The Trinity Doctrine

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 02 2008,18:07)

But David, We are not made in the image of Jesus, we are made in the image of God. God himself said that he was ALONE when he laid the foundations of the world.  ALONE!  If Jesus was there, he sure didn't get any credit.  God said that with his own hand he marked out and laid the foundations. Mandy

Is the woman the image or glory of the man?
Is the woman the image of God or glory of God too?

1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

I certainly wouldn't rule out that we are made in the image of Christ. After all, that doesn't rule out that we are made in the image of God. An image of the image is still an image of the original too.

But certainly we are being transformed into his likeness and we will be like him and he will call us brothers.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (dirtyknections @ Sep. 05 2008,13:23)

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 05 2008,11:27) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 05 2008,07:28) Creating something “through” another person doesn't necessarily mean that person has to have a physical part in the creating.  I've created a lot of things through my children before they were even alive!! Love, Mandy A good example of that could be the creation of Eve through or from Adam. Adam didn't actually do anything, but within his genes God made a woman. Similarly, we are born through woman. When God created all through his son, he also did it for him. John 1:3-4 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. but this difference in the example you cite is that…Adam WAS ALIVE WHEN EVE WAS MADE…and SO WAS CHRIST

Yes. I am not disputing that.

In fact that was the point.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 05 2008,22:23)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 05 2008,18:31) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 05 2008,11:27) When God created all through his son, he also did it for him. If Jesus took part in the creating as some believe, then it wasn't just God doing it “for him”…….Jesus had to help.   Right? Thanks, Mandy Greetings Mandy……Gods word,by which,he created all things(eg.Let there Be Light,etc.)became Jesus…Nothing is impossible with God….John describes and chronicles the existance of Jesus through his description of Jesus' transition from the Word to the Flesh and says plainly that The Word was God,and was With God and became flesh…The Word is the means by which God created….He simply said it and it was….IMO

theodorej……..you have a point , but remember Jesus said the words were not his words. what do we do about that then.

peace to you and yours………gene

[NickHassan]

WJ,
Is it necessary to believe God is a trinity to be in the Body of Christ?

If it is not necessary is it helpful to unity to teach what is not written?

If it is not helpful why do you cling to the traditional teachings of men?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 26 2008,13:35)

WJ, Is it necessary to believe God is a trinity to be in the Body of Christ? If it is not necessary is it helpful to unity to teach what is not written? If it is not helpful why do you cling to the traditional teachings of men?

NH

Is it necessary to believe Yeshua is not God to be in the body of Christ.

I believe he is the Son of the Father and is God just as I believe that being a son of my Father makes me human.

Why do you seperate yourself from the confession of the Apostles and the Church to teach Yeshua is not God?

WJ

[NickHassan]

WJ,
Sorry but I missed your answers.
Are you a human son of God?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 26 2008,13:39)

Is it necessary to believe Yeshua is not God to be in the body of Christ. I believe he is the Son of the Father and is God just as I believe that being a son of my Father makes me human. Why do you seperate yourself from the confession of the Apostles and the Church to teach Yeshua is not God? WJ

Jesus built his Church on the truth that he is the son of God and the messiah. A few hundred years later, men decide that the foundation or creed of the church is the Trinity doctrine.

As people who believe in God, we can decide to believe what Jesus said, or we can believe the contrary from what certain men said later on. i.e., Jesus is God himself.

Paul even warns people that deceivers will come after he is dead and they will deceive many. We are also told of a great falling away.

But I will stand by the truth that Jesus is the son of God. No one is going to sway me away from the words of my lord if I can help it.

[charity]

part2 Adam CLAIMED he was the first Son OF GOD?

[Admin]

This discussion has been closed due to it reaching 1000 pages. Big discussions are slow to load and for that reason, they continue in a new discussion identified as (Part 2) etc. Part 2 resides at the top of the forum page due to being a popular topic. Part 1 and 2 are linked in the first and last posts.

[Admin]

Discussion has reached 10000 posts.

See Trinity (Part 2) for the sequel

Or feel free to read the posts in this discussion.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 01 2006,10:16)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,12:57) Note: Nowhere in Scripture is God defined as one Person, but rather as one Being: mono (from monos, meaning, alone or only one) and theism (from theos, meaning, God). Oneness adherents wrongly assume that the word one when referring to God (e.g., Deut. 6:4) has the strict denotative meaning of absolute solitude. To epistemaniac Haven't had time to read your post yet, but I did see the above quote. When you address a person you say 'him' or 'he'. When you address a group of people or a family, you address them as 'they' or 'them'. Therefore when you address your God, you should address them correctly as 'them' or 'they' should you not? In my family there are 3. I am the Father, and I have a son. But no one would refer to all of us as 'him' or 'his' or 'he'. Even if in nature we are all the same. Even if I am one flesh with my wife. In the scriptures God is referred to as 'him' and 'he'. But your God is 'they' and 'them'. Doesn't sound like the same God to me.

here is a clue for you, God is not a human the way we are…

here is a phrase for you, “sui generis”….

… and it means “one of a kind” or “the only one of its kind”….. this definitely fits God wouldn't you say? So you really can't expect human conventions and language to have a 1 to 1 correspondence… so just because you or I may refer to a human family in a certain way, it does not follow that I must therefore refer to God in the same way. The dictionary says of “they” …. “a. Used to refer to people in general.
b. Used to refer to people in general as seen in a position of authority.”
Now, since God is not “people”, I am not compelled by the English language to refer to God as a “they”, and, as I previously mentioned God is both singular and plural, one in essence, three in person, so “they” does not quite work, because of God's singular nature…. “he” (or other singular pronouns) works when referring to particular members of the Trinity, though probably the best way to refer to God is by calling God “God” or “the Triune Godhead” or “the Trinity”. In any case, we are back to God being sui generis, and referring to with human terms, when God is not human (not human alone of course when we are speaking of the God-Man Jesus Christ) is a matter of pure convention, we run in to the limitations of human language when trying to refer to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who is above our understanding and comprehension.

Now if you can get over your rather strange compulsion over step your bounds of authority to attempt to try and dictate to me how I must speak or write when referring to God, that would be nice.

blessings,
Ken

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
No trinity is found in scripture.
What possible validity can such a theory have?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 26 2008,13:39)

NH Is it necessary to believe Yeshua is not God to be in the body of Christ. I believe he is the Son of the Father and is God just as I believe that being a son of my Father makes me human. Why do you seperate yourself from the confession of the Apostles and the Church to teach Yeshua is not God? WJ

OK, so if we are sons, and we will be like Jesus in that he will be our brother, and we can partake in divine nature, then according to your thinking and if you are consistent, your conclusion would point to us being God or YHWH.

I know you don't hold to that, just pointing out the double standards / contradictions in your belief system WJ.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 09 2008,14:31)

here is a clue for you, God is not a human the way we are… here is a phrase for you, “sui generis”…. … and it means “one of a kind” or “the only one of its kind”….. this definitely fits God wouldn't you say? So you really can't expect human conventions and language to have a 1 to 1 correspondence… so just because you or I may refer to a human family in a certain way, it does not follow that I must therefore refer to God in the same way. The dictionary says of “they” …. “a.  Used to refer to people in general. b. Used to refer to people in general as seen in a position of authority.” Now, since God is not “people”, I am not compelled by the English language to refer to God as a “they”, and, as I previously mentioned God is both singular and plural, one in essence, three in person, so “they” does not quite work, because of God's singular nature…. “he” (or other singular pronouns) works when referring to particular members of the Trinity, though probably the best way to refer to God is by calling God “God” or “the Triune Godhead” or “the Trinity”. In any case, we are back to God being sui generis, and referring to with human terms, when God is not human (not human alone of course when we are speaking of the God-Man Jesus Christ) is a matter of pure convention, we run in to the limitations of human language when trying to refer to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who is above our understanding and comprehension. Now if you can get over your rather strange compulsion over step your bounds of authority to attempt to try and dictate to me how I must speak or write when referring to God, that would be nice. blessings, Ken

Hi Ken.

I am not saying you need to be dictated to, I am pointing out that 3 persons in English is “them”, not “him”. Unless of course you want to speak roolly rooly bad englush. But your grammar teacher at school would mark you down for calling 3 persons “him”.

[Lightenup]

WJ,

Quote

Is it necessary to believe Yeshua is not God to be in the body of Christ. I believe he is the Son of the Father and is God just as I believe that being a son of my Father makes me human. Why do you seperate yourself from the confession of the Apostles and the Church to teach Yeshua is not God? WJ

I thought that you believe that the Son of God became a son when He was conceived by a father AND a mother. The Father was of one nature (God) the mother was of another nature (human). The combination of two natures does not either make a pure human or a pure God in nature. Like when you cross a donkey with a horse you do not get a little donkey and you do not get a little horse, you get a mule. Neither do you get a demi-donkey or a demi-horse but a mule, something unique.

I believe that the Son existed in the nature of God before creation and that which was conceived in Mary was the body and not the nature for He already had a nature. The expression of His Godly nature took on the limits of a body of a baby, no memory of the past, and no abilities except to eat, drink, eliminate, cry and squirm.

LU

[Proclaimer]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 02 2006,10:02)

so let me ask you Nick, is Jesus a false god or a true god?

Let me ask you E.

Is an angel of God a false spirit or a true Spirit?

If you can answer that, then I will give you an answer to your question.

Ephesians 4:4
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—

Hebrews 1:14
Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

[Lightenup]

Good point t8,
LU

[Not3in1]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 10 2008,11:58)

WJ, Quote Is it necessary to believe Yeshua is not God to be in the body of Christ. I believe he is the Son of the Father and is God just as I believe that being a son of my Father makes me human. Why do you seperate yourself from the confession of the Apostles and the Church to teach Yeshua is not God? WJ I thought that you believe that the Son of God became a son when He was conceived by a father AND a mother.  The Father was of one nature (God) the mother was of another nature (human).  The combination of two natures does not either make a pure human or a pure God in nature.  Like when you cross a donkey with a horse you do not get a little donkey and you do not get a little horse, you get a mule.  Neither do you get a demi-donkey or a demi-horse but a mule, something unique. I believe that the Son existed in the nature of God before creation and that which was conceived in Mary was the body and not the nature for He already had a nature.  The expression of His Godly nature took on the limits of a body of a baby, no memory of the past, and no abilities except to eat, drink, eliminate, cry and squirm. LU

Hey Keith,

Is it fair to say that when you say “God” here you are referring to the divine nature and the not the person of God (i.e., the Father)?

Because you say:  I believe he is the Son of the Father and is God just as I believe that being a son of my Father makes me human.

Likewise then:  The son is divine because God is divine.  You are human because your father is human.

Do I have this correct?

Kathi, I believe you are correct when you logically say that when you cross two natures or things/beings you will get a unique result.  This makes perfect sense.

However, when you reduce (imo) Jesus to a preexisting being who is merely transfered into the womb of Mary (not actually conceived and taking on her DNA/attributes because this would change what was placed inside of her into a “unique” being), you say too little of Christ humanity.

There are two schools of thought here, those who place too much on Christ's divinity and thus make him God only regardless of Mary's contribution AND those who place too little on Christ's divinity and thus make him completely human regardless of the Father's contribution.

[Lightenup]

Hi Mandy,
I think that God could take something of one nature and bring about the nature of man because He did that in Adam. Adam isn't said to have a nature of dust. Likewise, I believe that God could place the nature of His Holy One into a human body. I am not saying that this was absolutely the case with Jesus, just that it is possible for God to do.

I think that one of His purposes of not having an earthly man impregnate Mary was to avoid the curse of sin and also prepare a holy body for the Messiah so that the sacrifice could be holy and blameless and unblemished. I really don't think that God was so concerned about DNA or genes that gave Him a natural talent to sing or play a trumpet or dark skin or light skin, a big nose or a round face. He was concerned that her DNA was from Jewish blood lines though. His emphasis was to prepare a body that was without blemish and holy and could shed blood. Another purpose for Mary to conceive by the Holy Spirit was to continue to be His natural father. IMO God gave Mary the position of being the mother of the promised Messiah. She wasn't worried about superficial things like whether or not He would look like her or have her natural talents. Her natural appearance and talents aren't anywhere listed. God chose her because she was a virgin, had the right blood lines between her and Joseph, and she found favor with God. This is what she was thrilled about (note, she says nothing about hoping Jesus was like her uniqueness.)

Luke 1:46-55

And Mary said:

” My soul exalts the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 “For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;
For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.
49 “For the Mighty One has done great things for me;
And holy is His name.
50 “AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION
TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM.
51 ” He has done mighty deeds with His arm;
He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart.
52 “He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.
53 “HE HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS;
And sent away the rich empty-handed.
54 “He has given help to Israel His servant,
In remembrance of His mercy,
55 As He spoke to our fathers,
To Abraham and his descendants forever.”
NASU

Mandy, I think that you are way more concerned about what Mary contributed to Jesus than even she was. Keep the main things, the main things. Don't sweat the small stuff. Mary didn't.

Scriptures tell us that the Son of God existed in the nature of God and took on the form of man. I don't believe that it tells us that He exchanged His nature of God for the nature of man. Maybe I'm wrong here but I haven't found it said specifically that He had the nature of man.

Love,
Kathi

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
You say
'Adam isn't said to have a nature of dust. “
But scripture says
Gen3
'19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. '
??

[Author]

Posts