Trinity

[SayaOtonashi]

Is the Trinity false?

One of the most common things I heard is that how can Jesus pray to God or sacrifice himself for us if he is God.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

http://www.the-gospel-truth.info/bible- ... r-trinity/

[Metacrock]

Is the Trinity false?

One of the most common things I heard is that how can Jesus pray to God or sacrifice himself for us if he is God.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

http://www.the-gospel-truth.info/bible- ... r-trinity/

Jesus' nature was both turly divine and truly human, He was the second person of the Trinity incarnate, So it's not all of God left heaven and became Jesus. He was praying and interacting with the father in order to be role model for our own spirituality.


welcome to the board. nice to have you yere please come badk.

[Metacrock]

The problem with the sources you link to is that they do not understand the concept of Trinity. Yes Go is one God the Trinity doctrine does not say God is Three Gods.three persons in one God, or three persona in one essence. To understand that you need to learn of the a platonic notion of essence.

please read my Trinity pages

http://www.doxa.ws/Trinity/Trinitysubsub.html

[SayaOtonashi]

http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/trinity.htm

What do you think about the fact the trinity is not fact and many are claiming and mention of trinity in John is forgery.


Pixie pointed out 1 John 5:7, he's quite right,I wasn't even thinking I was thinking in terns of the gospel.

[The Pixie]

man I am sorry Px I think I edited your post y mistke

What do you think about the fact the trinity is not fact and many are claiming and mention of trinity in John is forgery.

If you are referring to 1 John 5:7, that seems pretty well established; a lot of modern Bibles omit the insertion, as this page clearly illustrates:
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-7.htm

sharp, good point

It is worth pointing out that Jesus was not the only "son of God". This was a title bestowed on the Jewish Kings, as the Old Testament makes clear:

2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”

I think with Jesus it is more liley used as the more common Messianic epithet,

Jesus was the messiah, i.e., the new king of the Jews. It was only natural that he would be adopted as the son of God, just as the other king had been. And only right that he then be called "Lord"? Once you realise that, the support for the trinity in the NT pretty much disappears.

they used that of Messiah before Jesus,

[Metacrock]

http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/trinity.htm

What do you think about the fact the trinity is not fact and many are claiming and mention of trinity in John is forgery.

I am not ware of any serious scholars who claim it;s a forgery. please read those links to my Trinity pages I defend it pretty well

[sgttomas]

Hello SayaOtonashi! I'm intrigued what brought about your resurfacing ...but it's very nice to have you here

Things with a dual nature are not "understood" in the common sense of that word, like quantum mechanics, but practitioners can follow certain conventions to make certain effects. I don't know of anyone who "understands" the Trinity, though a sort of theological compromise can be worked out. The arian heresy wasn't useful, though it was closer to the truth.

It's impossible to imagine a human and a God sharing the same essence. And if you do consider that you imagine just such a thing, then I am God too.

I think it's most useful to critique the Trinity without reference to the Bible, as such. God should be comprehensible in a basic sense to people without the theological tools that impute righteousness to a person.

Why not just come to know Jesus as the one who points you to God, and who brings you to salvation by liberating you from slavery to your self and opening your heart and mind to receive the joy of God's boundless grace, love and forgiveness? Isn't that sufficient? I believe so.

Peace,
-sgttomas

[Metacrock]

It's impossible to imagine a human and a God sharing the same essence. And if you do consider that you imagine just such a thing, then I am God too.

of course that's why he's God and we are not. we would have to be God to know that, but the second persona entered humanity by being born as a man. I just think of that man's physical location as a portal to the diviner via his spirit.

[sgttomas]

Divine possession is a flavour of Christian heresy. ...which you already know, and probably troubles you nought, but it bothers me quite a bit that you have this special information that most of Christian history hasn't managed to latch on to. And if you get your flavour of Jesus, then I get mine too.

But: What is the principle that discriminates the true from the false? It seems to come down to personal preference.

This is the critical failure of all flavours of Trinitarian doctrine, imo. Because it imposes an impossible dichotomy upon the mind, the only way we can resolve it is through subjective introspection, which is essentially an emotional experience. That isn't said to denigrate, but to describe the character of one's knowledge of Christ. We know him by his humanity, but we worship him as God. We love him like our actual, literal father, but we worship him as the "Son of the Father" according to the proper theological constructs that we have been instructed in, in order to satisfy the particular theological conundrum that one imagines needs resolving by such an arrangement.

I mean....maaaaaaybe, but why couldn't it be:

That God is God.

That Jesus embodied God's spirit in the *figurative* way; meaning he acted in complete accordance with the will of God, in every way, for every thing. And God worked miracles through him.

I find absolutely nothing intellectually or spiritually objectionable about that, and other than it fails to meet certain criteria deemed necessary for imputed righteousness doctrine (again, I know that Metacrock, you are a heretic in this way too....so why stop one heresy short??????), it ought to be completely emotionally satisfactory for a Christian.

Jesus is every bit as holy and miraculous as you imagine him to be! But stop with the grammatical errors. Why does heaven hinge on a technicality like that?
Peace,
-sgttomas

[The Pixie]

Someone has edited my post. I can see some of my original comments in the quotes in that post, but the text that is not in quotes was not written by me!