WHAT Is the Trinity?

[bbyrd009]

The last few number of posts look like you are talking to an imaginary friend.

the lengths some guys will go to to court a girl, huh?

 

[twinc]

I agree to all.
The Trinity is not easily found in scripture...

The theory of the Trinity was put together after Jesus ascended and slowly over time by those who came after Him. It is only found in the bible when one looks for it, so it wouldn't be easy to see as we read through.

This is a good link which could be read by those interested...

Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?

the trinity is clearly taught in scripture but has been and is missed by Jews, Muslims and Christians - see Genesis 18 - twinc

I agree to all.
The Trinity is not easily found in scripture...

The theory of the Trinity was put together after Jesus ascended and slowly over time by those who came after Him. It is only found in the bible when one looks for it, so it wouldn't be easy to see as we read through.

This is a good link which could be read by those interested...

Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?

the trinity is clearly taught in scripture but has been missed by Jews, Muslims and Christians - see Genesis 18 - twinc

 

[GodsGrace]

No intentional lies of which I am aware were told. This doesn't mean they were right.



It's hard for me to explain fairly since I know long subscribe to it. One explanation I heard from another person was that the Oneness belief was simply the flip side of the Trinity belief. That is, the trinitarians believe in 3 in 1 [Father, Son and Holy Ghost], while the oneness people believe in 1 in 3.

Actually where I was in oneness however they believe in only one God with the three manifestations. In other words, the Father is Jesus. The Son is Jesus. The Holy Ghost is Jesus.

Yes. I have heard of this. There are 3 persons. Each one has God in them.
That makes 3 Gods...no? And re every person being Jesus, I don't think that could work either since each one has His very own attributes. Each one is the same, and each one is different. The same in nature, different in attributes. Different in Standing. Will do a post on this...

The trinitarians usually use the Matt 28:19 as the primary, while the oneness use Acts 2:38 as the primary. In both cases they speak of a literal pronunciation of words spoken by the baptizing minister while performing the baptism. Among Trinitarians some baptize by sprinkling while others use immersion in water. The Oneness people always baptize by immersion. I disagree with both of them on the words to be pronounced during the ritual. The Oneness people say that Matt 28:19 only uses titles while Acts 2:38 actually uses the name [Jesus].


I believe that we should baptize the way Jesus said to, in form:
Immersed, if possible, but not necessarily, and saying the words...
"In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
This is what Jesus said to do in Mathew 28:19. If He said it, there must be a reason and we should trust Him.

Acts 2 is the difference between being baptized in John's name or in Jesus' name.

For me the baptism needs to be IN the Name rather while speaking the name. Consider the meaning of this verse:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt 18:20

What does it means to be in his name? For me it means to be in the Spirit as expressed in the following verse:.

"If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." Gal 5:25
If we are baptized in the Spirit, what difference would it make what words the minister actually speak with his mouth while doing it?

If you read my previous answer, I think you'll find that we're saying the same thing.


The baptism of fire I do not connect directly with water or Spirit baptisms. What is fire in scripture?

"For our God is a consuming fire." Heb 12:29 [Deut 4:24]
And what does God the consuming fire do?

"Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee." Deut 9:3

But, must the fire of God always consume and destroy?

"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I." Exodus 3:2-4

But then see here an example of fire that consumes on the one hand and on the other does not consume:

"Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego" Dan 3:22

Dan 3:24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Dan 3:26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.
Dan 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

So is this not then the consuming firing of God that consumes that which binds us and that which is opposed to God while stand beside those who stand with God. So the baptism of fire may then be the trials we must go through to clean us up and move us closer to God. The trials of Job, which led him closer to God could certainly be understood as a baptism of fire.

Very interesting.
But Jesus did say to wait in Jerusalem and the Apostles would be baptized with the Holy Spirit for power to witness in all the earth.
Then in Acts 2:3 there appared tongues as of fire on each apostle.
Fire could mean different things.
I'm posting a link for your consideration.
What is the baptism of/by/with fire?

click to expand

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually, while not a student of the Greek, my Strong's and my Vine's Expository Dictionary show the same verb form, begotten [#1085], is used with regard to a human bearing children. Another form of the same verb, begat [#1080] is used for example in Matthew chapter 1 to describe the human begetting of children. While it could mean what you say it does, it does not I believe establish it as God begetting God. Someone with knowledge of the Greek may correct me on this.



The distinction between God and Lord seems to be right to me, but I have never that I recall tried to confirm it.

No need know Greek. It's theology, the study of God.
Not every single thing about God can be discerned from the bible only.
Sometimes we need someone to put it all together, but it still has to be based on the bible.

The difference between God and LORD and Lord is a difficult one because no bible that I know of has been translated correctly in that regard and each time we see that word would require a small study in itself. Not easy to do. So >I just accept traditional Christianity which states that Jesus is God.

 

[GodsGrace]

the trinity is clearly taught in scripture but has been and is missed by Jews, Muslims and Christians - see Genesis 18 - twinc



the trinity is clearly taught in scripture but has been missed by Jews, Muslims and Christians - see Genesis 18 - twinc

Of course it's in scripture.
But if you don't look for it, you don't find it.
Also, Spirit in the O.T. meant the spirit of God.

 

[GodsGrace]

My point was that if early believers who wrote the epistles in the NT were aware of a Trinity and believed in it as it is usually defined, why would they not include the Holy Spirit along with the Father and the Son in each greeting? This is not proof but an indication that the Holy Spirit was not an entity that needed to be addressed equally with Father and Son.

Calling Jesus, God, is an easy thing for me. The Holy Spirit, however, I find it difficult to separate from the Father who is certainly a Spirit and Holy. Why is it necessary to see the HS as a separate but equal part rather than a special gift or manifestation of the Father for men?

Jesus separated it.
Mathew 28 again.
In the name of the Father AND the Holy Spirit.
Could He have meant the spirit of God as it does seem to mean in the O.T.?

I have also learned that the love between Father and Son IS the Holy Spirit.
Not easy stuff!!

 

[GodsGrace]

Time is always a problem because what is it to God anyway if for Him there really in no time? Some believers insist that God is limited by time, while other insist that time itself is one of God creations. While I can easily believe that Jesus created first in order to then do the rest of creation, I usually go along with there being no time for God. In this I catch myself in a quandary. It is problematic is deciding whether Jesus is always and simultaneous with the Father or Jesus is subsequent to the Father. And there I hang. Step out here in faith? Why? Is it needful to know the resolution to my quandary?


Without looking it up somewhere, I do not know what you mean by "position".

Jesus could not have been created. Even if first. He was Always a part of God as the Word of God.

And, yes, God created time, so He cannot be PART OF TIME.
He is outside of time. He KNOWS everything that will happen -- this does not mean that He causes it to happen.

Also, I don't think it's necessary to understand all this. No resolution necessary.

 

[GodsGrace]

the problem with "click to expand" is now you break the software for anyone you are talking with. Anyway,
ok, no problem: Who is this 'Son of Man?'
While you have the light, believe in the light so that you may become sons of light."
Jesus said this, then went away and hid from them.

that is who i believe this "Son of Man" is, and the second sentence cannot be dropped, it is intrinsic to the truth here.

I can't break software.
I have a niece that would have that capability because she writes software.
Stop worrying about my method. I'm not the one who invented it...

OK.
So Jesus is a light.
Like B and like K.
Lights sent to man at different times to let us know God better.
This is OK. But, like I've said, how can you then call yourself a C???

WHO is God speaking to in Daniel 7:13-14??

 

[GodsGrace]

is dismissed by your next statement,
which i agree to, but that means "because He was soon to die" cannot be correct.
possibly, but i would keep an open mind there, might be other valid interpretations
this describes two different people to me; there are believers, like satan, and then there are followers of Christ, and the two don't have much of anything to do with each other that i can see

Satan also believes,,, but I DID say FOLLOWERS.
Jesus was to literally DIE when He was speaking these words.
He was the light of the world and He was IN the world.
John 1:9

He DID literally die.
But HE IS STILL ALIVE and His light can STILL be seen and accepted.

Also, you say there are different interpretations.
You keep them to yourself?

 

[GodsGrace]

"A conflation of what two ideas?"

Son of Man and The light, which is the one that cannot be true, unless Jesus was worried about His dying removing their path to Him, which cannot be true if we have access to Him now, right

"I think he's just stating that He's the light."

a perfectly logical assumption on the face of it, yes.
Now just incorporate "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except the Father" into that, i guess

iow you are being invited to assume that Jesus was stating that He is the light, but then you have a logical conundrum, as we have already discovered. When Christ was crucified Grace was not removed, but instituted

Jesus did not want to be on the same plane as God Father.
First of all, while here He was the Son of God. God Father had a higher standing or position.

I have no conundrum excep for the fact that the trinity is not easy to understand but I DO accept it.

Grace. Did grace not exist in the O.T.?
You mean it only became available after the crucifixion?
GOD IS GRACE.
How do you separate God from His being?

Perhaps you're speaking about the New Covenant?
If you're saying that the N.C. is grace, then I could agree.

 

[GodsGrace]

"But Jesus was also much more."

"and then He went away and hid from them."

He hid from them.
Why?
What do YOU think?
Don't let me do all the work!

 

[Helen]

I was clearing out my old "Sent Mail" just now, and came across this ...there was loads of it...but I am just posting a snippet here. It's too long and boring for me.
I do not have a clue who, or where I copied it from!!
But, for what it is worth.
Quote:-

Theology professor Richard Hanson observes that a result of the council’s decision “was to reduce the meanings of the word ‘God’ from a very large selection of alternatives to one only,” such that “when Western man today says ‘God’ he means the one, sole exclusive [Trinitarian] God and nothing else” ( Studies in Christian Antiquity,1985,pp. 243-244).

Thus, Emperor Theodosius—who himself had been baptized only a year before convening the council—was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major church doctrine. As historian Charles Freeman notes: “It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own and that he put in place as dogma a formula containing intractable philosophical problems of which he would have been unaware. In effect, the emperor’s laws had silenced the debate when it was still unresolved” (p. 103).

Other beliefs about the nature of God banned
Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: “We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead” (quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).

Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence to the new teaching: “Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches.

*Thus we see that a teaching that was foreign to Jesus Christ, never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other biblical writers, was locked into place and the true biblical revelation about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was locked out. Any who disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly.

. . . . . . .. . . . . ~ End Quote ~ .. . .

 

[bbyrd009]

WHO is God speaking to in Daniel 7:13-14?

well, God does not speak there, but i get you, and i am not denying that one should follow Christ, ok. But i am saying that Greeks who came to supposedly worship Jesus ended up talking to some particular Apostles, who then went to Jesus and got an answer not for the Greeks, but instead in reference to them, and then He went and "hid from them."

 

[bbyrd009]

He was the light of the world and He was IN the world.

He is the light of the world, and He is in the world, thought we already cleared that up. Was is not the right tense then, iow

 

[bbyrd009]

Also, you say there are different interpretations.
You keep them to yourself?

"because a day may come when our hearts are hardened and He will be shut out."

this is, again, the logical conclusion, but i suggest that something else is being inferred here, we have our lives to build an edifice on solid rock, but for whatever reason no building can continue after we die. So i would consider that in relation to that, imo Jesus is not wasting words on people whose hearts are destined to become hardened

 

[VictoryinJesus]

GodsGrace, you started this thread. I have read in other threads your hope for serious conversation. I am a hundred percent serious, even if my questions are absurd. I hope you will take me as serious. I look to you guys for correction. So, please, do not hesitate to give scripture that admonishes any wayward notions I have. "I believe" and I will say "I believe" often in this post because I am not calling it revelation but rather, possibly, my error.

You asked about the three: Father, Son, and Spirit which is GOD. I believe it is obvious by His design. If we reduce the Godhead to two: being The Father, The Son, and then The Son as also the Spirit...then there are only Two. Yet, there was two with Christ(the Son) that were always present: The Father and the Spirit.

Christ was born of immaculate seed. I realize this goes against what we are lead to believe: that Mary was immaculate. But Jesus was born of immaculate seed/ from an earthen vessel of flesh (womb of flesh, born into the world as we are). But Jesus also had to be born of an immaculate Womb. From above. There has to be immaculate seed and an immaculate womb. Hence, the Holy Spirit coming to rest on Jesus that began His true ministry. (Immaculate seed and Immaculate Womb) given from above.

The Father, The Son, and The Spirit= The Father, The Son, and The Mother. Think of what God asks of Women throughout His Word. To be in subjection. As comforter. As nurturers. The Helpmeet. The unnamed servant. Alongside her husband.

I know it sounds absurd: The new city that comes from above is Zion (the new Jerusalem/not of this world) often referred to as a she/her. Reference to breast. Nursing. It is my understanding that she(Zion) is the womb. Yes. A city. But a Spiritual City. If you consider this: Jesus said the Kingdom is WITHIN you; meaning that City/kingdom is Within you (the Holy Spirit). He also said that The Father and the Son would come make their abode with the believer: The Father, The Son, and the Spirit= One. I am not really sure when this takes place, now or within the consummation of the deliverance of the New City. I realize it is crazy since the Church is also the Bride that belongs to Christ.

The harlot would be that Spirit against God/ Jezebel/ the city Babylon( an earthly city). The Spirit of darkness that is very evident and working in opposition against God. Yet, used by God to deliver His people from bondage trough much tribulation.

I ask you: If there is The Father and The Son... where or who is the Mother? Does there have to be one? Is it possible to be born withwout Mother and Father? Is it Mary. Or is Mary the earthly Mother? If that is the case, who is the Spiritual Mother/Spiritual Womb that gives birth to children from above?

Job 25:4-6 KJV
[4] How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? [5] Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. [6] How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

Exodus 13:2 KJV
[2] Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

Did Jesus Christ open the Spiritual Womb? Zion, that Spiritual City from above? Which we, of Christ, are born of? Is she(the Spirit) within us; the Kingdom: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why did Jesus have to leave for the Spirit to come?

Psalm 127:3-5 KJV
[3] Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord : and the fruit of the womb is his reward. [4] As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. [5] Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

Fruit of the womb? Whose womb? A woman of flesh? Or fruit from the womb of a spiritual woman/ Spirit? Zion. That Holy Kingdom which is Spirit?


Isaiah 49:14-15 KJV
[14] But Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me. [15] Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.


Luke 1:15-17 KJV
[15] For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. [16] And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. [17] And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Was John born immediately from both wombs: the physical and Spiritual womb? (I have to add that John was NOT born of the womb but only carried the Holy Spirit as many in the OT was not born yet. They couldn't be because Christ(Jesus) is the FIRST. which makes sense: "For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom(Born)of God is greater than he.")

John 3:4-6 KJV
[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? [5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


John 3:7 KJV

[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

I am sorry. I realize that is a ton of questions. Maybe too many to answer. But I do feel, it pertains to your OP on "Trinity".

 

[bbyrd009]

Grace. Did grace not exist in the O.T.?
You mean it only became available after the crucifixion?
GOD IS GRACE.
How do you separate God from His being?

the point being that Grace did not die when Christ was crucified, yes

 

[bbyrd009]

He hid from them.
Why?
What do YOU think?
Don't let me do all the work!

ha well understand that i am guessing now, ok, and your guess is as good as mine, but some Greeks came to worship Him, and He hid from them, so fit that in however seems right to you.

 

[bbyrd009]

Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: “We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead”

should tell one all they need to know about where "Trinity" came from imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

the point being that Grace did not die when Christ was crucified, yes

meaning Jesus could not have meant "hurry, while I am still physically here," which is the logical assumption one gets from reading the passage. Because they are led into it on purpose. This is "see and not see."

imo