Three Gods or one? Explain the Trinity.

[Kemorean]

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
1 Corinthians 8:16

Sadly, the church of Christ is divided by this doctrine. Brothers, if you don't study scripture, then you risk being tossed to and fro by all sorts of answers found in the internet. At a minimum, we Christians should read the new testament, that there be no divisions among ourselves, but that we may all be of one mind, one judgement.

We won't understand the N.T. if we don't study the O.T. The Bible is all one story, from Genesis to Revelation, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and written over a period of 1500 years. And we won't understand the Bible if our highest authority is.. ourself.. our own private opinions. The Bible says, "This book is not for private interpretation." (2 Pet.1:20) Looking at the thousands of Protestant Churches who can not all agree on ONE Christian doctrine, one Protestant Scholar said.. "What we have now is an infallible Bible being interpreted by fallible men!" God built a Church for that 2,000 years ago.

 

[Magenta]

I understand the illustration, but I prefer not to use it because it suggests Modelism (One person who where's many hats). The Trinity is not one person with 3 modes. The Trinity is 3 persons with one essence.

Yes, I understand the objection, and I am not a modalist because they deny the Trinity whereas I do not... we can apprehend the Trinity in Scripture even if it cannot be satisfactorily explained or comprehended by those who reject the concept. I like the way @p_rehbein explained the Trinity a while ago: God of us, God as us, God in us. Someone complained about even that, as if it were a terrible heresy

Having said that, I am curious to know now: does the Trinity doctrine embrace the idea of Jesus being the Angel of the Lord? God revealing Himself is known as a Theophany (a manifestation of God that is tangible to the human senses, not always in human form), but Christophanies (an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ) are also said (by some, at least) to have happened in Old Testament times.

 

[Diakonos]

Yes, I understand the objection, and I am not a modalist because they deny the Trinity whereas I do not... we can apprehend the Trinity in Scripture even if it cannot be satisfactorily explained or comprehended by those who reject the concept. I like the way @p_rehbein explained the Trinity a while ago: God of us, God as us, God in us. Someone complained about even that, as if it were a terrible heresy

Having said that, I am curious to know now: does the Trinity doctrine embrace the idea of Jesus being the Angel of the Lord? God revealing Himself is known as a Theophany (a manifestation of God that is tangible to the human senses, not always in human form), but Christophanies (an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ) are also said (by some, at least) to have happened in Old Testament times.

Well said.
Yes the Trinity doctrine does embrace Jesus as The Angel of the Lord.
The Angel of the Lord often says things that only God ought to say...referring to the covenants as "My covenants" and such. Also, Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father, which makes it pretty clear that every physical, seen appearance of God it the OT was Jesus: Melchizedek, Angel of the Lord, 4th man in the furnace, etc. Good question

 

[azamzimtoti]

I agree with the point, but the context for this verse is clear that this mystery is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (just 4 verses before)

There are two "mysteries" one in regards to the Gentiles (as you pointed out) but his statement is not connected to Col 2:2

We can see a better explanation he wrote of the Gentile mystery in Ephesians:

(Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,)

(Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel)

(Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.)

But then he's uses mystery a number to times.

 

[Dave-L]

Certainly, I listen to other opinions and teachings on scripture. But, I’m not going to, ultimately base truth off creeds.

So you prefer the heretics they proved wrong?

 

[CS1]

So you prefer the heretics they proved wrong?

that was a good come back LOL

 

[Absolutely]

this is where you and I seem to be quite different, you sound like you have to have a group tell you what to think, i choose to think for myself.

im not anti trinity, if you believe the triity and you thnk it helps you, i would never tell you to change a thing.

then Peter must have clearly, clearly tempted Eve.

if it "clearly" said Jesus is the creator then we should see that phrase somewhere, its not there.

Why do you malign the word of God.
There is no ALTERNATE INTERPRETATION of those verses that say in clear English that all things are created by Jesus.
It may mess up your deal but it clearly, clearly says that.

You need it to say something different huh?
Your doctrine is poorly thought out.
Systematic theology is scripture interpreting scripture.
You can not accept scripture.

 

[Absolutely]

(not to sound sacrilegious, but) I think the best analogy for the Trinity would be something like "Cerberus the 3-headed dog" (Greek Mythology).
Purely for the sake of analogy...
We may suppose that Cerberus has three brains and therefore three distinct states of consciousness of whatever it is like to be a dog. Therefore, Cerberus, while a sentient being, does not have a unified consciousness. He has three consciousnesses. We could even assign proper names to each of them: Rover, Bowser, and Spike. These centers of consciousness are entirely discrete and might well come into conflict with one another. Still, in order for Cerberus to be biologically viable, not to mention in order to function effectively as a guard dog, there must be a considerable degree of cooperation among Rover, Bowser, and Spike. Despite the diversity of his mental states, Cerberus is clearly one dog. He is a single biological organism exemplifying a canine nature. Rover, Bowser, and Spike may be said to be canine, too, though they are not three dogs, but parts of the one dog Cerberus.

Sick post
Very sick

 

[Absolutely]

this is where you and I seem to be quite different, you sound like you have to have a group tell you what to think, i choose to think for myself.

im not anti trinity, if you believe the triity and you thnk it helps you, i would never tell you to change a thing.

then Peter must have clearly, clearly tempted Eve.

if it "clearly" said Jesus is the creator then we should see that phrase somewhere, its not there.

How in the world does like minded believers translate in your mind into "they do not think for themselves"?

You ,or me ,or anyone else do not have a single shread of any information that was not taught to you/us.
We all learned it.
You are not some isolated guru with the only correct revelation. Jesus has a body.
The body is connected.
You somehow see that as a very bad thing

 

[Absolutely]

""this is where you and I seem to be quite different, you sound like you have to have a group tell you what to think, i choose to think for myself.""

From what you are saying it is like you have found your own separate truths?
There is no group or ministry in your arena of fellowship that is like minded and anti trinity?
I personally do not know of any believers that are anti trinity...and anti who and what the word says about Jesus ,his deity,and testimony.

It clearly ,clearly says Jesus is the creator.
The bible says "let my word be confirmed in 2 or 3 witnesses.
I have met that criteria.

Jesus is clearly the creator.

Jay I never got an answer( that I can see).
Instead of a dodge ,where is your doctrine found?

 

[Absolutely]

""IMO its not a good idea to take three or four scriptures and piece them together like a puzzle, this does not create sound doctrine, here is an example, i propose Peter tempted Eve in the garden, Jesus told Peter get behind me Satan, Rev calls Satan "that serpent", Gen says the serpent tempted Eve, thus it was Peter in the garden. see how that works?""

So to you scripture interpreting scripture is to be avoided lest every single time the word of God agrees it is akin to your peter being a serpent baloney.

Uh yeah
Sounds like you really got the high ground there sir.
(Maybe you should test fit you doctrine first)

Oh but that would be a bad thing huh? We never want Gods word to agree huh?

 

[Diakonos]

There are two "mysteries" one in regards to the Gentiles (as you pointed out) but his statement is not connected to Col 2:2

We can see a better explanation he wrote of the Gentile mystery in Ephesians:

(Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,)

(Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel)

(Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.)

But then he's uses mystery a number to times.

There are actually 3 mysteries related to Gentiles, 4 that relate to Israel, 7 in total

 

[Diakonos]

Sick post
Very sick

I made it very clear that it was purely for analogy's sake. I'm not promoting Greek mythology, obviously. I even said "not to sound sacrilegious"....I clearly went out of my way to make sure everyone knew I was using an analogy, not a metaphor.
The Trinity is not like this fictional character in virtue, but he is in structure. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

 

[biker]

I made it very clear that it was purely for analogy's sake. I'm not promoting Greek mythology, obviously. I even said "not to sound sacrilegious"....I clearly went out of my way to make sure everyone knew I was using an analogy, not a metaphor.
The Trinity is not like this fictional character in virtue, but he is in structure. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

The Hebrew has 23 Names specific for God, but the KJV only uses the one word God for everything and that includes false gods.
The Aramaic. Greek, and Latin Vulgate calls the Holy Spirit [it] (as to not give it a personality), but the KJV makes it personable.
Honestly, only the KJV makes it seem there is an actual "trinity" of equal persons, the other versions do not.
Why do you think the KJV is different than the versions written long before it?

And I believe in a Triune God, not in persons, but how Church Father Theophilus of Antioch explains it: And He did not have the KJV but the "Originals."

God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.

but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.

 

[biker]

This is how Church Father Theophilus of Antioch explains it: And He did not have the KJV but the "Originals."

God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.

but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.

Before the KJV, this is how the Church Fathers viewed ^ our Triune God, because this is how the "Original Manuscripts" (Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek) factually explain it.

So, why is the KJV so far off base?

What is the intent by the writers of the KJV?

 

[Diakonos]

The Hebrew has 23 Names specific for God, but the KJV only uses the one word God for everything and that includes false gods.
The Aramaic. Greek, and Latin Vulgate calls the Holy Spirit [it] (as to not give it a personality), but the KJV makes it personable.
Honestly, only the KJV makes it seem there is an actual "trinity" of equal persons, the other versions do not.
Why do you think the KJV is different than the versions written long before it?

And I believe in a Triune God, not in persons, but how Church Father Theophilus of Antioch explains it: And He did not have the KJV but the "Originals."

God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.

but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.

So you are a Trinitarian?
But you don't believe that there are 3 persons?
....because You don't believe the Holy Spirit is a person?
(short answers would be great)

 

[biker]

So you are a Trinitarian?
But you don't believe that there are 3 persons?
....because You don't believe the Holy Spirit is a person?
(short answers would be great)

I believe as the Aramaic and Greek claim because they are more authentic than the KJV.

 

[biker]

I believe as the Church Fathers viewed because they had the original materials.

 

[biker]

According to the Church Fathers they claim the Holy Spirit lives within God like it does us. Why would I disagree with the Church Fathers who know better because they had the materials to which the KJV was supposedly translated from?

 

[biker]

This is from the Church Fathers:

God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.

but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.

How are they wrong?
It seems maybe our English translation is wrong before the Church Fathers are wrong.