That's a misrepresentation of the classical Trinitarian doctrine which is based on the Eucumenical Councils. God is one in essence and three in persons. One God, Three Persons. Elementary, my dear Watson.
Your Views on The Trinity
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
7xLightray
Member
Your attempt to represent the trinitarian concept suggests you do not understand it and therefore are not likely to make reasonable arguments. Anyhow this not a fully developed theory you are offering. You just appear to make Jesus a creature instead of the person of the Godhead that Christians have recognized even in the first writing of the NT, namely Galatians.
7xLightray
Member
Not at all a misrepresentation of the classical Trinitarian doctrine!
I know how the doctrine goes, but the doctrine is not based in reality, making a contradiction, that no one can explain, because three persons make three Gods, not one God, for..
Three persons judging, whether they all be in one body, or not, whether they all agree, or not, are still three judges judging!
The Father person is God all on His own, the Son person is God all on His own, the Holy Spirit person is God all on His own. Three persons that are God all on their own are three Gods, ..but magically the Trinity doctrine says, "No, they are not three Gods, according to our doctrine!"
And if you mean the word "God" means essence, as in: "God's personal characteristics, or to the facets of His personality. Sometimes the term “Attributes of God” is used to refer to God's essence," then three separate characteristics, three separate facets, and three separate attributes are still three Gods.
7xLightray
Member
Sir, this is meaningless, unless you can back up your word. What did I misrepresent? Three persons make up one God!
I appear to make Jesus a creature!? You got that backwards, Trinity says Christ flesh came from Mary, which flesh is creation! I am saying Christ flesh came from God, and His person came from that flesh which was God. So, you have more creature (even sinful creature) than I!
They did not believe in a Trinity!
you almost state the trinity better this time but I don't think you quite have the right sense.
Beyond that, you get goofy in your characterization of the Trinity and then of some odd view you have. Anyhow, it matters not since you do not present a comprehensive view of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, nor do you address critical verses. You hardly can be blamed for the limited knowledge if you are just approaching this topic casually. But that is where so much error comes in, namely an unqualified interpreter trying to present a repeated misconception.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I am not refusing anything. I don't know what you are referring to. Is there a certain word in a certain verse you would enjoy having me respond to? All I have gotten from you so far is 10 verses and I'm supposed to know which one you are referring to. All in a book that was written in parables with figures of speech and mostly only about Israel.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The word “form,” which is the Greek word morphē, is often referred to as Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in Phil. 2:6 the NIV has “being in very nature God.” The evidence does not support that morphē refers to an “inner essential nature" but rather an outer form.
Vine’s Lexicon has under “form”: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual… it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.”a Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphē, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in Phil. 2:8, and translated “fashion”) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphē and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphē refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.
A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. E. W. Bullinger gives morphē a one-word definition, “form. The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape.”c Gerard Kittel, TDNT, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphē and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphē, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphē) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphē refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”
Peterlag
Well-known member
The last time I looked the word logos up it had a whole bunch of different meanings and used more than 50 different ways in the Bible. Which one are you referring to?
What I mean by Essence is Nature.
You are making the cardinal error of equating Person and Nature in your statements. Until and when you recognize that error that you're making, you will always stumble on understanding the Trinity:
So again, God is one in nature and three in persons. One God, Three Persons. Elementary, my dear Watson.
Let's take this step by step. Do you believe that Rev 19:11-16 is talking about a Divine Person or about a "wisdom, plan or purpose of God"?
Permit me to help you to remove your road block. In the Koine Greek NT, λογος/λογω is for the Pre-Incarnate Word of God Person who took on flesh as Jesus Christ, ρημα/ρηματι is for the spoken word, and λογον is for the written/recorded/memorized/spoken word.
John 1:14 mentions λογος who is the Pre-Incarnate Word of God Person who took on flesh as Jesus Christ. Rev 19:11-16 further reinforces the idea thar λογος is a Person and not just a "wisdom, plan or purpose of God".
I'm not sure why you have a problem then. Christians have gotten a good sense of the passage for a long time.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The problem is that Christians think because the word logos is used in John 1:1 that it somehow means it's a whole biblical teaching saying that Jesus is God.
Peterlag
Well-known member
There's no road block and there's no teaching on this subject anywhere in the Bible. It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God.
Peterlag
Well-known member
This is verse 11. Show me where it says Jesus is God in that verse.
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Some Data on the Trinity...
The pronouns in the Bible that refer to “God” are singular and there are lots of them. “The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain well over twenty thousand pronouns and verbs describing the One God” (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17). Singular pronouns include “I” “my” and “he.” We would expect it to say “For God so loved the world that they gave the Father’s only begotten Son….” if “God” were composed of three co-equal beings who each had their own mind and together agreed to send Christ. The fact that the pronouns in the Bible refer to “God” as a singular being is also evidence that there is no Trinity.
I find it interesting that the Church Epistles were authored by both God and Christ and we see this in 1 Corinthians 1:3 that says “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” There's a lot of Scripture that shows Jesus to be separate and distinct from“God” which is what the people of the time believed and expected. The Trinitarian explanation of these verses is that Jesus is God and so“God” means “the Father” when Jesus speaks of himself and “God.” But the Bible never says that. It's only because Trinitarian doctrine asserts that Jesus is God that the assumption is made that “God” means “the Father” when Jesus and God appear together.
Jesus prayed to God “not my will, but yours, be done” because Jesus and God have separate wills (Luke 22:42; John 5:30). They would have one will if Jesus and the Father are the same “one God.” Trinitarian doctrine claims that Luke is referring to the human will of Jesus, and not his divine will, but that is problematic because the Bible never says anything like that or even hints that Jesus had two wills in conflict with each other inside him allowing one to be human and the other to be divine.
The pronouns in the Bible that refer to “God” are singular and there are lots of them. “The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain well over twenty thousand pronouns and verbs describing the One God” (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17). Singular pronouns include “I” “my” and “he.” We would expect it to say “For God so loved the world that they gave the Father’s only begotten Son….” if “God” were composed of three co-equal beings who each had their own mind and together agreed to send Christ. The fact that the pronouns in the Bible refer to “God” as a singular being is also evidence that there is no Trinity.
I find it interesting that the Church Epistles were authored by both God and Christ and we see this in 1 Corinthians 1:3 that says “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” There's a lot of Scripture that shows Jesus to be separate and distinct from“God” which is what the people of the time believed and expected. The Trinitarian explanation of these verses is that Jesus is God and so“God” means “the Father” when Jesus speaks of himself and “God.” But the Bible never says that. It's only because Trinitarian doctrine asserts that Jesus is God that the assumption is made that “God” means “the Father” when Jesus and God appear together.
Jesus prayed to God “not my will, but yours, be done” because Jesus and God have separate wills (Luke 22:42; John 5:30). They would have one will if Jesus and the Father are the same “one God.” Trinitarian doctrine claims that Luke is referring to the human will of Jesus, and not his divine will, but that is problematic because the Bible never says anything like that or even hints that Jesus had two wills in conflict with each other inside him allowing one to be human and the other to be divine.
Bobby Walker
Member
The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For example, it says of Christ that “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” Colossians 2:9
Peterlag
Well-known member
You can't have Jesus be 100 percent one thing and 100 percent something else. That's not mathematically possible. What that would make someone is a 200 percent something.
If someone is 100% husband and 100% father does that make him "200% something"?
Obviously, there's something wrong in your logic.
