The Trinity?

[Ted Oplinger]

Hi Ted,

A couple of times you have recommended I read this entire thread. I would like to do so, but I am busy. Such as right now I am actually at work and squeezing time in.

[o2bwise]

Hi Ted,

I believe God is both paternal and maternal. I don't believe He has a gender as we understand it.

Your whole thought process (describing being a parent) seems isolated to me according to how our creation operates.

I simply do not place such limitations on God. When I referred to an amoeba, the entirety of my point is that here is a creature that does not need "two." That's it. My point was never to take the specific way it works with amoebas and apply it to God.

I just do not see assigning to God the need for a mother when the Bible clearly says (to me anyway) that God begat a Son and that it is referring to His Father.

That's me. I simply have absolutely no venue for the idea that the Father needs anything in addition to Him in order to beget a Son should that be His desire.

None.

Quote:

No, I won't divorce what you said from its context - you haven't begun to clarify your context, so from whence am I to divorce something from?

Perhaps I have and you just don't see it and are being presumptuous by assuming that you can see clearly and can thereby make the mistaken observation you do.

Tony

[Ted Oplinger]

Hey Ted,

You wrote that there are a few trinitarian models. Could you give me a reference that lists and explains each?

Which is your understanding?

Blessings,

Tony

In my ventures studying this topic, I have yet to see a site where all the various Trinitarian perspectives are listed and delineated in a nice, "one-stop shop" format. Hence I have simply cataloged them as I have come across them, as I am usually on topic-specific sites in my studies of this and other doctrines. If there is one, it doesn't appear to be tagged so that it appears within the first couple of pages of even a specific word search.

The original "Trinity" put down in ink is the Nicene Creed (325) version - one God in 3 persons, all having the same substance. It put down in loose format the general concept as held by the various individual churches within early Christendom, coming from their local understandings of what the Apostles spoke and wrote of.

It is the bare bones basic concept - and the sparse wording allowed same creed to be viewed from different perspectives and still profess the creed "truthfully".

This was modified later in 381 at Constantinople, mainly (in my opinion) in the human effort to stick a finger in the eye of the Arians (the Christ part was magnified and given more Divine gravitas). It did nothing to address how the "Trinity" could be viewed from different perspectives, as it was primarily concerned with distancing the Orthodox Christians further from Sabellianism (the catch-all heading which includes the various forms of modalism and monarchianism) and Arianism.

From there, I have seen these...

Hierarchal model: Father > Son > Holy Spirit, in rank of authority

Subordinationist: Father > Son, Holy Spirit - Son and Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father in rank

Pneumatomachi: Father, Son > Holy Spirit - Father and Son superior to the Holy Spirit in rank

The subordinationist and pneumatomachi schools of thought also entertain the perspective the inferiors are lesser in substance as well as rank, but the substance inferiority is deemed heretical to the Trinity doctrine.

Egalitarian model: Father=Son=Holy Spirit, but no selfless submission exists within them. This one is rare, but it is out there.

Tritheistic - 3 persons in a "Godhead", sometimes viewed as co-equal, but not united in will. It is truly a "3 Gods" model rather than a true Trinity, but since the Trinity stands accused of being a 3 Gods model, it is here to distinguish true Tritheism from the Trinity. Tritheism also suffers from the variants seen above as well.

Triune Godhead: 3 co-equal persons of the same substance and authority, united with 1 will as 1 God. It is the most-professed and oft-confused form observed in Christendom today, as many still try to impose some sort of hierarchy in the Godhead using the "Father/Son begotten" and "Holy Spirit sent" angles. Other mistakenly project other perspectives on to this.

Also, some areas of Christendom profess the Trinity to be their belief, yet deny it through through other teachings/practices they hold to.

And this is by no means an exhaustive list.....and does not include the Eastern Orthodox perspectives. This is just what comes to mind with Western Orthodoxy...

Exploring the doctrine of the Trinity is by no means an easy subject... and venturing into non-Trinitarian perspectives is rather a much more demanding task.

Hope this helps.

Blessings,

[o2bwise]

Thanks, Ted.

[Ted Oplinger]

Evening, Tony

Hi Ted,

I believe God is both paternal and maternal. I don't believe He has a gender as we understand it.

[o2bwise]

Hi Ted,

Quote:

I can understand, Tony, your concept. Yet, to the vast majority of people reading your usage of "begat", you are describing a birthing process, not a creation process.

No, you do not understand my concept.

By creation process, I refer to HOW it operates in the created realm. And so beget while being a birthing process is a creation process when the event takes place in the created realm and is NOT a creation process when it takes place in the divine realm. In the divine realm, it is a DIVINE process.

THAT is the point of my response to Gerry.

I will not speculate on how a divine process works. I just believe.

I do not take HOW the process works in the created realm and assign that HOW to the divine. I have no problem taking the WHAT and applying it to both because we are told that the WHAT happened.

If you were to understand the concept I am trying to express, there is NO VENUE for discussing HOW the process operates in creation (with any limitations it may have) and than applying that HOW to the divine.

That to me is idolatry. It is right in that place.

It's like another noter said. Eve came from Adam's rib. The noter was not concerned with HOW. He just believed. Because it was God who orchestrated it.

It is in the HOW Ted.

When someone asks HOW it is God could beget (read: the WHAT) a Son without a mother involved (read: the HOW), he has gone where I will not.

He left the what, looked at the how in the created realm and thought to assign the how to the divine.

Tony

[o2bwise]

Ted,

Regarding the trinitarian models you volunteered, there are many who would vehemently see some things differently. For example, many would not consider tritheism a trinitarian model. I have heard some exclaim, "You're not trinitarian, you're a tritheist!"

Just as an fyi, for the sake of this discussion as it applies to my personal sense of significance, I am curious of the following.

For which models is one God composed of more than one independent conscious existence?

For which of the models is one God composed of a single independent conscious existence? For each of those models, what of independent conscious existence as specifically applied to the Father, as specifically applied to the Son, and as specifically applied to the Holy Spirit?

Blessings,

Tony

[Ted Oplinger]

Ted,

Regarding the trinitarian models you volunteered, there are many who would vehemently see some things differently. For example, many would not consider tritheism a trinitarian model. I have heard some exclaim, "You're not trinitarian, you're a tritheist!"

Just as an fyi, for the sake of this discussion as it applies to my personal sense of significance, I am curious of the following.

For which models is one God composed of more than one independent conscious existence?

For which of the models is one God composed of a single independent conscious existence? For each of those models, what of independent conscious existence as specifically applied to the Father, as specifically applied to the Son, and as specifically applied to the Holy Spirit?

Blessings,

Tony

With respect to the Tritheist - try re-reading that post again, Tony. I explicitly stated there it is not a Trinitarian model, but I included it because the Trinity is considered by many non-Trinitarians to be a 3 Gods model. It was included to show what the Trinity is not.

This misconception was prominent with one of the primary non-Trinitarian advocates in this thread's discussion.

As always, when a listing like this is produced, there will always be those who beg to differ with what goes where and how things are defined. Some are willing to argue over anything.

Blessings,

[o2bwise]

Oops, thanks for the correction, Ted.

So, how many independent conscious existences do you believe God has?

ttyl,

Tony

[Ted Oplinger]

Oops, thanks for the correction, Ted.

So, how many independent conscious existences do you believe God has?

ttyl,

Tony

Independent? That is a word which means different things to different people when it comes to theology....

As for the how many...

Deuteronomy 6:4 is clear about the plurality being one - covered this earlier in the thread.

We can note Elohim is plural - it indicates simply more than one. It is used intentionally, as the singular Eloha could have been used by Moses as well, but he didn't. That this plurality is associated with singular tenses and conjugations means this plurality is completely and totally one in the highest sense - in character, love, will, speech, and action. The plural YHWH is One.

As posted before, we can read where Old Testament Scripture shows Elohim talking with each other regarding an action - but it is plural, no number given, then takes that action as a unity (Genesis 1:24-27).

There are also places where Elohim is talking with each other, and the sentence structure is clear it is one Eloha talking to another Eloha (Psalm 110:1, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22:44 as He stumped the Pharisees about the who the Messiah is). There are some points where it is only one Eloha speaking as YHWH (Isaiah 44:6).

The Holy Spirit is named in the Old Testament (Isaiah 63:10 - Hebrew = ruah qadosh, the "spirit holy")

It is an assumed point that YHWH Elohim is plural to 3, as there are two Eloha plus a Holy Spirit there - but again, this is a human understanding and assumption. We don't read of anything giving solid evidence of more than three in the Old Testament Hebrew YHWH Elohim...so students are wise to stop there.

The New Testament Greek, though, is plain in its speaking of a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit - and no more than these. As the New Testament does not bear a different witness than can be found in the Old Testament, it is thought a solid rationale to link the Father and Son to the two Elohas noted above, and observe the Holy Spirit again named.

Both Testaments confirm Deuteronomy 6:4 - YHWH Elohim, YHWH echad - YHWH is (plural) God, YHWH is one.

I go no farther than what Scripture sheds light on "how many"

Blessings,

[o2bwise]

So Ted, your short answer is that one God is composed of three independent conscious existences?

By independent conscious existences, all I mean is in the sense that I have one and you have one and my dog has one, etc. I do not refer to how equal in say purpose of character the three are, just the number of independent conscious existences we are talking about.

Thanks, bro...

Tony

[Gibs]

Ted you got it wrong on the elohyim. It is truly one Divine Name, Yahweh.

You don't see that the Redeemer is the Father also, that He gave of Himself in the Redeemer. This Redeemer you see was long before Bethlehem and was possessed of Himself.

He was not born or created or was not formed! So what alternatives do you have left? One! The Father extended Himself, to be the go between in case sin would rise up of which it is certain He did. You see the Redeemers name is also Yahweh and so was called "of Hosts".

Even then the Redeemer had to be covered with humanity that we would live in the Presence of Him.

Why is it you cannot see the context of these three verses that when Jesus states, "I and my Father are one!".

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Because He and the Father are truly ONE you no more could pluck them from His hand than the Fathers! Why?,

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Are you trying to tell people this is impossible with God? He is Spirit and He is Omnipresent so why on earth can't He be what He needs to be to work out the only way disobedient man can be saved.

We have plenty of scripture to prove Yah the Father was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself!

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

What God? There is only one, Yahweh the Father!

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Yes Yah was in Him covered with the humanity of Jesus whom was the body prepared Him.

Now Christ in you is the Father in you!

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, AND IN YOU ALL.

The Father in Christ is the one and and only Deity there is and yes for sure God with us, Emmanuel! And so if Christ is in you the Father is as that is who is in Christ!

And then if so that Christ truly is welcomed in and abids in us then this is the case!

Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

But be knowing we are not of ONE substance as Jesus and the Father are, Deity. He will elevate us in the real life to come but we will not be Deity!

Jesus will return that to the Father when the task He is sent forth to do is accomplished. Read carefully these profound verses, 1 Cor 15:24-28.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Ted Oplinger]

So Ted, your short answer is that one God is composed of three independent conscious existences?

By independent conscious existences, all I mean is in the sense that I have one and you have one and my dog has one, etc. I do not refer to how equal in say purpose of character the three are, just the number of independent conscious existences we are talking about.

Thanks, bro...

Tony

Careful, there...I did not use the term "independent". Some have the misconception that this word carries with it a quality that negates one-ness.

From my perspective, I'd rather say there are 3 distinct persons who are one God.

Blessings,

[epaminondas]

Quote:

On the other hand if I say "In English or Hebrew" -- "Before Abraham WAS - I AM" it is a claim to the pre-existence of the Godhead. Hence the Jews' efforts to stone him for it.

You are missing the point. Exactly the same words in Greek are ascribed to the blind man as to Jesus, but they are differently translated to English. The same Greek words occur 24 times in John alone, many times ascribed to Jesus. But only once is it translated "I am." Even Jack Blanco, an SDA, noticed the inconsistency. Those words can be translated in several ways, some of them making more sense in John 8:58 than "I am." It was a translation by trinitarians to fit their views. Some of them even use the comma Johanneum as support for the trinity (Doug Batchelor did), even though it was never in the original New Testament, and they know it. The big trinitarian, Athanasius, was a scheming thug. He had opponents beaten up and had to flee no less than on four occasions. I wonder why trinitarians would go to such lengths to support something so without a factual basis.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

I confess that I tend to think Christ is younger than His Father simply because sons are younger than their parents.

OK, the key to this lies a century in the past when Einstein postulated that time was not immutable. This was later experimentally verified. Time is an attribute of the Universe (like weight is an attribute of a human being) created when the Universe was created. Before the Universe was created God could not have existed in the time of the Universe, which is what all of you use when you talk about Jesus existing "forever." Col 1:15 says Jesus was "the firstborn of all creation." Now if Jesus was created in a timeless context with the Universe not in existence then Jesus indeed existed for all time. Who is to say Jesus and God have ages? If they live in a timeless context outside the Universe they will be ageless.

Talking about how long Jesus existed is pointless. The people on this thread should get with it. Time didn't always exist, even when there was no Universe. This knowledge is really already about 100 years old. Are these people so far behind?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Deut. 6: 4 uses the same Hebrew word [echad] for "one" as Gen 2: 24 where two persons are "one flesh." (See Strong's #259.) This is no metaphor.

So, they become one flesh, like Siamese twins? Can they become apart then again, later? How utterly amazing. Seems to me even putting the hose pipe on them won't help. I've heard such stories in the high school hostel. Teenage boys have fertile imaginations. Later I thought it was all nonsense, but here you come and say, no, it's true, they do become one flesh. One is never too old to learn. The boys were right, after all.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

From my perspective, I'd rather say there are 3 distinct persons who are one God.

Ah, yes, they are each only 1/3 god. That makes sense.

[Ted Oplinger]

Ted you got it wrong on the elohyim. It is truly one Divine Name, Yahweh.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

No, they rightly understood that Christ's use of the title shows that He claims to be equal with God.

Quote:

ASV: John 14:28. Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I.

I suppose I get it; here where Jesus said in so many words that the Father was greater than him (Jesus), he didn't really mean it. But in another place, or places, where Jesus didn't explicitly claim equality with the Father, he really did. The World turned upside down.

Can nobody see how really stupid these pro trinitarian arguments are? It's all hot air at best based on unclear passages, at worst just speculation based on nothing but ideas.

Quote:

The belief that one can find out something about real things by speculation alone is one of the most long-lived delusions in human thought.

Robert H Thouless

Straight and Crooked Thinking

[epaminondas]

Quote:

YOU have it wrong on Elohim, Gibs. It is clearly the plural form of Eloha, and plural means more than one in every language in the world.

The plural of both Baal and Astarte is frequently used in the Old Testament. The reason is unclear, but as is always the case with theologians, speculation is rife. There were even Baals and Astartes with different full names - Baal this, and Baal that. Is this now also a kind of unity in plurality, like the trinity? Does this plural use of names for gods maybe do away for the need for a god to exist in some kind of plurality just because his name is used in plural?

Just the fact that Elohim is in plural can have several explanations. It's a flimsy hook to hang one's hat on in support of the trintity.

[Gibs]

Abdolutely, there is no trinity about our Great one and only God who gave Himself as Redeemer and His only Begotten Son to make a Redeemer for us, one that would overcome from where we are, taking only that power we are priviled to have.

Yes He is actually, Yah our saviour. For the very simple reason the Father, Yah was in in Him. No not another God, His name Yah proves that. You must see the Father knew us as well as Jesus the man He came in.

In the first place in Heaven the Redeemer of Himself was of His own substance and there was no other person involved until He came in Jesus Christ at Bethlehem.

So, Bros., Elohiym, Redeemer, Father, is the one and only Yahweh! That is the message of the Shema, De 6:4, Shema is the proclamation to Israel.

The following verses clear the fact Jesus was not another God but the one and only God Yahweh with us, in Christ Jesus. Emmanuel, God, Yahweh with us and hence known as Yah our Saviour. There is only ONE whose name is Yahweh whose 4 character name is transliterated YHWH, and further, Yahweh!

Trinity never did have a leg to stand on and never will.

If you would have another person other than Yahweh in the Godhead you would have another God. Father, Redeemer and Holy Spirit are one and the same!

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

"LORD" in all caps. in the KJV which I use is the equivalent of Yahweh as they were afraid to use or attempt to render the Divime Name. Israel of old in the beginning were afraid to utter it!

Yes Yahweh is our Saviour come in the man Jesus Christ and in a union we, I understand cannot fathom the depths of with our little finite minds.

Again, Christ in you is the Father in you!

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

We have plenty of scripture to prove Yah the Father was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself!

Must have been only part of Yah inside Christ, for Christ prayed to the Father (which, according to you, is also Christ, but just by another name) while Jesus was on Earth. There must have been part of Yah left somewhere for Jesus, which, as you say, was/is also Yah, to pray to. So, according to you, you can't escape this consequence, part of Yah prayed to another part of Yah which was somewhere else. This is praying to himself. Man, this is heavy.

Jesus also said the Father was greater than him, Jesus. Building on your postulate, that translates to something like "I am greater than myself." Far out, man.

Jesus is said to be the Son of God. Now, according to you, Jesus was God by another name. That means Jesus was/is the Son of Himself.

In programming changing code may have what is called, unintended consequences. This is really where the changed code is used by other code in the program and the result after the change is not what it was supposed to be. So, changes in code should evaluate to the same results after executing both the calling code and the changed code as it did before the change. A change may be for more efficient executing, to deal with possible problems, etc. What this means for your theory is that all parts must fit in and logically make sense as a whole. Both your "one with three names" postulate and the trinitarian postulate have a great many glaring inconsistencies.

BTW, the trinity is not confined to only Christian denominations. In paganism we have Osiris, Isis and Horus, and more. Of course, they don't correspond point for point with the trinity doctrine, but they were three acting in co-operation.

The triskelion is widely found in many forms. It goes back as least as far as the European iron age and was very common amongst the Celts. Not surprisingly, the trinity fell on fertile ground in Europe.

[Gibs]

You forget, Yah came in the man Jesus and Jesus prayed to the Father in Heaven as we must.

Yah in Him was the mediator given of the Father that fallen man could reach heaven, the ladder that Jacob saw.

Yes Jesus could have reached within and used the full power of the Father vested in Him, but He dared not to do this as that would have made Satan the winner. Satan watched this very closely that He, Jesus must not take more power than is ours to overcome Him and the world.

And Jesus did not once do that, Satan worked hard trying to make Him do that.

Don't you see the WAY Jesus made is that you and all of mankind can have the same measure of power that He used. Christ in you and we have that power.

Not even Adam in the Garden of Eden was not near omnipotent. Please read the following quote,

" No one can be omnipotent, but all can cleanse themselves from filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord. God requires every soul to be pure and holy. We have hereditary tendencies to wrong. This is a part of self that no one need carry about. It is a weakness of humanity to pet selfishness, because it is a natural trait of character. But unless all selfishness is put away, unless self is crucified, we can never be holy as God is holy. There is in humanity a tendency to suspicious imagining, which circumstances quicken into lively growth. If this trait is indulged, it spoils the character and ruins the soul. {FLB 140.4}

God requires moral perfection in all. Those who have been given light and opportunities should, as God's stewards, aim for perfection, and never, never lower the standard of righteousness to accommodate inherited and cultivated tendencies to wrong. Christ took upon Him our human nature, and lived our life, to show us that we may be like Him. . . . We ought to be holy even as God is holy; and when we comprehend the full significance of this statement, and set our heart to do the work of God, to be holy as He is holy, we shall approach the standard set for each individual in Christ Jesus. {FLB 140.5}

Christ within us is the power and the Hope and the WAY!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[skyblue888]

It is Christ in us who is omnipotent and thus through becoming one with Him we are enabled to do the deeds of omnipotence.

sky

[skyblue888]

Yes Jesus could have reached within and used the full power of the Father vested in Him, but He dared not to do this as that would have made Satan the winner. Satan watched this very closely that He, Jesus must not take more power than is ours to overcome Him and the world.

Gibs

_____________

I beg you pardon Gibs but this which you have stated above is incorrect. The only power and wisdom Jesus ever revealed in His life, as a man, was the power and wisdom of the Father because Jesus the man was in subjection to the Father the whole time.

As far as His own divinity was concerned it was kept back at all times. It was this divinity, not that of the Father, that Satan tempted Jesus to resort to but he did not succeed.

It was the divinity of the Father that was revealed in and through the man Jesus of Nazareth. It was the divinity of the Father that accomplished everything in and through the man Jesus of Nazareth while the divinity of Christ was held back at all times.

And now Jesus'own divinity is to accomplish everything in and through all who become one with Him.

sky