At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
hope that helps
This might help as well: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
God is dead xD BECAUSE HE IS NOT REAL!!!!
@PuppyLover784 God's not dead because he was resurrected and God is real because he is alive
so I would say please read the book The Forgotten Trinity by james R white when I studied this it helped me so much on the trinity. It goes threw the Greek Hebrew and Arabic parts of the bible and explains parts of scripture and why it is very clear about the Divinity of Christ. please don't take my word for it the bible says study for find thy self approved.
The trinity is very complicated, but can also be very simple. Think of water, It can be in three forms, frozen, liquid, and gas ( also known as steam or vapor) Now these all look different, but are all the same chemically. Apply this to thinking about the trinity, there is God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are all the same entity, but in different forms
Gotta say I don't believe in Jesus or the Holy Ghost but this is a fascinating conversation. Thanks.
He can't and it's okay. The Trinity is not a true doctrine, so there is no need to conform to it. You cannot believe in both the True and Literal resurrection of Jesus Christ (which is true) and the Trinity. These two doctrines are at odds with each other.
Oooh it's more complex that that, but Jesus is God! :)
@PuppyLover784 Prove that god does not exist! What proof do you have?
This is not a matter of proof. There are more ways to learn, besides the Scientific Method. We can prove neither the existence not nonexistence with this sort of evidence requirement. We know that "all things denote there is a God". Not everyone believes this.
Well, sir, there are many passages that show the God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is God. I'll give you these passages along with the parallels. Proof that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit: Revelation 19:13-16 compare with 1 Timothy 6:13-16 John 1:1, 14, 18 compare with John 3:6 (the idea that Spirit gives birth to spirit) John 6:45-46 compare with Isaiah 54:13 John 10:29-30 Matthew 1:22-23 Proof that the Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4 Now, this is biblical proof. Anyone who does not believe in God, I wish I could help you. I could tell you about all the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, and the archaeology and historical accounts that back up the Bible, but if your heart is hard, it's not worth it. Please read with an open mind.
John 1:14 is contrary to the view you have stated. John 1:18 is contrary to the view you have stated. John 5:45-46 is contrary to the view you have stated. Mary isn't a spirit. John 10:23-30 is contrary to the view you have stated. Matthew 1:22-23 is contrary to the view you have stated. Mary isn't a spirit. Acts 5:3-4 Doesn't mean that. I do not state these things to argue. I respond ONLY to suggest that interpretations differ from one person to another, or one scholar to another. It probably depends most on what doctrine prevailed in the home where you were reared. Second would be the result of personal study with whatever group seemed favorable to some version of what you already believed. It remains factual that the idea of the Trinity did not exist for another couple centuries after the writing of the youngest text included in the Bible. You can say it is Biblical, but the scholars who created the doctrine would disagree with you. There are scriptures that sort of hint at some of it, but the Trinity is NOT a biblical doctrine. This is why we should not trust the interpretation of scripture to ANYONE, save those who are authorized to interpret scripture - not scholars, not wisemen, not pastors, vicars, or any other who is simply a church leader. The interpretation of scripture is for God alone, through His prophets - as it has always been. Amos 3:7 Through various methods as Peter learned, Matthew 16:17
Whoah, I'm not stating that Mary is a spirit. Christ was conceived through the Holy Spirit. So since the Holy Spirit conceived Christ, and Spirit gives birth to spirit, then that helps support my case. Acts 5:3-4 is not the only place that references the Holy Spirit is God, I just can't remember the scripture verse that shows that. I'm working on that. First, to address John 1:14: Christ is the Word, and the Word is God. So the Word became flesh. The idea of the Trinity is not that they are all exclusively just one, but that they are separate and one. So in some sense, as Christ walked the earth, He was separate from God, but He is God incarnate. Though, with our human understanding, we cannot understand this fully. Second, John 1:18: Here it states that Christ is himself God. Now what is meant here is not that no one has seen God, because that's not true. Moses has seen God. The Hebraic understanding is seeing God fully. Meaning, His glory, which no one has seen. Now, many people can begin to come against that, which is fine, but I find this verse to be more supportive to my case. Third, John 10:23-30: You are using the same passage, kind of, that supports my case. When Adam and Eve were together, God made them one flesh. They are separate, but they are one. This is the same for this passage. Christ and God are separate in some way, but yet they are one in the same. Fourth, Acts 5:3-4: Peter specifically states that the Holy Spirit is God. There is no hidden meaning there. Annanias lied to the Holy Spirit, he did not lie to man, but to God. That is what that passage means. It means that the Holy Spirit is God. They all come from God, both Christ and the Holy Spirit. You seem to have suggested that Trinity was not a doctrine in the Bible, but the scriptures say otherwise. There could be an explanation. The idea of the Trinity was probably not conceived at the time because of the fact that Christ was in the world. Now I am referencing the Gospels, the period of Christ's life. Yes, I understand that it was published afterwards, but the time frame in which these accounts are held would show that they would not understand the Trinity because no one knew that Christ was God. John is the Gospel to read if you want to better understand Trinity. The concept may be in fact true. Trinity probably exists. Christianity is not a polytheistic religion, it is monotheistic. To change from it's monotheism is a direct violation of the commandments.
So, now you're saying Mary had nothing to do with it. You'll have to make up your mind, rather than just chopping off the piece that meets your criteria.
No no no, Mary is the mother of Christ, but from a Hebraic standpoint, it is the father that is more important. The Holy Spirit conceived Christ through Mary. Since God is the Father, He has a Son, which is Christ, but Christ is Him. It's all really confusing sometimes, but it's better to have faith rather than not.
This is not confusing. You said "Spirit begets Spirit." Jesus was beget by God and by Mary. How, exactly? I have no idea. Whatever "conceived of the Spirit" means. Calling one more or less important, makes no difference. There were still two parents involved in the begetting. Mary wasn't a spirit. No, the scriptures do not give the doctrine of the Trinity. It is demonstrably, historical that the doctrine was invented via compromise of collected scholars and theologians a couple centuries later. There is nothing to argue, here. The scriptures, whatever translation you are using, can be used to justify some sort of idea that might be construed as the Trinity, but this is just an old sectarian notion, and is false. It is also entirely lacking support that the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical because the Bible does teach, without much confusion, that Jesus was truly and literally resurrected. The DEFINITION of resurrection, the reuniting of the Spirit and the Body, inseparably joined for eternity, is entirely contrary. You cannot believe int eh true and literal resurrection AND the Trinity. You, clearly, have chose the Trinity. You are welcome to choose that and try to find scriptures that support it. The Trinity is NOT a Biblical doctrine. The creators of the doctrine WILL argue with you. The invented it through compromise and they know it. That's why they wrote the confusing creeds, so it could be repeated over and over and someone would eventually start believing it.
there are 3 the Father, the Son, and Holy spirit
We have our Flesh, Soul and spirit :)
Jesus - Son of God, Son of Man, Rock of Ages, The Word, etc. Definitely he's a part of the Trinity.
If there is a Trinity, which there isn't, since scholars and religionists invented the doctrine. Thus, it's okay if no one is actually a member of the "Trinity". Read John 17 very carefully. You will see how separate and together they are. They are "One", but they are not confused in person.
Trinity does not mean that they are fused in one person. They are separated. Because if they are confused, then when Jesus came to earth, then there is no God in heaven at that time, which is definite false. This is how I understand the Trinity (some call it "Trionity") For me God is only one character but have 3 personalities..
You didn't read John 17, did you? It doesn't matter how you understand the Trinity. It is the invention of scholars, not a true doctrine. Many have used many arguments to explain it. This is of no consequence.
I read it. In John 17, it is an illustration that they are really one. Are the doctrines enumerated in the bible? Doctrines are made from what is written in the bible.. The word "trinity" is not found in the bible. The word trinity was made to explain to us clearer the revealed state of God. Actually I do not want to term it as "Trinity" --- Our fundamental Beliefs was updated and used the term "The Godhead" (It was trinity before) to avoid issues about the trinity of Babylon.
Therefore doctrines are basically made by human. @tkhunny , I want to share you about the Godhead or what you call "trinity" There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. I've attached a file about that thing. God bless
that file focuses on God. Don't worry it is packed with a lot of verses. @tkhunny
Going back to the main question, of @imammalik_806. If Jesus is God how could he be the son of God and the trinity? That can be separated into two questions: 1. If Jesus is God how could he be the son of God? 2.If Jesus is God how could he be the trinity? I'll answer the second one first. Simply, Jesus is not the trinity (Godhead), he's a part of it. Answer to the first question: Jesus is God and is the Son of God because the Godhead is composed of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Some evidence of Jesus being God the Son: Matthew 3:16,17 ; John 10:30 ......
@tkhunny you have your flesh,soul and spirit and you are "one" ^_^
You cannot get that they are one, coeternal, and not separated out of John 17. They are "One" like the Apostles are "One". One body of men working together. At least, that is the hope for the apostles. They are "One" like the Church is "One". One body of Saints working together. At least, that is the hope for the Church. Yes, many doctrines do come from man, especially those that are openly admitted, like the Trinity of Christianity. In my opinion, the Christian doctrine of the trinity came about mostly due to the horror and travesty of being accused of being polytheists. There can't actually be THREE or they are polytheists like the Greeks and Romans. Frankly, I think it's okay to believe in the 1) One true God, the Father of us all, 2) Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten in the Flesh, Our Savior and Redeemer who did all that the Father asked of Him, and 3) The Holy Spirit, who influences us to knowledge through spiritual communication. That simply does not make me an evil polytheist. There is only one true God and the other two members of the Godhead are one in purpose. There is no confusing the persons. At all times, we have the law of witnesses. The Jews mistakenly believed that only one witness made things false, but this is incorrect. The real law of witnesses is by the witness of TWO the truth is established, thus 1) Son and Holy Spirit bear witness of the Father, 2) Father and Holy Spirit bear witness of the Son, and 3) Father and Son bear witness of the Holy Ghost. In this way, and only in this way - it is a minimal configuration - we establish the truth of all things. Otherwise, there is no truth.
Well, Mary begot the fleshly part of Christ, while God begot the Spirit. I never said Christ was only spirit. He is both. There are probably many doctrines in the Bible that were not considered doctrine until further investigated by other parties. I'm not saying that Trinity is exclusively biblical, but I am saying that I want to keep an open mind to the possibility that there are other ways to explain such things. Yes, Christ did commit His spirit unto God. How can this be explained? Well, the fleshly part of Him died, and His blood was spilled. That doesn't mean His spirit died too. So I don't see a contradiction here. Could you further explain what you mean?
Typical Experience 1) Birth ==> Mortality - Joining together Mortal Body and Eternal Spirit - This is temporary. We come to this Earth to get this body and to learn how to use it properly (as God instructs us). 2) Mortality - What is our purpose, here? Learn to use these bodies correctly, as specified by their Creator. To form families. Remember, Adam and Eve were married by God BEFORE they were mortal. Marriage is not intended to end at Death. It was instituted before human Death on this planet. 3) Mortality ==> Death - Separation of Mortal Body and Eternal Spirit - This is temporary. It WAS permanent until Jesus overcame Death. 4) Resurrection ==> Immortality - Joining together the Immortal, Perfected Body and Eternal Spirit - This is permanent. Jesus' Experience 3) His Spirit was committed to His Father. 4) Then He overcame death and was resurrected. There are witnesses enough for this phenomenon. This means, He has His body and since he has ONLY followed His Father, His Father must also have a body, glorified and perfected - permanently joined for all eternity. Since They both have glorified and perfected bodies, there cannot be any confusion of persons. No mysticism about taking different shapes or having different presentations. God is God. Jesus is the Son. What is confusing is that Jesus is also called "The Father" for various reasons. He created the Earth, under the direction of the Father. He might, therefore, be called the Father of the Earth. We are made to be His sons and daughters when we join His church. He might, therefore, be called to Father of the church. Trinity vs. Resurrection? You cannot have both.
You can. You are trying to assume that I am saying both are just one, but I'm saying that both are one and separate. That's the ideology behind the Trinity.
Right. And "one and separate" makes no sense.
To a human, it makes no sense. Godlike thinking is very hard to wrap around.
Why do you think you understand it? Earthly fact: It isn't biblical. THAT I understand - since the doctrine was created by men.
Could it be possible that originally it was doctrine of God, but since people could not understand it, or even you could blame the Catholic Church, could it be possible that man decided to make it clear as to what the Trinity is and taking the credit for making such a claim? Why would they explain Trinity, if the Bible does not support it?
That's a good theory. Actually follows, logically. But, no. The writers of the doctrine never made such a claim. The authors of the the Doctrine of the Trinity were trying to define God and did so through compromise and academic survey. They claimed no prophetic influence. In my personal opinion, as mentioned above, was that there was significant effort to avoid being called polytheists. Thus, no matter what else they thought, there had to be only one. Since God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit working so closely together already constitutes "One", even though they are three separate and unique individuals, does not cause one to be a polytheist, the Trinity was not Necessary. The authors obviously don't agree with me - along with many other trinitarians of our day.
1 John 5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." John 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, Show us the Father?"
1 Timothy 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."
One Lord, one faith, one baptism!! c: Ephesians 4:5
Those are wonderful scriptures. It remains unavoidable that no one taught the doctrine of the trinity until a couple centuries later than any of those scriptures. The retroactive application to any translation of the Bible is merely self-serving. Since you brought it up, how's the Christian world doing on that "one baptism" thing? Some teach baptism entirely unnecessary.
Well of course there are different view points on baptism in the Christian atmosphere, since there are many different Christian beliefs. But on my beliefs, baptism IS indeed necessary! The Bible has MANY scriptures on baptism c: Some are: Mark 16:16 - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Acts 2:38 - "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." scripture following up to : Acts 19:5 - "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." There are all from the KJV Bible because the other versions are not quiet as accurate as the KJV. One version that is really silly in their scriptures is the NKJV, I believe. I know they had a scripture that was talking about "as a squishy marshmallow" lol.
I know that some churches baptize in the Father, the Son, and the Holy. They get that from the scripture in Matthew 28:19, but they don't read the scripture carefully. Matthew 28:19 - " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" Notice how the scripture doesn't say "names", it only says "name". It's singular! Meaning, there should be only one name for all these three names combined, because these three are one. c: Who is the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost? It's Jesus of course! :) Jesus is God manifested in flesh (in the scripture I stated before). There are many scriptures about being baptized in the name of Jesus. For many, it is hard to understand. Acts 2:38, Acts 10: 48, Acts 19:5, etc.... Acts 4:12 - "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
"The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost, are only titles, not names :)
And it still doesn't jive with the known, written history. It is a common English shorthand. "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" = "name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost:" I wonder how it read in Greek or Aramaic. It is a funny thing, that many Bible-believing individuals insist that doctrine come directly from the Bible, but only when it is convenient. One author argues that we should NOT baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost because the disciples never did. What? It isn't written that they did, but it is NOT written that they never did. This is an unfortunate and common fallacy.
Mhm, there is not a single scripture in the Bible that shows the disciples being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. You see them being baptized in the name of Jesus. God gave us enough scripture for us to read and make it to heaven. (: God knows exactly what he is doing. He is omniscient after all.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Here's my issue, and I'm sorry for the late response. I think, that possibly, the identity of God was blurred. The Trinitarian doctrine was not taught in the Old Testament because people understood who God was. He is the I Am, or Jehovah, which in Hebrew would be transliterated to Yahuwah. People knew this. But as Babylonian and Greek mythology came into the picture, the identity of God was thrown into a mix, and I think that people caught this. Especially when Christ came to the Earth, that to explain such a thing was important. I don't think that the authors of the scriptures used the term "Trinity" or else, we would see them do so. The authors of the doctrine may be trying to bring back the identity of God, who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.