Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Can Trinity Believers Explain This
Angel
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 300 (157404)
11-08-2004 5:40 PM


Matthew 10:20 explicitly says
quote:
"For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."
The meaning, of course, refers to the Holy Spirit as in Mark 13:11 which notes,
quote:
"but when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do you premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost."
Acts 7:55-56 speaks of Jesus being on the right hand side of God
quote:
"..he being full of the Holy Ghost looked up steadfastly into heaven and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.".
The trinity was created at the Council of Nicea in the form of the Athanasian creed in the year 325 AD.. Godhead, not the Trinity, is a term found in the Bible. For examples of this see: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Col 2:9.
Matthew 3:16-17, which describes Jesus' baptism mentions three separate beings: God the Father, who's voice came down from heaven; Jesus the son, who was in the water; and the Holy Ghost which descended upon him as a dove would. I could go on and on, but these should suffice. My question is, how can anyone explain away these passages with a trinity theory? I will leave a link to the Online Catholic Encyclopedia where you can learn more about the Nicene Creed, and it's origins.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nicene Creed

Angel

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Legend, posted 11-08-2004 6:35 PM Angel has replied
 Message 4 by jar, posted 11-08-2004 6:38 PM Angel has not replied
 Message 50 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2004 12:31 PM Angel has replied
 Message 186 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2004 11:58 PM Angel has not replied
 Message 219 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-06-2004 5:52 PM Angel has not replied
 Message 226 by truthlover, posted 12-16-2004 12:53 AM Angel has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 300 (157406)
11-08-2004 5:44 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 3 of 300 (157412)
11-08-2004 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Angel
11-08-2004 5:40 PM


Hi Angel,
Very interesting topic.
For starters, the trinity doctrine wasn't created at the Council of Nicea, but rather formalized and officially adopted at it. There are trinitarian quotes pre-dating the Nicean Creed (Polycarp, Tertullian et al.) Early Trinitarian quotes.
The passages you quote do not contradict the Trinity doctrine, which purports God to be a trinity of persons, distinct in function and behaviour but one in nature and substance. A cliche example, often used, is that of water : you find water in the forms of solid (ice), liquid and gas (steam). Although of different form, they're all the same substance.
Furthermore, a number of (mainly O.T.) passages support the nature of One God - Three persons.
quote:
You are My witnesses, declares the Lord, And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me," (Isaiah 43:10).
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is o God besides Me (Isaiah 44:6).
Oh Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD! (Deut. 6:4) .
I could quote more (mainly Isaiah), but suffice to say that there are plenty of references to the One-ness of God (albeit with three facets).
P.S you don't have to answer this, but -out of curiousity- are you LDS by any chance ?
This message has been edited by Legend, 11-08-2004 06:39 PM

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Angel, posted 11-08-2004 5:40 PM Angel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Angel, posted 11-09-2004 6:38 AM Legend has replied
 Message 199 by d_yankee, posted 11-24-2004 11:32 PM Legend has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 300 (157413)
11-08-2004 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Angel
11-08-2004 5:40 PM


The issue of the Trinity is certainly one that has been debated as long as there has been a Christian Church.
Over the years there have been four major types of heresies revolving around the issue of the Trinity. They are:
  • Modalism.
  • Monarchialism.
  • Subordinationism.
  • Macedonianism.
Modalism claimed each of the Trinity was but one Mode of GOD.
Monarchialism simply denies three seperate beings and so is very similar to Modalism.
Subordinationism declares Christ and the Holy Spirit to be subordinate to GOD.
Macedonianism said the the Holy Spirit was simply a servant, similar to an angel.
The Creedal nature of Christianity predates the final canon although one early canon (from around 170 AD is known. It was formalized, as you said, during the First and Second Ecumenical Coucils, the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Your quote of Matthew 10:20 can be read several ways. It could refer to the Holy Spirit or to the nature of GOD himself. The two passages, the one from Matthew and the one from Mark are examples of passages being copied between the three Gospels, Mark, Matthew and Luke.
It's believed by most scholars that Matthew came first and that Mark and Luke were written later, and with access to and knowledge of Matthew.
Generally it is safe to say that one of the major defining differences between Christians are those that consider themselves to be Creedal Christians and those that are more Biblical Christians.
I doubt we will settle the differences between the two here.
edited to fix spelling.
This message has been edited by jar, 11-08-2004 06:40 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Angel, posted 11-08-2004 5:40 PM Angel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by lfen, posted 11-09-2004 2:24 AM jar has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 5 of 300 (157536)
11-09-2004 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
11-08-2004 6:38 PM


It's believed by most scholars that Matthew came first and that Mark and Luke were written later, and with access to and knowledge of Matthew.
As I understand it Matthew is the first in the sequence in the NT because that is the tradition. The scholarship I've read on the synoptic question has Mark being the first with Matthew and Luke drawing on Mark. I've not read near as much you, Jar, but when you say most scholars are you counting back centuries? I've been under the impression from the few sources I've read that contemporary scholarship places Mark first.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 11-08-2004 6:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 11-09-2004 9:10 AM lfen has not replied

Angel
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 300 (157563)
11-09-2004 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Legend
11-08-2004 6:35 PM


Hi Legend,
Thank you for your input, however I have a few more questions for you if you don't mind. For starters I will answer yours.
quote:
P.S you don't have to answer this, but -out of curiousity- are you LDS by any chance ?
No I am not a Mormon, to answer your question further, I do not believe in religion. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, and I believe in the Holy Spirit. While I feel that you put alot of thought into your answer, I don't see how the passages that I presented to you can explain a trinity, maybe you could share that. You said
quote:
The passages you quote do not contradict the Trinity doctrine, which purports God to be a trinity of persons, distinct in function and behaviour but one in nature and substance. A cliche example, often used, is that of water : you find water in the forms of solid (ice), liquid and gas (steam). Although of different form, they're all the same substance.
Can you explain to me, how the same being can be standing side by side? The problem I have had in this discussion in the past is this, trinity believers always say that these passages prove the trinity further, but they do not explain how? Another question I might ask is how can the same being look upon their own face? Such as when Jesus looked upon the face of God? Or is it simply that you believe they are seperate Beings, belonging to the same group, such as my husband, my child, and myself all belong to one family, thus making us one.

Angel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Legend, posted 11-08-2004 6:35 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 11-09-2004 9:13 AM Angel has not replied
 Message 12 by Legend, posted 11-09-2004 10:09 AM Angel has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 300 (157581)
11-09-2004 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by lfen
11-09-2004 2:24 AM


You're right. More fumble fingering on my part. Mark first not Matthew.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by lfen, posted 11-09-2004 2:24 AM lfen has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 8 of 300 (157583)
11-09-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Angel
11-09-2004 6:38 AM


Hi ANgel, welcome to the forum.
I think Legend offers a logical answer here. In that - water is regarded as a substance made up of three things, yet it is still regarded as one substance. (There is only a problem if you define it as only gas or only liquid. Likewise - Christ and his father are "one", and the NT says all those born of the Spirit have the power to become the sons of God.
Take your body for example - or mine even,(insert pun Dan)- You are made up of cells - all different kinds, an incredible number of them - yet you are still one in that you are a body, with many members.
What am I? Am I my ear or my mouth? I am both. How much more possible is it - for God to be more than an ear and more than a mouth, and more than a body? When I die - am I my decaying body? When I am alive - am I spirit or body?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Angel, posted 11-09-2004 6:38 AM Angel has not replied

Angel
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 300 (157587)
11-09-2004 9:31 AM


Hi Mike,
Thank you for the welcome.
quote:
water is regarded as a substance made up of three things, yet it is still regarded as one substance.
Yes, but it would still be water. That doesn't answer my question, what makes Them the same? Is Jesus to be Gods ear, mouth, arm? No He is a completely different being. Though He is Gods son, he is not God Himself. I was asking for clarification, from the scripture, as to how you (or anyone else) can claim, that They are one. Now if you are suggesting that they are as one family, I agree, and you have no argument from me. However, if you think that they are one as in the same exact Being, then that is where I have a problem. It is almost amusing to me, that the answers that I recieve from this type of discussion, beat around the bush, and avoid the scripture, the only comment that is ever made on scripture that I present is, "that just proves the trinity furthur", no explanations as to why they say it, they just say it. Then finally, after they can't answer, they usually say something to this affect,"The trinity is a mystery, not to be understood". Now seeing as how God is not the author of confussion, how can it be unexplainable? There are, I agree, certain things that noone can explain, such as emotions, or why God chose to do things a certain way, but the trinity doesn't fall into any such catagory. What I am asking for is, how can you explain the trinity from the scripture that I presented, and I have many more, if you want to take a stab at them .

Angel

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 11-09-2004 10:01 AM Angel has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 300 (157594)
11-09-2004 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Angel
11-09-2004 9:31 AM


Yes, but it would still be water. That doesn't answer my question, what makes Them the same?
Cohesion. ..Erm, *scratches omniscient head*...Well, God is Creator of this universe - if he has a Son - then Christ is supernaturally of God. Likewise - ice is naturally from liquid. Now if God's power is another aspect of what he is - then the Holy Spirit is also another form of God (steam). This is all speculation. These bodies of ice and liquid are found in different places - yet they are water. Tis hard to explain..*frustration*.
However, if you think that they are one as in the same exact Being, then that is where I have a problem. It is almost amusing to me, that the answers that I recieve from this type of discussion, beat around the bush, and avoid the scripture
The "trinity" is neither favoured nor frowned upon by me. My opinion is what Christ said;
"I and my father are one - him in me and me in him". Is that scriptural enough? If this isn't meant as "the trinity" then fair enough - I'm not too bothered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Angel, posted 11-09-2004 9:31 AM Angel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Angel, posted 11-09-2004 10:09 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 13 by Legend, posted 11-09-2004 10:40 AM mike the wiz has replied

Angel
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 300 (157596)
11-09-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
11-09-2004 10:01 AM


Hi Mike,
quote:
"I and my father are one - him in me and me in him". Is that scriptural enough?
So in essence if someone can take this scripture and say that Jesus is in fact God (the same exact Being, not two beings as one), then could it not be turned around to say that God is Jesus? Now before you say, well yeah that's my point. Think about it, because if God were in fact Jesus, then no one who seen Jesus, would have lived. No one who sees the face of God could live to tell about it. So how can that be made to be a fact?

Angel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 11-09-2004 10:01 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 11-09-2004 10:44 AM Angel has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 12 of 300 (157597)
11-09-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Angel
11-09-2004 6:38 AM


Hi Angel,
thanks for your reply. I think the disagreement lies in your interpretation of these passages to be referring to separate beings , while-in fact- they're not. If the Godhead consisted of three separate beings, each with their own essence and purpose (like your family, for example) then we'd be talking about a Triumvirate, not a Trinity. The Godhead consists of three different personnae (for want of a better word), of one essence and one purpose. To be more specific :
quote:
Can you explain to me, how the same being can be standing side by side?
You're presumably referring to Acts 7:55-56. I think you're interpreting this passage literally. In the context in which it is given (Stephen being stoned to death), it is largely symbolic. The phrase 'on the right hand' is often used to symbolise a position of power and authority. In this context, it symbolises the role of Jesus as a mediator to God.
quote:
Another question I might ask is how can the same being look upon their own face? Such as when Jesus looked upon the face of God?
Presumably, this is Matthew 3:16-17. Again, no mention of the face of God, but rather the Spirit of God that he saw.
Col. 2:9, it states that the fullness of the Godhead is dwelling bodily in Christ. It is not saying that the totality of God is dwelling in the body of Christ. If that was the case, then the totality of God would be located in a single human body and nowhere else. Also, elsewhere in the N.T, Jesus is seen to be praying to the Father. This wouldn't be plausible if the totality of God was within him. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Col. 2:9 refers to the fulness of the divinity of Christ, i.e. his being fully divine, as well as human
About Acts 17:29 and Romans 1:20, again no mention of separate beings. I really can't see how these passages negate the trinity, maybe you could explain ?
Also, there are several verses in the O.T where God speaks as a plurality (e.g. Gen. 1:26, Gen. 1:26). These verses wouldn't make sense if God was only one persona, neither if there were three separate Gods. They only make sense, in the context of a 'one God - three facets' doctrine.
I think I covered most of the points you raised. If I missed something, or disagree with something please shout. Got to go back to work for now, but I'll log on later.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Angel, posted 11-09-2004 6:38 AM Angel has not replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 13 of 300 (157601)
11-09-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
11-09-2004 10:01 AM


It's Off-Topic but I couldn't help it!
Mike the Wiz writes:
Tis hard to explain..*frustration*.
what...??! You can't explain the Trinity ?! what happened to 'irrefutable Mike' ??
Mike the Wiz writes:
Take your body for example - or mine even,(insert pun Dan)
Dan, please allow me, please, please, please!
Mike the Wiz writes:
What am I? Am I my ear or my mouth?
Based on previous inane rantings, I'd say all mouth and no brains.
BUT.....having seen your last posts at the Coffee House, I have to withdraw that statement!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 11-09-2004 10:01 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 11-09-2004 12:28 PM Legend has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 300 (157602)
11-09-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Angel
11-09-2004 10:09 AM


because if God were in fact Jesus, then no one who seen Jesus, would have lived. No one who sees the face of God could live to tell about it. So how can that be made to be a fact?
Do you refer to the OT books - concerning Moses looking on his back but not his face?
Well, I think God made a way of us being able to look upon him. Well, I say "us" - but really it was those of Jesus's time.
I think Legend's previous post deals well with this, in that the fulness of Christ etc..
So in essence if someone can take this scripture and say that Jesus is in fact God
We had a whole discussion about this at a christin board. Many disagree on this issue. But I personally will not speak it - yet believe it, I'm discreet like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Angel, posted 11-09-2004 10:09 AM Angel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Angel, posted 11-09-2004 11:00 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Angel
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 300 (157606)
11-09-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
11-09-2004 10:44 AM


The oneness of God and Jesus consists of their being in such absolute harmony that to see and act with one is to see
and act with the other. This is the true description of their unity. The NT teaching that Jesus and his Father are one does
not sustain the idea that they are one and the same deity of one undivided body. When Jesus said, "I and my Father are
one" (John 10:30), he was simply saying that he and the Father work and think alike, and that to deal with one is to deal
with the other. They function in perfect harmony. Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one in the same way he and
the Father were one (John 17:5-22). Unmistakably, Jesus was not asking that the disciples undergo some mystifying
integration of bodies. He was praying for them to be one in terms of works, resolve, and commitment. Furthermore,
maybe you can answer how, if in fact Jesus were God in the flesh, how anyone can be saved? How any disciples were
alive after they looked upon the face of Jesus? If there were no disciples left, because anyone who sees the face of God
will not live to tell about it, how do we get the NT? To say that the disciples gave it to us would have to be a lie, unless
you wanted to take the stance, which I pray that you don’t, that God was just not being honest with others, such as
Moses? You won't speak of the trinity theory, or explain it, but you want others to believe in it? That just doesn't make
sense. Are you not, as a disciple of Christ to teach God's Word, and teach that Jesus died for our sins? If you can't
explain your trinity theory, then do you really have faith in it? I can't find a passage that has trinity in it, but I would
assume that you would want everyone to be saved, to know the truth, right? I am really wanting an explanation for the
passages mentioned, if you want to include others, that's fine, I will take a poke at them, but I have yet to recieve an
answer from you concerning the passages. Mainly Jesus standing at the side of God, and Jesus looking into the face of
God, though I didn't leave the passage for that one, so I will exclude it. Figuratively was the only answer that I have
recieved, and it makes no intention in the passages before or after that it was not to be taken literally. So how can the
same Being stand beside Themself?

Angel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 11-09-2004 10:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by lfen, posted 11-09-2004 11:49 AM Angel has replied
 Message 173 by AJ, posted 11-17-2004 5:54 PM Angel has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024