True Trinity.

[justbyfaith]

I've already looked at post #5 and didn't agree with what it said because you deny The Only Begotten Son of God, who is the Word became human(flesh). You instead say it was God himself who is the word and became human(flesh).

So does every valid version of the Bible.

Are you aware that the Watchtower Society has come up with many false prophecies that never came to pass? Perhaps you ought to google this.

The only thing I see you do is when God's Holy Spirit inspired men to write down Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 at Mark 12:29 you are trying to say Jesus quoted it differently than how God's Holy Spirit had it written. That's you saying that, not God or the scriptures.

The Holy Spirit has it written down the way it is written down in Mark 12:29 (kjv). Perhaps you should look into my claims rather than responding to me without considering what I'm saying. I believe that if you merely compare Deuteronomy 6:4 to Mark 12:29 in the kjv, you will find that Mark 12:29 tells us that there is one Lord God and that it is slightly different than what was written in Deuteronomy 6:4. But that it is different is not the point. The point is what is truly written in Mark 12:29 (kjv)...

Mar 12:29, And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

At Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, Jesus is praying to his Father who is Lord of Heaven and Earth. These scriptures are not saying that Jesus is the Father who is Lord of Heaven and Earth. All you're doing is twisting them to make them mean what you want them to mean. You do not want to are e with how God's Holy Spirit inspired them to be written down as Jesus praying to his Father who is Lord of Heaven and Earth.

You say that the Father is the Lord of heaven and earth. So far, so good.

Do you agree that there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6)?

If you do, you have another gold star.

Now, the final question: can you say that Jesus is the Lord in light of these things?

If you cannot, then you don't have the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3 (kjv)).

1Co 12:3, Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

 

[ChristisGod]

didn't you "prophecy " trump winning this election ?

 

[justbyfaith]

didn't you "prophecy " trump winning this election ?

No, that was not a prophecy. It was qualified by saying that it may have been just the voices of my mental illness.

 

[ChristisGod]

No, that was not a prophecy. It was qualified by saying that it may have been just the voices of my mental illness.

oh so you get your very own a free get out of jail card................

 

[justbyfaith]

oh so you get your very own a free get out of jail card................

Yes; especially since the world has attempted to put a stigma on me (see Hosea 9:7).

 

[ChristisGod]

Yes; especially since the world has attempted to put a stigma on me (see Hosea 9:7).

so no matter what you say you cannot be guilty of being a false prophet because of your mental illness is that correct ?

 

[justbyfaith]

so no matter what you say you cannot be guilty of being a false prophet because of your mental illness is that correct ?

It kind of has to do with the same principle as when a Pope speaks ex-cathedra...

If I am uncertain of whether a prophecy is from the Lord or not I will make that known.

But if the word in question is from a voice in my mind I will also make that known.

Voices in my mind may or may not be of the Lord.

The prophecy about "the year of discrimination" did not come about through a voice in my mind. I was dreaming and on my bed and the Spirit came over me and in my dream I prophesied of the year of discrimination.

That particular fate, according to that prophecy, may be averted by the prayers of the saints; so it also is not set in stone so that I can be determined to be a false prophet if it doesn't come to pass.

I do know that I once prophesied that there would be a famine in Argentina and that did indeed come to pass (I saw it on the internet later).

 

[justbyfaith]

.

 

[goodserverity]

.
Hello everyone.

I have been reading the posts of so many people here who have such in-depth perspectives about their Trinitarian Translation.

Going back to the beginning of the posts and reading everything I can find - I understand what everyone is saying concerning their personal faith.

I personally, am not of the trinitarian faith - I believe the Trinity Doctrine is not in the Original manuscripts - but - the trinity is certainly in the Trinitarian Translation.


I have a few questions that I often ask of those of the Trinitarian Faith and honesty to this very day, I have never been able to find a Trinitarain brother or sister who can provide an answer to these questions. I believe this is because their Trinitarian Translation prevents them from providing the answers that the Original Manuscripts clearly provide

my questions are

" why would Yahoshua have to LOWER Himself and take on the role or morph or form of a MAN or LOWER HIMSELF to be a servant of God -

IF THAT WAS WHAT or who HE ALREADY always WAS and always will be ?

And another question I have is - Where do Trinitarians believe that Yahoshua existed before he was to sit at the right hand of God and where do Trinitarians believe that Yahoshua will sit or exist after his enemies are a footstool ?

If Yahoshua was moved to sit at the right hand of God - until his enemies were a footstool, why was he to sit there if that is where he already was.

And where do Trinitarians believe or claim that he will he sit or exist after his enemies are a footstool ? -

Meaning = if he was to sit at the right hand - until - such and such a time. Why was he asked to sit there, if that is where he always existed and will always exist ?

This is one of the many contradictions that are persistent throughout the Trinitarian Translation.
The Trinitarian doctrine is incapable of providing an answer from the Trinitarian Translation.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

.
Hello everyone.

I have been reading the posts of so many people here who have such in-depth perspectives about their Trinitarian Translation.

Going back to the beginning of the posts and reading everything I can find - I understand what everyone is saying concerning their personal faith.

I personally, am not of the trinitarian faith - I believe the Trinity Doctrine is not in the Original manuscripts - but - the trinity is certainly in the Trinitarian Translation.


I have a few questions that I often ask of those of the Trinitarian Faith and honesty to this very day, I have never been able to find a Trinitarain brother or sister who can provide an answer to these questions. I believe this is because their Trinitarian Translation prevents them from providing the answers that the Original Manuscripts clearly provide

my questions are

" why would Yahoshua have to LOWER Himself and take on the role or morph or form of a MAN or LOWER HIMSELF to be a servant of God -

IF THAT WAS WHAT or who HE ALREADY always WAS and always will be ?

And another question I have is - Where do Trinitarians believe that Yahoshua existed before he was to sit at the right hand of God and where do Trinitarians believe that Yahoshua will sit or exist after his enemies are a footstool ?

If Yahoshua was moved to sit at the right hand of God - until his enemies were a footstool, why was he to sit there if that is where he already was.

And where do Trinitarians believe or claim that he will he sit or exist after his enemies are a footstool ? -

Meaning = if he was to sit at the right hand - until - such and such a time. Why was he asked to sit there, if that is where he always existed and will always exist ?

This is one of the many contradictions that are persistent throughout the Trinitarian Translation.
The Trinitarian doctrine is incapable of providing an answer from the Trinitarian Translation.

Well I can't answer your question because I've never been able to find a Trinity doctrine in the manuscripts or in the most popular Bibles including the KJV of the Bible.

 

[goodserverity]

.

Hello there - BARNEY BRIGHT

Thank you very much so for responding to me

You are indicating that - you believe that never have you been able to find a Trinity doctrine In the manuscripts nor in the most popular Bible translations.

I agree completely, that the Trinity Doctrine is nowhere found in the Bible Manuscripts,
However, the “ Trinity Doctrine “ - has been Inserted and added , into all Translations today -
the “ Trinity Doctrine “ - has been Inserted and added even into Non - Trinitarian Translations { such as Jehovah Witnesses Translations } and even Muslims, today, Muslims, also see the “ Trinity Doctrine “ - in the New Testament Translations

in all Translations - everywhere, these Translations are all based upon the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims English Translation of 1582. Why ?

WHY

The reason Is, because the Bible was not Translated into any modern language outside of Latin alone - until 1582 - nearly 2000 years after Yahashua.

Waiting for nearly 2000 years, just to translate an ancient book - this will create a wide range of pre - conceived ideologies and understandings and teachings about the books content that will be impossible to truly universally amend and adjust in the future - especially when the ancient book is based upon a religion and faith.

Not only - waiting for nearly 2000 years, just to translate an ancient book into another language but also simultaneously banning, outlawing, prohibiting and making illegal the translation of the book for nearly 2000 years, under the punishment of the death penalty and severe torture -

What did the Trinitarians do while banning and outlawing the Bible ?

They were doing nothing but writing personal publications, articles and drafting opinion pieces and making drawings and paintings about the book - instead of actually translating it - for nearly 2000 years.

For example - Luk 20:42 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

There are many, many examples in the NT and OT where I could provide for you - proving - how and where the Trinitarians have changed and altered the Bible

these multiple passages where that we find the repeated phrase, = Sit thou ON / AT my right hand,

- Mat 22:44 - Sit thou “ EX / ε ̓ ξ “ OUT OF / FROM - exit my right.

In the Manuscripts - every single last one of these repeated passages, always use the same exact Greek word “ EX = ε ̓ ξ “

Meaning = - OUT OF / FROM. _ exit - from - out of

In the Greek manuscripts, there is no such a verse that says “ SIT ON or AT MY RIGHT “

The Greek word is always - “ EX / ε ̓ ξ “ exit / from or out or of

Even the Jehovah Witness faith and translation - is in just as much error and just as mistranslated as the Trinitarian mistranslation.

The fact is - both translations, portray a change in either a change in POSITION or FAVOR and a change or alteration of PRIVILEGE concerning Yahashua.

But THE WORD MADE FLESH - Yahashua - IS NOT BEING RELOCATED OR REPOSITIONED in the manuscripts - by simply being seated IN or OUT OF or ON or AT the Right or Right Hand Of God

and THE WORD MADE FLESH - Yahashua - IS NOT BEING GRANTED PRIVILEGES AND FAVOR in the manuscripts. by simply being seated IN or OUT OF or ON or AT the Right or Right Hand Of God.

Because the manuscript Greek word is not “ ON or AT “ - the Right Of God- Yahashua is never seated AT or ON the right of God.

The Greek manuscripts always use the word IN and OUT of the right of God.

Yahashua, THE WORD / GOD - MADE FLESH / THE SON OF GOD - he is already IN the Right Of God - eternally. But God creates a MORPH OF HIMSELF that he places OUT OF his right - but yet is IN the Right at the same time

HE EXISTS FROM GOD - EXITING OUT OF GOD - to sit IN the right of God

The translation inserts a perspective that teaches that - Jesus being seated at or on the right hand of God but in the manuscript = Jesus is not positioned or privileged nor favored to “ Sit AT or ON the right of God.

The Greek manuscripts always use the word IN and OUT of the right of God.

The J.W. translation has the same mistranslation as the Trinitarian translation … … .

J.W. - 44 Jehovah said to my Lord: “ Sit AT my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet.

The fact is - Yahashua is ONLY and ALWAYS / ONLY denoted to be either IN or OUT of the Right of God.

Act 7:55 Steven looked upward into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Yahoshua standing { ε ̓ κ / - ek / ex - FROM - exiting - Out of } the right of God

Mat 22:44 + Mar 12:36 THE LORD SAID - LORD, SIT { ε ̓ κ / - ek / ex - FROM - exiting - Out of } MY RIGHT.

Mat 26:64 + Mar 16:19 shall ye see the Son of man sitting { ε ̓ κ / - ek / ex - FROM - exiting - Out of } the right of power.

Mar 16:19 + Luk 22:69 Yahashua - … . was received up into heaven, and sat { ε ̓ κ / - ek / ex - FROM - exiting - Out of } the right of God.

We see that - In John Chapter 8: - The bible clearly explains exactly who Yahoshua is …

Yahoshua says three things here about his identity.

i COME OUT FROM THE GOD -
i COME NOT ALSO FROM - OF MYSELF -
i COME NEITHER MYSELF I - SENT -

John 8:42
i COME OUT FROM THE GOD -
i COME NOT ALSO FROM - OF MYSELF -
i COME NEITHER MYSELF I - SENT -

 

[goodserverity]

John 8:42

i COME OUT FROM THE GOD -
i COME NOT ALSO FROM - OF MYSELF -
i COME NEITHER MYSELF I - SENT -


- εγω I AM – γαρ FOR - εκ FROM - του THE - θεου GOD - εξηλθον CAME OUT -

και ALSO - ηκω COME - ουδε NOT - γαρ ALSO - απ OF - εμαυτου MYSELF - εληλυθα I COME -

αλλ NEITHER - εκεινος MYSELF - με I - απεστειλεν SENT.


We see the Greek word “ EX = ε ̓ ξ “

- - EX - Meaning = A primary preposition denoting origin ( the point whence motion or action proceeds) , From, Out Of Place, : - After, among / from... By (the means of) Of, Off ( From), Out Among - ( From, Of ) - Out Of .

This Greek word " “ EX = ε ̓ ξ “ " - is used 917 total times in the manuscripts.

This is the exact word used in Heb 1:13

:13 Sit -- “ EX = ε ̓ ξ “ - OUT FROM " my right, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

The Trinitarian Translators changed this word - " - “ EX = ε ̓ ξ “ - Meaning = OF - OUT FROM " and they deleted the original word and replaced it with the word " ON " or AT

This exact Greek word is used - 917 total times in the Bible and here are only 20 examples.

Mat 1:3 Phares and Zara " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " Thamar
Mat 1:5 Boaz " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " Rachab and Obed " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " Ruth
Mat 1:6 Solomon " - ex - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " her that had been the wife of Urias;
Mat 1:18 he was found with child " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " the Holy Ghost.
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " heaven
Mat 2:6 for " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " thee shall come a Governor
Mat 5:37 for whatsoever is more than these cometh " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " evil.
Mar 14:25 I will drink no more " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " the fruit of the vine,
Luk 1:61 There is none " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " thy kindred
Luk 4:22 the gracious words which proceeded " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " his mouth.
Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure " - ex - OF - OUT FROM " his heart
Luk 9:35 A voice out " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " the cloud
Luk 20:35 the resurrection " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " the dead,
Joh 1:44 Now Philip was " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " Bethsaida
Joh 12:32 if I be lifted up " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " the earth
Joh 19:2 And the soldiers platted a crown " - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " thorns,

The word = “ EX = ε ̓ξ “ - ex - OF - OUT - FROM " does not mean the word " ON or AT “

the Trinitarians and Jehovah Witnesses - go throughout the entire Bible changing the word “ IN εν " into the words “ AT and ON “ all of the verses where it applies to Yahoshua’s identity as being “ IN εν “ the RIGHT of power - being “ IN εν “ the right of God


“ IN εν “ is own right
“ IN εν“ in the heavenly place
“ IN εν “ the right of the throne of God
“ IN εν “ the right of the Majesty - “ IN εν “ the high. –

In the Manuscripts - Yahashua exits ε ̓ξ out / EX - OUT FROM the right of God and dwells IN / εν the right of God until his enemies are defeated and made his footstool - he then returns back up to the throne of God - to sit IN the throne of the Father - from where he originated EXITING OUT from - before the word was made flesh.

God is a Father and is now - also, God is also a Son -

The God and Father was not always a Father - but became a Father when he created SONS and DAUGHTERS.

- and the God and Son was not always a Son - but a Son - when he MORPHED / MANIFESTED and CONCEIVED himself “ The HOLY SPIRIT - MORPHED and manifested - as CHRIST / The Anointing, Yahashua.


Trinitarians need for God to be a Trinity _ Three distinct, separate Co Equal - Co Eternal and CO Omnipresent entities or persons


Jehovah Witnesses also need for God to be almost or nearly a Trinity , but with the Son existing as a lesser lower case god who is created by the upper case Almighty God

 

[goodserverity]

This already proves that Jesus here - was not CO omnipresent, according to their own translation that contradicts their own translations and contradicts what the Trinitarian teaches.

… not Co Equal and not Co Eternal -

The Manuscripts declare - He is the same God manifesting and morphing himself in the flesh. Exiting OUT OF God - IN the right of God, IN the right of the throne and power - as the same person, same deity, same God MORPHED from Spirit, changed, altered and modified / morphed into a physical manifestation.

Transformed changed, altered - in the morph of God taking on a morph of God but made empty, vain, and void of being equally and fully God - as a man, whose Holy Spirit originated from heaven and not earth.

The Son of God - a Son of Man - whose literal spirit, is the identity of self-same Holy Spirit - The Anointing. / Christ.

Yahashua is Eternal, is Omnipresent, and is God - BUT God did not manifest himself as a man by morphing himself physically or spiritually equal. God changed, LOWERED and altered and LOWERED himself - God became a servant and a man with a physical human body.

but not as another separate CO SEPARATE PERSON. But a manifestation or morph of the same person. Same Eternal Spirit.

He is the same person - same God making himself lower and empty , vain , vacant and EMPTY - existing as a man from heaven.

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Yahashua, The Anointing

This is the true God, and eternal life.

Trinitarianism seeks to destroy the originating manuscript message throughout the entire Bible - while conforming and transforming and altering the originating message into an image that Trinitarians have preconceived in their doctrines and imagination.

By changing the Greek words IN and OUT “ OF THE RIGHT OF GOD “
and replacing and inserting with these new words - AT and ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD

The trinity is inserted into the Bible. The Greek manuscripts always use the Greek words IN AND OUT OF GOD

“ IN = εν “ and “ OF - OUT - FROM = EX = ε ̓ξ “ - ex “

Never is the Greek words AT nor ON - existing in the manuscripts regarding Yahashua’s POSITION or FAVOR PRIVILEGE or RELOCATING OR REPOSITIONING in the manuscripts

- by simply being seated ON or AT the Right or Right Hand Of God

NEVER ONCE.

if he is Co Eternal - and Co Equal - as Trinitarians demand -

Today, for me personally, I have unanswered questions that Trinitarians have never answered concerning the Trinity.

" why would Yahoshua have to LOWER Himself and take on the role or morph or form of a MAN or LOWER HIMSELF to be a servant of God - IF THAT WAS WHAT or who HE ALREADY always WAS and always will be ?

And another question I have is - Where do Trinitarians believe that Yahoshua existed before he was to sit at the right hand of God and where do Trinitarians believe that Yahoshua will sit or exist after his enemies are a footstool ?

If Yahoshua was moved to sit at the right hand of God - until his enemies were a footstool, why was he to sit there if that is where he already was. And where do Trinitarians believe or claim that he will he sit or exist after his enemies are a footstool ? -

Meaning = if he was to sit at the right hand - until - such and such a time. Why was he asked to sit there, if that is where he always existed. ?

Trinitarians teach that Yahashua is Co Eternal - and Co Equal - and Co Omnipresent

But yet change him to be seated ON or AT the right hand of God for a specific duration of a limited time - until his enemies are a footstool -

And delete and change the Greek words in the manuscripts saying “ IN = εν “ and “ OF - OUT - FROM = EX = ε ̓ξ “ - ex . These are always the two words describing Yahashua’s relationship with the fathers - never are the words AT or ON used…… NEVER ONCE.

The Greek manuscripts always use the Greek words IN AND OUT OF GOD -

they change - in and out, - replacing these words with at and on, to inject and alter the passages to insert the Trinity.

And this is just one example of thousands of other changes that Trinitarians have made to the manuscript message from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Illuminator]

Processions and relations in God
In Catholic theology, we understand the persons of the Blessed Trinity subsisting within the inner life of God to be truly distinct relationally but not as a matter of essence, or nature. Each of the three persons in the godhead possesses the same eternal and infinite divine nature; thus, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, not three Gods. Yet they are truly distinct in their relations to each other.

In order to understand the concept of person in God, we have to understand its foundation in the processions and relations within the inner life of God. The Council of Florence (A.D. 1338-1445) can help us in this regard.

The Council’s definitions concerning the Trinity are really as easy as one, two, three . . . four. It taught there is one nature in God and that there are two processions, three persons, and four relations that constitute the Blessed Trinity. The Son “proceeds” from the Father, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” These are the two processions in God. And these are foundational to the four relations that constitute the three persons in God. Those four eternal relations are:

1. The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, which constitutes the person of God the Father.
2. The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
3. The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit in the one relation within the inner life of God that does not constitute a person. It does not do so because the Father and Son are already constituted as persons in relation to each other. This is why the Catechism teaches, “[The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity] is Son only in relation to his Father” (CCC 240).
4. The Holy Spirit is passively spirated of the Father and the Son, constituting the person of the Holy Spirit.

Scripture is a great help for us at this point. Biblically speaking, we see each of the persons in God revealed as relationally distinct and yet absolutely one in nature in manifold texts. For example, consider John 17:5, where our Lord prays on Holy Thursday: “[A]nd now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made.”

Notice that before the creation, the Son was “with” the Father. Also, the Son addressing the Father and himself in an “I/thou” relationship is unmistakable. We have distinct persons here. “Father” and “Son” reveal a generative relationship as well. Yet this relationship between two persons clearly has no beginning in time, because it existed before the creation, from all eternity. Thus the relational distinction is real, and personal; but as far as nature is concerned, Jesus’ words from John 10:30 come to mind: “I and the Father are one,” in that they each possess the same infinite nature.

The Holy Spirit is also seen to be relationally distinct from the Father and the Son in Scripture inasmuch as both the Father and the Son are seen as “sending” “him.”

But when the Counselor [the Holy Spirit] comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of me (John 15:26).

He will guide you into all truth (John 16:13).

So the relational distinction is real, and personal, but the Holy Spirit, like the eternal Son, is revealed to be God inasmuch as he is revealed to be omniscient. “He will guide you into all truth.” And as we saw above, he is elsewhere revealed even more clearly to possess the same infinite and divine nature as do the Father and the Son.

The anthropological analogy
Analogy is the theologian’s best friend in explaining the mysteries of the Faith. We will explore just two Trinitarian analogies that I have found helpful. In fact, it was these two analogies that helped my Muslim friend to say the idea of the Trinity “made sense” to him, even though he wasn’t ready to leave his Muslim faith—at least, not yet.

In his classic Confessions, St. Augustine writes:

I speak of these three: to be, to know, and to will. For I am, and I know, and I will: I am a knowing and a willing being, and I know that I am and that I will, and I will to be and to know. Therefore, in these three, let him who can do so perceive how inseparable a life there is, one life and one mind and one essence, and finally how inseparable a distinction there is, and yet there is a distinction. Surely a man stands face to face with himself. Let him take heed of himself, and look there, and tell me. But when he has discovered any of these and is ready to speak, let him not think that he has found that immutable being which is above all these, which is immutably, and knows immutably, and wills immutably (book 13, ch. 11).​

In order to appreciate Augustine’s words, we must begin with three truths that undergird them. Without these, his words will fall on deaf ears.

1. We believe in one, true God, YAHWEH, who is absolute being, absolute perfection, and absolutely simple. Our belief in the Trinity does not mean God is three or any other number of Gods.
2. Humankind is created “in [God’s] image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26). From the context of Genesis 1, we know this “image and likeness” do not pertain to the body of man, because God has no body. Indeed, the divine nature cannot be material, because there can be no potency in God as there is inherent in bodies, so this “image and likeness” must be referring to our higher faculties or operations of intellect and will.
3. It follows, then, that God is rational. He also is both intellectual and volitional.

These simple truths serve as the foundation for what I call St. Augustine’s anthropological analogy that can help us to understand better the great mystery of the Trinity.

In God we see the Father—the “being one” and first principal of life in the Godhead; the Son—the “knowing one”—the Word who proceeds from the Father; and the Holy Spirit—the “willing one”—the bond of love between the Father and Son who proceeds as love from the Father and Son. These “three” do not “equal” one mathematically; they are rather distinct realities, relationally speaking, just as my own being, knowing, and willing are three distinct realities in me. Yet in both God and man these three relationally distinct realities subsist in one being.

As Augustine points out, we can never know God or understand God completely through this or any analogy, but it can help us to understand how you can have relational distinctions within one being. And we can see this is reasonable.

The weakness inherent here—there are weaknesses in all analogies—is that our knowing, being, and willing are not each infinite and co-extensive as are the persons of God. They subsist in one being in us, but they are not persons.

The analogy of the family
The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us another analogy whereby we can see the reasonableness of the Trinity by seeing the possibility of distinct persons who possess the same nature: “The Christian family is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit” (CCC 2205).

When we think of a family, we can see how a father, mother, and child can be distinct persons and yet possess the same nature (human); just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who each possess the same nature (divine).

The weakness, of course, is that in God each person possesses the one infinite and immutable divine nature and is therefore one being. Our analogous family consists of three beings. Again, no analogy is perfect.

But in the end, if we combine our two analogies, we can at least see in both how there can be three relationally distinct realities subsisting within one being in the anthropological analogy, and how there can be three relationally distinct persons who share the same nature in the analogy of the family.

Defending the Trinity | Catholic Answers

 

[Emily Nghiem]

Dear @justbyfaith
I would include John 10:29 with John 10:30
So it is clear God the Father is greater than all, and this does not contradict the Son and Father being one.

Otherwise this confuses many fellow Christians who do not randomly interchange references to Jesus as the Son/Word of God with references to God the Father as Creator who sent Jesus from Heaven to be incarnated and to reconcile as the one Mediator between man and God.

Jesus plays a distinct role of embodying God's Authority and process of Justice.

God the Father does not act as Mediator between Jesus and man.

Jesus the Son is the Mediator between God and man.

These two places in the Holy Trinity are unique and not interchangeable in all contexts.

Some contexts you cite do not matter.

But some contexts make no sense if you substitute Jesus the Son with God the Father.

I beseech you please be more careful in explaining this, or it causes a stumbling block where fellow Believers in God and Jesus think you are teaching carelessly and causing rejection by confusion not intended.

Thank you
Many Christian believers cannot relate to this type of unconditional interchange, instead of paying closer attention to the meaning of the context.

 

[goodserverity]

.


I do appreciate the enlightening response that Illuminator had given.

]I am truly honored and thankful for the opportunity to humbly interact with Trinitarian believers

I am not a Trinitarian believer. I disagree entirely, with everything about the Trinity teaching and most of Trinitarian Bible Translation.

However, It was truly enjoyable reading what “ Illuminator “ was explaining about the Roman Catholic perspective.

though I completely disagree.

As I was explaining in my previous posts - there are contradictions throughout the Trinitarian Translations

and these massive contradictions in their Translations - emit and effect and pass on their contradictions to transmit directly to the readers and believers of these false Translations.
The contradictions in the translations - are transferred upon the readers.
That Trinitarian theology and faith - opposes and changes the original manuscripts -

This fact is not simply limited to a disagreement about - a first graders math problem
or ones ability to philosophize and romanticize about mathematical statement

these differences and deceptive dishonesty and ignoring of the original manuscripts, is not represented by simply proving that you can open a Bible and - count to - 1. - 2. and then demonstrate adding one again, equals = 3.


Proving that you can count to three - and solve a minor math equation.

THE MANUSCRIPTS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT

“ The only and sole reason that Yahashua is called or labeled or existing as a Son - is only and purely because of his humanity and fleshy nature that which God Spirit fully inhabited. “
We clearly see

Act 13:33 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

My question : Why would Trinitarian believers doubt or unknowingly undermine the scripture that say that the Son was not eternally begotten
but scriptures say - in reality - UN – BEGOTTEN OF GOD “ b e f o r e “ - THIS DAY –
- THIS DAY - YOU ARE MY SON, THIS DAY, HAVE I BEGOTTEN / BORN YOU.

YOU ARE MY SON, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN / BORN YOU.

If Yahashua, the son of God as defined - conceived by the Holy Spirit - did not exist at any time in the Old testament and was not Born or Begotten UNTIL - THIS DAY - THIS DAY, HAVE I BEGOTTEN / BORN YOU.

How would Yahashua exist as “ the only begotten “ TRINITARIAN ETERNA SON “ of God , if he had not been begotten of God - until - THIS DAY ? ? ?


THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD WAS NOT BEGOTTEN - U N T I L - THIS DAY - THIS DAY, HAVE I BEGOTTEN / BORN YOU Meaning = He was not begotten, before this specific day… … … … … … … … … … … … ..
Heb 1:6 when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith , And let all the angels of God worship him.

HAD THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN PREVIOUSLY BEEN INTRODUCED OR BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD ?

Where in the bible do Spirits entities conceive or bear or BIRTH Children ?

Where do spirits have children… ?
God is a Spirit - he does not have Spirit Children who are outside of the sons and daughters he has created on earth.

HAD THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN PREVIOUSLY BEEN INTRODUCED OR BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD ? - OR DID HE EXIST AS “ THE WORD “ OF THE HOLY SPIRIT / God “ that was conceived as flesh - and - was this day - born as the son of God - upon this very day.

Because - In Trinitarian One Step Theology - Jesus must be Co Eternal, Co Equal and Co Omnipresent.

My final solution and question to this matter would be . . .

If Yahashua was not begotten BY GOD until “ THIS DAY “ Act 13:33 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. - this day have I begotten thee.

How could Yahashua exist as the SEPARATE DISTINCT PERSON - THE CO Eternal , CO EQUAL begotten Son Of God , before he was begotten upon this day that God has begotten him. –
if it is - this day have I begotten thee. ?

The idea or “ THE WORD “ / God - that is planning or preparing and planning with the goal to conceive a FUTURE SON, do these plans of “ THE WORD “ fully automatically, bring to reality the existence of the SON, the moment “ THE WORD “ has designed or made / foreordained these plans ?

Or does the begotten son of God come to exist, only after God / “ THE WORD “ has spoken the Son into existence ?

The Old Testament Prophets did not believe that the Only Son Of God existed in the Old Testament.

WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OR PURPOSE TO ISAIAH’s PROPHECY OF THE COMING OF A FUTURE SON TO BE BORN - WHO’s NAME SHALL BE CALLED FATHER ETERNAL AND MIGHTY GOD.

If this SON / GODHEAD had already existed ? This concept did not exist in the OT Bible

Trinitarian One Step Theology is so filled with contradictions and abject and complete abuse of the manuscripts.

 

[goodserverity]

.
NOTICE WHAT Protestant TRINITARIANS ARE LITERALLY SAYING - when they invent and insert the fake word Godhead into their translation.

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

When we get to verse :30 - Trinitarians are attempting to lay the claim that before Jesus Christ was born - THE GODHEAD and TRINITY was an established and well known part of the Old Testament understanding of God

But in the OT - there is no mentioning of God in the terminology of - the NUMBER THREE - concerning the three manifestations of God.

This is a lie.

- there is no mention how that " THE THREE ARE ONE " and there is no mentioning that all of the fullness of the DIVINITY OF GOD literally dwelling in a man conceived and born by God's very spirit.

This is untrue.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT GOD HAD WINKED AT AND IGNORED , THOSE DISOBEDIENT WERE IGNORING THE TRINITY AND CONCEPT OF THE GODHEAD. / TRINITY

THIS IS A COMPLETE UNTRUTH … … … … … none of this is ever even mentioned in the Old Testament.
There is no concept of a GOD HEAD or a TRINITY - where a man / human is on earth in the OT - who is claiming to be the Father manifested / morphed into flesh expecting worship and praise and recognition - as God on earth
This is a complete lie… …

What Trinitarians are demanding { BY INSERTING AND CHANGING ONE SINGLE WORD } is that - God is claiming that he had allowed his O.T. Prophets, Priests and servants and children to ignore and disregard and reject the teaching that - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed in three persons in one GODHEAD / TRINITY

And that in the O.T. God simply winked and turned a blind eye and permitted or ignored his servants to ignore and disrespectfully worship the Old Testament Trinity Doctrine and the GODHEAD.

This is completely absurd. - This is the orbit of the Trinitarian thought process that is nothing but a circle of contradictions and alterations and changes to the manuscript message.

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead / TRINITY is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.

In other words - The GODHEAD and the TRINITY has always been there, always something that everyone in the Old Testament clearly knew about - but now suddenly mankind must REPENT for ignoring the GODHEAD - REPENT FOR DISRESPECTFULLY WORSHIPING the GODHEAD - that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed in three, separate, divine persons in one GODHEAD.

This not only proves beyond any doubt that St. Paul was not attempting to preach the Trinity and the GODHEAD to these Greek Pagans. THIS PROVES - that Paul was speaking of the DIVINITY of God

THE WORD GODHEAD - GODHEAD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE MANUSCRIPTS
This word was invented and added and changed from the word = divinity. / divine

This is exactly why the OLD LATIN VULGATE - the Catholic Bible Translation from the 3 th Century uses the word DIVINITY and not GODHEAD in - Act 17:29 /

Trinitarians invented the word “ Godhead” about 1200 years after Jesus Christ was born
The GODHEAD LITERALLY MEANS - The Trinity, in Christian doctrine of Jesus Christ as - the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.

And yet Trinitarians - have Paul trying to teach the Greek pagans the Trinity and Godhead
where Paul is here trying to convince the Greek Pagans that God has always expected all mankind to worship God as a Trinity and as a Godhead and now SUDDENLY God is demanding that mankind expected to SUDDENLY repent for rejecting the true and proper worship of GODHEAD Doctrine ? ?

But there is no Godhead anywhere in the Old Testament - yet the ONLY - ONLY Trinitarian rationale and purpose and cause for changing the word DEITY and inserting the word Godhead into the Translation was to insert and propaganda the Trinity doctrine.

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Yet Paul is preaching to Pagans in Greece who know absolutely nothing about anything concerning Paul’s faith - and these Pagans - they even think or believe that Paul is a Pagan just like them - and Paul directly suddenly jumps right into the Doctrine of the Godhead and the Trinity.

Then Paul tells them - - That the GODHEAD and the TRINITY has always been something that everyone in the Old Testament clearly knew about - but God winked and turned a blind eye to those rejecting the proper worship of Godhead Doctrine - now suddenly mankind must REPENT - repent now for ignoring the GODHEAD - - that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed in three separate CO Equal - Co Eternal - Co Omnipresent SEPARATE persons in one GODHEAD.

In other words, the Old Testament Prophets and Priests and Hebrew men and women were expected to accept and properly worship the Trinity and Jesus Christ’s pre existence as another Person in a Trinity with a Godhead - as a CO EQUAL - CO ETERNAL divine separate person of God.
This is exactly what the Protestant KJV Trinitarian Translation is demanding..

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; / ignored / LET SLIDE
but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Repent for improperly worshiping the Godhead / Trinity.

The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate and the Catholic Douay Rheims of 1582 does not change the simple, plain and common word “ DEITY “ into the fake word - Godhead.

In fact the word Godhead does not even exist in the original manuscripts.

This is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of mistranslated and altered verses that the Trinitarians have invented from Gen to Rev….

I tried to point out previously other mistranslated verses by showing directly from the manuscripts themselves but no one has yet responded nor addressed anything I had to say - nor answered my very, very important question in my post # #733

Regardless, it was an honor to read what others had to say about each their own personal translations