The Trinity Discussion

[jaybird88]

Your question is absurd. Just read properly.

not as absurd as teachings G-D died, was dead for three days( in those three days the world somehow continued to exist without G-D) and then raised Himself up while He was dead.

 

[trofimus]

two statements that say different things dont contradict. the source of the creating power is the Father. created through and for the Son.

And both are God.

 

[trofimus]

not as absurd as teachings G-D died, was dead for three days( in those three days the world somehow continued to exist without G-D) and then raised Himself up while He was dead.

Body of Jesus died. Not God as being.

God as being existed before Jesus was born and also after his body died.

 

[Dagallen]

Lets try geometry. One cube has 6 sides, 6 squares.

So... do you have problem with this too? Or do you accept it? God and 3 persons are very similar issue.

So now you want to use geometry to explain God, the Son, the Holy Spirit, interesting !

 

[trofimus]

So now you want to use geometry to explain God, the Son, the Holy Spirit, interesting !

...to explain God to you. Because you have a problem with that He is one and three in the same time. So I try to illustrate this from the world you can know (geometry) so that you can comprehend how higher levels of existence can change our perspective.

We are like 2D squares and God is like 3D cube I hope will not take this literally or wrongly again. Its just an illustration.

 

[valiant]

not as absurd as teachings G-D died, was dead for three days( in those three days the world somehow continued to exist without G-D) and then raised Himself up while He was dead.

you see you don't even know what is taught. God didn't die. Jesus Christ died physically. But His spirit went to Heaven as God-man. So He could say to the dying thief, 'Today you will be with Me in Paradise.'

 

[Dagallen]

...to explain God to you. Because you have a problem with that He is one and three in the same time. So I try to illustrate this from the world you can know (geometry) so that you can comprehend how higher levels of existence can change our perspective.

We are like 2D squares and God is like 3D cube I hope will not take this literally or wrongly again. Its just an illustration.

OK, so it's your illustration, that's fine but other people other illustrations.

 

[trofimus]

OK, so it's your illustration, that's fine but other people other illustrations.

You can illustrate is as you wish as long as you are in the truth that God is one and has three persons.

 

[Dagallen]

You can illustrate is as you wish as long as you are in the truth that God is one and has three persons.

You see this is where you fall short because you put conditions on how a person must see what you want them to see, it's your or no way, as there are many illustrations throughout the scriptures, as each illustrations in scriptures does not paint the same picture, if it did then we would not be having such a debate, everyone does not think the same way, everyone does not express this topic in the same like manner but yet we have more in common with many, that is often over looked.

 

[trofimus]

You see this is where you fall short because you put conditions on how a person must see what you want them to see, it's your or no way, as there are many illustrations throughout the scriptures, as each illustrations in scriptures does not paint the same picture, if it did then we would not be having such a debate, everyone does not think the same way, everyone does not express this topic in the same like manner but yet we have more in common with many, that is often over looked.

In the moment you will understand that God is one and has three persons, your contradictions in the Bible will disappear.

Until then, you will still have problems with dozens of verses you have to ignore.

 

[Dagallen]

In the moment you will understand that God is one and has three persons, your contradictions in the Bible will disappear.

Until then, you will still have problems with dozens of verses you have to ignore.

I don't ignore scriptures but what I usually ignore is people who believe their belief is right and their belief is the only perfect belief. I say, there are many bibles in the world, as all bibles do not in the same like manner on all topics but yet all bibles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so why is it, all bibles don't teach the same things in the same manner ? Which bible is right, which is wrong ?

 

[trofimus]

I don't ignore scriptures but what I usually ignore is people who believe their belief is right and their belief is the only perfect belief. I say, there are many bibles in the world, as all bibles do not in the same like manner on all topics but yet all bibles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so why is it, all bibles don't teach the same things in the same manner ? Which bible is right, which is wrong ?

You ignore many verses like the ones Valiant posted. You do not have any good answer to them, because your belief is not based on all Bible verses, you just selected few, built a wrong view on them and other, correcting ones verses, must be "proverbs" or without answer.

 

[trofimus]

There are many bibles in the world, as all bibles do not in the same like manner on all topics but yet all bibles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so why is it, all bibles don't teach the same things in the same manner ? Which bible is right, which is wrong ?

Translations are not inspired in the meaning they are without any error.

But if you will use any "normal" translation (not a translation of some sect like the New World translation), you will get the Trinity right.

You can chooose between NIV, NASB, Berean, ESV, I do not know, I am not English native speaker. You will know better which one is suitable for you.

 

[Dagallen]

Translations are not inspired in the meaning they are without any error.

But if you will use any "normal" translation (not a translation of some sect like the New World translation), you will get the Trinity right.

You can chooose between NIV, NASB, Berean, ESV, I do not know, I am not English native speaker. You will know better which one is suitable for you.

I read from a King James Bible, printed in 1892, the King James Bible of today, does not paint the same picture as it once did in 1892, the writings imply, do not add nor take away and yet man has added and taken away throughout time, as early Christians did not have the same beliefs as the Christians do today, times has changed, history has changed, bibles have changed.

 

[trofimus]

I read from a King James Bible, printed in 1892, the King James Bible of today, does not paint the same picture as it once did in 1892, the wrings imply, do not add nor take away and yet man has added and taken away throughout time, as early Christians did not have the same beliefs as the Christians do today, times has changed, history has changed, bibles have changed.

I would not recomend middle-ages translations, because they had quite bad sources to translate from.

But nevermind, even these Bibles were enough for light to shine again into the RCC darkness.

 

[Dagallen]

I would not recomend middle-ages translations, because they had quite bad sources to translate from. But nevermind, these Bibles were enough for light to shine again into the RCC darkness.

King James 1892, there are as many scriptures that appear to imply a non - trinity belief, just as there are many scriptures that appears to imply a trinity belief. This debate took place in Rome, is still being debated today, that hasn't change.

 

[trofimus]

King James 1892, there are as many scriptures that appear to imply a non - trinity belief, just as there are many scriptures that appears to imply a trinity belief. This debate took place in Rome, is still being debated today, that hasn't change.

No, it is not seriously debated, its a looooooong time accepted.

Yes, there are some individuals like you who debate it, there are some sects like JW who attack it, but the common Church hold the Trinity for almost 2000 years and without any continuous debate.

 

[Dagallen]

No, it is not seriously debated, its a looooooong time accepted.

Yes, there are some individuals like you who debate it, there are some sects like JW who attack it, but the common Church hold the Trinity for almost 2000 years and without any continuous debate.

From the Nicaea, the foundation of trinity was laid, however history shows that before the Nicaea the trinity belief was not Christian belief of the church, as it is a belief that grow out of the Nicaea after the order of the Constantine to the bishops of the church, that's history, whether anyone accepts history or rejects history, it's still history, so I look at the scriptures and let the scriptures walk me back in history and to where are today.

 

[trofimus]

From the Nicaea, the foundation of trinity was laid, however history shows that before the Nicaea the trinity belief was not Christian belief of the church, as it is a belief that grow out of the Nicaea after the order of the Constantine to the bishops of the church, that's history, whether anyone accepts history or rejects history, it's still history, so I look at the scriptures and let the scriptures walk me back in history and to where are today.

Concil of Nicea was in 325 AD. Thats pretty much early after apostles. 3 generations, roughly.

Also, the Trinity is based in the Bible. Nicea just formulated it officially as a creed.

 

[valiant]

From the Nicaea, the foundation of trinity was laid, however history shows that before the Nicaea the trinity belief was not Christian belief of the church, as it is a belief that grow out of the Nicaea after the order of the Constantine to the bishops of the church, that's history, whether anyone accepts history or rejects history, it's still history, so I look at the scriptures and let the scriptures walk me back in history and to where are today.

Tertullian brought the word trinitas (latin) into the argument long before Constantine was even a twinkle in his mother's eye.

Tertullian (AD 150–225) was an early Christian apologist. He said,

For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.[23]​

Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.... That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.[24]​

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other , and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that they are distinct from each other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?[25]​

As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[26]

[23][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif] Tertullian, [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif]Treatise on the Soul[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif], 41.[/FONT]
[24][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif] Tertullian, [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif]Apology[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif], 21.[/FONT]

[25][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif] Tertullian,[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif] Against Praxeas[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif], chapter 9.[/FONT]

[26][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif] Tertullian,[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif] Against Praxeas[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Palatino, serif], chapter 2.[/FONT]
​