The Trinity

[12th Doctor]

Jmf has a... unique opinion on this.  The overwhelming majority of Christians recognize three distinct persons, of one essence.  I'm kinda winding down for tonight, but I'll explore this further tomorrow.

[12th Doctor]

Jmf has a... unique opinion on this.  The overwhelming majority of Christians recognize three distinct persons, of one essence.  I'm kinda winding down for tonight, but I'll explore this further tomorrow.

No where in the bible will you find the Godhead subdivided into three persons.  Three different manifestations maybe, but not three separate persons.  

Instead, in the bible, you'll find the Father/Son/HolySpirit ALL living within a single person - Jesus Christ.  That is an undeniable fact of scripture.

Another undeniable fact, is that Jesus promised that believers would have the Father living within each believer, and also would have the Son within each believer, and also would have the Holy Spirit within each believer

Believers to receive the Father and the Son:
John 14:23 "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”

Believers to receive the Holy Spirit:
John 15:26 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.”

Jesus using the believer’s promise of receiving of the Holy Spirit to explain that he himself, Jesus Christ, will come to live inside each believer:
John 14:15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

So, if a) the Father/Son/HolySpirit lived in the person of Jesus Christ and, b) the believer receives the Father/Son/HolySpirit when they receive the Spirit of God…how is the believer to draw a distinction between them?

The problem with the “three persons” language, which is the language of the creed and not the language of the Scripture, is that is makes it sound like we’re talking about three distinct living beings being co-eternal…which is how many Christians interpret the creed.  But that is really saying there are three eternal beings who are one God, which makes a mockery out of math.

But the bible teaches that there is only one supreme being and that the Son was not always the Son but rather is the one supreme being manifesting himself in the flesh.

The Son was not always the Son:
Heb 1:5 "For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; TODAY I have become your Father’? Or again, ‘I WILL BE his Father, and he WILL BE my Son? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God's angels worship him.’”

As Hebrews 1:5-6 just stated, while quoting the Old Testament, Jesus Christ became the Son of God when he came into this world, NOT BEFORE.  He was NOT always the Son and the he did NOT always have a Father, rather the Son became a Son and was given a Father on the day he entered the world.  Is that not what Heb 1:5-6 says?

So, then who was Jesus Christ before the body of Jesus was formed?  Simply, God, the one and only supreme infinite being.  And that same one and only infinite God, who is incomprehensible to finite man, chose to manifest himself in a finite state within the body of Jesus Christ so that finite man could have something which the human mind was capable of wrapping itself around.  And that finite manifestation of the infinite God was limited:  Jesus had to eat, sleep, rest, use the bathroom, and his ministry and message were limited in timeframe and scope.  Jesus didn’t reveal the entire knowledge of God and he didn’t preach forever, rather he taught for 3 years.

But, Christians such as I who don’t agree with the creed’s wording has been thrown out of the fellowship of believers.  And, sadly, many Christians have been killed over this controversy, when the controversy about the inner workings of God should itself be accepted as a mystery:

1Tim 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.”

Yes, and I will add several more quotes onto that...



But, then we have the innumerable statements and facts that show a separation between them, which I won't bother to quote and cite perfectly, because everyone knows about them:

1) "This is my son, in whom I am well please."

2) Blasphemy against the Father and Son will be forgiven, but not against the Holy Spirit

3) Jesus prays to the father in the garden... why is he praying to himself?

4) "Father, into your hands I commend my Spirit."

5) Jesus' references to his Father, his Father's house, the Holy Spirit as a separate entity... I really don't have to go into all of these.

As I said, it is recognized that these three persons share one essence... in otherwords, they are of the same being.  However, unless Jesus is really putting on the dog with all this "Father" stuff, in what would seem an intentional effort to confuse us (if there is no separation at all) there must be three different beings.  This might seem semantic, but it misses the point that each of these has an essential rule to play in the plan of salvation, and that the Son exists, even though he is not currently among us in the flesh.  He didn't just beam back up to Heaven and resume his rule as the Father, or set on a new mission as the Holy Spirit.

"For in the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Seems clear to me that the message there is consistent with Trinitarian theology.

-------------------------

To move onto the point, the Holy Spirit is not the "love between the Father and Son" or some amorphous idea that people tend to claim.  It's a real entity, and the scripture makes this pretty clear.

John 14

26
    The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

-----------------------
This next one is a good passage for many reasons, but for this discussion, I have highlighted the key section... it this were a discussion about the role of the Church in teaching I would use 30-31.
-----------------------

Acts 8

27
    So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, 8 that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28
    and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29
    The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot."
30
    Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31
    He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
32
    This was the scripture passage he was reading: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
33
    In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth."
34
    Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, "I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?"
35
    Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.

-----------------------

Acts 13

2
    While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

----------------------

1 Cor

9
    But as it is written: "What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,"
10
    this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God.
11
    Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God.
12
    We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God

[12th Doctor]

Well, as anyone can see here, and in case you didn't already know, the idea that there is actually a single concept "Christianity" is a total myth.

[12th Doctor]

Well, as anyone can see here, and in case you didn't already know, the idea that there is actually a single concept "Christianity" is a total myth.

are you going to answer the queston as to which part of the Trinity lived in the body of Jesus Christ?

The Trinity is not subdivided by essence.  As I said, clearly the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God... no "s".  They are one and the same in being.  But, it is also clear, from the scriptures, that there are separate personhoods.  You have thus failed to really address that point and there is plenty of evidence available to back up my claim.  The issue, as usual, is not that the scripture does not specifically claim a Trinity, but how much implication of this relationship someone has to ignore to conclude that no such thing exists.  But, as I said, that always seems to be the rub between you and I... you seem utterly convinced, for whatever reason, that if the Bible does not hit you in the face with a point then there is nothing there... at least so far as teachings that you don't agree with are concerned.

[12th Doctor]

Well, as anyone can see here, and in case you didn't already know, the idea that there is actually a single concept "Christianity" is a total myth.

are you going to answer the queston as to which part of the Trinity lived in the body of Jesus Christ?

The Trinity is not subdivided by essence.  As I said, clearly the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God... no "s".  They are one and the same in being.  But, it is also clear, from the scriptures, that there are separate personhoods.  You have thus failed to really address that point and there is plenty of evidence available to back up my claim.  The issue, as usual, is not that the scripture does not specifically claim a Trinity, but how much implication of this relationship someone has to ignore to conclude that no such thing exists.  But, as I said, that always seems to be the rub between you and I... you seem utterly convinced, for whatever reason, that if the Bible does not hit you in the face with a point then there is nothing there... at least so far as teachings that you don't agree with are concerned.

if you are so right and I am so blind, then why can't you answer the queston as to which part of the Trinity (or which person or persons) lived in the body of Jesus Christ?

I answered your question.  All and one.  That is the answer.

You believe that Jesus was the "Son of Man," yes?

[12th Doctor]

I've grown impatient waiting for a response (nothing personal, just stating a fact) so I'm just gonna get to my point which is that the Son of Man is clearly identified as being in some way separate from God the Father, but must necessarily be one with the Father.

Daniel 7:

13
    As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him,
14
    He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language worship him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.



In Matthew 26:

 64 "You have said so," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

-------------------

Only God can be "worshiped" and yet the Son of Man is clearly separate in some way from the Father, because he sits at the side of the Father, and not as the Father.

[12th Doctor]

Only God can be "worshiped" and yet the Son of Man is clearly separate in some way from the Father, because he sits at the side of the Father, and not as the Father.

I've been chewing on this for a couple of minutes...

Eph 4:10 "He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe."

Since Jesus Christ became omnipresent when he ascended back into Heaven...and if Jesus is literally sitting at the right hand of the Father, who is also omnipresent...

How does one omnipresent person sit at the right hand of another omnipresent person?

It is clearly metaphorical, but that's not the point.  The point is that Jesus is clearly demonstrating separation with the Father in this passage.  And you can't claim that Jesus was being imprecise with his usage of metaphor here, because I seem to recall Christ have quite an amazing knack for that sort of thing.

[12th Doctor]

To be honest with you, I called in an airstrike from Bono for two reasons:

1) I don't have internet access at my home for the next week or so... can't afford the payment until the end fo the month.

2) This particular thing isn't really my area.

He has yet to respond.

[12th Doctor]

Not that I don't know enough to keep the fight going, but I pretty much used up what I have, and would basically just be repeating myself.  He is better with the deep theology in this particular area.

He studied Augustine... I studied Aquinas.

[12th Doctor]

The point that we, the Trinitarians, are making is that they are all the same "God," but in different personifications.  This does not preclude the "oneness" of God.  As you pointed out, that is self-evident.  But it does acknowledge three persons in this arrangement.  Three persons as one; separate, but of the same essence.  Ironically, the classic tale of St. Patrick and the shamrock, while an interesting teaching device, fails to capture the idea, since the three leaves are of separate essences.  The Trinity is not.  The Trinity is one, and whole, but at the same time separate.

As Bono points out, your passages fail to address the real issue, as you assume that we are saying that there are three "gods".  We are not.  One God, three persons, and not just three manifestations, or else the scriptures would not contain all the passages that we presented, which show a clear division.

[12th Doctor]

The point that we, the Trinitarians, are making is that they are all the same "God," but in different personifications.  This does not preclude the "oneness" of God.  As you pointed out, that is self-evident.  But it does acknowledge three persons in this arrangement.  Three persons as one separate, but of the same essence.  Ironically, the classic tale of St. Patrick and the shamrock, while an interesting teaching device, fails to capture the idea, since the three leaves are of separate essences.  The Trinity is not.  The Trinity is one, and whole, but at the same time separate.

As Bono points out, your passages fail to address the real issue, as you assume that we are saying that there are three "gods".  We are not.  One God, three persons, and not just three manifestations, or else the scriptures would not contain all the passages that we presented, which show a clear division.

if there are really three persons and not simply three manifestations of a single person, then what you have is a God that is a conglomeration of entities instead of a single entity.

in other words, we are obviously saying two separate things, but do you agree that my viewpoint is more monotheistic than yours (for certainly one person is more singular than three persons), and if so, then how could yours be monotheistic at all?

No, I do not agree that your view point is more monotheistic than mine, because you once again presume that we profess that the three beings are, at their core, separate entities.  We do not.  They are one; connected in a mystical way through a single essence.

If there aren't separate personages, then why have the Son at all?  Why was "the Word with God"?  Why not simply say that the word "was God" and leave it at that?  Why spend any time at all discussing the separate ideas?  To simply say that there are different manifestations doesn't cover it, because it presumes that there is this running narrative across all the scriptures that simply is not there.

This is where you tend to piss me off.  I contend that the scripture is generally very clear in its meaning, if you look at the entire thing, and if there is any confusion from us looking at it, it is because there is something missing in our context.  I also contend that their are narratives that you can extrapolate the general idea from, even if you have to look past the specific details that are context specific.  This is how I maintain the contention of consistency.

On the other hand, you often times pull ideas out of even their neighboring context in the scripture, present them as having meaning by themselves, without an understanding of the whole, and then slap an idea to it and claim that, simply by connecting a couple of short passages, you can extrapolate a narrative.  When people present evidence that disagrees with your argument, you say that the scripture somehow intended to be misleading, and can only be made sense of by someone who has the same mystical understanding that you do.  You then turn around and mock my way of doing things as the product of my supposedly lemming-like devotion to whatever the Catholic Church says and mock the some 2000 years of study that have gone into these issues as the mere product of "tradition" that is to be disregarded for what you call truth.

I am not angry, or attacking you, but that's exactly what it is like arguing with you.

[12th Doctor]

This is also why there are certain issues that I openly admit that I am not an expert on.  Because I don't have time to sit around and study all biblical ideas within their proper context, and refuse to cobble together a weak argument consisting of a handful of verses and try to pass it off as Truth.

[12th Doctor]

My point being that you seem to have a two verse answer for everything, and that's fine, whatever, but I don't think that does any problem, no matter how large or small, any justice.