It's not that I don't accept "trinity", but that I don't accept the way it's explained. There's no question that there are 3 distinct characteristics to GOD, and also that he is one, and possibly one being.
Is Messiah,(The Anointed One) the Father?
- Thread starter JohnTalmid
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It's not that I don't accept "trinity", but that I don't accept the way it's explained. There's no question that there are 3 distinct characteristics to GOD, and also that he is one, and possibly one being.
When your theology is not rational, then you immediately go to "it is a mystery", but when I say that Trinity is a mystery, you say "no no no, its not logical".
Do these "characteristics" have their own will, conciousness, self-awareness?
Paul's theology was not rational, the reason he said:
1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Pick it up with Paul, i've just quoted him but if you want, you can also explain to me how in this verse trinity is being implied otherwise just saying everything is a mystery even things that don't exist is not going to help you.
God the Son (Logos) became flesh. (J 1:1). Bible cannot contradict itself, its still about the same event, no matter if written by John or Paul.
Logos is a perfect representation of Father.
Also, the English word "manifest" is not what you think it is in your theology, in Greek it just means to "appear". God appeared in body.
God the son, God the Father, God the Holy spirit are three Gods- something that the bible has expressly refuted. No place in the bible you'll get the word 'God the son'
I think the holy spirit is intelligence/awareness/consciusness. I do not think it has it's own will, but actually is the will of GOD.
Both Jesus and the father have their own wills, yet in my own being my flesh has a will and my spirit has a will; they are not the same. They also have their own awarenesses, yet they are not the same.
Saying GOD the son is like saying man the son. Nonsensical. Even GOD the father is wrong; it is GOD, the father.
Nowhere in the bible you will get the word "mode". So what.
In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with the God (Father) and the Logos was God. The Logos became flesh.
Not Father, but the Logos became flesh.
When there are father and son, is it so nonsensical for a dog to say "man the son and man the father"? No.
So why exactly do you not do the next logical step and do not call Son and Father persons?
Son has his own will, Father has his on will. Son is self-aware, Father is self-aware.
Well in that case man, the son, and man, the father, would be accurate. However, there is nowhere in scripture that says GOD, the son. Quite the opposite actually. It is always GOD, the father, (or some alternative) and the the lord Jesus Christ (or some alternative).
The Son of God is God. So I can say God the Son.
The fact that its not used so in the Bible does not make it "nonsensical". It has a sense.
I guess because I think the father transcends the concept of "person". He uses "person" to manifest himself to his creation.
But the son of GOD is not the one and only true GOD. So I refrain from using that term.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God [i.e., the father], and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding in order that we may know the one who is true [i.e., the father], and we are in the one who is true in his Son Jesus Christ. This one [i.e., the father] is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5:20
Well, but the Son of God is not a false God, right? So, again, it makes sense to call Him God the Son. He is not the Father, yes.
Well I'm glad you mentioned the book of Jude rlm68. Did you read what Jude vs3 states? "Beloved while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith, (now watch this rlm68) WHICH WAS ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS."
Once for all delivered to the saints which means there is no need for other books. What your doing is actually accusing God of making a mistake because He left out certain books of the Bible. And just because Jude references the Book of Enoch does not make it scripture. So again I will ask you, give me some examples of what you mean by getting a clear picture? What are you not clear about?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Correct, now go back to my posts and find a post with the word mode. I'm not a modalist or a oneness Pentecostal or anything, i'm just me.
That's your own false interpretation otherwise the bible is clear on this, God manifested in flesh, if you want to know how, read malachi 3:1
trofimus said:
Lol. This is the "falsely" intepreted text itself:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
J 1:1, 14