Your Views on The Trinity

[Peterlag]

I agree. No one said Jesus resurrected himself after he died. I keep telling them this, but it seems no one wants to hear it! There are a great number of things that are painful to the Trinitarian ear; unfortunately, most of those things are Biblical.

I told @Fred the verse was a problem meaning there's a whole bunch of Scripture that say otherwise. And he came back with the verse is a problem for me. No it's a problem when you have 25 guys saying it was green and 1 guy saying it was red. The guy with the red is where we see the problem.

 

[Runningman]

I told @Fred the verse was a problem meaning there's a whole bunch of Scripture that say otherwise. And he came back with the verse is a problem for me. No it's a problem when you have 25 guys saying it was green and 1 guy saying it was red. The guy with the red is where we see the problem.

Yeah. Nothing to really do except pray for them and show them the truth whenever you happen to see them saying something false.

 

[Fred]

I told @Fred the verse was a problem meaning there's a whole bunch of Scripture that say otherwise.

Thus, both are true.

 

[Peterlag]

Yeah. Nothing to really do except pray for them and show them the truth whenever you happen to see them saying something false.

I'm telling you they are dug in deep into this trinity thing. They have been able to fit the whole Bible around it.

 

[mikesw]

I'm telling you they are dug in deep into this trinity thing. They have been able to fit the whole Bible around it.

Then unitarians come around and deny the whole bible so they can reject who Jesus is. If they had truly found a new truth, they should have convincing arguments rather than quoting half of passages and being silent on the others. We see them inspired by Bultmann's demythologizing method of rejecting the divinity of Christ and the validity of miracles.

 

[Runningman]

I'm telling you they are dug in deep into this trinity thing. They have been able to fit the whole Bible around it.

I would say "the whole Bible" is a bit of a stretch. They have a wheelhouse of a maybe a dozen verses they cycle through and that's pretty much the extent of it. Most of them are Logos theologians and rely heavily on John 1:1 as foundational. Ever ask a Trinitarian where to begin reading the Bible? Almost all of them will say begin with John. It's because John 1 foundational for their niche view of Scripture.

 

[dwight92070]

In this life we speak about what is. Not what is not.

What a foolish statement. Apparently you have NOT read the Ten Commandments.

 

[dwight92070]

I would say "the whole Bible" is a bit of a stretch. They have a wheelhouse of a maybe a dozen verses they cycle through and that's pretty much the extent of it. Most of them are Logos theologians and rely heavily on John 1:1 as foundational. Ever ask a Trinitarian where to begin reading the Bible? Almost all of them will say begin with John. It's because John 1 foundational for their niche view of Scripture.

Actually I have a wheelhouse of about 160 verses? How many are in your wheelhouse?

 

[Peterlag]

I would say "the whole Bible" is a bit of a stretch. They have a wheelhouse of a maybe a dozen verses they cycle through and that's pretty much the extent of it. Most of them are Logos theologians and rely heavily on John 1:1 as foundational. Ever ask a Trinitarian where to begin reading the Bible? Almost all of them will say begin with John. It's because John 1 foundational for their niche view of Scripture.

Yes I understand everything you just said. But I have a whole bunch of folks on other sites telling me the whole Bible tells them Jesus is God. They post stuff I never even heard of. They will find Jacob having dinner with an angel and they will say see it was God. They will find a verse that says some prophet saw a vision and they will say see it was Jesus with him.

 

[Peterlag]

What a foolish statement. Apparently you have NOT read the Ten Commandments.

It's a true statement because in my world logic and reason apply. Like for example there's no such thing as a 100 percent of two different things. And we don't speak about what is not. No prophet ever stood up in the Temple and said there's no cars.

 

[dwight92070]

It's a true statement because in my world logic and reason apply. Like for example there's no such thing as a 100 percent of two different things. And we don't speak about what is not. No prophet ever stood up in the Temple and said there's no cars.

Apparently you think it's impossible that Jesus could be 100% man and 100% God. But with God all things are possible. Also there's no such thing as a man who can walk on water, or turn water into wine, or feed 15 -20 thousand people with five loaves and two fish. But with God, who Jesus IS, there's no problem. The only problem is in your "logic and reason". You think it's impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? Not for God.
The Bible is full of things that are not.

Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Unless you are converted and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
I am writing these things ... so that you may not sin.
He is ... the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only.
The one who says, "I have come to know Him, and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
David was a prophet. He said, "There is no one who does good, not even one."
Ezekiel quotes God saying: "I searched for a man among them ... but I found not one."

And these are just a few examples. You should look at the Scriptures more carefully before you make foolish, speculative statements.

 

[DavidTree]

Most of the confusion regarding the number of beings composing the Godhead springs from a simple misunderstanding of the word “one.” Simply put, “one” in the Bible does not always mean numerical quantity. Depending on the Scripture, “one” can often mean unity.

We see this principle established very early in Scripture. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24 “One flesh” here does not mean that a married couple melt into one human after their wedding, but rather they are to be united into one family. Jesus prayed that the apostles would be one, saying, “And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one.” John 17:22, 23

We need to keep in mind that when Moses said, “The LORD is one,” Israel was surrounded with polytheistic nations that worshiped many gods that were constantly involved in petty bickering and rivalry whereas the God who created is composed of three separate beings who are perfectly united in their mission of saving and sustaining their creatures. As the Spirit is executing the will of both the Father and Son, it is His will also.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (1 John 5:7). Granted, it is a brain exercise to grasp that one God (“He”) is also, and equally, “They.” Like one rope with three united strands, the three persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit make up the one God. Easy as A-B-C.

the Hebrew word for 'one' in the Shema is Echad

Echad can mean more then one but that they are in unity and act as a singular unit.

Thus the analogy that you pointed out of 'Husband and Wife are no longer two but One'

 

[Peterlag]

Apparently you think it's impossible that Jesus could be 100% man and 100% God. But with God all things are possible. Also there's no such thing as a man who can walk on water, or turn water into wine, or feed 15 -20 thousand people with five loaves and two fish. But with God, who Jesus IS, there's no problem. The only problem is in your "logic and reason". You think it's impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? Not for God.
The Bible is full of things that are not.

Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Unless you are converted and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
I am writing these things ... so that you may not sin.
He is ... the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only.
The one who says, "I have come to know Him, and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
David was a prophet. He said, "There is no one who does good, not even one."
Ezekiel quotes God saying: "I searched for a man among them ... but I found not one."

And these are just a few examples. You should look at the Scriptures more carefully before you make foolish, speculative statements.

Things that are not mentioned in the Bible...

There's no cars
There's no television
There's no computers
Jesus is not God is also not mentioned

 

[DavidTree]

Things that are not mentioned in the Bible...

There's no cars
There's no television
There's no computers
Jesus is not God is also not mentioned

the mind is a terrible thing to waste

 

[Peterlag]

The Bible says the Son will be subject to the Father even in the future...

“When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him [God] who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). The teaching that the two of them are “co-equal” must be wrong if Jesus is subject to the Father even in the eternal future. John 10:36 says “do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God?” The fact that Jesus was consecrated, or as it's translated in other versions as “sanctified” by God shows he's not God because God does not need to be sanctified. Philippians 2:6 says that Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” The point of the verse is that Jesus Christ was highly exalted by God because he was humble and did not seek equality with God. Jesus would never have needed to seek equality with God in the first place because it would have been inherent in him if he was God.

 

[mikesw]

The Bible says the Son will be subject to the Father even in the future...

“When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him [God] who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). The teaching that the two of them are “co-equal” must be wrong if Jesus is subject to the Father even in the eternal future. John 10:36 says “do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God?” The fact that Jesus was consecrated, or as it's translated in other versions as “sanctified” by God shows he's not God because God does not need to be sanctified. Philippians 2:6 says that Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” The point of the verse is that Jesus Christ was highly exalted by God because he was humble and did not seek equality with God. Jesus would never have needed to seek equality with God in the first place because it would have been inherent in him if he was God.

Really Peterlag? You make yourself out to be an expert on this stuff but these are the interpretations you end up with?