Try the Trinity.

RJM said:
Yes, but if God the Father ALONE has power to create life, and Jesus has the same power, then Jesus shares the power to create with the Father?
Click to expand...
No, without God the Father, Jesus would not have any power. :)
God the Father is not dependent .. He is All-Knowing, All-Powerful.

RJM said:
If God does not have a Son, then who is Jesus's Father?
Click to expand...
Jesus does not have a biological father .. It is easy for God to cause that.
God has no wife, no sex, no progeny, no parents etc.
 
How is God the Father, without offspring? How is Christ the Son of God, with no father?
 
Last edited:
If we are going to employ the anthropomorphic family terms literally, we have to stay consistent?
 
RJM said:
How is God the Father, without offspring? How is Christ the Son of God, with no father?
Click to expand...

According to Alon Goshen-Gottstein, in the Old Testament "Father" is generally a metaphor; it is not a proper name for God but rather one of many titles by which Jews speak of and to God.

..hence "Our Father, whom art in heaven".

In Christianity fatherhood is taken in a more literal and substantive sense, and is explicit about the need for the Son as a means of accessing the Father, making for a more metaphysical rather than metaphorical interpretation.
God_the_Father
 
Yes, but then we are not able to apply the family terms literally in respect to the Trinity?
 
OupaPiet said:
Half way true.
The Trinity did create physical substances.
He also entered into Creation when He created it all. later on He came to humans and spoke to them in person. He even lived amongst them in a tabernacle and temple (or shall I say His "Glory" lived among us)

Eventually He decided to take his Mind, and to become a Human.
He even aged as a human, and died like a human.

This is the Triune God.
Not some distant spirit that is so far removed from us that we never could fathom God.
No, He realy made MAN to be His friend, not some robotic toy to play with that can be set on earth to be placed on trial after life.
It is up to us to accept Him, or to deny his Love and Friendship.
That way we condemn ourself.
Click to expand...
His Glory, or Him... Did the entire Trinity enter into creation to live in the tabernacle, or the Father. Or is The Glory, the Holy Spirit?
 
muhammad_isa said:
In Christianity fatherhood is taken in a more literal and substantive sense,
Click to expand...
This comment has jogged my memory. I am sorry that I will be rather vague here but I do not remember the source and neither Greek philosophy nor Christianity is my area.
Somebody wrote that according to a Greek idea, things are either of 'substance' or 'relationship'. The author was stating that viewing the trinity as something of substance was where it had all gone wrong and that the key was to think first and foremost of a relationship.

I struggle to really comprehend this, yet I felt that there is something very meaningful within the idea.
 
wil said:
In a simple quote?
Click to expand...
The doctrine of the Trinity? Nope.

But a simple belief in Jesus as God was there right at the start of Christianity – it was a triune Church before the close of the first century.

There are two passage in Paul which are now believed to be very early hymns:
The first is Colossians 1 15-20 – "He is the image of the invisible God"
The second is Philippians 2:5-11 – "Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus,"

Notably the latter part of the Philippian hymn (v9-11):
"Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."

"The name which is above every name" is telling and, to Jewish-Christian ears, is clearly a reference to the Divinity of Jesus – "That at that name of Jesus every knee should bow" is either an instruction to break the Commandment, or that Jesus is God.

"Jesus Christ is Lord" should also not be passed over. Jews do not pronounce the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the Hebrew and the accepted Hebrew form of address was 'Adonai' which in Greek is 'Kyrios' – 'Lord'.


The language of the hymns is not characteristically Pauline, and scholars have noted they translate easily back into Aramaic, so may well have been translated from Aramaic to Koine Greek. They certainly show features of Hebrew poetic structure.

They are most likely recognised credal statements in hymnodic form before their incorporation into Paul’s letters. Most scholars date them from 33 to 48 – time enough to become known before Paul was writing, and they evidence a belief in a fully human, fully divine Jesus.

That Christology was not defined until Chalcedon, 400 years later, but was evidently there, and believed, right from the get-go.
 
wil said:
The issue as I see it is the trinity is not abrahamic.... it is specifically christian...and not even all christians...

Not a discussion that can be had with Muslims and Jews, unless the goal is conversion.
Click to expand...
Did you know the original Scripture does not say "convert" but "divert"...onto the narrow Way..
 
TTh
Thomas said:
The doctrine of the Trinity? Nope.

But a simple belief in Jesus as God was there right at the start of Christianity – it was a triune Church before the close of the first century.

There are two passage in Paul which are now believed to be very early hymns:
The first is Colossians 1 15-20 – "He is the image of the invisible God"
The second is Philippians 2:5-11 – "Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus,"

Notably the latter part of the Philippian hymn (v9-11):
"Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."

"The name which is above every name" is telling and, to Jewish-Christian ears, is clearly a reference to the Divinity of Jesus – "That at that name of Jesus every knee should bow" is either an instruction to break the Commandment, or that Jesus is God.

"Jesus Christ is Lord" should also not be passed over. Jews do not pronounce the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the Hebrew and the accepted Hebrew form of address was 'Adonai' which in Greek is 'Kyrios' – 'Lord'.


The language of the hymns is not characteristically Pauline, and scholars have noted they translate easily back into Aramaic, so may well have been translated from Aramaic to Koine Greek. They certainly show features of Hebrew poetic structure.

They are most likely recognised credal statements in hymnodic form before their incorporation into Paul’s letters. Most scholars date them from 33 to 48 – time enough to become known before Paul was writing, and they evidence a belief in a fully human, fully divine Jesus.

That Christology was not defined until Chalcedon, 400 years later, but was evidently there, and believed, right from the get-go.
Click to expand...
The Name above every other name is: YaHUaH
 
OupaPiet said:
I never bothered to find out exactly how the Trinity "God" was, shall I say...constructed...
To the Christian it is not a problem to say God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
To them it is one God.

Then I was confronted by Muslim, and realized, to my shock, that Christians have a hard time to explain the Trinity.

Well, I previously sumerized the Bible and read the Quran a few times, and I decided to see if there is an easy understandable way to explain the Trinity, and to also find out if the Trinity is false, or really a divine god.

Well, I did my learning and have to test my knowledge with religions that do not believe in the Trinity, to validate my understanding.
This is my main reason why I wanted to join this forum.
To test the idea of a Triune God.

Whats the use if I believe in something, and there might be facts I dont know about that will destroy these "Facts".

If anyone wants to ask questions or needs some clarification, I will be happy to have a serious but friendly debate.
Click to expand...
!!!WhatsWrongWithThisPicture.jpg
 
restored&adopted said:
I agree, we are not supposed to change Scripture and teaching something that is not in Scripture creates an opportunity for the adversary to spread more lies.
Click to expand...
Not really a valid argument when the doctrine is founded on Scripture.

"And Philip running thither, heard him (a man of Ethiopia, of great authority under Candace [the queen mother] of the Ethiopians), who had charge over all her trreading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me?" Acts

Scripture itself says its deeper meanings might not be accessibly to all.

Sacred Scripture is a genre unique to itself. It's not self-evident, like an operator manual. I have read books and poems where the more profound meaning and message escaped me ... I find it no surprise to think that perhaps there are things in Scripture that are not so immediately evident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top