GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?  (Read 9698 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #35 on: Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 04:18:58 »
Sir church is the English term for the Greek word. It means the same thing. The called out ones. That is really a pointless argument to try and prove and pointless misunderstanding. The church is not a building. Though a building may indeed be set aside for purpose of saints coming to gather for worship.


I don’t disagree your above thoughts my comments were based on the original Greek conveying a deeper appreciation of the word ecclesia.  Today Church carries connotations which even infidels equate to going to steeple churches of grandeur when actually it signifies a gathering of believers who have all things in common, often in homes.   
Anyway – like I said, I am not dogmatic on the term Church, it sad what it’s become in the mind of many deceived and mislead believers in the world.

Quote

No angel accepts praise from a man, excepting that Angel is God himself. In the case of Abraham he saw God in the flesh appearing to him as a man. He spoke with God. And this is clearing God the Son, or the Word, as Jesus himself said no man hath seen the Father at any time.


You didn’t provide Scriptures because you don’t really believe this do you!
 
Quote

We know by reading Hebrews in connection with the books of Moses that it is God the Holy Spirit who led the children in the wilderness, not the Father.


Again no Scriptures, more of the same wresting and forcing of error into the record, and even if I did proved to you who actually led the Hebrew people in the wilderness, you would not listen.

Quote

Jesus told the disciples that he was going away. He told them he would send them another Comforter. That this Comforter would come from the Father and that he is the Spirit of truth. This Spirit of truth is clearly not the Father because the father sends him, as he also sent Jesus, and he is another Comforter, so he is not Jesus. So then who is the Holy Spirit? Ref, John 17


I see your confusion.

Quote

The speaking in tongues is not an error my friend. Jesus prophesied of it himself. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name they shall cast out devils; They shall speak with new tongues; And they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Mark 16:17-18


It is all downhill from here.

Quote

Speaking in tongues seems to be another doctrine your throw out of the Bible because you do not understand it. The Bible is so full of Trinitarian language you would have to be blind not to see it.


Sounds like a challenge.

Show me the following out of the Bible.

•   God in Trinity
•   Trinity in Unity
•   The Father uncreate
•   The Son uncreate
•   Holy Ghost uncreate
•   Son incomprehensible,
•   Holy Ghost incomprehensible
•   Son eternal,
•   Holy Ghost eternal
•   The Son Almighty
•   Holy Ghost Almighty
•   The Son is God,
•   Holy Ghost is God

This shall be interesting...

Insight

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #35 on: Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 04:18:58 »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #36 on: Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 17:59:16 »
Show me the following out of the Bible:

•   God in Trinity

"The Word of the Lord came to..." occurs 92 times as an exact phrase.  Here, we may understand 'Lord' to be the Father, the Word to be the son, and the fact that the Word "came to" anybody at all to be the Spirit.

•   Trinity in Unity
"I and my Father are one" makes the Father and Son one and the same.  "God is Spirit" would seem to make the Father and Spirit one and the same.  Apply the mathematical principle of substitution to prove the third part.

•   The Father uncreated
•   The Son uncreated
•   Holy Ghost uncreate

That the Father was not created is apparent from the fact that He was the one doing the creating.  "And the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters" in Genesis 1:2 makes the Spirit of God the means by which God gave form to the unformed, making It also pre-existent and thus not created.  Finally, the Son is "slain from the foundation of the world."  He must also exist from the foundation of the world, for this to be true (though I think not in the form most people would think).

•   Son incomprehensible
•   Holy Ghost incomprehensible

Those aren't in the Bible.  In fact, rather the opposite... God the Father is "invisible" meaning incomprehensible, but "The Word made flesh" is "the icon of the invisible God" meaning expressly that He IS comprehensible.  Likewise, the Spirit is the means by which God communicates and makes Himself known, if not seen.

•   Son eternal

Hbr 1:8 KJV - But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

•   The Son Almighty

"All authority in heaven and earth has been given me" springs to mind, but until you apprehend what it means for Christ to be 'The Word' you may not perceive that to be the same thing as omnipotence.

•   Holy Ghost eternal
•   Holy Ghost Almighty

Asking to prove this seperately from the Father, makes the faulty assumption that the Spirit is somehow other than the Father.  You have asked a question that doesn't make any sense to me.  It is as if you had asked me to prove that my arm is actually me.  My arm is not a separate thing from me... it is part of me.

•   The Son is God

"The Word was God" in John 1:1.  Hebrews 1:8 works here too.

•   Holy Ghost is God

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him..."

Jarrod

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #36 on: Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 17:59:16 »

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #37 on: Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:31:29 »
•   God in Trinity "The Word of the Lord came to..." occurs 92 times as an exact phrase.  Here, we may understand 'Lord' to be the Father, the Word to be the son, and the fact that the Word "came to" anybody at all to be the Spirit.


Many ask where is “God in Trinity
« Last Edit: Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 21:36:01 by Insight »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #38 on: Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 12:33:29 »
You asked me to show it to you out of the Bible, so I did.  It is true that these exact phrases do not occur there.  I usually assume that people here are willing to reason out of the Bible (otherwise why are they talking about it online?)  If you aren't, well... that doesn't leave much to discuss, does it?

I can appreciate that you have recognized that the "3 persons" formulation of the Trinity misses the mark somewhat.  I think you go too far in dismissing the entire concept of Trinity, though, as well as in throwing out all creeds and early teachings.  You have crossed the line from being a Reformer, to being a Revolutionary.

Perhaps you, like most of Christendom, have forgotten that the root word of trinity is unity.  Or perhaps nobody has ever showed you what the early church actually did believe.  Speaking for myself, I am fully confident in what I do understand of this.  It makes sense to me on a rational level - it isn't just a "take it for faith" thing or a "mystery" to me.

Without going into too much detail...

There are 2 metaphors in the teaching of the church
1) Head, Word, Spirit
2) Father and Son
The first describes the Godhead and the expression of the Godhead in His interactions with mankind, and the second describes particularly the relationship between God and Jesus. 

Nonetheless, they have been combined, so we have the mixed metaphor "Father, Son, and Spirit" which has caused no small amount of confusion.

If one is willing to tackle each metaphor separately, then the whole thing makes a lot more sense.

Jarrod

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #39 on: Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 19:25:36 »
Quote
Jarrod is White

White is Jarrod
The Holy Spirit and Father are one; one are The Father and Holy Spirit. Makes sense to me.



Quote

I implore you to understand that your salvation is at risk.
A word of advice, friend: shut your gob. You have absolutely no way of knowing the final destination of Wycliffes_Shillelagh's soul---or anyone else's, for that matter. That is knowledge that belongs only to the Lord. Your claiming to know wether a fellow Christian is going to Heaven or Hell is astoundingly arrogant, and unbefitting of any follower of Christ.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #39 on: Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 19:25:36 »



Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #40 on: Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 12:48:26 »
Quote
Jarrod is White

White is Jarrod
The Holy Spirit and Father are one; one are The Father and Holy Spirit. Makes sense to me.
Why does everyone suddenly think I'm white? 

I mean... I am white on the outside.  But my heart.... my heart is as black as anybody here!  Wait... that didn't come out quite like I'd planned...

::intherain::

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #41 on: Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 17:38:23 »

You asked me to show it to you out of the Bible, so I did.  It is true that these exact phrases do not occur there.  I usually assume that people here are willing to reason out of the Bible (otherwise why are they talking about it online?)  If you aren't, well... that doesn't leave much to discuss, does it?


Again your admission once again proves the uninspired nature of these doctrines.  In terms of arguing these definitions out of the Bible well, as we have found it is most difficult.  I am sure even the Apostle Paul would struggle to refute them because they have no Bible Basis. 

Over the years I have seen many “statements of faith

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #42 on: Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 20:39:18 »

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #43 on: Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 21:01:09 »

The question is whether you understand the creeds well enough to even begin to compare them with Scripture.  Everything so far points to a resounding "no."


What would you like to know about the creeds, and their development?

Quote

The Father is God in His transcendence.  Here we are talking about an intelligence and pure thought.  What He has begotten is the Word - which is to say, the same thoughts, only expressed towards us.  

And that Word, when it became flesh, that is referred to as the Son.  He is "the icon of the invisible God."  That is, the intelligence of the Godhead neatly packaged as a human being, so that seeing and hearing, we might understand and believe God.


I agree with the above.  Of course none of this translates to his pre-existence.

Quote

As for the rest of your post - you seem determined to say the same thing over and over again in as many different ways as you possibly can.  ::beatingdeadhorse::

One can only hope that in place of beating a dead horse one might actually begin to ask thoughtful and well-reasoned questions of God in the hope of receiving divine answers rather than drawing to philosophies of men.

Is this too much to ask?

 ::shrug::




« Last Edit: Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 22:38:06 by Insight »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #44 on: Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 22:46:56 »

The question is whether you understand the creeds well enough to even begin to compare them with Scripture.  Everything so far points to a resounding "no."
What would you like to know about the creeds, and their development?
You want a pop quiz?  Why not...

Define:
Ousia
Hypostasis
Enthymesis

Is the meaning of these words significantly different in the Biblical creeds than it is Platonism?  in Gnosticism?

Comment on the correspondence between these words and the doctrine of the Trinity.

Why was there a controversy over the usage of 'omoousias vs. 'omoiousias in the Nicene creed?

Given the definition(s) of Ousia in Classical Greek literature, is it accurate to define 'omoousia as "being of the same substance?"  Why or why not?

These aren't particularly easy questions, but if you can answer them, then you should be able to understand the creeds as the authors intended them.

Quote
Quote
The Father is God in His transcendence.  Here we are talking about an intelligence and pure thought.  What He has begotten is the Word - which is to say, the same thoughts, only expressed towards us. 

And that Word, when it became flesh, that is referred to as the Son.  He is "the icon of the invisible God."  That is, the intelligence of the Godhead neatly packaged as a human being, so that seeing and hearing, we might understand and believe God.
I agree with the above.  Of course none of this translates to his pre-existence.
The pre-existence of the Word is explicit in John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word."  Any other argument is just one of chronology - the question being "when was the Word begotten?"  I do not feel that question is explicitly answered in Scriptures.  Perhaps you feel otherwise.  Feel free to comment.

Quote
As for the rest of your post - you seem determined to say the same thing over and over again in as many different ways as you possibly can.  ::beatingdeadhorse::
Quote
One can only hope that in place of beating a dead horse one might actually begin to ask thoughtful and well-reasoned questions of God in the hope of receiving divine answers rather than drawing to philosophies of men.

Is this too much to ask?

 ::shrug::
Usually before one can receive the answers, one must figure out what the questions are.

Jarrod

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #45 on: Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 23:57:50 »
Ousia and Hypostasis

While I entertain you with word games, maybe you could provide the following:

•   Scriptural proof that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God
•   Scriptural proof that God consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons in one being (i.e. "three hypostases (or divinities) in one ousia", for those Trinitarians who cling to the traditional formula)
•   Scriptural proof of the co-eternity, co-equality and consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Good luck!

Enthymesis is an interesting Word, one I am not familiar with.   Thanks for bringing it to my attention. 

Actually I was surprised how little it’s used in religious content.   Some appear to claim its Latin, and then German but borrowed from the Greek’s – Ah everything is borrowed from the Greeks even the worst parts of Christianity (sorry couldn’t resist) .  Maybe you might be able to enlighten me to its origin?  Such meanings vary from "consideration, esteem
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 03:28:11 by Insight »

Offline pointmade

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #46 on: Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 10:43:12 »
Wonder how much the eunuch understood of the Trinity?
Seems the treasure of queen Candace needed "some man" to guide him in his understanding of
Isaiah 53.

Interesting that it was "the Spirit that said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to the chariot" (Acts 8:29).
Philip "preached Jesus" to this chariot rider" (Acts 8:35).

Did the eunuch give two hoots about understanding the Trinity?
No! the only thing he got from Philip's preaching (that we are told) was "See, here is water;
what hinders me from being baptized?"

Hypothetically, Philip had to give this candidate for baptism a quiz.
Well now eunuch, do you understand the Trinity?
Do you believe Jesus is God?
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

"Good enough," said Philip, let's get out of this chariot and go "down into the water."
The text says that "he (Philip) baptized him and the eunuch saw him no more."
For sure, this Ethiopian had been given the same "gift of the Spirit" as those
"promised" at Pentecost. (Acts 2:39).

Wouldn't you know it! "the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip and carted him off to Azothus,
doing what he did best; "preaching Jesus" in all the cities until he came to Caesarea."
Wonder if he ran out of sermons? Why he never even had a copy of the New Testament.

Question: Which of the Three (Trinity) directed Philip to instruct the eunuch to be baptized?
Or, do you believe Philip made this connection up?
Philip, having hands laid on him by the apostles (Acts 6:3,8) would be "full of faith and power"
And, was the eunuch "baptized in the name of Jesus," (Acts 2:38), or was the eunuch baptized
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit as commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:19?
Does it make a difference?

Who is this Spirit? 
The same Spirit that joined Jesus in His baptism by John in the Jordan" (Luke 4:1).
The same Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness for the critical combat with the devil?
The Spirit that directed Peter to go to Caesarea and "tell you (Cornelius) words whereby you and all
your house shall be saved" (Acts  11: 12-14).   

In Luke 10:21 we find "Jesus and the Spirit rejoicing."
Finally, in verse 22 of Luke 10 we read 'All things have been delivered unto me of my Father."
Here, in this passage Jesus speaks of Himself as the Son of God and declares His absolute
authority over all things. He is in unique relationship with God, and in His Person He is the means
of approach to God.

So, is our understanding of the Trinity correct?

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #47 on: Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 14:32:19 »
While I entertain you with word games, maybe you could provide the following:

•   Scriptural proof that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God
At the risk of repeating myself...
"I and my Father are One" proves the first, and the second is a non-sequitor.  (My arm is part of me, and God's Spirit is a part of God)

Quote
•   Scriptural proof that God consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons in one being (i.e. "three hypostases (or divinities) in one ousia", for those Trinitarians who cling to the traditional formula)
Hypostasis doesn't mean person (or even personae), and Ousia doesn't mean Being, so this formulation is more of a mistranslation than anything else.

Proving that the Father is God seems easy, since He's regularly called "Father God" in Scripture.
Proving that the Spirit of God is God also seems rather simple.  Why else would He be called 'the Spirit of God,' if He were not God?
Proving that the Son is God is less straightforward, but not that difficult, in light of statements such as "before Abraham was, I AM."  The NT also quotes the OT ascribing the names "wonderful counselor, mighty God, and even everlasting Father" directly to Jesus.

Ousia translates as essence, form, shape, or image.

In Platonism it denotes a Platonic form.   The highest form in Platonism is the Form of the Good, and all other Forms derive from it.  All the forms then are heavenly, an belong to the realm of the intellect.  Hypostases ("that which stands beneath") are things here in the real world which typify the celestial forms.  If I have an apple, for instance, it may be a hypostasis of several forms ("red" "delicious" "nutritious" "good"). 

Now, the OT teaches that God Himself is "most high" and that He cannot be fully comprehended ("invisible God").  That is, He is a transcendant intelligence, and not a corporeal being.  Christianity, being born into a culture where Greek language was the medium of communication, used the word Ousia to express the same.

Throughout the OT, the Bible puts forward that we can know God through His attributes, which if we put it into the Greek nomenclature, would be Enthymeses (expressed attributes, or emanations).  That is, we may not understand everything of the mind of God, but we can know His mercy.  Or His longsuffering.  Or His judgment.  Or His truthfulness.  Hence the many names of God throughout the book.  He is Jehova Rapha, Jehovah Jaira, Jehova Sabaoth, Jehovah _____.

Moreover, the Bible uses the word Pleroma (fulness) to talk about ALL of God's attributes (or emanations, if you will), jointly.

The gnostics, blending Platonism and other Greek philosophy with Judaism and Christianity however they saw fit, takes the concept to a logical extreme, anthropomorphizing the forms, and then exalting them as being the gods.  In gnosticism, the highest form, or ousia, is generally regarded as the highest deity of that religion (for example, Bythus for the Valentinians), and the rest of their "pantheon of gods" are not independent deities, but rather derivations of the attributes of that ultimate god.  For example, they may have a deity of light (photos), but it is understood that light is only an attribute of the higher deity.  They go on to eventually denounce everything material (all hypostases) as being imperfect and thus evil.

Thus it is that the apostle Paul devotes an entire book - Colossians - to clearing up misunderstandings on this subject caused by gnostic teachings. 

Paul is clear in showing that Jesus is material, and existed here below "in the flesh" (refuting the gnostic teaching that Christ was not here materially).  Colossians 1:15 says that Jesus is "the eikon of the invisible God."  Eikon (or icon), is the same word the NT elsewhere translates as "idol."  Paul is saying that while God Himself belongs to the realm of the celestial, He has provided Jesus as His exact image - His exact Form - in a material representation here on earth.  As the heathens' idols of wood and stone were mere representations of the powers they really worshipped, so was the man Jesus the representation of the One True God.

Paul further shows that Jesus is not merely one aspect (enthymesis) of the Godhead expressed, as the gnostics taught Him to be one attribute of the Godhead, but rather that He is the representation of ALL the attributes.  Col 1:19 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all the Pleroma (fulness) dwell."

Understanding the words, then, leads one to read the early creeds differently.  The Father is transcendant, He is a Mind and not a body.  He cannot be a hypostasis Himself.  Jesus was the hypostasis of the ousia of the Father - the Son, we say, for the Mind has begotten the Word, and the Word is what has come to us in the flesh.  Fast forward, and the church is the hypostasis.  The church is the body of Christ.

As to the Spirit of God which "proceeds from the Father," it is evident that It is that part of God which carries the thoughts from the Mind to the Body.  One cannot make it a Mind unto Itself.  Note:

When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)

So I do not find the early church in error.  I do find the later, Latin church, did a poor job of understanding and translating the Greek.

As for myself, I believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and I understand there to be but One God, transcendant above all, and One Lord, the Son, the hypostasis of the pleroma of this same One God, and One Holy Spirit, the Spirit of that One God by which the divine Mind communicates His Word to His body, and One Church, which is that body and the primary means by which God acts here below.

So call me a trinitarian, or not a trinitarian.  I've been accused of both.  I will take the truth, and let the rest fall where it may.

Jarrod

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #48 on: Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 20:47:43 »
At the risk of repeating myself...
"I and my Father are One" proves the first, and the second is a non-sequitor.  (My arm is part of me, and God's Spirit is a part of God)


"One" to mean nature, essence & mind?  I believe the context is mind and thought and anything more requires special pleading on your behalf.

Your assertion is without evidence.   Jesus never made claim to deity once!  He merely said he performs the deeds of his Father. This claim to divine authority was enough to antagonise the Jews, but says nothing of the essential "three in one" concept of the Trinity.

Now this "oneness" was shared by Father and Son in John 10:30 is clearly and unmistakably teaching a unity of purpose, character and relationship, and many well-known scholars such as R.V.G have demonstrated the grammar and context is clearly one of sharing a common Logos  in thought, purpose and action.

Your response reveals contempt for the passage which has become the standard approach in Trinitarian exegesis.

Further to this we also know later he prayed this oneness would be shared with himself, his disciples and his Father, using the Greek word hen in the same way:

John 17:11, "'I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one."
John 17:21-22, "'that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one '"


In terms of your avoidance in proving the Holy Spirit is God, by implying this is illogical.  The Holy Spirit is easily proven to be the Power of God directed as He pleases and though it is often personified with “he
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 21:34:53 by Insight »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #49 on: Fri Nov 18, 2011 - 13:59:05 »
At the risk of repeating myself...
"I and my Father are One"
"One" to mean nature, essence & mind?  I believe the context is mind and thought and anything more requires special pleading on your behalf.

Your assertion is without evidence.   Jesus never made claim to deity once!  He merely said he performs the deeds of his Father. This claim to divine authority was enough to antagonise the Jews, but says nothing of the essential "three in one" concept of the Trinity.

Now this "oneness" was shared by Father and Son in John 10:30 is clearly and unmistakably teaching a unity of purpose, character and relationship, and many well-known scholars such as R.V.G have demonstrated the grammar and context is clearly one of sharing a common Logos  in thought, purpose and action.

Your response reveals contempt for the passage which has become the standard approach in Trinitarian exegesis.
Contempt? ::pondering::

Hardly.  John 10 is the seminal passage in the gospels formulating the doctrine of the essential unity of both Father and Son, and Son and church, as you point out here:

Quote
Further to this we also know later he prayed this oneness would be shared with himself, his disciples and his Father, using the Greek word hen in the same way:

John 17:11, "'I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one."
John 17:21-22, "'that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one '"
You seem to have a problem understanding just exactly what I do say.  Part of this is because the subject matter is difficult.  The other part of this is because you keep attempting to stuff me into a box of your preconception about exactly what "trinitarians" believe.  You need to throw out the box.  I do not fit into it.  What I believe is not typical of an American church.

Let's speak to the actual passage then.  "One" is grammatically a descriptor here.  However, the word which it describes is not in the text.  There is an implied word.  "I and my Father are one _____."  The question is what word should be implied?

Here we can look at the morphology of the word, and note that it is in the neuter case.  Whatever it describes is not a HE or a SHE.  We can eliminate the possibility that Jesus is saying "one person." 

That leaves us with the conclusion that the verse might be better translated "I and my Father are unified."  Try re-reading the passage with that meaning, and see what a difference it makes.

Quote
In terms of your avoidance in proving the Holy Spirit is God, by implying this is illogical.  The Holy Spirit is easily proven to be the Power of God directed as He pleases and though it is often personified with “he

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #50 on: Sun Nov 20, 2011 - 23:38:16 »
Hi Jarrod,

I have not forgotten about your response just a little preoccupied as I have a talk on Hebrews 12 coming up shortly.

I found your reply very insightful and hope to respond shortly.

Insight

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #51 on: Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 04:30:52 »

"I and my Father are One"

Hardly.  John 10 is the seminal passage in the gospels formulating the doctrine of the essential unity of both Father and Son, and Son and church, as you point out here:


Actually the chapter is speaking to the theme of the Shepherding of Father and Son.

I will resist from expounding the chapter as you would have these lessons in mind.

Quote

John 17:21-22, "'that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they (Jarrod & Insight) may be one just as we are one '"


Do you suggest we will be God also?
Quote

You seem to have a problem understanding just exactly what I do say.  Part of this is because the subject matter is difficult.  The other part of this is because you keep attempting to stuff me into a box of your preconception about exactly what "trinitarians" believe.  You need to throw out the box.  I do not fit into it.  What I believe is not typical of an American church.



Yes, I apologise for doing so.  Speaking to Trinitarian believers regularly can cause an element of hardness.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

Quote

Let's speak to the actual passage then.  "One" is grammatically a descriptor here.  However, the word which it describes is not in the text.  There is an implied word.  "I and my Father are one _____."  The question is what word should be implied?


Given we have two persona’s but sharing the same purpose?
One Mind would relate to Logos and John 1:1,14.

Quote

Funny thing about the word exousia.  It's a compound of Ex- meaning "coming out of" and Ousia, which I believe we have already defined in some detail.  Feel free to comment on that.



See http://www.ntresources.com/kenosis.htm Rodney J. Decker (Professor - a Trinitarian scholar who admits that the traditional (which I appreciate you do not hold) Trinitarian interpretation of morphē is one of theological bias.

I would be interested in your thoughts concerning his views on Ousia and morphē.

Jarrod, as you have no doubt realised I prefer contextual studies in God’s Word and find less value in grammatical/textual studies. Not to say we cannot be enlightened to greater depth of meaning, rather Paul’s example provides no such example of breaking down language to discover truth, and only ever suggests comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13) of Scripture with Scripture.

My apologies once more for taking so long to return your post.

Insight



 

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #52 on: Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 14:37:29 »
John 17:21-22, "'that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they (Jarrod & Insight) may be one just as we are one '"

Do you suggest we will be God also?
Yes, we are currently God, in much the same way that the Spirit of God is God.  Which is not to say that I and HE are just one HE, or even that I and HE are two gods, but rather to say that I am a part of HIM.

And doesn't the Bible say exactly the same?  "We are the body" and He is the head.  In between we have the Holy Nerves Spirit to relay the impulses, commands and words to the Body.

Quote
Quote
Let's speak to the actual passage then.  "One" is grammatically a descriptor here.  However, the word which it describes is not in the text.  There is an implied word.  "I and my Father are one _____."  The question is what word should be implied?
Given we have two persona’s but sharing the same purpose?
One Mind would relate to Logos and John 1:1,14.
The passage is speaking of the ability to keep people safe - to keep anyone from "plucking them out of My hand."  So they would have to be one in purpose, and also in ability, at the least.  John 1 is relevant, being part of the same book.

Let's try a comparison.  I will compare the Father to a cookie cutter.

Consider the cookie-cutter.  It is a circle.  Now, I can use my cookie cutter to shape cookie dough, or I can use it on cabbage, or ice cream, or whatever I want.  But the end result will always be a circle.

Now I can look at my cookie-cutter and call it cookie-cutter or I can say it is a circle.
I can look at my cookie and call it cookie or I can say it is a circle.
I can look at my slice of cabbage leaf and call it circle as well.
And my ice cream, for a while at least, will be a circle as well.

Likewise, there is God, and I may call Him Father truly and indeed, for He begets, and 'to beget' means nothing more than to give your own shape to some substance, just like the cookie cutter does in the example above.  (I will here refrain from boring you with a grammatical study, since you seem to dislike them.)

He may cut from the cloth of angelic beings, and then I shall call Him "the angel of the Lord," but we understand that being to be God, even though materially He is an angel.

He may clothe Himself with the substance of humanity, and we would not be in error in the least to call that being "the son of God," and we should also understand that being to be God, even though, materially, he is a man.

(I seem to recall language like this in my Bible...)

And, because I cannot totally abandon my words... in my metaphor, "circle" is the ousia.  And our circular cookie would be a hypostasis of it.  The circular cabbage leaf and the circle-cut ice cream would also be hypostases.

More some other time..

Jarrod

Offline pointmade

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #53 on: Fri Nov 25, 2011 - 10:14:48 »
Insight....."I like how you draw us to the phrase exact image , while NOT being the actual substance of that image.  Again pre-existence cannot be forced upon Hebrews 1 or Col 1."

Jarrod..."The argument wasn't actually about pre-existence here, but if you'd like, we can make it to be.  I think, before you assume what I believe, I will tell you exactly what I do believe:

I believe that The Word was pre-existent (In the beginning was the Word), in an unbegotten state (and the Word was with God).  That is to say, The Word had not been spoken yet, and so IT existed only as a thought in the mind of God. 

Some time later, the Word was spoken, and thus begotten.  The Bible isn't clear on when that happened, IMO.

Then, at some point, the begotten Word was "made flesh," meaning that It now had a hypostasis.  We call Him Jesus.

I also believe it would be a mistake to make The Word a seperate person from God.  God (the Father, if you will) IS NOT MATERIAL AND HAS NO SUBSTANCE, and exists as an intelligence.  He is a Mind.  So then, what is The Word but the thoughts of that Mind?

I like how you draw us to the phrase exact image , while NOT being the actual substance of that image.  Again pre-existence cannot be forced upon Hebrews 1 or Col 1.
The argument wasn't actually about pre-existence here, but if you'd like, we can make it to be.  I think, before you assume what I believe, I will tell you exactly what I do believe:

I believe that The Word was pre-existent (In the beginning was the Word), in an unbegotten state (and the Word was with God).  That is to say, The Word had not been spoken yet, and so IT existed only as a thought in the mind of God. 

Some time later, the Word was spoken, and thus begotten.  The Bible isn't clear on when that happened, IMO.

Then, at some point, the begotten Word was "made flesh," meaning that It now had a hypostasis.  We call Him Jesus.

I also believe it would be a mistake to make The Word a seperate person from God.  God (the Father, if you will) IS NOT MATERIAL AND HAS NO SUBSTANCE, and exists as an intelligence.  He is a Mind.  So then, what is The Word but the thoughts of that Mind?

If I say that my thoughts and my mind are the same, am I not correct?  Likewise, The Word is God."

I appreciate you standing your ground Jarrod.....
Somewhere up there the statement was made that "Jesus was not Deity.."
As you are aware, this is exactly what Islam teaches and it is a stumbling block in converting men to The Lord.

Paul testified by the inspiration of the Spirit:
"Having this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existed in the form of God,
counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the
form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself; becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5-8).


That is to say, the Logos, the Son of God, did not count His "being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped.'
i.e., to be taken hold of and clung to---simply because it was His by nature and His by right.
For He was not only with God "in the beginning," but He was God.

He "emptied himself," we are told, "taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man;
and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the
death of the cross."

Verse 2 of Hebrews 1 says, "through whom also He made the worlds."
Meaning: Christ was present in creation.
Verified by Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness...."

Verse 3 of Hebrews 1 speaks of "His substance."
This verse alone makes Him, Jesus.... "DEITY."

I very seldom quote John Calvin, but here is an exception.
"He is called the 'impress of His substance', because the majesty of the Father is hidden until it
shows itself impressed as it were on his image. They who overlook this connection and carry
their philosophy higher, weary themselves to no purpose, for they do not understand the design
of the Apostle (Hebrew writer); for it was not his object to show what likeness the Father bears
to the Son!"

Trying to fully understand divine reality with human terms is too much for man.
Islam tries to understand Jesus by saying that "he is the son of Mary....." 









Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #54 on: Fri Nov 25, 2011 - 21:21:04 »
See http://www.ntresources.com/kenosis.htm Rodney J. Decker (Professor - a Trinitarian scholar who admits that the traditional (which I appreciate you do not hold) Trinitarian interpretation of morphē is one of theological bias.

I would be interested in your thoughts concerning his views on Ousia and morphē.

I glanced at it, but I'm lost here.  What passage of Scripture is he talking about?  He says a lot about morphe, but I'm not familiar with that being a term in the writings of the early church.

Jarrod

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #55 on: Sun Nov 27, 2011 - 18:55:19 »
See http://www.ntresources.com/kenosis.htm Rodney J. Decker (Professor - a Trinitarian scholar who admits that the traditional (which I appreciate you do not hold) Trinitarian interpretation of morphē is one of theological bias.

I would be interested in your thoughts concerning his views on Ousia and morphē.

I glanced at it, but I'm lost here.  What passage of Scripture is he talking about?  He says a lot about morphe, but I'm not familiar with that being a term in the writings of the early church.

Jarrod


He is speaking to Philippians 2:5-11, The Kenosis

The major concerns of these theologians was three-fold.

How to explain the full humanity of Christ. (The Gospel record portrays a real man with human limitations-growth, hunger, thirst, learning.)

How to explain that God truly was in Christ and maintain one person  (e.g., man learns; God = omniscient)

How could Jesus be God & man without postulating two centers of consciousness (& thus not really like us)?

Of course the only possible and plausible conclusion is Jesus was fully human in every respect not possessing divine nature.

Insight

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #56 on: Mon Nov 28, 2011 - 13:58:14 »
He is speaking to Philippians 2:5-11, The Kenosis

The major concerns of these theologians was three-fold.

How to explain the full humanity of Christ. (The Gospel record portrays a real man with human limitations-growth, hunger, thirst, learning.)

How to explain that God truly was in Christ and maintain one person  (e.g., man learns; God = omniscient)

How could Jesus be God & man without postulating two centers of consciousness (& thus not really like us)?

Of course the only possible and plausible conclusion is Jesus was fully human in every respect not possessing divine nature.

Insight
You seem to be caught in a false dichotomy. 

The argument is that one cannot be God in form, and also man in form, because the one has limitations the other perhaps doesn't. 

But from Genesis 1, we see that man was made in the form ("image") of God, right from the beginning.  The form of man is not a seperate thing from the form of God.  These two are not necessarily incompatible.  Rather, the form of mankind is a specific subspace of it of the form of God.

Shall we try another example?  Suppose I have a mold that shapes things into spheres.  It's a pair of hemispheres.  I can pile moist clay into them and make perfect spheres. 

But suppose I have no malleable clay, and so I use the only material available to me, which is just a flat tablet of already dry clay.  Instead of making spheres, I am now making circle patterns on the tablet.

This argument is akin to saying that these circles couldn't have come from the spherical mold, because they have limitations which the sphere does not have. 

That just doesn't hold up.  The limitations you perceive are in the material that man is formed of, not in the pattern which the Godhead imprints upon it.

Now, it is your turn to again point to the sphere, point to the circle, and say, "they don't match!"  Except that isn't the comparison.  We only need the two to come from the same pattern, or form, or cookie cutter, or image, or however-else-you'd-like-to-express-that-idea.

Jesus is God in Form.  In substance, he is man.

If I may go on a small tangent here...  In ancient days, men believed that mothers provided the substance from which babies were formed, and that fathers provided the form or pattern according to which the babies were formed from that substance.  Forget what you know of genetics for a minute, try on this worldview, and when you've got your head wrapped around it, try to apply it to the Incarnation, and see how it changes your understanding of it.

Jarrod

Offline Hehealedme

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #57 on: Tue Nov 29, 2011 - 10:13:55 »
.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 14:31:11 by Hehealedme »

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #58 on: Tue Nov 29, 2011 - 15:50:54 »
The Worldwide Church of God changed it's beliefs and practices to basically become a run-of-the-mill Pentecostal church.  It sounds like this group decided to remain true to Herbert's old teachings.

From what I know of them, it's their End Times views that really seperated the WWCoG as something weird and different.  But no weirder than what goes on in our own End Times forum, I fear.

Jarrod

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #59 on: Tue Nov 29, 2011 - 16:02:17 »
I always thought I understood the Trinity. I mean I studied it a little as I read about it in the Bible. There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit....

But now I have a little problem with this, I am getting confused more and more every day... A few months ago, I had a booklet about the Trinity delivered to my house called  ''Is God a Trinity?''.......I got it from the Good News Magazine. It explains that God the Father and God the Son are like ''persons'' but God the Holy Spirit is not like a ''person'', it is rather a considered as a force or power...therefore, according to their teaching, the Trinity isn't really a Trinity...there are a lot of Scripture to support their teaching...so.....I am really getting confused at this point... ::headscratch::  ::frustrated::

A very devout Christian lady friend of mine told me that the United Church of God which the Good News magazine is from, was first started by Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986). She says that it is a cult.
Her proof comes from this page:  

http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/ucg.htm  

For instance, one quote from them:

''United Church of God teaches that they are the "continuation of the one and only true church of God" (tracing their origins to "the church that Jesus founded in the early first century" and following "the same teachings, doctrines and practices established then."3 ). What they actually follow are the teachings, doctrines and practices of Herbert W. Armstrong who founded the Worldwide Church of God in 1934. They believe they are "God's true church" evidenced by their "obedience to God's Laws" and being a "small flock." Members are to be "fully committed to the Work." ......there is plenty more in that flavour.




But I have read about the United Church of God on this page:  

http://www.ucg.org/about/  

For instance, this is one quote I found from them:  

''Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization.''...............

Which, if I understand correctly, means that they no longer follow what Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong used to teach. ......am I correct ? ? ?



Can some of you PLEASE explain to me what the Trinity really is?!!!!!!!!
Thank you for taking the time to read this and especially to answer my questions... ::help::



ps:   I won't be able to come back and read the answers, at least for a few day, since I am working night shifts this week...I need to sleep more during the day since I am not used to sleeping during that time...I will however come back as soon as possible...thank you...I do not wish to argue or debate about the Trinity, I just need answers to my questions...again I thank you...



The Trinity originated from creeds (consider it a politically design state of faith). There are many stidies done on its origins.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/trinity.htm

I don't agree with everything in this study but you will get the idea of its history.

Read your Bible, pray and learn its hidden truth - or follow the rest of the Christian zombies into the grave oblivious of a greater truth

Insight


cs80918

  • Guest
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #60 on: Fri Dec 02, 2011 - 12:40:24 »
Jesus might be in the bosum of God the father.

There is a verse in the NT that states that.

Also, in revelations there is an example of Jesus coming out from the throne or the light that surrounds the throne.  The idea of trinity is correct, but I don't think our human minds at this point can grasp what it really means.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #61 on: Sun Dec 04, 2011 - 15:06:27 »
Jesus might be in the bosum of God the father.

There is a verse in the NT that states that.

Also, in revelations there is an example of Jesus coming out from the throne or the light that surrounds the throne.  The idea of trinity is correct, but I don't think our human minds at this point can grasp what it really means.

Take the mystery approach and remain in Egyptian Darkness.
   
At least you will not know what you are stumbling over.



Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #62 on: Sun Dec 04, 2011 - 17:33:25 »
So far we can establish the OP Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct? is a resounding no because its impossible to reconcile its teaching with Bible Principles.


Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #63 on: Sun Dec 04, 2011 - 17:43:43 »
So far we can establish the OP Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct? is a resounding no because its impossible to reconcile its teaching with Bible Principles.
I would agree there is very little understanding of the Trinity.  Most believers, even most churches, hold the position that "it is a mystery."

Why would it be otherwise?  Even in the early church ca 300 AD, there was much controversy on this subject.  That being said, it does not make the doctrine unbiblical or wrong.  It is just shrouded in darkness.

This much cannot be refuted - the Bible definitely does contain the formulation of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."  It's in there.  Whether it constitutes a trinity, or a unity, or a metaphor for understanding something complex - I'll leave that to you.  I've already said my piece on that here.

Jarrod


Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #64 on: Sun Dec 04, 2011 - 17:46:08 »
So far we can establish the OP Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct? is a resounding no because its impossible to reconcile its teaching with Bible Principles.
I would agree there is very little understanding of the Trinity.  Most believers, even most churches, hold the position that "it is a mystery."

Why would it be otherwise?  Even in the early church ca 300 AD, there was much controversy on this subject.  That being said, it does not make the doctrine unbiblical or wrong.  It is just shrouded in darkness.

This much cannot be refuted - the Bible definitely does contain the formulation of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."  It's in there.  Whether it constitutes a trinity, or a unity, or a metaphor for understanding something complex - I'll leave that to you.  I've already said my piece on that here.

Jarrod

Jarrod,

I agree with this statement "formulation of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." I never like seeing the Ghost part always irks me.

One does not need to turn to creeds do provide what the Bible plainly teaches.

Insight

Offline FireSword

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #65 on: Mon Dec 05, 2011 - 19:59:57 »
I like holy ghost, it sounds more powerful, but I also like holy spirit, sounds graceful.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #66 on: Mon Dec 05, 2011 - 20:03:49 »
I like holy ghost, it sounds more powerful, but I also like holy spirit, sounds graceful.



Ghost has poor connotations and there is nothing mystical about our hope.


Offline Stosh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #67 on: Fri Dec 16, 2011 - 12:46:33 »
An interesting debate.  But what I see here is the wisdom of man arguing with the wisdom of man trying to explain what is revealed only by the wisdom of God.

I have wrestled with this subject for quite some time and it wasn't until I gave up trying to understand of my own will and asked God to reveal his truth concerning this subject of the trinity to me that God revealed his truth to me. And I must say that the truth of who God is makes our understanding of the scriptures new and alive. 

Now before we can understand what God is revealing in his word, we first need to understand how to receive God's truth. And to understand this is to rely on God for understanding and not on the wisdom of man..  And herein is the problem with the teachings of man.  Man continually tries to interpret God's word instead of allowing God to interpret his own word for us.

Now as stated in your posts, the word of God is not intended for any private interpretation.  And further more, the word says that the scriptures are spiritually discerned.  So then the question is, how do we spiritually discern the scriptures.  And the answer is, we allow the Holy Spirit that is within us to guide us into all truth by comparing scripture with scripture.  For we are told in 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him. So then, you see that it is not by the wisdom of man but by the Spirit within us that we get understanding.  Also, note what is recorded for us in 1 Cor. 2:12-13. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Now as one of you stated, the word trinity is not found in the Bible. There is mentioned a Godhead but not a trinity.  Now,  keeping in mind,  as one of you also stated, the word God as used in the Bible is a title denoting the Creator.  So it can mean more than one spirit being.  So with that said, Let us delve into the word and learn about God.

So what does scripture tell us of God.  God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Joh 4:24)   God is Holy,  "For I am the LORD your God: you shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy:"..…(Lev 11:44)   God is Love,  "He that loves not knows not God; for God is love. (1Jn 4:8)   And we have known and believed the love that God has to us. God is love; and he that dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him. "(1Jn 4:16)  God is Righteous. "The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." (Psa 145:17)   So, Who is God?  God is a loving, righteous, Holy Spirit.  God exist as a Holy Spirit.  This then is what our God exist as.  He is a Holy Spirit that is Loving and Righteous in all his ways. So if God is a Holy Spirit, then all aspects of God is Holy Spirit whether it is one two or three beings.

Now, we are told in scripture that the Word God is the first created of God.  Now any student of the word should know that the Word became Jesus the Christ in the flesh.  So in the book of Rev. we read, Rev  3:14  “ And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • Manna: 346
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #68 on: Sat Dec 17, 2011 - 04:00:49 »
For as quoted in your post,
Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
You seem to have misquoted the verse.  It actually says "and the Word WAS God."  Not "with God."  You've changed the whole meaning by adding a word that isn't there.

Jarrod

Offline Stosh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Is our understanding of the Trinity, correct?
« Reply #69 on: Sat Dec 17, 2011 - 08:02:52 »
Sorry but you are mistaken.  This is exactly how it is recorded in the King James version that I use. And if you will reread my post you will see that the next line of type has the end of the verse that says AND THE WORD WAS GOD.   

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Now I don't know what Bible you use, but I use the King James version along with the Strong's Concordance and also the Interlinear Bible which has both the Greek and the English translations so that I can  be assured that I have the truth in God's word. In this way I can check to see that every word from the received  Greek text is translated properly into my English version.  The Interlinear Bible gives me the the original Greek words and also the literal translation into English from these texts. And by the use of the Strong's I am able to verify the proper translation of every word in the Bible.