Trinitarian analogy
- Thread starter Buckle
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Who said that God appeared as material objects? You are jumping to conclusions.
Kindly notice who appeared to Abraham, and had "word" been capitalized, we all would have understood that the pre-incarnate Christ appeared to Abraham: After these things the Word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
Here "the Word of the LORD" is a person, not words, and He addresses Abram. And this divine person tells Abram: "Fear not... I AM thy shield, and they exceeding great reward". Here "I AM" can be legitimately capitalized since that is the name of Jesus. Since no man has seen God the Father at any time, this was in fact the pre-incarnate Christ. He appeared to Abraham in several different forms: (a) as the Angel of the LORD when Abraham was commanded not to kill Isaac, (b) as an ordinary man when he appeared at Abraham's tent and Sarah laughed, and (c) as the Word of the LORD when Abraham had a vision. That vision could have shown Christ as "the Son of Man" (just as the Son of Man appeared in Daniel's vision, with God the Father as "the Ancient of Days").
Kindly notice who appeared to Abraham, and had "word" been capitalized, we all would have understood that the pre-incarnate Christ appeared to Abraham: After these things the Word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
Here "the Word of the LORD" is a person, not words, and He addresses Abram. And this divine person tells Abram: "Fear not... I AM thy shield, and they exceeding great reward". Here "I AM" can be legitimately capitalized since that is the name of Jesus. Since no man has seen God the Father at any time, this was in fact the pre-incarnate Christ. He appeared to Abraham in several different forms: (a) as the Angel of the LORD when Abraham was commanded not to kill Isaac, (b) as an ordinary man when he appeared at Abraham's tent and Sarah laughed, and (c) as the Word of the LORD when Abraham had a vision. That vision could have shown Christ as "the Son of Man" (just as the Son of Man appeared in Daniel's vision, with God the Father as "the Ancient of Days").
-
1
- Show all
In case anyone is interested in this sort of thing, here is a list of names of teachings (with short explanations) that have sprung up over the years (concerning the Godhead) that are considered to be heretical (to one degree or another) by the church.
Finally (just FYI), the church carefully formulated the Doctrine of the Trinity to circumscribe and safeguard the truth that the Bible teaches us concerning the Godhead (~not~ to explain it, because that is simply beyond us). The Trinity is considered to be one of our Biblical "mysteries", meaning that we know that it's true because the Bible tells us that it is, even though we are incapable of truly comprehending it/comprehending the true nature of the Godhead (and we never be, at least not on this side of the grave anyway).
It should be noted that the doctrine of the Trinity has been put to the test by millions of church doctors, theologians, pastors and knowledgeable laity year after year for millennia now, yet it remains one of the principal doctrines of the entire Christian church (IOW, of every church that falls within the pale of Christian orthodoxy, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant, incl Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and all the rest).
God bless you!
~Deut
p.s. - we are, of course, free to believe whatever we want to believe, but when the historic Christian church, ~all of it~ (which spends so much time arguing and bickering over our differences, as you know) stands as ~ONE~ on a particular topic/teaching, I would think that alone would be reason enough to give those who question the validity of this doctrine pause to consider it again
The mystery of the Godhead is indeed great, yes
.
Trinitarian Heresies
Modalism (i.e. Sabellianism, Noetianism and Patripassianism)
...taught that the three persons of the Trinity as different “modes” of the Godhead. Adherants believed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinct personalities, but different modes of God's self-revelation. A typical modalist approach is to regard God as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Spirit in sanctification. In other words, God exists as Father, Son and Spirit in different eras, but never as triune. Stemming from Modalism, Patripassianism believed that the Father suffered as the Son.
Tritheism
...Tritheism confessses the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three independent divine beings; three separate gods who share the 'same substance'. This is a common mistake because of misunderstanding of the use of the term 'persons' in defining the Trinity.
Arianism
...taught that the preexistent Christ was the first and greatest of God’s creatures but denied his fully divine status. The Arian controversy was of major importance in the development of Christology during the fourth century and was addressed definitely in the Nicene Creed.
Docetism
...taught that Jesus Christ as a purely divine being who only had the “appearance” of being human. Regarding his suffering, some versions taught that Jesus’ divinity abandoned or left him upon the cross while other claimed that he only appeared to suffer (much like he only appeared to be human).
Ebionitism
...taught that while Jesus was endowed with particular charismatic gifts which distinguished him from other humans but nonetheless regarded Him as a purely human figure.
Macedonianism
...that that the Holy Spirit is a created being.
Adoptionism
...taught that Jesus was born totally human and only later was “adopted” – either at his baptism or at his resurrection – by God in a special (i.e. divine) way.
Partialism
...taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are components of the one God. This led them to believe that each of the persons of the Trinity is only part God, only becoming fully God when they come together.
Finally (just FYI), the church carefully formulated the Doctrine of the Trinity to circumscribe and safeguard the truth that the Bible teaches us concerning the Godhead (~not~ to explain it, because that is simply beyond us). The Trinity is considered to be one of our Biblical "mysteries", meaning that we know that it's true because the Bible tells us that it is, even though we are incapable of truly comprehending it/comprehending the true nature of the Godhead (and we never be, at least not on this side of the grave anyway).
It should be noted that the doctrine of the Trinity has been put to the test by millions of church doctors, theologians, pastors and knowledgeable laity year after year for millennia now, yet it remains one of the principal doctrines of the entire Christian church (IOW, of every church that falls within the pale of Christian orthodoxy, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant, incl Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and all the rest).
God bless you!
~Deut
p.s. - we are, of course, free to believe whatever we want to believe, but when the historic Christian church, ~all of it~ (which spends so much time arguing and bickering over our differences, as you know) stands as ~ONE~ on a particular topic/teaching, I would think that alone would be reason enough to give those who question the validity of this doctrine pause to consider it again
Deuteronomy 6
4 Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!
Genesis 1
26 God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
The mystery of the Godhead is indeed great, yes
.
-
3
- Show all
A loud voice sometimes.
Dan 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and they don't have a head or hair or clothes or sit on a throne, but the Father does.
It's not complicated. Just look up what words for image and likeness mean.
Dan 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
"a spirit hath not flesh and bones" and they don't have a head or hair or clothes or sit on a throne, but the Father does.
we're going to have to figure out what "in Our image" means . . .
It's not complicated. Just look up what words for image and likeness mean.
that's...
not really addressing anything i put.
which is to say, not always anthropomorphic as you've attested: i gave several counterexamples; giving an example of an anthropomorphic reference does not exclude the references i offered.
if i say, flowers are always red, and you give me several examples of not-red flowers, imagine that i reply with the same red tulip i had previously commented about. have i answered your argument? no - i have ignored it.
not really addressing anything i put.
which is to say, not always anthropomorphic as you've attested: i gave several counterexamples; giving an example of an anthropomorphic reference does not exclude the references i offered.
if i say, flowers are always red, and you give me several examples of not-red flowers, imagine that i reply with the same red tulip i had previously commented about. have i answered your argument? no - i have ignored it.
-
1
- Show all
You didn't offer any descriptions of God the Father as I did. Nor did you address any of the ones I presented. You just sidestepped them with the claim none are literal. Overwhelmingly the bible presents God the father as a physical being as much as his own son is. Being a physical being is not somehow making someone not divine and I can use Christ as such an example. And being God, none of the members of the Trinity as in any way limited whether physical or spiritual in nature.
i didn't say none are literal.
i did not deny any such thing.
and i mentioned for example the still voice, the cloud that filled the temple, the torch & furnace Who confirmed the covenant with Abram, and the burning bush.
do you agree with Nehemiah, that all these are Christ?
if so are they not one? is Emmanuel not also called Eternal Father?
aren't my examples called THE LORD in scripture?
do you say none are the Father?
so who then, is YHVH?
i did not deny any such thing.
and i mentioned for example the still voice, the cloud that filled the temple, the torch & furnace Who confirmed the covenant with Abram, and the burning bush.
do you agree with Nehemiah, that all these are Christ?
if so are they not one? is Emmanuel not also called Eternal Father?
aren't my examples called THE LORD in scripture?
do you say none are the Father?
so who then, is YHVH?
-
1
- Show all
No. Maybe the one in the furnace but in general my position is that Christ was hidden and would be revealed in his incarnation.
One? Are you Arian? I believe in Trinity so are not one literal person but one in spiritual nature and purpose.
Likely it's a reference to the Father. I believe everytime God was seen and also described, it was the Father.
One? Are you Arian? I believe in Trinity so are not one literal person but one in spiritual nature and purpose.
Likely it's a reference to the Father. I believe everytime God was seen and also described, it was the Father.
Thank God for the Hebrew Tanakh:
First of all, Daniel 7, is about the Horn [Beast] during the Tribulation. And we know that Christ will Defeat the Beast at Armageddon.
So, let's examine the role of the Ancient of Days in this Battle between Horn [Beast] and Christ.
Verse 9 - 11 begins with Judgement at the Great White Throne Judgement, where the Ancient of Days [CHRIST] sits as JUDGE:
9 I was looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days sat; His raiment was as white as snow, and the hair of His head was like clean wool; His throne was sparks of fire, its wheels were a burning fire.
Verse 10 [the Books were Opened/just like Revelation Judgement Day]
10 A river of fire was flowing and emerging from before Him; a thousand thousands served Him, and ten thousand ten thousands arose before Him. Justice was established, and the books were opened.
Verse 11 [Beast Judged and throne into Lake of Fire/Revelation version]
11 I saw then from the sound of the arrogant words that the horn spoke, I looked until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to a flame of fire.
Let's drop down to Verse 21
The Horn/Beast wages war on the Saints/like Revelation
21 I looked and the horn that was like this waged war with the holy ones and overwhelmed them.
NOW, LOOK WHO COMES AND DEFEATS THE BEAST LIKE WE KNOW CHRIST DOES IN REVELATION = ARMAGEDDON
22 Until the Ancient of Days came and gave revenge to the high holy ones, and the time arrived that the holy ones inherited the kingdom.
Nowhere in Scripture does the Father come to Earth and makes War with the Beast, EVER, only Christ does. And Daniel calls Christ, the ANCIENT OF DAYS!
So, once again, the Father is Spirit!
The Ancient of Days is the WORD made Flesh!
First of all, Daniel 7, is about the Horn [Beast] during the Tribulation. And we know that Christ will Defeat the Beast at Armageddon.
So, let's examine the role of the Ancient of Days in this Battle between Horn [Beast] and Christ.
Verse 9 - 11 begins with Judgement at the Great White Throne Judgement, where the Ancient of Days [CHRIST] sits as JUDGE:
9 I was looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days sat; His raiment was as white as snow, and the hair of His head was like clean wool; His throne was sparks of fire, its wheels were a burning fire.
Verse 10 [the Books were Opened/just like Revelation Judgement Day]
10 A river of fire was flowing and emerging from before Him; a thousand thousands served Him, and ten thousand ten thousands arose before Him. Justice was established, and the books were opened.
Verse 11 [Beast Judged and throne into Lake of Fire/Revelation version]
11 I saw then from the sound of the arrogant words that the horn spoke, I looked until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to a flame of fire.
Let's drop down to Verse 21
The Horn/Beast wages war on the Saints/like Revelation
21 I looked and the horn that was like this waged war with the holy ones and overwhelmed them.
NOW, LOOK WHO COMES AND DEFEATS THE BEAST LIKE WE KNOW CHRIST DOES IN REVELATION = ARMAGEDDON
22 Until the Ancient of Days came and gave revenge to the high holy ones, and the time arrived that the holy ones inherited the kingdom.
Nowhere in Scripture does the Father come to Earth and makes War with the Beast, EVER, only Christ does. And Daniel calls Christ, the ANCIENT OF DAYS!
So, once again, the Father is Spirit!
The Ancient of Days is the WORD made Flesh!
-
1
- Show all
Christ is not called the ancient of days. God the Father is.
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Here Christ is the Son of man and the ancient of days is his Father.
Gill:
and, behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; not Judas Maccabaeus, as Porphyry; nor the Roman people, as Grotius; nor the people of Israel, as Aben Ezra; nor the people of the saints of the most High, as Cocceius; but the Messiah, as most Christian interpreters, and even the Jews themselves, both ancient and modern, allow. In the ancient book of Zohar (u) it is said,
"in the times of the Messiah, Israel shall be one people, to the Lord, and he shall make them one nation in the earth, and they shall rule above and below; as it is written, "behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven"; this is the King Messiah of whom it is written, "and in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven, set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed", &c. Dan_2:44''