The Trinity

[Outrider]

How can they be right when they have no connection to Christ and his Apostles? For it was to them and to the Church Christ himself founded that the Holy Spirit was promised.

Because right is dependent on how long you've been right for. You claim that the church is right not because they have the best point but because they've been socially acceptable for longer. There are non-trinitarian traditions, they've been around for a long time, they'll make the same claim - their church may have been smaller and less opulent or outspoken...

Or, in the case of the Mormons viewpoint, your clinging to the old way is just an indication that you've failed to accept the new 'new gospel' - your clinging to heritage is a symbol of your heresy, not that you're right.

O.

[ad_orientem]

How can they be right when they have no connection to Christ and his Apostles? For it was to them and to the Church Christ himself founded that the Holy Spirit was promised.

Because right is dependent on how long you've been right for. You claim that the church is right not because they have the best point but because they've been socially acceptable for longer. There are non-trinitarian traditions, they've been around for a long time, they'll make the same claim - their church may have been smaller and less opulent or outspoken...

Or, in the case of the Mormons viewpoint, your clinging to the old way is just an indication that you've failed to accept the new 'new gospel' - your clinging to heritage is a symbol of your heresy, not that you're right.

O.

It's nothing to do with social acceptability but a firm connection to the source.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Can I remind members posting in the Faith Sharing Area of the ethos of this Board, as noted in the About this Board sticky.

A number of recent posts here seem to involve more sniping than discussions on faith issues: these posts will be removed, and members are asked to bear the ethos of this Board in mind when posting here.

Gordon

Update: I have removed the most obvious examples of posts in this thread that were clearly outwith the ethos of this Board.

Let me add, for clarification, that this Board is open to all members and not just theists. However, the aim here to to have a focus that isn't about there being no basis for theism and is about discussing different perspectives within theism. Exchanges here can be 'robust' - but, and please note, posts that consist of little more than sniping retorts (for want of a better term) will simply be removed.

Those wishing to take a different approach regarding matters raised in any of the threads in the Faith Sharing Area are free to do so on one of the other Boards.

[~TW~]

Moderator:

Can I remind members posting in the Faith Sharing Area of the ethos of this Board, as noted in the About this Board sticky.

A number of recent posts here seem to involve more sniping than discussions on faith issues: these posts will be removed, and members are asked to bear the ethos of this Board mind when posting here.

Gordon

 Thank you Gordon this thread is about the trinity doctrine,and it would be nice to keep it on that subject.

               ~TW~

[jeremyp]

Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.

Orthodox faith is just the weird sect that didn't die out.

[SweetPea]

Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.

Orthodox faith is just the weird sect that didn't die out.

.....er, that comment would be considered a snipe, Jeremy; especially as you know ad_o is orthodox in his faith.

[Outrider]

How can they be right when they have no connection to Christ and his Apostles? For it was to them and to the Church Christ himself founded that the Holy Spirit was promised.

Because right is dependent on how long you've been right for. You claim that the church is right not because they have the best point but because they've been socially acceptable for longer. There are non-trinitarian traditions, they've been around for a long time, they'll make the same claim - their church may have been smaller and less opulent or outspoken...

Or, in the case of the Mormons viewpoint, your clinging to the old way is just an indication that you've failed to accept the new 'new gospel' - your clinging to heritage is a symbol of your heresy, not that you're right.

O.

It's nothing to do with social acceptability but a firm connection to the source.

From your point of view, yes, but tradition doesn't mean that it's right. If it was the wrong decision in the first place - which, of course, non-Trinitarians would maintain it was - then the fact that you have it as a tradition just means you're celebrating being wrong.

The fact that many people have done it before you doesn't lend it credence, that's just a variant of the argument from popular opinion.

O.

[Spud]

Calvin says that the name Immanuel, God with us, cannot apply to a man who is not God.

[Sassy]

There you go again, dismissing the scriptures. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers of the OT inspired the writers of the NT. So if you deny them again we will all see you for who you are, at best a promoter of false teachings and at worst leading souls astray. From now on you better not quote from the NT at all, you hypocrite!

Again your manmade teachings show your ignorance of what the scriptures of God really are.

Claiming that God, Christ, the Prophets including Paul never spoke about any scriptures as being scriptures but the OT is a statement of TRUTH.
Nowhere do the disciples, Paul or anyone else claim their letters or accounts are Scripture.

So the name calling and the use of such words as hypocrit simply show your inability to support any claim that the NT is scripture. They are simply the accounts of those who knew Christ and accepted the truth in the OT. Paul warned you NOT to accept anything not taught in the OT.

But the OT, eh? The OT too is explicit.

The prophet Isaias says of Christ:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel"

Emanuel means God with us... And God was with them for HE WAS WITH CHRIST.

Acts 10
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

So you see God was speaking through Christ. And Christ clearly tells everyone his words were SPIRIT.

"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever"


What it really says is this-


For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
As his title is the Son of God and we know God was with him how else could that be interpreted. Even the Jews confirm that the original writing does not claim Jesus will be God. His name shall be called... not that the Messiah would be God.




"Take courage, and fear not: behold your God will bring the revenge of recompense: God himself will come and will save you"

Nothing declaring Christ to be God.

Also the Psalmist says:

"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness. Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows"

"The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. The Lord will send forth the sceptre of thy power out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thy enemies"

Whom was God speaking to David about. More importantly whom was David Speaking about.


EPIC FAIL by yourself and manmade teachings again. The Jews will tell you that the Messiah was to bring the truth,He was the Son of God a Holy thing and God was with him.

[Sassy]

good day A_O I see that Sass has answerd again and got it all wrong,she can be very trying also we have others putting in their mis-information which does not work.

Aaagh, but that is untrue. I give scripture and proof you chuck wild accusations and comments that actually does you no credit.  You cannot even prove what I say to be incorrect.  Because you know that you have taken manmade teachings and set them up above the truth of the One true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
Every day you feel less sure and have to attack. Alas God shows you the truth and you ignore it adding teachings NOT given by God.

One does not have to answer all these JW type bullet points to show she is wrong try one question at a time for example

Not  A  jw, Jewish descent actually and church of england but more importantly taught by God.  That is why you fail every time you try to defend your position. You are on sinking sand and you cannot see it.

 Who is going to return one day------ answer Jesus =the 2nd coming then quote a scripture like this.

                                            “‘Holy, holy, holy

is the Lord God Almighty,’ Rev 4:8

who was, and is, and is to come.”------------------- so who is coming--- God = Jesus.

       She may choose not to accept that,BUT not our problem.

                                          ~TW~

It actually teaches...


22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he is to be known and called the Son of God.



32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


Whom does God say Jesus is to be called... Whatever the argument the truth is there. Jesus given the throne of David. Davids throne is a worldly throne/kingdom.
But in that it is Christ being King over the people as David was but a Kingdom without end. Because the Kingdom of God is within the People of God, Those born of Spirit and Truth. True worshippers.

[DaveM]

Claiming that God, Christ, the Prophets including Paul never spoke about any scriptures as being scriptures but the OT is a statement of TRUTH.
Nowhere do the disciples, Paul or anyone else claim their letters or accounts are Scripture.

Sass,  That statement of yours is incorrect. There are in fact two passages in the NT which specifically recognise other NT writings as having the authority of Scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 reads, ‘Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures’. A clear indication that Paul’s writings (or at least those available at the time of the writing of 2 Peter, were accorded the same authority as the other (OT) Scriptures.

Then in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 we read the following. ‘Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves his wages.’ 

The command not to muzzle an ox is an OT quotation from Deut. 25:4.  However, the labourer deserves his wages is a direct NT quotation from Luke 10:7 (also Matt. 10:10). Thus, it seems that Paul is already referring to the written records of the statements of Jesus (the Gospels) as Scripture.
   

[~TW~]

good day A_O I see that Sass has answerd again and got it all wrong,she can be very trying also we have others putting in their mis-information which does not work.

Aaagh, but that is untrue. I give scripture and proof you chuck wild accusations and comments that actually does you no credit.  You cannot even prove what I say to be incorrect.  Because you know that you have taken manmade teachings and set them up above the truth of the One true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
Every day you feel less sure and have to attack. Alas God shows you the truth and you ignore it adding teachings NOT given by God.

One does not have to answer all these JW type bullet points to show she is wrong try one question at a time for example

Not  A  jw, Jewish descent actually and church of england but more importantly taught by God.  That is why you fail every time you try to defend your position. You are on sinking sand and you cannot see it.

 Who is going to return one day------ answer Jesus =the 2nd coming then quote a scripture like this.

                                            “‘Holy, holy, holy

is the Lord God Almighty,’ Rev 4:8

who was, and is, and is to come.”------------------- so who is coming--- God = Jesus.

       She may choose not to accept that,BUT not our problem.

                                          ~TW~

It actually teaches...


22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he is to be known and called the Son of God.



32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


Whom does God say Jesus is to be called... Whatever the argument the truth is there. Jesus given the throne of David. Davids throne is a worldly throne/kingdom.
But in that it is Christ being King over the people as David was but a Kingdom without end. Because the Kingdom of God is within the People of God, Those born of Spirit and Truth. True worshippers.

 Sass you are deceiving your self  keep it simple see if you can work this out.

 My wife bought all the shopping and carried all the shopping.

 I carried all the other shopping. So the question is what did I carry.

                Try to give an answer

                     ~TW~

[~TW~]

  You obviously brought your own shopping and then met your wife to go shopping with her, again.

Nice try Rose,but wrong,you see this question is related to 3 scriptures in the NT.I would say Sass chooses to ignore them

 So once again My wife bought all the shopping and carried all the shopping.

 I had no money and carried all the other shopping.--So with that information what did I carry.

                     ~TW~

[Sebastian Toe]

You obviously brought your own shopping and then met your wife to go shopping with her, again.

Nice try Rose,but wrong,you see this question is related to 3 scriptures in the NT.I would say Sass chooses to ignore them

 So once again My wife bought all the shopping and carried all the shopping.

 I had no money and carried all the other shopping.--So with that information what did I carry.

                     ~TW~

 .........You carried all the other shopping.

It's right there in your post....

 I had no money and carried all the other shopping

Do you have memory issues?
 

[~TW~]

You obviously brought your own shopping and then met your wife to go shopping with her, again.

Nice try Rose,but wrong,you see this question is related to 3 scriptures in the NT.I would say Sass chooses to ignore them

 So once again My wife bought all the shopping and carried all the shopping.

 I had no money and carried all the other shopping.--So with that information what did I carry.

                     ~TW~

 .........You carried all the other shopping.

It's right there in your post....

 I had no money and carried all the other shopping

Do you have memory issues?
 

 Seb/Rose/  you are both wrong my wife carried ALL the shopping their is no other shopping, all means ALL so no room for other their is no other.

 Now 3 scriptures confirm the tri unity in the same way.And Sass like you both cannot see it.

                ~TW~

[Nearly Sane]

I'd like to share my faith that one day TW might understand the use of their/there

[~TW~]

I'd like to share my faith that one day TW might understand the use of their/there

 thanks

[Dicky Underpants]

I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.

                          ~TW~

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.

It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.

O.

Absolutely spiffing! And trenchantly expressed.

[~TW~]

I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.

                          ~TW~

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.

It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.

O.

Absolutely spiffing! And trenchantly expressed.

    22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,

 And sass who is the us?

    ~TW~


 

[Sassy]

I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.

                          ~TW~

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.

It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.

O.

Absolutely spiffing! And trenchantly expressed.

    22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,

 And sass who is the us?

    ~TW~

Well it comes to something when slipping sneaky ones in... Gd can answer this himself.

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[ad_orientem]

So when God said "we" he was also referring to the angels? You're getting more and more desparate.

[~TW~]

I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.

                          ~TW~

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.

It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.

O.

Absolutely spiffing! And trenchantly expressed.

    22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,

 And sass who is the us?

    ~TW~

Well it comes to something when slipping sneaky ones in... Gd can answer this himself.

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 So you are saying what the angels are  God is, that Sass is blasphemy. Try again.

 ~TW~

[Sassy]

So when God said "we" he was also referring to the angels? You're getting more and more desparate.

Nah you are the desperate one.

God promised to send them a prophet like Moses not come in flesh himself.

You are desperate as you have nothing to support anything you say. DO YOU....

[Sassy]

    22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,

 And sass who is the us?

    ~TW~




Well it comes to something when slipping sneaky ones in... Gd can answer this himself.

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?


 So you are saying what the angels are  God is, that Sass is blasphemy. Try again.

 ~TW~

Nothing in the bible especially what I posted would suggest Angels are God.
The man has become like ONE of us. Not like US. So each individuals are beings referred to by God.

Guess each time you are beginning to see how wrong you are...

[ad_orientem]

Nah you are the desperate one.

God promised to send them a prophet like Moses not come in flesh himself.

You are desperate as you have nothing to support anything you say. DO YOU....

We have given numerous examples from the scriptures proving Christ is God in the flesh. That you obstinately remain in error is also proof that you are too far gone and that like Arius, you have been caught in the snares of the devil. We have given examples both from the OT and the NT. That you reject the NT is not our problem but yours. It is yet more proof that you are in error, rejecting the Holy Spirit that inspired those texts.