Understanding the Trinity

[thatkidakayoungguy]

yes, but not for humans. for satan and his angels

Wrong, Revelation 14:9-11 clearly mentions that people who take the mark of the beast are tormented in hell for eternity, just like the beast, false prophet, and the devil.

[goingsouth]

We know the names of God and Jesus. What's the holy spirits name? The holy spirit can be Jesus or a legion of angels. There's no such thing as a trinity. Jesus IS God...but God is yet greater. Jesus is not all powerful/omnipotent. Jesus is NOT omnipresent. Jesus is NOT omniscient. The trinity doctrine is what prevented me from becoming a minister. The church I was ministering for was trinitarian, and I wasn't, so I got out!

[crochet1949]

The Godhead consists of God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:18 - 20

It's through the trinity / Godhead/ that salvation is made possible.

[goingsouth]

The Godhead consists of God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:18 - 20

It's through the trinity / Godhead/ that salvation is made possible.

There's no such thing as a "godhead" in my book. Salvation is not brought to us by a trinity. It is brought to us by the cross.

[goingsouth]

The Godhead consists of God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:18 - 20

It's through the trinity / Godhead/ that salvation is made possible.

I would like to explain something in the verse you quoted...Mathew 28

verse 18..."And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

This verse appears to imply that Jesus is all powerful but it doesn’t. What Jesus is saying is that every kind of power is available to him. I say those powers come from God through the seven Spirits of God. If someone were to ask me who is the Holy Spirit I would say He is the Seven Spirits of God which emanates from God Himself.

The word ALL is probably the most misunderstood and mistranslated word in the bible. Grammatically speaking, when the word all is used without the article, it means, "every kind or every variety." I don't think God has always been understood as having just ONE power, but as One who has many powers.

[Kurieuo]

We know the names of God and Jesus. What's the holy spirits name? The holy spirit can be Jesus or a legion of angels. There's no such thing as a trinity. Jesus IS God...but God is yet greater. Jesus is not all powerful/omnipotent. Jesus is NOT omnipresent. Jesus is NOT omniscient. The trinity doctrine is what prevented me from becoming a minister. The church I was ministering for was trinitarian, and I wasn't, so I got out!

It's good they didn't let you minister because it is such an important doctrine. For I'm sure you don't realise how, but if Jesus isn't God, then we're all still lost.

I'd recommend anyone, in doubt about the Trinity, watch the series of twelve videos here (including you going south, at I'd hate you to continue going south ): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... wbbQNCS6Qf

[goingsouth]

We know the names of God and Jesus. What's the holy spirits name? The holy spirit can be Jesus or a legion of angels. There's no such thing as a trinity. Jesus IS God...but God is yet greater. Jesus is not all powerful/omnipotent. Jesus is NOT omnipresent. Jesus is NOT omniscient. The trinity doctrine is what prevented me from becoming a minister. The church I was ministering for was trinitarian, and I wasn't, so I got out!

It's good they didn't let you minister because it is such an important doctrine. For I'm sure you don't realise how, but if Jesus isn't God, then we're all still lost.

I'd recommend anyone, in doubt about the Trinity, watch the series of twelve videos here (including you going south, at I'd hate you to continue going south ): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... wbbQNCS6Qf

That's just not true. If the trinity were a salvation based doctrine, it would be explicitly stated in the bible. There are millions of non trinitarian believers who love the Lord and serve Him well. The trinity was devised by the Catholics in the 3-4th century who went on a campaign killing people for not accepting it. Also, I never said JESUS WAS NOT GOD! I said Jesus is God but he's NOT fully God. He said so himself!

There are damnable and undamnable heresies, and very few "damnable heresies." The trinity is a man made 'undamnable heresy.' Just because YOU believe it, and just because I don't, doesn't condemn or save anyone. As far as false teachers go, did you know in NT times if a person was in a congregation teaching "undamnable" heresies, he wasn't excommunicated but got a second chance and allowed to stay? However, the congregation was admonished to avoid the person. It was obvious when a person was teaching a "damnable heresy." They were thrown out!

In Philippians 1:14-18 Paul doesn't curse those that preach Christ with evil motives and not in truth, but actually rejoices in that Christ is being preached anyway!

Philippians 1:15-19 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

Paul on one hand in Galatians curses false teachers, yet on the other appears to rejoice in that Christ is being preached anyway. That means that being an "undamnable heretic" doesn't condemn you," you are still saved by our righteousness in Christ.

"By their fruits we would know them."

The heretics in 2 Peter denied Christ had bought them. That's a damnable heresy and the fruit that exposes them as a false prophet/teacher. The trinity doctrine as it is taught does nothing for Christ. In fact it has and continues to divide the church!

I don't do youtube. It's full of misinformation.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articl ... -co-equals

[Philip]

To be God, one must have every attribute of God, or else they are less than what God truly is. What do you consider God, then? The Father? Only?

[Kurieuo]

It's good they didn't let you minister because it is such an important doctrine. For I'm sure you don't realise how, but if Jesus isn't God, then we're all still lost.

I'd recommend anyone, in doubt about the Trinity, watch the series of twelve videos here (including you going south, at I'd hate you to continue going south ): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... wbbQNCS6Qf

The trinity was devised by the Catholics in the 3-4th century who went on a campaign killing people for not accepting it. Also, I never said JESUS WAS NOT GOD! I said Jesus is God but he's NOT fully God. He said so himself!

Firstly, in relation to what I said, Jesus being God is different from Trinitarian doctrine, and is to do specifically with understanding Christ's nature and also how we should logically understand His incarnation. I notice, that you freely dismiss Christ as fully God, and yet, replace such with some obscure mess of Jesus being God, yet not sharing in divine attributes or some such mess.

Seems your history and Scripture is also ill-informed. Trinitarian expressions of God aren't a 3-4th century invention. I think you more have in mind here a statement put together dealing specifically with a logical wording of understanding Christ's nature.

The word "Trinity" can be found used by Tertullian and Oregon (2nd-3rd centuries). And early acceptance of the divine three can be found in other Christian writings such as Matt 28:19, Luke 3:21-22, John 14:16-17, 1 Peter 1:2-3, 1 John 5:7, the writings of Ignatius (105-115 AD) and Justin Martyr (150-160 AD).

I really don't know what Bible you're reading, but the Gospels and indeed even John chapter 1, closely associates Christ as the Word of God as being God. Or Philippians 2 which says Christ, being the very nature God (Phil 2:6), also took upon himself human form. Then we have the Angel of the Lord, the Lord, can even be found in the OT when the Lord protects Moses until the the glory of God passes, or in the burning bush the Angel of the Lord is referenced and identified as God.

Anyone reading the OT, especially in the original language and the different phrases of used for God, can see different entities of power working as God throughout. Which is why even Jewish thought prior to Christ talks of a multi-personal God with three powers.

[Kurieuo]

Also, recommend to you:

[goingsouth]

Firstly, in relation to what I said, Jesus being God is different from Trinitarian doctrine,

Yes and no. Trinitarianism does teach more than "Jesus is God." Diety is just that....Jesus is God.

and is to do specifically with understanding Christ's nature and also how we should logically understand His incarnation. I notice, that you freely dismiss Christ as fully God, and yet, replace such with some obscure mess of Jesus being God, yet not sharing in divine attributes or some such mess.

So you call scripture a mess??? That's about all I've used so far to support my position. AND! I did NOT say that Jesus does not share in God's divine attributes!
This is my mess....
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Trinitarian expressions of God aren't a 3-4th century invention either. I think you more have in mind here a statement put together dealing specifically with a logical wording of understanding Christ's nature.
Seems your history and Scripture is also ill-informed.

It is??? The trinity doctrine is a 3-4 century invention that was was tossed around the Catholic church for some time before accepting it. I'm not much into wiki and I can give you other sources if you like....I may have deleted a good page on this, or I just can't find it...

...The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century. ..... The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, in the sense of the Latin verb ..... And since, according to them, because only the holy God can create holy beings ...
The Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire.
__________________________________________________________________________________

The word "Trinity" can be found used by Tertullian and Oregon (2nd-3rd centuries). And early acceptance of the divine three can be found in other Christian writings such as Matt 28:19, Luke 3:21-22, John 14:16-17, 1 Peter 1:2-3, 1 John 5:7, the writings of Ignatius (105-115 AD) and Justin Martyr (150-160 AD).

I really don't care who came up with the trinity, or when it was devised.

What does this mean...

early acceptance of the divine three can be found in other Christian writings such as Matt 28:19, Luke 3:21-22, John 14:16-17, 1 Peter 1:2-3, 1 John 5:7,

The trinity WAS NOT accepted until the Catholic church formally implemented it into their doctrine. The doctrine of the trinity WAS in the works in the second century, but it wasn't DOCTRINE until the 3-4th century! Your making a big deal out of nothing.

I really don't know what Bible you're reading, but the Gospels and indeed even John chapter 1, closely associates Christ as the Word of God which was God. Or Philippians 2 which says Christ, being the very nature God (Phil 2:6), also took upon himself human form. Then we have the Angel of the Lord, the Lord, can even be found in the OT when the Lord protects Moses until the the glory of God passes, or in the burning bush the Angel of the Lord is referenced and identified as God.

Here we go with the "I really don't know what Bible you're reading," line. I've heard it all too often. Well you should know what bible I'm reading because all of my quotes come from the King James!

I have no problem accepting Jesus' divine nature. I just don't believe he is fully God because HE SAID SO. And I don't fabricate a trinity into it.

Anyone reading the OT, especially in the original language and the different phrases of used for God, can see different entities of power working as God throughout. Which is why even Jewish thought prior to Christ talks of different representative "powers" of God.

The word ELOHIM actually proves the trinity is a teaching of man. I had a good page on this but I think I accidentally deleted it, or maybe misplaced it. Same here though...
http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/holy- ... lohim.html

[goingsouth]

To be God, one must have every attribute of God, or else they are less than what God truly is. What do you consider God, then? The Father? Only?

YES! The Father has NO equals! Jesus does have every attribute God has. God simply is GREATER!

[goingsouth]

Anyone reading the OT, especially in the original language and the different phrases of used for God, can see different entities of power working as God throughout. Which is why even Jewish thought prior to Christ talks of different representative "powers" of God.

Trinitarians don't like it when people say the holy spirit is God's power.

I should have mentioned that the "representative powers of God" you speak of have misled people into believing in a trinity.
The reason why the word Elohim is plural is because the seven spirits of God are these "representative powers of God." The seven spirits of God are comprise of trillions of God's created beings called angels. Each 'spirit' has a different type of angel who have different powers with different responsibilities. You could almost compare it to a large corporation....chain of command, etc.

Question...

In the biblical depiction of the throne of God we find Jesus and God Himself. Why is it the no named holy spirit isn't found there or mentioned as being in or around it?
Actually, the holy spirit is found around the throne of God...

And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Wow huh? The seven spirits of God emanate from the eyes of Jesus Christ????

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Maybe the JW'S are right about Jesus being an angel!

[Kurieuo]

Firstly, in relation to what I said, Jesus being God is different from Trinitarian doctrine,

Yes and no. Trinitarianism does teach more than "Jesus is God." Diety is just that....Jesus is God.

and is to do specifically with understanding Christ's nature and also how we should logically understand His incarnation. I notice, that you freely dismiss Christ as fully God, and yet, replace such with some obscure mess of Jesus being God, yet not sharing in divine attributes or some such mess.

So you call scripture a mess??? That's about all I've used so far to support my position. AND! I did NOT say that Jesus does not share in God's divine attributes!
This is my mess....
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Your mess is in claiming in other threads something along the lines of: "Jesus is God but not fully so." Either Jesus is God, or Jesus is not, there's no half/half or this percentage, that percentage.

What is a mess, isn't Scripture necessarily, but rather your understanding of Scripture. Scripture is quite clear, and it was upon such Christians convened at the Council of Nicaea to formulate a logically coherent response (which you reject). And your ignoring significant parts, like Philippians 2:5-8:

• 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

So then, it seems Jesus willingly submitted Himself to the Father. Why on earth would Jesus have ever considered such robbery of some divine entitlement, unless indeed Jesus is in His very nature fully God? And in this passage, you also have an answer to the mess you make of Scripture in other passages, like where Jesus says "the Father is greater than I," because Jesus submitted Himself in taking on the role of a servant in human form to do what needed doing in save us -- something which no one except God Himself could do.

[goingsouth]

Your mess is in claiming in other threads something along the lines of: "Jesus is God but not fully so." Either Jesus is God, or Jesus is not, there's no half/half or this percentage, that percentage.

Who says that??? YOU! Not one scripture alludes to that. To many, the bible doesn't explicitly say Jesus is God, it only alludes to it. I believe the bible DOES affirm Jesus is God, and the words of Jesus AFFIRM God the Father is greater.

What is a mess, isn't Scripture necessarily, but rather your understanding of Scripture. Scripture is quite clear, and it was upon such Christians convened at the Council of Nicaea to formulate a logically coherent response (which you reject). And your ignoring significant parts, like Philippians 2:5-8:

I say it's your understanding of scripture that's a mess because yes, SCRIPTURE IS QUITE CLEAR, you're unwilling or unable to understand the clarity of SIMPLE verses that say the Father is greater. You would rather accept the fabricated complicated mess of a trinity which is impossible to understand! So! Let me spoon feed you and fix the mess you've created by misunderstanding Philippians 2:5-8

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

AH! So our bibles are a contradictory mess! On one hand Jesus say's God is greater, on the other, Paul says Jesus is equal to God. Have you ever done a word study of Philippians 2? Have you ever really looked at the context? Probably NOT. So lets take this....

..."did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,"

W.E. Vine has a lot to say about this. Here is one of his quotes about HOW that verse should be understood...

(1) with the Active sense 'robbery' or 'usurpation' we get the following meaning: 'Who because He was subsisting in the essential form of God, did not regard it as any usurpation that He was on an equality of glory and majesty with God, but yet emptied Himself of that coequal glory... '

(2) The Passive sense gives a different meaning to the passage: 'Who though He was subsisting in the essential form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, but emptied himself thereof."

EQUAL IN MAJESTY AND GLORY! That is what Jesus possessed before, during, and after the incarnation. There are divisions about this verse even within trinitarians. The big question is whether the word FORM refers to the outward appearance or the inner nature. Many Trinitarian sources agree that morphe(form) refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature. So what is this telling us? Just as Vines says. That Jesus was on an equality of glory and majesty with God, but yet emptied Himself of that coequal glory... 'NOT that Jesus is equal to God in power and strength. Jesus never lost any power, strength, or knowledge being a man. He emptied himself of the glory and majesty of God because he came to earth and became a man.

So then, it seems Jesus willingly submitted Himself to the Father. Why on earth would Jesus have ever considered such robbery of some divine entitlement, unless indeed Jesus is in His very nature fully God? And in this passage, you also have an answer to the mess you make of Scripture in other passages, like where Jesus says "the Father is greater than I," because Jesus submitted Himself in taking on the role of a servant in human form to do what needed doing in save us -- something which no one except God Himself could do.

You are repeating the typical trinitarian fabricated idea that Jesus said God is Greater because, "Jesus submitted Himself in taking on the role of a servant in human form to do what needed doing in save u. Well. Let me inform you that Jesus didn't stop being God after his incarnation. Besides that, if it WERE the case that God was greater than Jesus because he was human, it would be implied somewhere in the text. But it's NOT! AND! If you want, I can spoon feed John 14:28 to you which PROVES God being greater has NOTHING to do with him being in human form. Read it carefully...

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.