Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:777777, if you don't understand the Trinity, you are missing the entire message of the Bible. Not that man dies for God again in a second Adam, but that GOD DIES FOR MAN....

Man wanted to prove his faithfulness to God when Abraham tried to sacrifice his son Isaac, from his loins, to God Genesis 22:1-24. The response from God was to sacrifice his son, or Himself, BACK TO MAN John 3:16.

I understand the Trinity. Read my OP. I just don't believe the Trinity was there from the beginning.

7777777 wrote:

Gman wrote:777777, if you don't understand the Trinity, you are missing the entire message of the Bible. Not that man dies for God again in a second Adam, but that GOD DIES FOR MAN....

Man wanted to prove his faithfulness to God when Abraham tried to sacrifice his son Isaac, from his loins, to God Genesis 22:1-24. The response from God was to sacrifice his son, or Himself, BACK TO MAN John 3:16.

I understand the Trinity. Read my OP. I just don't believe the Trinity was there from the beginning.

7777777, it's been there forever. You need to look at it through the eyes of love. Ok, then what is the message of Christ's death on the cross?

More here:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/g ... inity.html

Or here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html

I just don't believe the Trinity was there from the beginning.

How do you reconcile this to this scripture?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made....14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:1-3,14

7777777 wrote:I believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost but I'm curious as to why the Trinity is not mentioned in the Old Testament. It always seems like anybody who tries to claim this has to take some obscure passage and bend it into a pretzel to get it to sound like the Trinity was there from the beginning. What do you think of this possibility...God created Jesus when He needed a way to save mankind. After Jesus died, only then did the Holy Spirit became a reality. The Holy Spirit being Christ living in His believers. I'm just wondering why the Trinity is not mentioned in the Old Testament...

Read your opening OP... now too your next statement

7777777 wrote:....I understand the Trinity. Read my OP. I just don't believe the Trinity was there from the beginning.

Response: How so??

What does the bible say about this?

Deuteronomy 4:35, "To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD Himself is God; there is none other besides Him..." NKJV

Deuteronomy 4:39, "Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." NKJV

Isaiah 43:10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me." NKJV

Isaiah 45:6, "That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other..."NKJV

Isaiah 45:21, 22c, Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. 22 "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." NKJV

Mormons believe in tritheism – not the Orthodox doctrine of the Divine Trinity. They confuse the Trinity to mean three separate gods and in polytheism as well.

7777777, Your question and openning statement sounds very Mormonesque; therefore, please define your understadning of the Divine Trinity for us before we continue… and review the scriptures quoted above in the KJV as well - what do they mean too you?
-
-
-

Gman wrote: 7777777, it's been there forever. You need to look at it through the eyes of love. Ok, then what is the message of Christ's death on the cross?

"eyes of love"? What does that mean?

The message of Christ's death is forgiveness of sins. So.....

7777777 wrote:

Gman wrote: 7777777, it's been there forever. You need to look at it through the eyes of love. Ok, then what is the message of Christ's death on the cross?

"eyes of love"? What does that mean?

That God is the one making the sacrifice here, not a second adam...

77777 wrote:The message of Christ's death is forgiveness of sins. So.....

So a second adam is forgiving your sins?

Gman wrote:

77777 wrote:The message of Christ's death is forgiveness of sins. So.....

So a second adam is forgiving your sins?

I think created was a poor choice of words on my part describing Jesus. It's hard for me to fully understand how Christ became. It is equally as hard to show Christ was there from the beginning.

7777777 wrote:
I think created was a poor choice of words on my part describing Jesus. It's hard for me to fully understand how Christ became. It is equally as hard to show Christ was there from the beginning.

i think that jlay described it best with John 1:1-3,14. But as for the Trinity, I use to teach against it until God opened my eyes to it. I use to believe it was a form of idolatry, so I know most of the arguments against it. Now I'm much more comfortable with it.. You see that God has relationship within himself.. God in three persons, it will make more sense when you study it.. Ultimately however it was God dieing to your sins, not a second adam..

The Nicene Creed (which isn't scripture, but most folk would agree with it's orthodoxy) declaresthat Jesus was "Begotten, not made", which CS Lewis explains like this: When you make something, like a painting or a sculpture, it might look very much like you, but it isn't ever going to be anything but paint or stone or whatever. When you have a child, it shares your DNA, it will grow and develop, and one day it will be fully grown; it is a human, just like you. that's the difference between begotten and made. Humans are made, Jesus was begotten.Eph 1:4 looks like it means that Jesus was there before god created anything.

To this day I'm still somewhat hesitant to completely accept the doctrine of the Trinity in it's entirety. I always felt that it's based on quite a few assumptions of men with surprisingly little biblical support.

It's clear that the entities referred to in the Bible as "Father", "Son (Jesus)", and "Holy Spirit" are all God, but is it biblical to assume that God has always and still does exist in that eternal state of 3 yet 1? And if so, is it ever stated in the Bible that those three are the only forms God has taken? What about the "Angel of the LORD" that prophets have often spoke to, which speaks in the first person when referring to God?

Or is it also possible that those are titles of a the same God to describe his different roles (Father=Governs creation, Son=Savior of humainty from their sins, Holy Spirit=Cleanser and transformer)?

I find it curious that God in the Bible stresses many times that He is singular in nature but never mentions being triune. Sure, it is often cited that the name Elohim has a root that implies plurality but I don't think that is sufficient to confirm the specific claims of the Trinity Doctrine. It may imply plurality, but it doesn't imply triunity.

I'm not saying the Doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect, but I think there are multiple conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence usually given to support a Trinity. I don't question that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God but rather that God has always existed in the form of precisely three seperate forms that interact and have relationships with each other.

Just to help you out a bit the title " The Angel of the Lord" in the OT is pre-human Jesus. So it's the Son.

I have seen the arguement that the Angel of YHWH refers to the pre-incarnate Jesus before, which is entirely plausable.

Is there scriptural evidence for it though? Or is it simply deducing that according to Jesus, no one has seen the Father before so the Angel of YHWH that Moses spoke to must have been Jesus?

Remember what Jesus says? That the OT testifies of Him, he even said that before abraham, I AM. He makes it pretty obvious. Plus angel means messenger, it doesn't have to mean a literal angelic being.

Seraph wrote:To this day I'm still somewhat hesitant to completely accept the doctrine of the Trinity in it's entirety. I always felt that it's based on quite a few assumptions of men with surprisingly little biblical support.

It's clear that the entities referred to in the Bible as "Father", "Son (Jesus)", and "Holy Spirit" are all God, but is it biblical to assume that God has always and still does exist in that eternal state of 3 yet 1? And if so, is it ever stated in the Bible that those three are the only forms God has taken? What about the "Angel of the LORD" that prophets have often spoke to, which speaks in the first person when referring to God?

Or is it also possible that those are titles of a the same God to describe his different roles (Father=Governs creation, Son=Savior of humainty from their sins, Holy Spirit=Cleanser and transformer)?

I find it curious that God in the Bible stresses many times that He is singular in nature but never mentions being triune. Sure, it is often cited that the name Elohim has a root that implies plurality but I don't think that is sufficient to confirm the specific claims of the Trinity Doctrine. It may imply plurality, but it doesn't imply triunity.

I'm not saying the Doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect, but I think there are multiple conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence usually given to support a Trinity. I don't question that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God but rather that God has always existed in the form of precisely three seperate forms that interact and have relationships with each other.

Hi,

Been out of town and just returned so if you are still interested in this - let me know and I will shed a few insights your way that may help!

God Bless!
-
-
-

It's clear that the entities referred to in the Bible as "Father", "Son (Jesus)", and "Holy Spirit" are all God, but is it biblical to assume that God has always and still does exist in that eternal state of 3 yet 1? And if so, is it ever stated in the Bible that those three are the only forms God has taken?

This is called "modalism". However, Scripture is clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not "forms" of God. They are 100% fully God, in person.

What about the "Angel of the LORD" that prophets have often spoke to, which speaks in the first person when referring to God?

A theophany, but still God (usually the Son - 1 Cor. 10:9, Daniel 3:25, Isaiah 6:1-10 comp. John 12:37-44, esp. v. 41).

I don't question that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God but rather that God has always existed in the form of precisely three seperate forms that interact and have relationships with each other.

God doesn't change. And he does not exist "in the form of precisely three seperate forms", but three separate persons, all of which are 100% God. Christ, the Son, is from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2). When Isaiah saw the glory of "yehovah" (Isaiah 6:5), which was the glory of Christ (John 12:41), the words instructing him (Isaiah 6:10) from the very throne of God are attributed to the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25-26). Therefore, since "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" (Deut. 6:4), both the Son and the Holy Spirit are that one Jehovah.