Trinity

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

yes the Word always existed. Maybe not as Jesus the man as history knows him, but the Word of God, even the eternal Son. That which is in the bosom of the father and proceeds from father to walk among us has always been the Son. And if God knows all things and is not limited to time, then he always knew what he was going to do, which is why the Son always existed, and one could say that Jesus always existed in a way, even though he was not yet manifest in the flesh from Mary and the Holy Spirit, he did show up throughout time as the Son of God to man. God of course he already knew what he would do and how the world ends. of course this goes into the philosophy of time and heaven, and is a little out there. anyways, The Holy Spirit took what was with God as God and taking it from the holy dimension of God to the limited dimension of man. No, he was not the Father himself, he is the Son, but he is God nonetheless who always existed, who is salvation, and who is glorified on the throne and will judge. and something i wanted to add which i read from one of your posts somewhere on the board, where christ's body is an empty vessel that the father pours the fullness of his Spirit.. it is more than that. For that body of Christ is the sacrifice and the temple and Christ is the high priest, and it it is what bled and what died and what resurrected, and what was glorified. so without the human body of Christ at that time there would be no God among us, and no forgiveness of sins, and no coming to God the Father. yes God is spirit, but the Son of God who is with God and is God is a resurrected and glorified person. So it cannot be easy seperated--the Spirit from the body when we talk about Jesus Christ and resurrection and glorification.

Was up, Blazin??

I simply view Jesus as the son of God, and our savior - nothing more, nothing less. It is very hard to comprehend the thought that Jesus was God. God cannot be tempted, and Jesus was. God cannot die, yet Jesus did. God, cannot sin, but Jesus had that ability. How could Jesus [if he is God] be less than God and do all these things. Thsi is a debete that has no end [imo] and not one that salvation rests upon, so ...

Jesus in my mind was more than an 'empty vessel' also. He was/is God's only begotten son, 'born' of the Holy spirit, which made Him more than a man, yet less than God. Trinity is just too difficult for me to understand, and I'm the kind of person who needs to understand a concept before accepting it, ya know?

Love

James

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by Thomas

So do we Catholics. We believe the Spirit of God is God. The Wisdom of God is God ... the Word of God is God.

Otherwise you have God, and something else not from God. If there was God and something else, then God is not unlimited, infinite, etc.,

I look at it from a logical point of view, as it all corresponds with natural birth processes [imo] I'm a product of my parents - I have both mothers, and fathers nature, but I cannot be considered either. I am an unique individual, just as Christ Jesus was. I inherrited the qualities of my father, and I inherrited the qualities of my mother, but I am not mum, or dad - I am James, son of both.

That's the difference, I think. We don't adulterate the Word of Scripture. If Scripture says the Word was God, then we have to understand how the Word can be God, not find some argument to explain it away.

Then, I suppose Peter was literally Satan, which the church was built upon. We can go even further, and suggest that God is actually Love also, in which case all one need do is love to be counted among the fold. [I'm pretty sure the Catholic church, and every other would resist these sentiments.

Sometimes we need to look deeper into the writ, to get to a better understanding of what it all implies. But, like I told Blazn, I don't think our salvation depends upon the acceptance, or denial of the trinity. I don't think it matters either way...

If the essence of the Word is God, then the Word is God ... the essence of a thing is what it is, surely?

Thomas

I am in 'essence' my father and my mother, yes? I have both of them as a part of me, but that doesn't make either one.

Love

James

[Dream]

The problem, Gatekeeper, is that he who denies the doctrine of the trinity denies the authority and infallibility of a certain influential church. You don't seem to understand what your denial means to members of the church who accept its authority and infallibility, and what it means especially to that church's leaders. You are rejecting the authority and capability of that church to define truth. That's what this discussion is really all about. Are you sure its wise to publicly state your position? It could cost you your life, your limb, and maybe your family sometime in the near future. It has cost others in the past.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by Dream

The problem, Gatekeeper, is that he who denies the doctrine of the trinity denies the authority and infallibility of a certain influential church. You don't seem to understand what your denial means to members of the church who accept its authority and infallibility, and what it means especially to that church's leaders. You are rejecting the authority and capability of that church to define truth. That's what this discussion is really all about. Are you sure its wise to publicly state your position? It could cost you your life, your limb, and maybe your family sometime in the near future. It has cost others in the past.

Ahhhh, I get it now; it's all about church authority! If this is the case, and there is actually danger in disagreement, then the protastants, and every other known religion will one day be forced to defend themselves against the almighty Roman Catholic church. Seems like the Church has proclaimed all Christianity being heretical, and untrue, cept for the roman catholics themselves.

Pft...

That's all bs, and nothing more! There will be followers of 'the church' for many years to come. Besisdes, I think we've grown past our [past]....

Love

James

[Dream]

Truth doesn't change, Gatekeeper. If war was appropriate to defend truth in the past, then it is equally appropriate now.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by Dream

Truth doesn't change, Gatekeeper. Remember that.

True, truth does not change - The problem rests in how we define truth. The church is not above mistakes, nor am I - so lets be realistic, here. Who can honestly say w/o a doubt, that they 'know' the truth? God is beyond our comprehension, so until that day when we can say that we know the enirety of God, His will, and every little detail of His plan - We are simply blessed with ignorance. This is the way it should be [imo] It is when we ourselves think we have it 'all' right, that we become a danger to others, via forceful conversions. Besides, if the Church is worried about lil ole me, then they are surely in desperate times.

Yup, yup

James

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

I simply view Jesus as the son of God, and our savior - nothing more, nothing less.

But only God is salvation, so if you are saying Jesus is saviour, who said he is the way, the truth, and the life, and who said he lays down his own life and has the power to take it up again, how do you reason that? and satan tempted, but didnt persuade or convince and was rebuked, jesus said you shall not tempt the Lord your God.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

But only God is salvation, so if you are saying Jesus is saviour, who said he is the way, the truth, and the life, and who said he lays down his own life and has the power to take it up again, how do you reason that? and satan tempted, but didnt persuade or convince and was rebuked, jesus said you shall not tempt the Lord your God.

Blazn, I'm not sure where you get that "only God is salvation", but when Satan tempted Jesus to throw himself off the temple - Jesus was telling satan that He himself is not to put God to the test. Satan told Jesus that God would command His angels to [save him], and Jesus simply rebukes with a "It is written" ...

James

[Dream]

But only God is salvation, so if you are saying Jesus is saviour, who said he is the way, the truth, and the life, and who said he lays down his own life and has the power to take it up again, how do you reason that? and satan tempted, but didnt persuade or convince and was rebuked, jesus said you shall not tempt the Lord your God.

Blazznfatty, you weren't talking to me but it is your responsibility to find out what whether these verses are reasonable instead of assuming they are incomprehensible. How I understand these verses about Jesus in the light of other verses about Jesus? I do it carefully, and I think about it.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

I'm not sure where you get that "only God is salvation"...

Isaiah 43:3, "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"
Isaiah 45:21, "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

So if you are saying jesus is the saviour, and you read that god is your saviour, one has to then say that jesus is god, and that is understanding the trinity. but if you say that jesus is not the saviour because only god is the saviour, then your sins are not forgiven, because this is the reason jesus came and no one comes to the father but through him.

[Joedjr]

Hi BlaznFattyz,

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

because this is the reason jesus came and no one comes to the father but through him.

This is from John 6:44 from the NASB. I really don't like using one line from the text, and have used this quote elsewhere in this thread. Read the rest to get the point.

44:"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
It's there for all to read.

IMHO: one must read the whole of the text to hopefully gain understanding. If one likes to embrace the Old Testament along with the New then view it also as a whole. I'm not to sure about the pick and choose.

.02
Joe

[mee]

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."
We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors."

The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied.



would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

Isaiah 43:3, "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"
Isaiah 45:21, "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

So if you are saying jesus is the saviour, and you read that god is your saviour, one has to then say that jesus is god, and that is understanding the trinity. but if you say that jesus is not the saviour because only god is the saviour, then your sins are not forgiven, because this is the reason jesus came and no one comes to the father but through him.

I still do not see where 'only' God saves, Blazn - You are free to believe what you wish, tho. I am not saying you are wrong, I simply don't see it all as you do. God certainly saves, but he could certainly give that power to Christ Jesus - His son. What is salvation anyway - if not the frededom that comes from truth. The Spirit is the Lord, and where that Spirit is, there is freedom- It is the the Spirit that gives life, and through that spirit we have truth.

James

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

I look at it from a logical point of view, as it all corresponds with natural birth processes [imo] ...

Then you begin to anthropomorphise the Deity ... this is the way it happens for man, does not mean God must be subject to the same limitations.

In the natural order it takes two parents to create a child ... with God it does not, so the natural model does not apply.

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

I'm a product of my parents — I have both mothers, and fathers nature, but I cannot be considered either. I am an unique individual, just as Christ Jesus was. I inherrited the qualities of my father, and I inherrited the qualities of my mother, but I am not mum, or dad - I am James, son of both.

Jesus didn't have a biological father, did he? Furthermore it is believed that Jesus Christ was one Person with two natures, which is not the case with us, either...

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

Then, I suppose Peter was literally Satan, which the church was built upon. We can go even further, and suggest that God is actually Love also, in which case all one need do is love to be counted among the fold. [I'm pretty sure the Catholic church, and every other would resist these sentiments.

Well, how wrong you are!

In the first instance, if one actually reads Scripture to understand why Our Lord referred to Peter that way, it is obvious: "And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord... " Matthew 16:22.

So Peter tries to take control of Christ, to which He replies "thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." 16:23.

In the second case, God is love, and yes, all we have to do is love to be counted among the fold ... the problem is man is so conditioned by his appetites that he doesn't really understand what true love is.

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

But, like I told Blazn, I don't think our salvation depends upon the acceptance, or denial of the trinity. I don't think it matters either way...

I know ... everyone's got an opinion, that's the problem...

Thomas

[Gatekeeper]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Then you begin to anthropomorphise the Deity ... this is the way it happens for man, does not mean God must be subject to the same limitations.

In the natural order it takes two parents to create a child ... with God it does not, so the natural model does not apply.


Jesus didn't have a biological father, did he? Furthermore it is believed that Jesus Christ was one Person with two natures, which is not the case with us, either...


Well, how wrong you are!

In the first instance, if one actually reads Scripture to understand why Our Lord referred to Peter that way, it is obvious: "And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord... " Matthew 16:22.

So Peter tries to take control of Christ, to which He replies "thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." 16:23.

In the second case, God is love, and yes, all we have to do is love to be counted among the fold ... the problem is man is so conditioned by his appetites that he doesn't really understand what true love is.


I know ... everyone's got an opinion, that's the problem...

Thomas

Are saying that I 'must' view it your way to be saved, Thomas? tsk, tsk - I never have bought into the whole fear based conversion bit - You have your opinion, and I have mine. There is no need to imply condemnation just because I view Christ differently than you...

Mans mental/intellectual concept of God makes no difference [imo] Do you really think babes have a concept of God? Are babes rejected for not having a mental concept of God, or is it enough that they love, and trust in this perfect fruit of the Spirit? I'll go with the latter. Same goes with the trinity - it is far too complicated for even the average adult to conceptualize, much less a child....


James