The Trinity

What Jesus spoke about accountability to an eternal God at a final judgment was not reserved just for those who were heckeling Him in the audience. These warnings were to all people.When I compare the life of Joseph with that of Jesus I see a definite typology. For a season Joseph's brothers who betrayed him did not reckonize the one who they betrayed into slavery was not an ascended ruler. He alone was able to rescue them from famine and starvation. But Joseph concealed his identity for a season and administered some corrective disciplining lessons on his brothers.At the appriate time he revealed his true identity to them. He showed them that all that they had done to him in their jealousy and persecution God had ordained to happen for their latter salvation.I think we are in a period of history in which the identity of the Jewish Messiah is concealed from Israel for a period. They are learning some many lessons at the moment. This temporary time of Christ's concealment does not make Him less their ultimate savior from their enemies.The story is not over yet. God works out His plans over the world over a long period of time to our senses. For my part I rest assured that Jesus is the Savior not only of man's eternal well being but of the nation of Israel. He is working out His plans.The reformation of the very nation of Israel in 1948 caused prophecy students to sit up and take great interest. We counted this as the leaves growing tender and an indication that the summer was near - according to the parable of Jesus.I'm sorry if you are still possessed with doubt. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Pro 27:19 As in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man.

---

This is my quick-draw Bible.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The first disciples were Jews and were concerned about the matter that you speak of. We see this exchange in the beginning of Acts:"So the ones who came together asked Him, saying, Lord, are You at this time restoring the kingdom of Israel?

​

But He said to them, It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set by His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:7,8)Now the gospel life is conditioned on our cooperation. Down through the centries some have desired to go along with God's plan of grace and some have decided just to have their "ticket" to be saved. You know also that Jesus taught about the different results of the kingdom seed sown into the hearts of men. Some withered, some were choked by anxieties, some bore fruit 30, 60, 100 fold.Through the centries the remnant of overcoming disciples has collected more and more in paradise. At His second coming these overcomers who cooperated with New Testament grace will be rewarded to reign with Christ in His millennial kingdom.So this intervening time in which our patience is waiting while we spread the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth, also serves to amass for the Lord Jesus the co-kings who will assist in His securing the planet.Don't be discouraged. Don't be impatient. Believe in Christ Jesus. Obey the gospel. In due time you will see everything fulfilled above what you could ask or think.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Beautifully put. A powerful experience, no doubt.I agree that a sense of mystery is a proper thing. A necessary thing, even, in the presence of the sacred. Fundamentalists would do well to develop more of a taste for it.The birth of your child, though, is not analogous to the birth of the Trinity doctrine. And that's a good thing for your kid.
You are talking about a feeling of awe. I'm talking about one generation's political solution. Later generations supplied the awe.Had church fathers in the first four centuries ACE felt the kind of mystery you felt, the Trinity doctrine never would have existed. They would have felt too much humility before the divine. They would not have dared to fill in the blanks of Holy Writ with dogmas about how the unseen realm is organized.Humility was not involved. They had already set forth firm declarations about who and who was not a heretic. They did not hesistate to claim the right to exact punshiments, and to wield that right. First came the definitions of heresy, then the definition of the belief.The time came for church fathers to end the confusion that had led to deviant beliefs in the first place. When they had to state once and for all how things really stood, they found themselves painted into a corner. Christ was truly divine (they had ruled), Christ was truly human (they had ruled), only one God could exist (Scripture), Christ talked about God as someone other than himself (Scripture). They ended by asserting a flat contradiction: three divine beings, one God. They enforced the ruling with excommunication and, eventually, capital punishment.Whatever else may be said of it, the doctrine of the Trinity has historically served mystics well. Mystics by definition savor mystery; their experience of the sacred is not rational but intuitive. The experience thrives on complex pictures that embody opposites: the yinyang, the flaming lotus, the human-divine being, manadalas of every kind. The Trinity became the mandala par excellence for Christian mystics. Meditation on the Trinity was an important part of the experience of people like Francis of Assissi, Teresa of Avila, Hildegard of Bingen, and Thomas Merton.This manifests itself in art. Dante ends the epic journey of The Divine Comendy with a sublime and unforgettable image of the Trinity in eternity. Trinitarian images appear in music from chant to Bach to hymns like 'Eternal Father, Strong to Save,' in visual art such as icons in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, in literature from Dante to modern short stories such as Babette's Feast.The Trinity doctrine is thus like many ideas in human history. Its path is characterized by paradoxical twists, surprises, and ironies. Does the doctrine's intellectually dishonest birth invalidate it? Does its beauty redeem it? Does being 'based on' Scripture make it more sciprtural than other doctrines based on scripture? Does the fact that it 'won' politically make it more valid than other early ideas that lost the same way?These are questions that any good discussion of the Trinity takes into account. If you like sausage and you want to spread the word about how tasty sausage is, you have to be ready to discuss how sausage is made. People do know. People will ask you about it.This is especially the case if your professed belief system owes anything to the Protestant tradition in Christianity. Protestants are famously on record as not buying everything medieval church fathers were selling. Why accept the Trinity doctrine uncritically when you do not accept their other decisions the same way?_

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Beautifully put. A powerful experience, no doubt. I agree wholeheartedly that a sense of mystery is a proper thing--a necessary thing, even--in the presence of the sacred. Fundamentalists would do well to develop more of a taste for it.The birth of your child is not really analogous to the birth of the Trinity doctrine, though. And that's good news for your kid.
You are talking about a feeling of awe. I'm talking about one generation's political solution. Later generations supplied the awe.Had church fathers in the first four centuries ACE felt the kind of mystery you felt, the Trinity doctrine never would have existed. They would have felt too much humility before the divine. They would not have dared to fill in the blanks of Holy Writ with dogmas about how the unseen realm is organized.Humility was not involved. They had already set forth firm declarations about who and who was not a heretic. They did not hesistate to claim the right to exact punshiments, and to wield that right.First came the definitions of heresy, then the definition of the belief. The time inevitably came for church fathers to end the confusion that had led to such deviant beliefs in the first place. When they had to state once and for all how things really stood, they found themselves painted into a corner. Christ was truly divine (they had ruled), Christ was truly human (they had ruled), only one God could exist (Scripture), Christ talked about God as someone other than himself (Scripture). They ended by asserting a flat contradiction: three divine beings, one God.The doctrine left many questions, of course. But questions tend to be few when made punishable by excommunication, torture, and execution.Thus the Trinity doctrine entered history. Whatever else may be said of the results, it served mystics well. Mystics by definition savor mysteries. Their experience of the sacred is not rational but intuitive. The mystic experience thrives on complex pictures that embody opposites: the yinyang, the flaming lotus, the human-divine being, manadalas of every kind. The Trinity became the mandala par excellence for Christian mystics. Meditation on the Trinity was an important part of the experience of people like Francis of Assissi, Teresa of Avila, Hildegard of Bingen, and Thomas Merton.The mystic experience manifested itself in Christian art. Dante ends the epic journey of The Divine Comendy with a sublime and unforgettable image of the Trinity in eternity. Trinitarian images appear in music from chant to Bach to hymns like 'Eternal Father, Strong to Save,' in visual art such as icons in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, in literature from Dante to modern short stories such as Babette's Feast.The Trinity doctrine is thus like many ideas in human history. Its path is characterized by paradoxical twists, surprises, and ironies. Does the doctrine's intellectually dishonest birth invalidate it? Does its beauty redeem it? Does being 'based on' Scripture make it more valid as an interpretation than other doctrines based on scripture? Does the fact that it 'won' politically make it more valid than the other early ideas that lost the same way?These are questions any good discussion of the Trinity takes into account. If you like sausage and want to spread the word about how tasty sausage is, be ready to discuss how sausage is made. People do know. They will ask you about it.This is especially the case if your professed belief system owes anything to the Protestant tradition in Christianity. Protestants are famously on record as not buying everything medieval church fathers were selling. Why accept the Trinity doctrine uncritically when you do not accept their other decisions the same way?I'm most interested now in reading some answers to my first question:

Did Yeshua, son of a carpenter and longtime synagogue worship participant, walk around Judea thinking of himself as the Second Person of the Trinity?

_Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I'll respond in full latter today.We are presently on our way to enjoy the Trinity. See you latter.
But the birth of my child is very analogous to the economical move of the Triune God. I will demonstrate that shortly.Secondly, you are too hard on many of the ancient brothers who developed the trinitarian doctrine in defense of wrong attacks against the Person of Christ. And these attacks were the initiation of such the trinitarian creeds. They caused a reaction.And it is important to realize that these attacks against the nature of the Person of Christ came not from just one angle, but from every angle.In a sense the trinitarian doctrine was like the covered wagons forming a circle for defense.Now I really must go. But I think we can have some good conversation on the matter latter. Your tone seems agreable though disagreeing.jwEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Of course not.I must admit a bit of surprise that you would not only only fail to understand the three examples given (of what is already present in holy scripture) but would go beyond that to add in a new expression which makes no sense.Jewish saviours and would-be saviours, mentioned in the Bible, are so numerous that many remain un-named. We have looked at the definitive scripture from which this realization has been derived. Even so, you have chosen to ignore the clear word. You have chosen to invent something new; NOT because there is any scriptural or linguistic justification for it but rather because it avoids an uncomfortable truth: Jesus was not as unique as is claimed by the pagan religion named after his would-be title. You cite Moses as an example of a saviour whose work seemed unsuccessful early on. But Moses did succeed (working, within the myth, of course), and in his lifetime, no less. Followers of Moses had faith in results. Followers of Jesus had to invent results; invisible results; feel good results; results which can be achieved in a non Christian context; Ahh. The myth of a fallen human nature. The idea that all our troubles stem from the act of a Jew man eating non kosher food. The idea that there is a problem with how we are made. Yet, this God supposedly made us and declared us "Good." Any fundamental changes would require that we be re-invented, modified, evolved, esentially: re-created. Now who could do that? Who could re-create humankind? Do you know the biological challenges inherent in that prescription? I think not. Else you would realize that we are as God made us; nothing more, nothing less.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I understood your examples. While I was musing on their validity or unvalidity I wrote you that it makes no difference really.What makes no sense to me is you saying a Savior of saviors makes no sense. Makes sense to me to call the Lord Jesus Christ the Savior of saviors. So what? What clear word? Do you have a "clear word" saying "Thou shalt not call Jesus a Savior of saviors?" Sure, I'll plead guilty to that "Savior of saviors" is a new phrase. I could invent many other phrases to discribe so wonderful a person. Language itself is too limited to discribe so wonderful a Person as Jesus Christ.Would you not invent phrases for someone you loved very dearly such as your spouse? Who are other people to dictate to you that it makes no sense to call your spouse "honey" or "sugar" or "dearest" or some more original term, etc.?Why should I be shackled in my praise for Christ by you intellectualizing your unbelief? Jesus is unique. Perhaps your unbelief longs to rob that uniqueness from Him. If you're an opposer to the gospel of Christ then it is your job as a detractor to make Christ common and of no unique significance. How are you not acting like the mob who called for His crucifixion? That's right. Did I say he didn't succeed? I said there was a period of time in which he was deemed a failure. And in parellel there is a period of time while God is working out all of Christ's mission where someone like yourself deems Christ as failure.Within that period they actually blamed Moses for creating MORE problems for the nation. And I believe that you are in that period in which some blame Jesus for not only failing Israel but causing their problems to become worst. And in that period of the working of the Exodus they were sorely disappionted with the results. In fact they spent the better part of 40 years wandering in the wilderness disappointed with the results of Moses' leadership. Ridiculous. We dont't believe that the disciples hiding from a hostile Jewish populace after the crucifixion invented the resurrection of Christ. These "invisible" results which you disdain have stood the test of time and are still spreading.Such "invisible" results as the moral transformation of sinners into seekers of God were sought by the Old Testament prophets just as much. And they could not have been altogether invisible or else the faith would not have spread.People SAW something testified in the lives of these Christians. They saw the way they lived, and loved, and died. They saw them singing as they were being torn apart by lions. They saw them praising God while burning in the gardens of Nero. They saw your "invisible" results and were impressed enough in what they saw to the point of believing that Jesus was Lord themselves.A city set on a hill cannot be hid. And the results of Christ working in the "city" of the disciples of Jesus could not be hid or made as invisible as you expect. They saw the light of truth shining from the lives of the disciples. And the faith in the risen Jesus spread and is still spreading. It has been some 20 centuries now that the "invisible" results of Christ's life is enfluencing people to trust in Him.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And we have seen them drinking cyanide, bombing mosques, and burning their own dissidents at the stake.JW, you really must take a good hard look at the dark side of Christianity. And if you cannot see it, then you are probably already deep within.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Hold on there doctrbill. I am not naive or ignorant of the evils done in Christianty. I know something about Christianity's history. I am a black man. I know a little bit about how some branches of Christianity encouraged racial slavery.The word "Christianity" has the meaning to some people of things having nothing to do with Christ. I am for Christ. I am not defending the "anity".This evil part of Christianity is not a statement on the falsehood of Jesus. It is a statement on man's unquenchable ability to use the true and rightoues to justify his evil deeds. Of course wicked man will lay hold of "Jesus Christ" to validate many evils.There is a positive side to the Christian faith on earth also. I don't know what your profession is. But I bet you follow the ones who encourage you in that discipline rather than the ones who discourage you with their hypocrisy.Anyway, Christians must stand before the judgement seat of Christ. So it is the Lord Jesus to whom I will give an account.You speak some things about the Jewish faith. I don't know if you are a practitioner of Judaism. If so did you decide not to follow Judaism because of some hypocritical examples of those calling themselves followers of that faith?And it is not as if we were not warned in the gospels and in the epistles that there would be some apostasy. On the contrary I am more impressed with the glory of the Christian church. She is glorious and victorious.

Edited by AdminPD, : Opening

One item about the Trinty in specific I was curious about. One person claimed that the words by Jesus 'Ego eimi" (I am)states that Jesus is claiming to be God in there. What is the basis for that claim?Edited by ramoss, : fix typo.

Ramoss,The moderator has written above: You don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity I am pretty certain, so you should not be participating in this thread.This statement is based on my many exchanges with you in which you challenged basic Christian beliefs about Christ's divinity.This present question about Christ stating "Before Abraham came into being, I AM" probably is introduction to your challenge that Christ is not the "I AM" of Exodus and therefore is not God and therefore is not God the Son which therefore invalidates the Trinity.I think I can anticipate you fairly well. And you should not be in this discussion thread according to the moderator.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I'll start a different thread.... and respond to the Moses "I AM" verses the "Ego Eimi" there.

I recommend reading Against Praxeas by Tertullian, written about 1800 years ago. The doctrine of the Trinity evolved considerably during the 4th century, when there were huge theological and political battles over the subject.Tertullian is considered "the father of the Trinity" by Catholic and Protestant theologians, because he was the first to use the word, so he's quite orthodox, but if you read the text, you'll see that his view of the Trinity is anything but the modern one. It is very typical of his time, though.It can be read chapter by chapter at Philip Schaff: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library , and I'm sure an internet search will find you the whole book on one page. I think you might find chapters 5,13, and 14 interesting.