honest discussion of the trinity?

[nandon]

i honestly think that the trinity doesn't matter. maybe true, maybe not... either way i don't think it matters.

[JumpinJive]

Not sure what you're getting at, cman. Do those three lines refer to something in the bible?

Sushi: Good point. It was definitely a journey for me too. I've heard the 'truth' so many times on so many subjects that I figure by now I must know everything about everything. Or maybe everything about something. Or maybe something about nothing.

Ahhhh, never mind.

-JJ

[year2027]

God first

Beloved sonofarthur

God loves you my dear friend

While I am well versed in TWI's teaching on this subject I have work to put off TWI's wayish thinking and put on true thinking

I have read some of the Nicene Creed and like some of it along with Gnostic teaching and many other

yes lets have a honest discussion of the trinity but which trinity

did you know there is a trinity of the flesh

1. body

2. soul

3. spirit

did you know there is a trinity of of image

1. flesh image

2. spirit image

3. darkness image or face of the deep

did you know there is a trinity of holy spirit

1. God the Giver

2. Christ the son

3. holy spirit the gift

did you know there is a trinity of life

1. growth life

2. soul life

3. spirit life

did you know there is a trinity of birth

1. ferized the seed or egg by a form of s*x

2. grown inside the seed or egg --womb is the outer shell

3. birth

and we could go on and on

so there is a trinity but was it miss understood and taught wrong each person must go to God them self as to what one personally believes

thank you

with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy

[starbird]

niether the word trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the new testament,

nor did jesus and his followers intend to contradict the shema in the old testament:

"hear o israel: the lord our god is one lord {deut.6:4}

the doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies..

by the end of the 4th century..the doctrine of the trinity took substantially the form

it has maintained ever since..

christianity derived from judaism and judaism was strictly unitarian{believing that god is one person}

"going a little further he {jesus} fell on his face and prayed, my father, if it is possible, let

this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as i will, but as thou wilt" {matthew26:39}

if the father and the son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been

meaningless. jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity

have been the fathers will.

{jesus answered the jewish pharisees} in your law it is written that the testimony of two men

is true; i bear witness to myself, and the father who sent me bears witness to me"{john 8:17,18}

so jesus definately spoke of himself as being an individual seperate and distinct from

the father.

starbird x x x

[potato]

"God is not a man that He should lie". In regards to lying, God is not a man. Very true. But that's shaky ground to build a concept of who Christ is. Awfully shaky.

actually, that verse didn't come to my mind at all.

I'm a bit offended that you would assume I build my concept of christ on one verse, especially when I haven't given you my study list. seems a bit judgmental. I was simply offering my viewpoint on the problem I have with understanding the trinity as a believable concept, not really inviting a personal attack of my methods for arriving at the conclusions I presently hold. feel free to disagree with me, and by all means feel free to explain why you disagree, but please refrain from assuming you know the specific why and how of my beliefs unless I explain them to you. if I speak in general terms, then don't assume more than that, OK?

in reality, there is a lot of the bible that causes me to beg the question, although posting the question wasn't a request for a stock answer, of a type with which I'm very, very familiar, having heard it many times (at least it looks like you're attempting to explain to me who Christ is in very simplistic terms, as if I'm a child - if you've changed subjects and are not, but are simply stating YOUR beliefs, you can ignore the rest of this):

Jesus was the Word made flesh.

The express image of His person.

The fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelt in Him.

I believe He is God incarnate, meaning, God come in the flesh.

it works for you, but it really doesn't for me. the term "God incarnate" makes no sense to me, and has never, ever been explained so that it seems anything but contrary with the one-ness of God, which does make sense to me. God in the flesh doesn't explain God in the spirit while he was in the flesh, or it doesn't explain God in the flesh, either.

[dmiller]

Hello all. :) Not trying to argue, or *convert* anyone ---

but I have found THIS PAGE, to be quite enlightening, concerning the *Two Adams*.

If nothing else -- it offers food for thought. :)

Edited January 23, 2007 by dmiller

[potato]

that was so awesome I read the help wanted ad to my older kid!

[dmiller]

that was so awesome I read the help wanted ad to my older kid!

Potato -- glad you liked it -- but BEWARE!!

That was from Truth or Tradition ( a site owned/ operated by CES).

Now maybe you will see why I don't think they are TOTALLY full of hot air. ;)

[cacoon chuckers]

good one dmiller, makes sense to me

[dmiller]

I posted this to SonofArthur -- on the open forum.

Thought it appropriate to post it here too.

HERE! are excerpts from One God, and One Lord.

[sonofarthur]

starbird,

I don't believe that the Nicene Creed contradicts the Shema.

This doctrine, as it has been traditionally accepted, affirms the oneness of God first of all.

To be honest, I don't care too much about the creed per se. I would prefer to just say that I accept the Bible. The problem is we might both claim to believe the Bible but disagree about what it says. Creeds, or any other form of faith statement, are human attempts to encapsulize and summarize what the entire Bible says about a particular topic.

I think that the Nicene Creed got it right in what they said. Now, that is not to say that they said everything that there is to say about God, or that even more could not be confidently said. All I am saying is that I agree with what they did say in the way they said it.

A note on history: From what I have studied, every element within the creed was generally agreed upon as far back as we can study and that takes us all the way back to the writings of Paul, Peter, and John (i.e. the scriptures).

The Nicene Creed came out for two main reasons:

1. To combat the heresy of Arianism: one could assume that this wasn't needed before since the entire church was generally in agreement about who God is.

2. The church had believed this doctrine since the first century but it took 300 years for them to figure out how to accurately summarize what they were believing. (It is kinda difficult to summarily describe who God is.)

That being said, I don't think that a study of history can reliably point to a conclusion one way or another. Extra-biblical history depends entirely upon who the historian is.

Here are my assumptions:

1. The Bible is true and from God in the original.

2. The truth on this subject IS knowable in the sense that we can know the truth of each element of the Nicene Creed (i.e. either Jesus is God or is not, either Jesus and the father are distinct in some way or they are indistinguishable, etc.)

Now, to be honest, my second assumption derives from the first so I guess it isn't really an assumption.

A corollary of these premises is that the truth that was first delivered to us (i.e. the first time the books of the Bible were written) has not been lost. Jesus said that "the scripture cannot be broken". God has protected His word and we have access to the truth.

Since no one will give me a copy of CES's book on the topic (see other forum), I can only refer to VPW's JCING...

in it I believe he uses extra-biblical assumptions (outside of what I have stated above) to come to his conclusions.

One more note about assumptions and "proof":

I believe that VPW actually DID prove his point. Does that shock you? I think that is why it is so hard to convince a diehard wayfer to believe that Jesus is God.

When I say that VPW "proved" his point I do NOT mean he was right. I just mean that his logic was sound. The problem was not in his proof. The problem was in his set of assumptions. You see, proof, and I can speak to this since I teach proofs (I am a math teacher by profession) is when you take a set of agreed upon premises and logically derive a new set of conclusions. Proofs are valid when they correctly employ the laws of logic to arrive at the result. Proofs can be valid and at the same point, dead wrong. If the premises are wrong in the first place, the logic can be good, but the results will be just as flawed as the assumptions.

Now... at the risk that I have lost someone and lest I get ignored.... is what I am saying clear?

[T-Bone]

That’s fine by me – just don’t turn this into an honest discussion about mathematics. Because…honestly…if you think I sound confused on Trinitarian stuff – don’t ask me to share what I know about math. Math is MY basic spiritual problem .

[sonofarthur]

T-bone,

okay... I'll hold back a little.

I would say that God used my study of mathematics to help me ferret out the inconsistencies and errors I was taught in TWI. But then that would be a subject for another thread I suppose.

[Oakspear]

duplicate post

Edited January 23, 2007 by Oakspear

[Oakspear]

No matter which side of the Trinity debate one finds oneself on, there are some verses that must be "explained". These verses are (among other things) referred to as "unclear" or "apparent contradictions". This tells me that neither position is as clear cut and unassailable as its adherants think it is. Unitarians have to "explain" why several verses clearly call Jesus "God". Trinitarians have to "explain" things like Jesus clearly having a separate will from "The Father". Both sides, in addition to trotting out their favorite scriptures, appeal to logic that is often circular and take pot shots at strawmen. Wierwille tortured the rules of grammar and twisted definitions to make his version "fit". Early Christians devised elaborate theologies to prop up their thoughts on the matter.

Sometimes a non-Trinitarian will point out that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the bible. Neither does "Law of Believing" or "Sonship Rights".

As someone who does not believe that the bible is inerrant, I have no trouble believing that there will be contradictions in it. Different people had differing views of who Jesus was and what he accomplished. They didn't consult each other before penning their contributions to the canon.

[sonofarthur]

Oakspear,

Not to miss your bigger point, but I will quickly respond to one of your minor points.

The doctrine of the trinity doesn't have a problem with the Father and the Son having different "wills".

[Oakspear]

Oakspear,

Not to miss your bigger point, but I will quickly respond to one of your minor points.

The doctrine of the trinity doesn't have a problem with the Father and the Son having different "wills".

Yes I know, they came up with an "explanation" that reconciles the contradiction.

[sonofarthur]

Oakspear,

Not to be to blunt, but what are you talking about?

I think you are mischaracterizing the doctrine of the trinity... let me try to briefly summarize it. (Other trinitarians can speak up if they disagree with my summarizings....

1. There is One and only one God.

2. The Bible shows clearly that Jesus is God, The Father is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God.

3. These three characters (Jesus, the Father, and the HS) are distinct in will but one in essense.

[potato]

I feel very discouraged about honest discussion when words like "heresy" and "truth" are used in lieu of "belief" and "doctrine".

[TheInvisibleDan]

I opt for neither Trinitarian or Unitarian formulations holding exclusive monopoly over what perspective(s) Christians are -or are not - “suppose” to hold . I usually find such a debate to be one heck of a poor starting point for jumping into a historical, theological controversy, when one doesn’t proceed earlier past the third/fourth centuries to explore the various elements contributing to the development of notions that became later debated.

The Unitarian position would have it that the development of ideas concerning Jesus followed a pattern of deification, from a man to a God, resulting in the Trinitarian creeds.

To complicate matters further, is the fact that the multiple movements comprising early Christianity during the opening decades of the second century did not all share the same ideas. Some did not even draw a distinction between God and Jesus, such as we encounter in such phrases as “In the name of the Christ-God” or “our Lord and God Jesus” (cf. the openings to the shorter versions of those epistles attributed to St. Ignatius).

Christians in the area of Pontus were observed during their ceremonies at dawn as having worshiped and offered hymns to Christ “as a God”. And then we have one the earliest Gospels (upon which our canonical “Luke” is built) opening up with Jesus as a God or Angel descending from heaven All this during the opening decades of the second century.

Indeed, some of the earliest Christian movements held that Jesus was actually an angelic being, whose presence on earth did not begin in a cave nor a manger – but as an Angel descended directly out of heaven “in the form of a man”. Other movements held that it was the “Christ” spirit which entered into the “human” Jesus upon his baptism, and later abandoned the human Jesus while he was dying on the cross ( the Acts of John preserves this unusual notion).

I can appreciate what the later creedal setters were trying to accomplish – to get all these dverse, motley movements on the same page. To standardize the ideas and the various writings into one. While such attempts have their advantages, they unfortunately also have their drawbacks.

I encourage people on either side of this debate go further back, to exploring the rough-about-the-edges, messy and even weird “raw material” that circulated throughout Christian movements before much of it became standardized and homogenized and canonized and bastardized and Simonized and ossified and any other thing that could occur to a religion in the course of several centuries.

The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Library (to name a few sources) provide fertile ground for personal exploration and contemplation.

Danny

Edited January 23, 2007 by TheInvisibleDan

[sirguessalot]

very well said, Danny, as usual

and to add...i would also encourage us to go further back into all the wonderully messy strands of jewish thought

its said that "one cant be a good christian without first becomng a good jew"

which, of course, is not the same as getting familiar with a few mannerisms and idioms

but delving into the deeply mystic raw material of the aboriginal philosophies, stories and traditions that jesus himself came out of

so often, in TWI and other modern Christian dialogue

it seems the understanding of pre-christian jewish thought is flattened and reduced to a few cleanly-explained monolithic legalistic styles of groups

...which then, of course, tends to reflect in our understanding and unpackaging of christianity

Edited January 23, 2007 by sirguessalot

[cman]

It's interesting to note the many attempts throughout history of man trying to produce the Messiah.

And the thoughts of those, or rather perhaps the thoughts of those who are involved.

From Cain slaying Abel to many being thought to be the promised seed that was to redeem.

It took the spirit interceding - of course - to bring about a man-

Jesus from the seed of Joseph and the egg of Mary - while

'under 'the shadow of the holy spirit' to bring such a man into play.

I do think Joseph and Mary had sex to bring about Jesus.

Cause God didn't create nothing at that time imo.

So you may say i believe they are separate-I don't.

The Word Became flesh. When?

When he was born or was it in the process of time.

Aided by descending of the Spirit as a dove upon this Jesus.

Becoming one with 'it'.

Backing up a bit ...

Let 'us' make man in our image.

The us could have very well been two becoming one.

Timing has nothing of interest for me.

But that it happened does.

Cause so many tryed to make it happen and tryed to stop it from happening.

Mary's and others prophecy's are of extreme significance imo.

So using the word trinity is a waste of my time to consider.

Although it's usage is widespread, therefore is dealt with.

I do believe in One.

Though this one has so many aspects, man couldn't put it together if he tryed.

Our understanding of one is finite compared to what I think the One is.

[T-Bone]

Thanks for those links, DMiller. After reviewing The Two Adams and One God, One Lord excerpts – a few things bugged me. The main thing that hit me was reductionism in their reasoning – reminded me of VPW's way of thinking - telling me what God can and cannot do:"…there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God can become a true man, because He is God. One of the boundaries of God's nature is given in Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man…" And from the beginning, one of Man's defining boundaries was that the consequence for disobeying God's command was death. Potential mortality, then, was always a defining part of man's existence. God, therefore, cannot actually be a man, because He cannot die." [from the beginning of Two Adams]... The reference in Numbers 23:19 is saying God is not a man that he should lie – contrasting the unreliability of man as seen in the passage's context of Balaam himself.

When it comes to the pre-existent Word of John 1:1,2 and the Word becoming flesh [John 1:14] I noticed One God, One Lord handled it in a similar fashion as VPW: "…The "word" was with God in the same sense that "wisdom" was with God. Proverbs 8:29b and 30a says, "When He [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side." No one we know of believes that there was a being called "Wisdom" who helped God make the heavens and the earth. Everyone knows that wisdom is personified to make the record interesting and easy to understand. So too, in John 1:1 when Scripture says that the logos was "with God," it is a personification…" [from But What about John 1:1? chapter]…I think reducing the Word of John 1:1,2 to a personification is somewhat similar to saying Christ was in God's foreknowledge.

The thing I find most dubious is near the end of Two Adams :"…With such a simple but profound basis for biblical understanding, why engage in theological speculation about Christ's identity that can only complicate and compromise the beautiful literary symmetry and integrity of Scripture?" … Why engage in theological speculation? Why engage in speculation in any field of study? I think that's how people explore, learn, and grow. Once again, I see a reductionism process by telling me I better not think outside the box – or in my case the triangle. Because I could complicate and compromise the symmetry and integrity of their interpretation of Scripture.

Edited January 23, 2007 by T-Bone

[def59]

I've talked about this before and I'll ring in here again. I was a "true believer" for JCING when I was in TWI. It was my calling. After I left, I held firm to my belief until I started seeing in Scripture where Jesus was much more than a man and had been around a lot longer than the manger.

It was a slow process and I prayed God for answers. He gave them to me and I am convinced of Jesus as divine. as well as the Holy Spirit being seperate from the Father.

I am willing to discuss this further.......

[TheInvisibleDan]

very well said, Danny, as usual

and to add...i would also encourage us to go further back into all the wonderully messy strands of jewish thought

its said that "one cant be a good christian without first becomng a good jew"

which, of course, is not the same as getting familiar with a few mannerisms and idioms

but delving into the deeply mystic raw material of the aboriginal philosophies, stories and traditions that jesus himself came out of

so often, in TWI and other modern Christian dialogue

it seems the understanding of pre-christian jewish thought is flattened and reduced to a few cleanly-explained monolithic legalistic styles of groups

...which then, of course, tends to reflect in our understanding and unpackaging of christianity

Hi Sir Guess,

Yes, the material of the Dead Sea Scrolls and certain of the writings grouped among the Jewish Pseudopigrapha go a long way toward expanding our understanding beyond the "flattened" depictions of Judaism(s). Merkabah Mysticism (as represented through expressions encountered in "The Testament of Job", and reports concerning the Essenes) especially comes to mind, where interestingly enough, speaking in "tongues" was a ritual in effect prior to "Acts" and Paul's writings.

Danny