The Problem With The Trinity

[oldhermit]

I don't even think God is limited to this physical relm so why would I believe he is limited by time and space?

Do you believe God can come to earth as a man and not have to leave heaven to do it?

 

[ScottA]

So are you three persons yet one man or are you one man who manifests himself in different modes?

Yes.

 

[FHII]

Do you believe God can come to earth as a man and not have to leave heaven to do it?

Where are you going with this? I'm not much of a fan of answering a bunch of questions. Tell me what you have to say.

 

[bbyrd009]

you might all list the fruit of this doctrine of "Trinity," see where that goes. I found it revealing. Also got me banned from a site tho lol. And i was, like, as obsequious as Dattaswami and everything, while being called every name in the book, everyone turned BoL and everything.

Truth is not always pleasant i guess, and you are called to judge by the fruit tho. I'll start.

Below is the list of all of the fruit that i can witness about the doctrine of "Trinity:"

 

[oldhermit]

Where are you going with this? I'm not much of a fan of answering a bunch of questions. Tell me what you have to say.

What I am trying to get you to consider is the fact that the presence of Jesus in the flesh did not rob heaven of the presence of God. Jesus still prayed to the Father. Both the Holy Spirit and the Father bore witness to Jesus as the Son of God at the baptism of Jesus. All three triadic positions are here represented at the same time in this one event. Divine triadic function is a harmonic, an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God. Scripture reveals God as functioning in a triad of function. If you draw a simple triangle with the lower left point representing the first position of deity - the Father, which also represents the unseen realm of God, the lower right point as representing the second position - the Son, who in the flesh represents the visible world of man, and the top of the triangle representing the third position - the Holy Spirit who is always seen functioning in scripture as the linking agent between the worlds of the seen and the unseen then you can see how this triadic function takes shape.

 

[bbyrd009]

a much healthier perspective imo. understand why it will not supplant the doctrine of trinity for the Jesus Cult though.

you might all list the fruit of this doctrine of "Trinity," see where that goes. I found it revealing. Also got me banned from a site tho lol. And i was, like, as obsequious as Dattaswami and everything, while being called every name in the book, everyone turned BoL and everything.

Truth is not always pleasant i guess, and you are called to judge by the fruit tho. I'll start.

Below is the list of all of the fruit that i can witness about the doctrine of "Trinity:"

"division"

 

[lforrest]

a much healthier perspective imo. understand why it will not supplant the doctrine of trinity for the Jesus Cult though.

"division"

I see no conflicts between that in the Trinity. The Trinity defines their 'personage' not their roles.

Division is sometimes inevitable. Jesus did say he would bring a sword.

 

[oldhermit]

I see no conflicts between that in the Trinity. The Trinity defines their 'personage' not their roles.

Division is sometimes inevitable. Jesus did say he would bring a sword.

It defines not only their individuality but their individual function as well. These three distinct functions involve intelligent design, active cause, and organization. Let us consider each of these in terms of his respective position within the triadic structure and for the moment, refer to each member according to his respective functional position within the triad. I use the idea of position simply to show the functional relationship that each appears to have with the others and to define the role that each has within the triad. The First Position will always appear as the one who represents the idea or the planning. This is also the position of command. The Second Position will always be the avenue of communication between the two worlds as well as the causative agent. He will be the one who gives substance to the idea of the First Position. He takes what is abstract (the idea) and gives it form and substance. The Third Position will always serve as the linking agent. He is the one who brings order to the work of the Second Position. He organizes the work of the Second Position so that it conforms exactly to the idea of the First Position. In other words, he shapes a finished product.

The positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my studies in scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic. (If anyone can show me an example in scripture to the contrary, then I stand corrected). There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.

 

[bbyrd009]

I see no conflicts between that in the Trinity. The Trinity defines their 'personage' not their roles.

Division is sometimes inevitable. Jesus did say he would bring a sword.

i mean division of the Body, and the "conflict" is not within the trinity doctrine--well, except that Jesus is not God, of course--the conflict is in our interactions with others in the Body who do not hold to trinity doctrine. It is the "fruit" of the doctrine from my obseervation. Got any other fruit to witness from it? Let's hear it!

 

[lforrest]

i mean division of the Body, and the "conflict" is not within the trinity doctrine--well, except that Jesus is not God, of course--the conflict is in our interactions with others in the Body who do not hold to trinity doctrine. It is the "fruit" of the doctrine from my obseervation. Got any other fruit to witness from it? Let's hear it!

It speaks of the divinity of Jesus Christ as Lord which is essential for salvation. While maintaining that there is one God.

 

[bbyrd009]

It speaks of the divinity of Jesus Christ as Lord which is essential for salvation.

to you, perhaps, but that is just an opinion, and you cannot quote Christ saying it, He called Himself Son of Man, etc., so while that is the cover story, it is not "fruit," because Jesus' divinity is what it is regardless of your belief, right. "Fruit" is the produce of the doctrine; what does the doctrine produce iow. And you already said it, @ "it speaks." It is a speech, made by some guys, not Scripture. What is the fruit of this speech? But division?

So regardless of the validity of the doctrine--which is questionable--in practice it is revealed as a method to discredit other interpretations, and a way to insist that (your) understanding of Jesus as God be enforced. It is a way to justify drone-bombing Muslims, that goes hand in hand with the doctrine of Original Sin (as opposed to the Law of sin and death) to make it ok for "Christians," who anyone must admit runs the world right now, to oppress everyone else.

• "The harm that has been done to souls during the centuries of Christianity, first by the literal interpretation of the story of Adam, and then by the confusion of this myth, treated as history, with later speculations, principally Augustinian, about Original Sin, will never be adequately told."
  Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil
• "Throughout Christian history the conviction that man's birthright is sin has encouraged an unrealistic acceptance of remediable social evils, or even a callousness about human suffering. It helps to explain the easy acceptance of slavery and serfdom, and a record of religious atrocity unmatched by any other religion."
• • Professor Herbert J. Muller

 

[lforrest]

to you, perhaps, but that is just an opinion, and you cannot quote Christ saying it, He called Himself Son of Man, etc., so while that is the cover story, it is not "fruit," because Jesus' divinity is what it is regardless of your belief, right. "Fruit" is the produce of the doctrine; what does the doctrine produce iow. And you already said it, @ "it speaks." It is a speech, made by some guys, not Scripture. What is the fruit of this speech? But division?

So regardless of the validity of the doctrine--which is questionable--in practice it is revealed as a method to discredit other interpretations, and a way to insist that (your) understanding of Jesus as God be enforced. It is a way to justify drone-bombing Muslims, that goes hand in hand with the doctrine of Original Sin (as opposed to the Law of sin and death) to make it ok for "Christians," who anyone must admit runs the world right now, to oppress everyone else.

• "The harm that has been done to souls during the centuries of Christianity, first by the literal interpretation of the story of Adam, and then by the confusion of this myth, treated as history, with later speculations, principally Augustinian, about Original Sin, will never be adequately told."
  Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil
• "Throughout Christian history the conviction that man's birthright is sin has encouraged an unrealistic acceptance of remediable social evils, or even a callousness about human suffering. It helps to explain the easy acceptance of slavery and serfdom, and a record of religious atrocity unmatched by any other religion."
• • Professor Herbert J. Muller

Eternal life is at stake, I think that is a fruit worthy of mention.

Drone-bombing Muslims is a red herring. A secular government is bombing some Muslims for their atrocities. We aren't bombing Buddhists, or Atheists, or Hindus, or anyone else not taking innocent lives. We would have invaded North Korea if the repercussions weren't so serious.

It is also a false correlation to blame all problems on the doctrine of the trinity just because it is held by the Christians in control.

 

[bbyrd009]

Eternal life is at stake, I think that is a fruit worthy of mention.

that is your opinion, and i am not trying to contest that, understand, but that is not a "fruit" of trinity doctrine, practically speaking, and i guess we maybe need a mutually agreeable def of "fruit" here. Not to mention that i doubt our def of "eternal" is the same anyway. Personally i am pretty sure that it is not a salvational issue anyway, meaning "Eternal life" is not at stake.

Drone-bombing Muslims is a red herring.

again, that is your opinion, and after all that is all that was, is my opinion. Well, and others; so i suggest that it prolly has some truth in it, it is a popular pov, and quickly gaining more adherents, and if you are an American possibly worth considering.

It is also a false correlation to blame all problems on the doctrine of the trinity just because it is held by the Christians in control.

maybe, maybe not, but i am persuaded that it has more validity than most would care to admit. Of course there are also people who seek to serve God in our government, too, surely.

 

[101G]

We know that the tree is real because light rays projected off the object create an exact image of that object in our sensorium. This icon is then projected onto the cerebral cortex and interpreted by the brain.

I read post #30, which I'll hold my assessment of it, and will read #33. but in post 30 we'll discuss you view. #1. an icon is an "Image". lets deal with this for now. Adam/man is an Image, but not the source. and the definition of Adam/man can be translated as "ANOTHER", which an Image/Icon is not, in nature. so that alone will not not support any trinity of a separate person(s). but the definition of Adam can, H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.
ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).
[from H119]
KJV: X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Root(s): H119

notice how the KJV can translate Adam, "ANOTHER", which I support as the equal Share, or diversified oneness.

so the Icon/image view do not support a separate person in the Godhead. but I'll read post #33

be blessed in Christ Jesus

 

[bbyrd009]

Drone-bombing Muslims is a red herring.

also, if you were a Muslim, cowering in fear for your family of a drone strike on your village tonight, your perspective might be different here.

 

[oldhermit]

I read post #30, which I'll hold my assessment of it, and will read #33. but in post 30 we'll discuss you view. #1. an icon is an "Image". lets deal with this for now. Adam/man is an Image, but not the source. and the definition of Adam/man can be translated as "ANOTHER", which an Image/Icon is not, in nature. so that alone will not not support any trinity of a separate person(s). but the definition of Adam can, H120 אָדָם 'adam (aw-dawm') n-m.
ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).
[from H119]
KJV: X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Root(s): H119

notice how the KJV can translate Adam, "ANOTHER", which I support as the equal Share, or diversified oneness.

so the Icon/image view do not support a separate person in the Godhead. but I'll read post #33

be blessed in Christ Jesus

I have quite a long way to go on this yet but if you can be patient, I promise we will get to this point in depth later on.

 

[101G]

“God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single unified essence of God are three separate and distinct persons of deity who are one God, each member having his part in the creation and redemption of man” (unknown source).

essence: the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence.
#1. the nature of God is Spirit, (John 4:24a) are you saying there are 3 distinct Spirits in the Godhead.

#2.

2. The use of the word ‘unified’. We can only comprehend unity as we see it within the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.

Now a question, can a unity be a "SHARE" of the Same? yes or no.

Looking to hear from you.

 

[oldhermit]

essence: the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence.
#1. the nature of God is Spirit, (John 4:24a) are you saying there are 3 distinct Spirits in the Godhead.

#2.

Now a question, can a unity be a "SHARE" of the Same? yes or no.

Looking to hear from you.

Of course it can. The question is, what do they share? As to your first question let's wait and see how scripture responds to this. We will get to that.

 

[Helen]

So are you three persons yet one man ,or are you One ...who manifests himself in different modes?

......Expressions.


That's good I like that very much...well said.

 

[FHII]

What I am trying to get you to consider is the fact that the presence of Jesus in the flesh did not rob heaven of the presence of God. Jesus still prayed to the Father. Both the Holy Spirit and the Father bore witness to Jesus as the Son of God at the baptism of Jesus. All three triadic positions are here represented at the same time in this one event. Divine triadic function is a harmonic, an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God. Scripture reveals God as functioning in a triad of function. If you draw a simple triangle with the lower left point representing the first position of deity - the Father, which also represents the unseen realm of God, the lower right point as representing the second position - the Son, who in the flesh represents the visible world of man, and the top of the triangle representing the third position - the Holy Spirit who is always seen functioning in scripture as the linking agent between the worlds of the seen and the unseen then you can see how this triadic function takes shape.

I still see no reason to divide them up into 3 separate persons, especially since God for 4000+ years depicted himself as one and only one.

Jesus revealed himself as the son of man, the son of God and the son of David. He also appeared in the flesh, in glorified or ressurected flesh and as the Body of Christ--one body with many members. Is Jesus 3 separate persons?

The Holy Ghost is a comforter and the spirit of truth. He also was a bearer of gifts and even a revealer. He was also noted as being the one who got Mary pregnent. Is he 2, 3 or 4 separate persons?

I like you theory about triads, but I also see alot of spheres, circles and lines in nature. Yet can we liken God to them? I am sure we could.

John Doe spent time speaking philosophically about how man tends to create or relate things to fit his understanding. At least that's what I got from it as it was discussion over my head at this point. To stand up for myself I really don't have the time to dive into such TO understand it. But in what I do understand, I believe that is what happened with the birth of the trinity theory: man trying his best to come up with an explanation of something not of this world or dimension. I am not joining in.

Again, to staye my stance. I believe God manifested himself as Jesus, as the Holy Spirit and as a Father. Has he manifested himself otherwise? I believe so but that is a long, debatable subject.

Its pretty important to me that you folks understand my stance in that I do not deny each of those three. In my 15 years of debating this I have gotten myself in a lot of awkward situations ranging from trinitarians claiming I don't believe Jesus was God to the polar opposite, which is people who don't believe in Jesus rallying with me.

Once again... I believe in all three of those entities. I just reject that they were separate "persons". It was one entity manifesting himself in 3 different ways.