The Trinity

[LightHammer]

Hey Insight,

I guess I'll lead out.

In defense of the Trinity I will first defend God as the eternal Father.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.


I know of no Arian who denies that God is the Eternal Father. Do you? If you do I'm going to have to start from a different angle.

[Insight]

Thank you for your introduction Lighthammer.

It was sound judgement of you to begin with defining the One True God.

I believe:

•   That the Father alone is God
•   The Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but not God himself

So that we are not confused with names and titles I will be referring to the Father who is alone God, at times I will interchange God and Father.  So if I use "God

[LightHammer]

Thank you for your introduction Lighthammer.

No problem.

It was sound judgement of you to begin with defining the One True God.

I believe:

•   That the Father alone is God
•   The Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but not God himself

So that we are not confused with names and titles I will be referring to the Father who is alone God, at times I will interchange God and Father.  So if I use "God

[Insight]

Lighthammer

It appears you have "jumped

[LightHammer]

Lighthammer

It appears you have "jumped

[Insight]

The mystery of the Trinity is to be worshiped rather than completely bound by human understanding.

Many Bible based believers (as per 2 Tim 3:15,16) here would find this comment disturbing.  I will not address this now for fear of derailing our discussions early in the piece. No doubt it will raise its ugly head down the track  

It is remiss of me not to support my thoughts here by quoting Col 1:26 that is, the mystery that has been kept hidden from ages [aion] and generations, but has now been revealed to his saints"

I appreciate how you claim to believe and worship a single God, but are you able to accept the Shema without qualification?

Yes or no will suffice.

Insight

[LightHammer]

The mystery of the Trinity is to be worshiped rather than completely bound by human understanding.

Many Bible based believers (as per 2 Tim 3:15,16) here would find this comment disturbing.  I will not address this now for fear of derailing our discussions early in the piece. No doubt it will raise its ugly head down the track 

I appreciate how you claim to believe and worship a single God, but are you able to accept the Shema without qualification?

Yes or no will suffice.

Insight

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Now will you address my questions?

[Insight]

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

We both affirm that God is eternally the Father.

You raise a valid point concerning God being a Father. It appears He has chosen to manifest Himself as a Father, but this title does not confine Him to Fatherhood. He is also a Creator and Sustainer of all life. He presents Himself in this and other ways.

Scriptures reveal He has many Sons as per Job 38:7. "Sons of God

[Insight]

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Now will you address my questions?

I will comment briefly on this reply.  

Your failure to define your acceptance of the Shema as speaking to a Single Person ONLY and not three persons divided into one or One Person split into three is duly noted.

Have you dealt honestly and openly with regard to your response?  

I will allow you to clarify your understanding of the Shema.

Insight

[LightHammer]

You raise a valid point concerning God being a Father. It appears He has chosen to manifest Himself as a Father, but this title does not confine Him to Fatherhood. He is also a Creator and Sustainer of all life. He presents Himself in this and other ways.

Scriptures reveal He has many Sons as per Job 38:7. "Sons of God

[LightHammer]

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Now will you address my questions?

I will comment briefly on this reply.  

Your failure to define your acceptance of the Shema as speaking to a Single Person ONLY and not three persons divided into one or One Person split into three is duly noted.

Have you dealt honestly and openly with regard to your response?  

I will allow you to clarify your understanding of the Shema.

Insight

What you have described is not the Trinity and the oneness of God does pertain to persona.

The Trinity is three persons of one Godhead, not three pieces culminating to form one being. That is Hinduism.

The oneness of God lies in nature, substance, majesty and existence. There is one existence and the is God.

You are forcing oneness in persona where the Bible does not and readily contradicts that affront.

[Insight]

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Now will you address my questions?

I will comment briefly on this reply.  

Your failure to define your acceptance of the Shema as speaking to a Single Person ONLY and not three persons divided into one or One Person split into three is duly noted.

Have you dealt honestly and openly with regard to your response?  

I will allow you to clarify your understanding of the Shema.

Insight

What you have described is not the Trinity and the oneness of God does pertain to persona.

The Trinity is three persons of one Godhead, not three pieces culminating to form one being. That is Hinduism.

The oneness of God lies in nature, substance, majesty and existence. There is one existence and the is God.

You are forcing oneness in persona where the Bible does not and readily contradicts that affront.

So once more I provide you the opportunity to define the Shema.

[LightHammer]

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Now will you address my questions?

I will comment briefly on this reply.  

Your failure to define your acceptance of the Shema as speaking to a Single Person ONLY and not three persons divided into one or One Person split into three is duly noted.

Have you dealt honestly and openly with regard to your response?  

I will allow you to clarify your understanding of the Shema.

Insight

What you have described is not the Trinity and the oneness of God does pertain to persona.

The Trinity is three persons of one Godhead, not three pieces culminating to form one being. That is Hinduism.

The oneness of God lies in nature, substance, majesty and existence. There is one existence and the is God.

You are forcing oneness in persona where the Bible does not and readily contradicts that affront.

So once more I provide you the opportunity to define the Shema.

I have affirmed it. I'm assuming you want me to define it as you do and if I do not define it as you do this conversation will not progress?

[Insight]

I think there is a vital flaw in your theology.

You claim that God has manifested Himself as a Father. I believe that this readily contradicts Malachi. God is who He is and does not change.

He is not "manifested" as the Father, He literally is Father and He always has been.

When you say God does not change, do you mean he is not able to grow His family?  Not able to take on more Children? Is this not changing?


You equate "eternal

[Insight]

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Now will you address my questions?

I will comment briefly on this reply.  

Your failure to define your acceptance of the Shema as speaking to a Single Person ONLY and not three persons divided into one or One Person split into three is duly noted.

Have you dealt honestly and openly with regard to your response?  

I will allow you to clarify your understanding of the Shema.

Insight

What you have described is not the Trinity and the oneness of God does pertain to persona.

The Trinity is three persons of one Godhead, not three pieces culminating to form one being. That is Hinduism.

The oneness of God lies in nature, substance, majesty and existence. There is one existence and the is God.

You are forcing oneness in persona where the Bible does not and readily contradicts that affront.

So once more I provide you the opportunity to define the Shema.

I have affirmed it. I'm assuming you want me to define it as you do and if I do not define it as you do this conversation will not progress?

For the record I would have preferred you to answer honestly with integrity.  It wasnt required of you to answer as I understand and the conversation could have continued.

Here is what I asked of you Lighthammer

I appreciate how you claim to believe and worship a single God, but are you able to accept the Shema without qualification?

Please be open and honest with your responses.

Thank you

Insight

[LightHammer]

It appears you have taken me down an argument from silence approach – I thought more highly of your debating skills Lighthammer.

Oh I have yet to begun to show you the limits of debating skills.

When you say God does not change, do you mean he is not able to grow His family?  Not able to take on more Children? Is this not changing?

No? That is no change to God but His family. God has always been the Father. That's the point.

This conclusion is terrible Lighthammer for how many Sons of God are also now eternal?

That is very simple. There is only one Son begotten from the Father only one who is eternal.

[LightHammer]

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Now will you address my questions?

I will comment briefly on this reply.  

Your failure to define your acceptance of the Shema as speaking to a Single Person ONLY and not three persons divided into one or One Person split into three is duly noted.

Have you dealt honestly and openly with regard to your response?  

I will allow you to clarify your understanding of the Shema.

Insight

What you have described is not the Trinity and the oneness of God does pertain to persona.

The Trinity is three persons of one Godhead, not three pieces culminating to form one being. That is Hinduism.

The oneness of God lies in nature, substance, majesty and existence. There is one existence and the is God.

You are forcing oneness in persona where the Bible does not and readily contradicts that affront.

So once more I provide you the opportunity to define the Shema.

I have affirmed it. I'm assuming you want me to define it as you do and if I do not define it as you do this conversation will not progress?

For the record I would have preferred you to answer honestly with integrity.  It wasnt required of you to answer as I understand and the conversation could have continued.

Insight

I did answer honestly but it was not the answer you wanted to hear.

[Insight]

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Now will you address my questions?

I will comment briefly on this reply.  

Your failure to define your acceptance of the Shema as speaking to a Single Person ONLY and not three persons divided into one or One Person split into three is duly noted.

Have you dealt honestly and openly with regard to your response?  

I will allow you to clarify your understanding of the Shema.

Insight

What you have described is not the Trinity and the oneness of God does pertain to persona.

The Trinity is three persons of one Godhead, not three pieces culminating to form one being. That is Hinduism.

The oneness of God lies in nature, substance, majesty and existence. There is one existence and the is God.

You are forcing oneness in persona where the Bible does not and readily contradicts that affront.

So once more I provide you the opportunity to define the Shema.

I have affirmed it. I'm assuming you want me to define it as you do and if I do not define it as you do this conversation will not progress?

For the record I would have preferred you to answer honestly with integrity.  It wasnt required of you to answer as I understand and the conversation could have continued.

Insight

I did answer honestly but it was not the answer you wanted to hear.

I will not proceed until you acknowledge your response did not honestly answer my very clear question.

I appreciate how you claim to believe and worship a single God, but are you able to accept the Shema without qualification?

Yes or no will suffice.

I cannot moved forward if doubt hang overs your ability to answer questions openly and honestly.

You can either answer the question "here and now", or acknoweldge you flippanly answered it so as to promote your next argument.

Here it goes once more...

I appreciate how you claim to believe and worship a single God, but are you able to accept the Shema without qualification?

Yes or no will suffice.

[LightHammer]

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Now will you address my questions?

I will comment briefly on this reply.  

Your failure to define your acceptance of the Shema as speaking to a Single Person ONLY and not three persons divided into one or One Person split into three is duly noted.

Have you dealt honestly and openly with regard to your response?  

I will allow you to clarify your understanding of the Shema.

Insight

What you have described is not the Trinity and the oneness of God does pertain to persona.

The Trinity is three persons of one Godhead, not three pieces culminating to form one being. That is Hinduism.

The oneness of God lies in nature, substance, majesty and existence. There is one existence and the is God.

You are forcing oneness in persona where the Bible does not and readily contradicts that affront.

So once more I provide you the opportunity to define the Shema.

I have affirmed it. I'm assuming you want me to define it as you do and if I do not define it as you do this conversation will not progress?

For the record I would have preferred you to answer honestly with integrity.  It wasnt required of you to answer as I understand and the conversation could have continued.

Insight

I did answer honestly but it was not the answer you wanted to hear.

I will not proceed until you acknowledge your response did not honestly answer my very clear question.

I appreciate how you claim to believe and worship a single God, but are you able to accept the Shema without qualification?

Yes or no will suffice.

I cannot moved forward if doubt hang overs your ability to answer questions openly and honestly.

You can either answer the question "here and now", or acknoweldge you flippanly answered it so as to promote your next argument.

Here it goes once more...

I appreciate how you claim to believe and worship a single God, but are you able to accept the Shema without qualification?

Yes or no will suffice.

Yes I believe in the following.

Deuteronomy 6:4"Listen, Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.


Do you?

[Insight]

Lighthammer,

You understood all to well when I asked the question about the Shema I was asking you to acknowledge the Unitarian interpretation – which is the only interpretation as revealed by Yahweh, Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.  

The question of the Shema relates to acknowledging that:

•   Unitarianism provides the most natural reading of the Shema
•   Clearly as per your avoidance tactics the Shema does not support Trinitarianism
•   God's identity and character of Person was revealed to Moses at Mt Sinai and need's no theological qualification
•   The OT Hebrew people interpreted the Shema in the same way that Biblical Unitarians do today

Now you reply was such

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Now will you address my questions?

This technique of debating is commonly called using the "folked tongue

[LightHammer]

Lighthammer,

You understood all to well when I asked the question about the Shema I was asking you to acknowledge the Unitarian interpretation – which is the only interpretation as revealed by Yahweh, Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.  

The question of the Shema relates to acknowledging that:

•   Unitarianism provides the most natural reading of the Shema
•   Clearly as per your avoidance tactics the Shema does not support Trinitarianism
•   God's identity and character of Person was revealed to Moses at Mt Sinai and need's no theological qualification
•   The OT Hebrew people interpreted the Shema in the same way that Biblical Unitarians do today

Now you reply was such

In so far as the Shema is an expression of the oneness of God I can and do accept it.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Now will you address my questions?

This technique of debating is commonly called using the "folked tongue

[Insight]

You do realize of course that the Shema, or any other piece of Sacred Scripture, is limited to the confines of how you wish to interpret them.

No.

We interpret them in like manner as those who drew upon them for understanding and enlightenment.

They quoted Scripture with Scripture; you may be familiar with the Reformation motto, "Sola Scriptura", now should you require examples of how Scripture interprets Scripture here is one such example.

Moses

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Jesus Christ -  

"What commandment is the foremost of all?

[LightHammer]

No.

We interpret them in like manner as those who drew upon them for understanding and enlightenment.

I think you may be responding to my post before I made that correction.

They quoted Scripture with Scripture; you may be familiar with the Reformation motto, "Sola Scriptura", now should you require examples of how Scripture interprets Scripture here is one such example.

I have no issue with defending my belief with Scripture alone.

Moses

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Jesus Christ - 

"What commandment is the foremost of all?

[Insight]

A short note Lighthammer

I will refrain from grabbing your posts until you have finished editing etc.

In this we will not make unwarranted comments and waste each other's time.

I will allow 15-30 minutes before responding.

Insight

[LightHammer]

A short note Lighthammer

I will refrain from grabbing your posts until you have finished editing etc.

In this we will not make unwarranted comments and waste each other's time.

I will allow 15-30 minutes before responding.

Insight

Let's make it 10. 15-30 drags things out too long.

[Insight]

I see you have quoted those verses that speak to the Father and Son being one in purpose and not being.

For instance:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

One in what way?

What was in the mind of Jesus Christ when he made such a statement?

Is the context here one of Deity or something else?   

John 8:58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

If Jesus was before Abraham; again in what way?

Is the context here one of deity of Preeminence?

The Son from on high saw the angels fall from grace.

And this comment is not worth addressing - a momentary lapse in judgment on your part.

Insight

p.s I will resume this tonight God Willing (3 hours).

[LightHammer]

I see you have quoted those verses that speak to the Father and Son being one in purpose and not being.

No I have quoted those verses that speak to the Father and the Son being one.

You are distinguishing between "purpose" and "being".

In all actually Jesus Christ did not come with the purpose glorify Himself. He came to point to the Father and the was meant to be the object of that heralding.

The Son was the sacrifice not the Father; again differences in purpose.

So it is obvious by the accounts of Sacred Scripture that yes the Father and the Son were one but no that oneness did not pertain to purpose.

One in what way?

What was in the mind of Jesus Christ when he made such a statement?

Is the context here one of Deity or something else?

Well let's check Sacred Scripture. How is the Father one with the Son?

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jesus Christ is the Word that was God and was with God. Unity and distinction of persona.

If Jesus was before Abraham; again in what way?

Is the context here one of deity of Preeminence?

No clearly He is speaking of existence and if you would not have so arrogantly dismissed my subsequent citation you would have further support to His existence outside of time.

John 10:18And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.


Christ witnessed the fall of Satan because He was there in Heaven. The fall of Satan predates the birth of Abraham.

For further affirmation of the oneness of three persona of the Godhead refer to the following;

Matthew 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


What is this but a testament of unity and not separation? Notice Christ says baptize in the "name" not "names" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How can a singular name be invoked to utilize the power of three separate beings? Do you not see how the perosna of the Godhead are one? If the persona of the Father was God alone, then what need do we have to invoke the power of the Holy Spirit and the Son in baptism when they are less than God? Is God alone not sufficient to power baptism? DO you not see how the three persona are co-equal?

The baptism rite itself is a testament to Trinity.

[Insight]

No I have quoted those verses that speak to the Father and the Son being one.

You have taken the "because I say so approach

[LightHammer]

You have taken the "because I say so approach

[Insight]

Christ said it not me. You are expounding the direction you see fit.

We could go back a forth like this for some time without making any progress.

I find your comments concerning "purpose

[Insight]

Actually it prompts a question of you.

Is Jesus the Alpha and the Omega?  And what does this mean to you?

Insight

At some stage I would like to hear your thoughts on the Alpha and Omega and how this title relates to Jesus Christ.

Insight

[LightHammer]

Sorry about the delay, Insight. Response to follow.

[Insight]

Sorry about the delay, Insight. Response to follow.

No problem.

I appreciate we have lives to lead 

Enjoying the discussion.

[LightHammer]

Quote from: LightHammer on November 04, 2011, 02:31:18 PM
Christ said it not me. You are expounding the direction you see fit.

We could go back a forth like this for some time without making any progress.

I find your comments concerning "purpose

[Insight]

We are divided under our specifics of purpose.

When I say the Son differed in purpose from the Father, I mean so in the same sense that a hand differs in purpose from say a foot or the head. Yes the limbs are of one body but the hold different duties and different purposes in the body.

I don't like using that analogy because the Son and Father, are not as limbs, in the sense that individually they are incomplete parts and when using this analogy it is easy to confuse that.

If I'm following you right it seems you are defining purpose as moving with the same intention, which of course is an accurate summation of all the works of the Son.

I am defining purpose as role or duty and you are defining purpose as will or intention.

While the Son's role differed from the Father they were of the same will.

Agreed

I am sure we both agree with but it neither helps us or hurts this discussion at least insofar as I can gauge.

Yes.

I agree the Father and Son shared a single mind (Logos) and purpose though their roles where clearly different.

God exhaled His Word, breathing out, while Jesus inhaled the Word for life, wisdom and understanding.

The Spirit of the LORD (Yahweh) will rest on him (Jesus) the Spirit (ruwach) of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit (ruwach) of counsel and of might, the Spirit (ruwach) of the knowledge and fear of the LORD Isa 11:1

The source of the Word therefore is Yahweh alone and it is our calling inclusive of the firstborn to inhale the breathed out Word.

Spirit: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7307&t=KJV

The Son and the Father were not one in flesh? The Son was the only persona in flesh, not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

The extent of oneness is made a reality in that the saints are one body. The body of God, the Godhead, is the same.

I think you are exaggerating my views in order to discredit instead of tackling them head on.

Not at all.

If I discredit, it will be on the basis of tackling error or a misconception.

Not at all. John 17 is explaining the true unity of the Church, the very real Mystical Body of the Church.

Can you support your concept of mystical body with a Bible verse?   Your use of "Church