  What do you think? You certainly may call me Bod(Bodhitharta is quite alot to write each time) It is possible for a triune government to rule by concensus but God is clear that He is Sovereign and Alone He truly is All-One. Since you agree he didn't have to submit it shows that either there is one God that guides you to submit to Him or there are several gods who can not submit which means there would be no absolute authority and each could create whatever he wanted to create and cause chaos. Jesus  himself never claimed equality with God saying plainly that “the Father is greater I” greater is not equal to. The fact is Jesus said that the Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD but most don't listen to Jesus.

frankandcathy

Listen to Bod, so far he has it right.
You say the Holy Spirit has no name, that is correct because, it is God's Holy Spirit.
Have you ever noticed when Paul writes to the churches he gives thanks only to the Father and Jesus Christ?

Rom. 1:8, – 1 Cor. 1:4, – Phil. 1:3, – Col. 1:3, – 1 Thes. 1:2.

Does it not make you wonder why Paul never thanks the Holy Spirit?
If the Holy Spirit was a person, would the apostle John have said this?

2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Should John not have said “all three”?
There are numerous scriptures in the OT and the NT that say clearly, “God is One God”, there are NO scriptures that say God is three. That doctrine is of the devil.

Georg

[Paladin]

Quote (frankandcathy @ June 28 2009,15:03)

(frankandcathy)

Quote

Ok, I have had doubts about the doctrine of the trinity as we know it since I was a young Christian but haven't given it much thought because, in the end, it doesn't seem to matter much to my faith in Christ.

Have you considered how much it matters to the Father?
His remarks about “having no other Gods before me.”

Or how it matters to his son? John 8:29 “…the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.”

And do you want to be just a worshipper? Or do you want to be a true worshipper? It was Jesus who said; “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” [John 4:23] If Jesus is a second person of a triune God, he missed the perfect opportunity to make it clear.

(F&C)

Quote

However, now that I've stumbled upon all of these discussions, let me throw a question or two out there after reading quite a bit of what has been said. Please keep in mind that I am no theologian, have no seminary degree, but am relatively intelligent. I have always looked at the Trinity like an apple cut into three slices. Each piece is molecularly an apple (not an orange or pear). Each piece, if taken on its own would be called “apple.” Yet all three together are also called “apple.” Are there three pieces? Of course. But they are all apple. Is each piece identical? No. Yet, they are all apple. Is that just too simplistic?

May I digress to make a point? Would you worship applesauce? What about diced apples? Chunked apples? sliced apples? three-partitioned apples? Now, exchange “God” where I have “apple-” and see if it makes a difference.

You see, in your analogy you have forgotten one thing,
“Each piece is molecularly an apple (not an orange or pear)” is not a truthful statement, it is a partially truthful statement.

If you go to the grocery store and purchase a dozen apples, only to get home and find twelve slices of apple, you will soon understand that three slices of apple are not three apples. See the point?

You say “each piece is molecularly an apple” is not true. It is molecularly “apple” is different from “an apple.”

So also, if God is sliced up theologically into three parts, each part is not God, but is a part of God. THAT is where trinity doctrine loses it. They fail to see the analogy you posted so well.

(F&C)

Quote

It doesn't seem a problem to me to call one piece “apple” or two pieces “apple” or the whole thing “apple” unless you are wanting to distinguish between them for a specific purpose. Otherwise, it seems fine to just say, “apple.”

God describes himself as a first-person-singular deity, and demands of hi speople, that they worship him to the exclusion of all other deities. With this demand, come some very important blessings. It is worth it. But He requires that you come to know who it is your are worshipping, as he forbids ignorant worship. So when someone tells you “I will tell you all about God, but you won't understand it because he is infinite and you are finite,” don't believe it. Man is created in the image of infinitude, not finitude.

(F&C)

Quote

Also, (and this was my real beginning of questioning on this topic), what about the Holy Spirit? Why does he seem to play such a minor role in the New Testament? Or does he? Is it just because he doesn't have a name like “Jesus” or “Josh” or something that I think this way?

Excellent question.
Jehovah God, the Father, said in the old testament, concerning the new covenant, “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. 30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.” [Joel 2:28-32]

Then in the New Covenant, Luke expresses it this way: “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” [Acts 2:16-21]

Until and unless someone identifies a Holy Spirit OTHER than God's Spirit shared with his people, there is no 3rd person of a trinity.

(F&C)

Quote

I recognize Pentecost, and the other movements of the Spirit but he just seems like an under-valued player. Have I just been reading scripture wrong? I know that he is supposed to always exalt Jesus so maybe there is a deliberate down-playing? Those who are not trinitarians, what is your view of the Holy Spirit, his essence, his form, his nature, and his work/purpose? What are your thoughts on the in-dwelling in the NT versus the “resting upon” in the OT?

No difference in meaning, only in terminology. One is a translation of the Hebrew, the other is a translation of the Greek.

The Holy Spirit throughout the Old Testament was always sent by God, and most of the time, was referenced as “my spirit.”

(F&C)

Quote

Oh yeah, one more thing. So, if Jesus is not God but is the son of God yet God still chooses to exalt Him above everything else and the fullness dwells in him…so what does that mean practically? Anything? I mean, he would still be Lord (or ruler). We would still be required to believe in him and confess him as ruler. We still pray in his name, right? Does that mean we're not supposed to pray to him but only to God through him? I've seen a lot of theory on the w hat/why but not a lot of “what difference does this make to the average Christian.”

Very good questions.

Jesus is our teacher, example, and older brother (firstborn among many), and as such, guides us to the Father as the object of our worship. We are told to “honor the son even as we honor the Father,” but honor is not worship. We honor the son when we worship the Father, because we do it to please both Father and son. How can we miss?

We reach the throne of God through prayer through Jesus Christ, our mediator, who will provide, along with the Holy Spirit, those things we do not know how to express. did you ever try to express a deeply troubled soul to your maker? Do you remember thinking somehow you were unable to get down to the relaity of what you were feeling? Sometimes, I find myself wishing I could invent sounds that would express my true feelings, because words just won't suffice. Jesus lived among men as a man, and knows what we are feeling, so he can mediate; and the holy Spirit can provide those expressed feelings we cannot, because He knows our hearts.

I appreciate what you are seeking by your questions, and hope you find God in your soul. He seeks such as you but in knowledge, not ignorance. You are certainly on th right track by your questions. I just wish I had a better vessel of clay to carry the answers to you.

[KangarooJack]

Georg said:

Quote

frankandcathy Listen to Bod, so far he has it right. You say the Holy Spirit has no name, that is correct because, it is God's Holy Spirit. Have you ever noticed when Paul writes to the churches he gives thanks only to the Father and Jesus Christ?

But Bod said:

Quote

Don't blame me if the Bible is not consistent the Quran says that it has been tampered with, so which is true can you see the face of God and live or not?

Then Bod said:

Quote

But thats Paul for you using Guile to great effect. When Jesus quotes the OT he tells you what prophet said it and how it applies Paul was not quoting a Prophet and he doesn't tell you where it came from giving the impression that “God said”

Bod claims that the Quran finds fault with the Jewish Scriptures and that Paul used guile in his writings. Yet Georg advises newbies to listen to him. Go figure.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2009,04:05)

frankandcathy,June wrote: [/quote] (frankandcathy) Quote Ok, I have had doubts about the doctrine of the trinity as we know it since I was a young Christian but haven't given it much thought because, in the end, it doesn't seem to matter much to my faith in Christ. Have you considered how much it matters to the Father? His remarks about “having no other Gods before me.” Or how it matters to his son? John 8:29 “…the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” And do you want to be just a worshipper? Or do you want to be a true worshipper? It was Jesus who said;  “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” [John 4:23] If Jesus is a second person of a triune God, he missed the perfect opportunity to make it clear. (F&C) Quote However, now that I've stumbled upon all of these discussions, let me throw a question or two out there after reading quite a bit of what has been said. Please keep in mind that I am no theologian, have no seminary degree, but am relatively intelligent.   I have always looked at the Trinity like an apple cut into three slices.  Each piece is molecularly an apple (not an orange or pear).  Each piece, if taken on its own would be called “apple.”  Yet all three together are also called “apple.”  Are there three pieces?  Of course.  But they are all apple.  Is each piece identical?  No.  Yet, they are all apple.  Is that just too simplistic?   May I digress to make a point? Would you worship applesauce? What about diced apples? Chunked apples? sliced apples? three-partitioned apples? Now, exchange “God” where I have “apple-” and see if it makes a difference. You see, in your analogy you have forgotten one thing, “Each piece is molecularly an apple (not an orange or pear)” is not a truthful statement, it is a partially truthful statement. If you go to the grocery store and purchase a dozen apples, only to get home and find twelve slices of apple, you will soon understand that three slices of apple are not three apples. See the point? You say “each piece is molecularly an apple” is not true. It  is molecularly “apple” is different from “an apple.” So also, if God is sliced up theologically into three parts, each part is not God, but is a part of God. THAT is where trinity doctrine loses it. They fail to see the analogy you posted so well. (F&C) Quote  It doesn't seem a problem to me to call one piece “apple” or two pieces “apple” or the whole thing “apple” unless you are wanting to distinguish between them for a specific purpose.  Otherwise, it seems fine to just say, “apple.”   God describes himself as a first-person-singular deity, and demands of hi speople, that they worship him to the exclusion of all other deities. With this demand, come some very important blessings. It is worth it. But He requires that you come to know who it is your are worshipping, as he forbids ignorant worship. So when someone tells you “I will tell you all about God, but you won't understand it because he is infinite and you are finite,” don't believe it. Man is created in the image of infinitude, not finitude. (F&C) Quote  Also, (and this was my real beginning of questioning on this topic), what about the Holy Spirit?  Why does he seem to play such a minor role in the New Testament?  Or does he?  Is it just because he doesn't have a name like “Jesus” or “Josh” or something that I think this way?   Excellent question. Jehovah God, the Father, said in the old testament, concerning the new covenant,  “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. 30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.” [Joel 2:28-32] Then in the New Covenant, Luke expresses it this way: “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” [Acts 2:16-21] Until and unless someone identifies a Holy Spirit OTHER than God's Spirit shared with his people, there is no 3rd person of a trinity. (F&C) Quote I recognize Pentecost, and the other movements of the Spirit but he just seems like an under-valued player.  Have I just been reading scripture wrong?  I know that he is supposed to always exalt Jesus so maybe there is a deliberate down-playing?  Those who are not trinitarians, what is your view of the Holy Spirit, his essence, his form, his nature, and his work/purpose?  What are your thoughts on the in-dwelling in the NT versus the “resting upon” in the OT?   No difference in meaning, only in terminology. One is a translation of the Hebrew, the other is a translation of the Greek. The Holy Spirit throughout the Old Testament was always sent by God, and most of the time, was referenced as “my spirit.” (F&C) Quote Oh yeah, one more thing.  So, if Jesus is not God but is the son of God yet God still chooses to exalt Him above everything else and the fullness dwells in him…so what does that mean practically?  Anything?   I mean, he would still be Lord (or ruler).  We would still be required to believe in him and confess him as ruler.  We still pray in his name, right?  Does that mean we're not supposed to pray to him but only to God through him?  I've seen a lot of theory on the what/why but not a lot of “what difference does this make to the average Christian.”   Very good questions. Jesus is our teacher, example, and older brother (firstborn among many), and as such, guides us to the Father as the object of our worship. We are told to “honor the son even as we honor the Father,” but honor is not worship. We honor the son when we worship the Father, because we do it to please both Father and son. How can we miss? We reach the throne of God through prayer through Jesus Christ, our mediator, who will provide, along with the Holy Spirit, those things we do not know how to express. did you ever try to express a deeply troubled soul to your maker? Do you remember thinking somehow you were unable to get down to the relaity of what you were feeling? Sometimes, I find myself wishing I could invent sounds that would express my true feelings, because words just won't suffice. Jesus lived among men as a man, and knows what we are feeling, so he can mediate; and the holy Spirit can provide those expressed feelings we cannot, because He knows our hearts. I appreciate what you are seeking by your questions, and hope you find God in your soul. He seeks such as you but in knowledge, not ignorance. You are certainly on th right track by your questions. I just wish I had a better vessel of clay to carry the answers to you.

Hi P,
Jesus is for us the source of the water swelling up to eternal life. That water, the Spirit of life, is the enabling power of God to follow Jesus. It is not a mere intellectual process. Seek first the kingdom for there is found rebirth from above.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (frankandcathy @ June 28 2009,17:34)

Ok.  Let me think this through.  I don't want to approach all passages from a trinitarian mindset but want to try to view them openly.   My thoughts go back to the apple analogy.  God is clear that He is sovereign.  But what if he is referring to himself as a triune God, the entire apple in relationship to creation?  What if he is trying to communicate that the 3-in-1 “apple” if you will, is above all things?  Versus, “Slice #1 of the apple is above all things?”   I think I understand what you are saying about submission.  You seem to be saying, “Either there is one apple.  Period.  That apple guides you to submit to Him (forces you?).  Or: There are three different apples who can choose not to submit at any given moment.  Therefore, there would be no one apple in charge.”  Is that right?   But I still don't know if those are the only two scenarios.  What if, again, the choice was there but never exercised?  What if the slices of apple could all, at any given moment, choose to do their own thing, but never made that choice?  Wouldn't that make absolute authority a consensual authority between the three slices, with all three acting as one person, in one mind, as it were?  All three slices, together, comprising absolute authority?   Aren't we (as many in the body) encouraged to be “of one mind” and “one spirit?”  How can this be?  How are so many to be of one mind?  May we say that this is based upon the example set by a triune God who has the ability to function separately but chooses to function in accord?     I am wondering if our very nature as humans (being so divisive) is getting in the way of embracing such a concept as perfect harmony and submission in a triune God?  I'm searching for an analogy that would make a modicum of sense.  Hmmmm…. Perhaps just human government would be a good example?  Let's take a tribunal.  Let's say there are three military commanders about to pass a law or a judgment down to a system or person.  After hearing all evidence, they confer together privately until they come to an agreement about what should be done.  One of them may announce that “the court” passes such and such ruling.  Now it is obvious that all three have had input and yet the term “the court” can easily be used because it implies one-mindedness, unanimity among the members.  Is that not the same thing?   I have to take issue with the notion that Jesus never claimed to be God.  I think he claimed to be an apple slice.  Which necessarily meant he was part of the apple.  What verses am I basing that on?  “I and the Father are one” would be one.  Or, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”  I understand that this might go to the “image” issue.  In the first mentioned verse, the Greek word (heis) appears to mean the primary numeral: 1.  I can't envision any other meaning for that scripture.  But, I'm not a Greek scholar at all.   I understand that Jesus spoke PLENTY about the Father.  But I don't think that implies that he wasn't a part of the apple.  The Father seems to be the name that Jesus calls Slice #1.  What did he call slice #2?  Son of Man maybe?  Jesus?  The Christ?  What about Slice #3?  The Holy Spirit?  The Spirit of God?   I'm trying to take in the whole counsel of scripture on this and not look at an isolated thing like semantics.  I am trying to look at patterns and understandings about ourselves and God (or the Godhead or whatever).  The instructions to the church are speaking pretty heavily to me that there is either a duality or triuneness in God.  Simply because we are so often encouraged to be one body, many parts.  It seems that the Lord is trying to tell us that many can function (nay, should function) as one.   These are just my initial thoughts.  Sorry about all the analogies.  That's how I best understand things.

Hi F&C,

Consider the fact that Jesus says “My Father is greater than me”

and then consider”Me and the Father are one”

What we can see is that there is unity of purpose but not unity in persons.

If we say that God is greater than God then obviously the ONLY TRUE GOD would be the greater and since there is ONLY ONE GOD there cannot be a lessor and hence there is no God but One.

(39) If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
( سورة الأنبياء , Al-Anbiya, Chapter #21, Verse #22)

We are not told of other scenarios because “The Lord God is One” Not the lords Gods are one or the “lords called God” but “The LORD GOD is ONE GOD” and He is Sovereign

(1) Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #255)

(25) And thou wilt see the angels surrounding the throne (Divine) on all sides, singing Glory and Praise to their Lord. The Decision between them (at Judgment) will be in (perfect) justice, and the cry (on all sides) will be, “Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!”
( سورة الزمر , Az-Zumar, Chapter #39, Verse #75)

(26) Those who sustain the throne (of Allah. and those around it Sing Glory and Praise to their Lord; believe in Him; and implore Forgiveness for those who believe: “Our Lord! Thy Reach is over all things, in Mercy and Knowledge. Forgive, then, those who turn in Repentance, and follow Thy Path; and preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire!
( سورة غافر , Ghafir, Chapter #40, Verse #7)

(27) Raised high above ranks (or degrees), (He is) the Lord of the throne (of Authority): by His Command doth He send the Spirit (of inspiration) to any of His servants he pleases, that it may warn (men) of the Day of Mutual Meeting,-
( سورة غافر , Ghafir, Chapter #40, Verse #15)

[bodhitharta]

Quote (thethinker @ June 29 2009,05:11)

Georg said: Quote frankandcathy Listen to Bod, so far he has it right. You say the Holy Spirit has no name, that is correct because, it is God's Holy Spirit. Have you ever noticed when Paul writes to the churches he gives thanks only to the Father and Jesus Christ? But Bod said: Quote Don't blame me if the Bible is not consistent the Quran says that it has been tampered with, so which is true can you see the face of God and live or not? Then Bod said: Quote But thats Paul for you using Guile to great effect. When Jesus quotes the OT he tells you what prophet said it and how it applies Paul was not quoting a Prophet and he doesn't tell you where it came from giving the impression that “God said” Bod claims that the Quran finds fault with the Jewish Scriptures and that Paul used guile in his writings. Yet Georg advises newbies to listen to him. Go figure. thinker

I have shown on another thread that the Bible agrees with the Quran that the scribes have lied and tampered with the words of God, so if you don't believe the Quran then believe The Holy Bible itself.

If I get later edition software and it points out a virus got in my previous software and identifies it, should I say that the new software is bad or simply adjust my view of the old software.

God is Great perhaps he allowed the former to be contaminated to demonstrate the truth of the Latter.

Isn't that what happened with Adam and Jesus

[NickHassan]

Hi BD,
You give lip service to the Lord Jesus and the Holy Scriptures only so you can give some sense of credibility to your poor offerings.
Man's words are folly.

[Cindy]

Quote (thethinker @ June 29 2009,05:11)

Georg said: Quote frankandcathy Listen to Bod, so far he has it right. You say the Holy Spirit has no name, that is correct because, it is God's Holy Spirit. Have you ever noticed when Paul writes to the churches he gives thanks only to the Father and Jesus Christ? But Bod said: Quote Don't blame me if the Bible is not consistent the Quran says that it has been tampered with, so which is true can you see the face of God and live or not? Then Bod said: Quote But thats Paul for you using Guile to great effect. When Jesus quotes the OT he tells you what prophet said it and how it applies Paul was not quoting a Prophet and he doesn't tell you where it came from giving the impression that “God said” Bod claims that the Quran finds fault with the Jewish Scriptures and that Paul used guile in his writings. Yet Georg advises newbies to listen to him. Go figure. thinker

thinker

You are a deceiver, and a liar, not to mention a fraud. You include quotes in your post that you know very well I was not referring too; in fact they are from another thread.
HOW DARE YOU?

Georg

[TrinitarianCalvinist27]

Hello everyone!

I am new to this site, and I have been reading the conversation about whethor or not Christ is God. I will say this. To deny that Christ is God, is to deny Christianity. There are many places in Scripture that specifically show us that Christ and the Father are one. To deny this is to deny Christ's true identity.

Example # 1:

Isaiah 60:16 states: “You will drink the milk of nations and be nursed at royal breasts. Then you will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

Titus 1:4 states: “To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.”        

 ~The key word in these two verses is “Savior.” In the Isaiah verse, God the Almighty is being referred to as Savior. However, Jesus Christ is called Savior in the Titus verse. How then can there be two saviors if there is only one God. This can only mean that Jesus is God because the Bible would otherwise contradict itself. Jesus is God existing in a different person to fulfill a different purpose.

Example # 2:

Genesis 49:24 states: “But his bow remains steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel.”

John 10: 11, 16 states : “I [Jesus] am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”
     
~ They key word in these passages is “shepherd.” In the John verse, Jesus clearly states that he is the good shepherd and that there is to be only ONE shepherd. However, we see that God is referred to as the Shepherd in Genesis. Either the Bible is lying when it says that there is to be one shepherd, or Jesus is God.

Example #3:

Exodus 3:14 states: “God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' This is what you are to say to the Israelites, 'I AM has sent me to you.' “

John 8:58 states:” 'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!' “

 ~ Here we see the key words being “I AM.” God calls himself by the same name in Genesis, that Jesus calls himself in John. Also, if Jesus was fully man and not God at all, how could he possibly have existed before the time of Abraham? The verse in John clearly states that he existed BEFORE the time of Abraham which can only mean he is God because a man would not live that long, especially since we know the human birth of Jesus took place long after the death of Abraham. Jesus existed outside of the human body in which he came to Earth.

These are just a few examples that I pulled together, and there are MANY more in Scripture that support the true identity of Christ, which is God.

TC27

[NickHassan]

Hi and welcome TC,
Scripture says God was in Christ.[2Cor5.19]

Does that mean the trinity was in him?

That makes 4.

God can also be in us. [Eph 3.19, Phil 2.13]

Does that make us God as well?

Study of scripture shows that Trinity is of man not scripture.
There is no trinity taught there.

[Author]

Posts