Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[civic]

The Unitarian God, like Allah in Islam, has just Himself, and so would not even know or experience what love really means

Exactly it’s called narcissism

 

[praise_yeshua]

The Unitarian God, like Allah in Islam, has just Himself, and so would not even know or experience what love really means

Lets contrast something for minute.

Jesus. If you love me, do what I say (keep my commandments)

comparied to

Jesus.... If you love me Peter, feed my sheep.

Do you see any difference here?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Exactly it’s called narcissism

Yes sir!

 

[Runningman]

If the Father hasn't left Jesus alone..... then what does that mean to you?

Joh 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

You need to stop making these silly connections you're making. You could.... actually deal with what I said. I don't expect you to, but you could.

None of this strips the Father of His status as alone the true God. Why can you not just agree with what the Bible says? Why does this need to be an argument for you?

 

[Darby]

I also like the Immanent Trinity view. It refers to the Trinity’s internal or intra-trinitarian relations, which have always existed in God’s triune life for eternity, as opposed to how these triune relations exist within the outworking of affairs in the life of the Economic Trinity. In this way, the Immanent Trinity is the basis for the Economic Trinity.

 

[Studyman]

Jesus doesn't rule over you ?

I'm learning how to respond to such dishonest posts and replies to my posts made to other people. First I simply post the Holy Scriptures definition of God's Hierarchy, and I get an absurd reply, "Do you plan on ruling your wife throughout Eternity or will she finally become your equal". And this for simply posting scripture.

Then I try to explain in detail how, in my understand of Scriptures, God's Hierarchy works, even asking a question at the end. But I receive from you another dishonest and absurd question, "Jesus doesn't rule over you? if not you are not His its as simple as that."

Did you even read my post? Nevertheless, if you were honestly interested in my post you would have read it, and if you would have read it honestly, you would have addressed my question, and you would not have replied in the manner in which you replied. You can justify this behavior?

Got to love this "yielding" part. You're something else. The "humbling himself" wasn't about obeying God. He ALWAYS does what pleased the father. Always. "Humbling" not required.

Perhaps another Jesus didn't humble Himself to His Father, but the Jesus "of the bible" did, at least according to the Holy Scriptures. "And being found in fashion as a man, he "humbled himself", and "became obedient" unto death, even the death of the cross.

Joh 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Yes, that is what happens when a man has Faith in the God and Father of all. They do those things that please Him. And HE gives them to His Son for refining.

YOU must obey. Don't compare yourself to Jesus. You're of a much lesser sort.

Yes, that is what the other voice in the garden that God placed me in teaches. "Don't strive to walk, even as Jesus walked". Don't "press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus", don't strive to "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect", and of course your encouraging words, "you can't please God", "you don't Love Jesus", "you don't love God".

Clearly "thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

I believe "Faith", as defined by Jesus in Matthew 7 that I posted, in a better path than the one you promote. I would invite you to seek for this faith.

"But without faith "it is impossible to please him": for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[praise_yeshua]

None of this strips the Father of His status as alone the true God. Why can you not just agree with what the Bible says? Why does this need to be an argument for you?

You're claiming victory and insisting that I see it "like you see it". You know better than this.

I said a couple of things that you ignored. Can you deal specifically with them?

Also, If Jesus is Eternal and Jesus said the Father had never left Him alone. What does that say to you?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Perhaps another Jesus didn't humble Himself to His Father, but the Jesus "of the bible" did, at least according to the Holy Scriptures. "And being found in fashion as a man, he "humbled himself", and "became obedient" unto death, even the death of the cross.

So the Father killed His Son?

Did you read what you wrote? There is no need for humbling within the relationship between the Father and Son. You need to correct what you said.

 

[civic]

I'm learning how to respond to such dishonest posts and replies to my posts made to other people. First I simply post the Holy Scriptures definition of God's Hierarchy, and I get an absurd reply, "Do you plan on ruling your wife throughout Eternity or will she finally become your equal". And this for simply posting scripture.

Then I try to explain in detail how, in my understand of Scriptures, God's Hierarchy works, even asking a question at the end. But I receive from you another dishonest and absurd question, "Jesus doesn't rule over you? if not you are not His its as simple as that."

Did you even read my post? Nevertheless, if you were honestly interested in my post you would have read it, and if you would have read it honestly, you would have addressed my question, and you would not have replied in the manner in which you replied. You can justify this behavior?


Perhaps another Jesus didn't humble Himself to His Father, but the Jesus "of the bible" did, at least according to the Holy Scriptures. "And being found in fashion as a man, he "humbled himself", and "became obedient" unto death, even the death of the cross.


Yes, that is what happens when a man has Faith in the God and Father of all. They do those things that please Him. And HE gives them to His Son for refining.



Yes, that is what the other voice in the garden that God placed me in teaches. "Don't strive to walk, even as Jesus walked". Don't "press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus", don't strive to "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect", and of course your encouraging words, "you can't please God", "you don't Love Jesus", "you don't love God".

Clearly "thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

I believe "Faith", as defined by Jesus in Matthew 7 that I posted, in a better path than the one you promote. I would invite you to seek for this faith.

"But without faith "it is impossible to please him": for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Conflating eternity with the temporal order.

All you have are fallacious arguments

 

[Runningman]

You're claiming victory and insisting that I see it "like you see it". You know better than this.

I said a couple of things that you ignored. Can you deal specifically with them?

Also, If Jesus is Eternal and Jesus said the Father had never left Him alone. What does that say to you?

Because I addressed your question about John 8:29 already: "And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone"

For one, doesn't say that the Father has never left Jesus alone. What do you think happened here: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

For two, Jesus isn't in the category of God or deity in the sense the Father is.

 

[Runningman]

So the Father killed His Son?

Did you read what you wrote? There is no need for humbling within the relationship between the Father and Son. You need to correct what you said.

I think your strategy is confuse the issue. For starters, you said that John 17:3 about the Father being alone the true God is my "construct" and it isn't. For two, you're telling someone else to correct his statement about an explicit reference to Jesus humbling himself toward the one he obeyed. Are you afraid people will read the Bible for what it plainly says?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Because I addressed your question about John 8:29 already: "And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone"

For one, doesn't say that the Father has never left Jesus alone. What do you think happened here: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

For two, Jesus isn't in the category of God or deity in the sense the Father is.

Good. Good.

1. Jesus said what he felt. He wasn't alone. We know because of these words.

Joh 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Feeling alone isn't sin. Feeling alone is part of the human experience. I feel alone at times but I'm not. I know I'm not. However, I feel that way.

For all the pretense you're putting forth here, you're failing. You want to humanize Jesus and you're missing what actually makes us human. What hinders us. You have a long way to go to know yourself.

2. I see a statement without any context of explanation.

 

[Runningman]

Good. Good.

1. Jesus said what he felt. He wasn't alone. We know because of these words.

Joh 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Feeling alone isn't sin. Feeling alone is part of the human experience. I feel alone at times but I'm not. I know I'm not. However, I feel that way.

For all the pretense you're putting forth here, you're failing. You want to humanize Jesus and you're missing what actually makes us human. What hinders us. You have a long way to go to know yourself.

2. I see a statement without any context of explanation.

"I am not alone, because the Father is with me" is called a conditional statement. If the Father wasn't with Jesus, then he would be alone. I don't see you're making any traction. The word alone still means alone. In the case of John 17:3 there are two different targets. One is the Father, the other is Jesus. As far as the category of God is concerned, the Father is the true God alone, Jesus isn't the same target as the Father. You're really trying to overcomplicate this into some unintuitive highly nuanced version of Scripture that doesn't even state what the Bible does.

In your conclusion, the Father isn't the true God alone. Your conclusions should not contradict what is written.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think your strategy is confuse the issue. For starters, you said that John 17:3 about the Father being alone the true God is my "construct" and it isn't. For two, you're telling someone else to correct his statement about an explicit reference to Jesus humbling himself toward the one he obeyed. Are you afraid people will read the Bible for what it plainly says?

You Unitarians endless conflate distinct aspects of human existence with one another. Over and over again.

That verse doesn't present what you just said. For it to present what you just said, then it would require the Father to actually kill the Son.

Get it? Humbling and becoming "OBEDIENT" to death.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"I am not alone, because the Father is with me" is called a conditional statement. If the Father wasn't with Jesus, then he would be alone. I don't see you're making any traction. The word alone still means alone. In the case of John 17:3 there are two different targets. One is the Father, the other is Jesus. As far as the category of God is concerned, the Father is the true God alone, Jesus isn't the same target as the Father. You're really trying to overcomplicate this into some unintuitive highly nuanced version of Scripture that doesn't even state what the Bible does. In your conclusion, the Father isn't the true God alone. Your conclusions cannot contradict what is written.

Geesh. You're completely lost in this.

Nothing conditional about the statement. Go back to the statement itself and show me the condition. Go for it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"I am not alone, because the Father is with me" is called a conditional statement. If the Father wasn't with Jesus, then he would be alone. I don't see you're making any traction. The word alone still means alone. In the case of John 17:3 there are two different targets. One is the Father, the other is Jesus. As far as the category of God is concerned, the Father is the true God alone, Jesus isn't the same target as the Father. You're really trying to overcomplicate this into some unintuitive highly nuanced version of Scripture that doesn't even state what the Bible does.

In your conclusion, the Father isn't the true God alone. Your conclusions should not contradict what is written.

You remind me of a naive young man that doesn't personally know enough about the human experience to judge much of anything yourself. It is dangerous thing to judge Jesus Christ by your own experience when you're so inexperienced yourself.

 

[amazing grace]

The subject is Jesus Christ. I wouldn't dare try to change Him. You're not controlling anything. So stop this nonsense. Where is your husband? Maybe he can rule over you and tell you how dishonest you're being.

I started out responding to Darby. (#538) You jumped in saying I was an immature Trinitarian, something about 'honor' and coming 'back' to this......Which I didn't understand to begin with and everything went downhill from that point on!

I did not say and never said YOU were trying to CHANGE HIM.
I have not been dishonest throughout my conversation with you.

There are Eternal things and Heavenly things. Care to detail the difference and what you're talking about specifically? Please give a distinct and detailed response. I don't believe you actually believe this.

And now we are going off in yet another direction ! Do you mean 'earthly thing' and 'heavenly things'?

<snip>
I don't recall ever saying anything remotely of what you have said above of Jesus Christ. Maybe you can pull up where I said that Jesus was still a weak and frail child? <snip>

More dishonesty from you. You don't have to say it. It is a description of how you're treating Jesus Christ. I used a contrast to how he should be treated to describe it.

I guess you couldn't find where you accused me of saying that Jesus was still a weak and frail child...... Who is being dishonest?

So they didn't become "ONE FLESH" through the union of your seed and the seed of your husband.

Are you talking about my children in the bolded statement? Do you mean human beings? One flesh refers to the union, the intimate union between husband and wife.

They certainly operate independently, but YOU are responsible for what they've become. They are a combination of the origins of your seeds. So they are BOTH in some context you and not you.

Yes, they do operated independently and yes, my husband and I heavily influenced their personalities and characteristics along with many outside influences which shaped who they are today.
My children are a result of my union with my husband - the union which made us one flesh. They carry my DNA, my genes, yes.

Pay attention to this. Jesus was born of the seed of Mary. The Father never became flesh.

I know that Jesus was born of the seed of Mary. I know that God, i.e. Jesus' Father never became flesh.

AH. Good. Good. Maybe you forgot the following....

Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

So. Have YOU kept anyone? I look forward to your answer. Be sure to run it by your husband. Wouldn't want you to "step out of line"....

Maybe you should say "my husband said this" or I come "in the name of my husband"....

Jesus KEEP His disciples. Just like the Father keeps people. I wonder what that means.....

Nope, I haven't forgotten John 17:12. I am really trying to figure out where this rabbit hole that you are creating is going.
Your line of reasoning seems illogical - You are paralleling ME keeping someone with Jesus keeping his followers in his Father's name?

He was made LOWER than the angels for suffering. Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;

Which means HE CAME FROM SOMEWHERE HIGHER!!!

So pay attention to ALL the context of the existence/life of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 8:4-6 the Psalmist is contemplating the whole of creation and God's interaction and personal care for humanity in all its weakness and frailty. This Psalm is also understood to find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who perfectly restores the dominion and glory that was intended for humanity........

.........still doesn't change the fact that God is the head of Christ which is where we were until you moved the goal posts.

In all honesty, I don't believe you actually love Jesus Christ. I don't see how you can given how you dishonor the relationship He has with the Father.

Thank you for your honest personal opinion.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I started out responding to Darby. (#538) You jumped in saying I was an immature Trinitarian, something about 'honor' and coming 'back' to this......Which I didn't understand to begin with and everything went downhill from that point on!

I did not say and never said YOU were trying to CHANGE HIM.
I have not been dishonest throughout my conversation with you.

This would be much easier if we were actually talking to one another. Reminder. This is a open forum. You're not having private conversations. I can read. You don't get to tell me/insist I can't understand what you're saying because you're talking to someone else. I can read what you said. You are being dishonest in insisting I don't understand you. I gave the same response back to you because you needed to see what you're doing to me. You're continuing to do this.

You don't own this conversation. I'm not responding directly to every single little "thought" you're presenting. If we were talking to one another, I'd point out every single problem you have. When I said "I wouldn't change Him". I wasn't implying you actually said that very thing. YOUR position does just that. You don't have to say it. What you have already said requires it.

Now take what I just said and apply it .... MOVING FORWARD. Don't pretend I didn't say what I just said and continue to insist I "don't understand you" or "I'm changing the subject".

This is about Jesus Christ. Which is a very large subject. This is your last warning from me. I don't have to talk to you and by your own standard, you should be talking to your husband. Not me. So. Physician. Heal thyself. If you don't know what that means, you shouldn't be debating anything. This is debate. Not a training session. YOU are trying to teach others. If you want to learn something, then ask.

And now we are going off in yet another direction ! Do you mean 'earthly thing' and 'heavenly things'?

Think for a moment. Is heaven coequal with God or did God make heaven? Is heaven Eternal, without beginning or end? There are multiple heavens. I'm sure you don't know this.

I guess you couldn't find where you accused me of saying that Jesus was still a weak and frail child...... Who is being dishonest?

We were talking about children. Jesus Christ was a child. I used an example. It doesn't matter what you said or didn't say. You were treating Jesus Christ as a child when Christ is Eternal. The "Eternal" stepped into humanity. You Unitarians have ZERO idea of how to actually deal with the very essence of who Jesus Christ is. ZERO.

You treat Jesus like Christ is one of your own children. That is why I started referencing children.

Let me ask you, If Jesus isn't your son, then what right do you have yourself to speak of Him the way you speak of Him?

I'll wait. Get your husband to help you.

 

[amazing grace]

The Unitarian God, like Allah in Islam, has just Himself, and so would not even know or experience what love really means

Almighty God had to be Triune in order to know and experience what love really means?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Are you talking about my children in the bolded statement? Do you mean human beings? One flesh refers to the union, the intimate union between husband and wife.

The fruit of the womb belongs to who?

If you're "One", then why do you still refer to one another as "husband and wife"?

Yes, they do operated independently and yes, my husband and I heavily influenced their personalities and characteristics along with many outside influences which shaped who they are today.
My children are a result of my union with my husband - the union which made us one flesh. They carry my DNA, my genes, yes.

Then is BOTH. Just like I said. Thanks for confirming. Apply this to the relationship between the Father and the Son. There is an intimacy that exists between the Father and Son where they are ONE. Yet, separate "Persons". See. You can understand it if you really think about what you experience yourself. At least, you have a "taste" of it. You don't completely understand ever how you might insist you do. I mean you are talking about two individuals that have a relationship. Who are you to intrude in that relationship? You don't speak for them.

I know that Jesus was born of the seed of Mary. I know that God, i.e. Jesus' Father never became flesh.

Not in the sense Christ did. However, I wouldn't say that the Father didn't take upon Himself a form of dust and ashes. I don't know personally. I'm not Eternal. Is anything too hard for God?

Nope, I haven't forgotten John 17:12. I am really trying to figure out where this rabbit hole that you are creating is going.
Your line of reasoning seems illogical - You are paralleling ME keeping someone with Jesus keeping his followers in his Father's name?

Psalm 8:4-6 the Psalmist is contemplating the whole of creation and God's interaction and personal care for humanity in all its weakness and frailty. This Psalm is also understood to find its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who perfectly restores the dominion and glory that was intended for humanity........

That glory was never lost. It just wasn't complete. Adam wasn't finished product. Neither was Eve. You can't understand Eve with the theology you have. You can't. It is impossible. You can't understand that what Adam did, He did because of his love for Eve. A gift from God. This life is all about relationships and how we choose to express and live them.

What you've been taught doesn't actually impart to you the full sense of love written in the heart of Adam. It can't. I feel sorry for your experience. I've been hard on you but you're the one insisting you know all of this already. The best thing you can do is to admit you're wrong and to change. Your choice. You need to hear it.

.........still doesn't change the fact that God is the head of Christ which is where we were until you moved the goal posts.

Thank you for your honest personal opinion.

Yeah. Like your husband is the head of you. I'm not moving the goalpost at all.

Christ came to free us from the requirements of others. You're living under requirements that make you nothing more than a servant. Jesus had friends. You don't know what it is to live your own life that is in perfect harmony with another.

Tell me. What is different about a friend that you don't get from your husband? If your husband is your friend, then how does that add to your relationship.