What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity?

[Christ4Ever]

I'll lay out what I believe. In the beginning there was the Father alone. Before anything was made, the Father begat a Son. The Son created all that exists at the Father's command. The Father and the Son have been working since the creation in the world. The Holy Wind/Breath/Spirt is not a third person but rather is the Father's manifestation at times in the world. So, I only see two persons, the Father and the Son.

The Father begat the Son so the Son was of the same essence/nature as the Father. The Son emptied Himself of that essence and took on the essence or nature of man.

Better take it up with God then!

[Isa 44:6 NKJV] 6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I [am] the First and I [am] the Last; Besides Me [there is] no God.

[Rev 1:8 NKJV] 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, [the] Beginning and [the] End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

 

[Butch5]

Better take it up with God then!

[Isa 44:6 NKJV] 6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I [am] the First and I [am] the Last; Besides Me [there is] no God.

[Rev 1:8 NKJV] 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, [the] Beginning and [the] End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

There's no issue here.

But, don't forget.

14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, adwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be dhonour and power everlasting. Amen.
1 Ti 6:14–16.

Paul said when Jesus returns He will show who is the "only" potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords. This is the one no man has seen nor can see. How do we reconcile this statement with the two you posted?

 

[Christ4Ever]

There's no issue here

But in accordance with what you said:

"I'll lay out what I believe. In the beginning there was the Father alone."

All I did was present 2 scripture verses, OT & NT, that speaks for itself, and goes without saying does not agree with your statement above. Which I repeat:

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I [am] the First and I [am] the Last; Besides Me [there is] no God. Isaiah 44:6 NKJV

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, [the] Beginning and [the] End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:8 NKJV

This why I said your argument is with God, irrespective of what I say, or what you believe, for clearly what you said and what God said do not agree. Also, discussing it with others here on Talk Jesus, won't get you any closer to getting to the truth of the matter. At least in a way that is acceptable to all of Scripture.

Paul said when Jesus returns He will show who is the "only" potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords. This is the one no man has seen nor can see. How do we reconcile this statement with the two you posted?

The issue as I see it is that you are stuck on not the Son of God's pre-begotten existence, and His being "begotten" in the Earthly Form of Jesus by His earthly birth as being two separate beings as being the only way of explaining the above. When you understand, that you will know in part that "No Man has seen the Father". As you have said before, "The Son emptied Himself of that essence and took on the essence or nature of man." And I will finish the thought you made that should have been continued "but He did not stop being the Eternal Son of God in order to be Jesus the Son of Man".

[Jhn 1:1-3 NKJV] 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (pre-existence)

[Rev 19:13 NKJV] 13 He [was] clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (post begotten)

[Jhn 17:5 NKJV] 5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (eternal joining of both)

Note: I was going to put John 17:5 before the Revelation 19:13 but thought better of it.

Reconciled?

Side note: If you answer, which I am sure you will, it may take me a bit to reply. I have a PT appointment for the surgery I had 3 weeks ago.
Lord willing she won't make me cry too much as she puts me through the paces! lol

With the Love of Christ Jesus Brother.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Butch5]

That is why we will have eternal life! To get to know God!

Here's the another part that I believe goes hand in hand with what I shared before as it pertains to the Trinity, which I hope you will enjoy perusing.

With the Love of Christ Jesus brother!
Nick
\o/
<><
---------------------------

Nick,

Can you not see the multitude of errors in this? The name is great, because you'd have to be slick to pull this one off.

What is the Trinity?
by Matt Slick | Nov 24, 2008 | Doctrine and Theology, Christian Theology

What is the Trinity? The word “trinity” is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct, simultaneous persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other in relation (Economic Trinity), yet each is identical in essence (Ontological Trinity). The Trinity is not comprised of parts – as in the three persons being three parts of God. Instead, there is one being: God. We call this Divine Simplicity. God is one thing, one substance, one essence. Therefore, because there is only one God, there is only one will. Yet, from Scripture, we perceive the Trinity as three, simultaneous, and distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Note above, he says there is one being: God. Keep that in mind as we go. Remember what I said about people saying God is a "he" and then saying that this single being that is called He consists of three persons? Here it is right here. It doesn't matter what kind of linguistical gymnastics people play. Three persons cannot be one single being. It defies everything in the known creation.

“…the persons are identical in all things except their eternal relations of origin (personal properties): paternity, filiation, spiration. These and these alone distinguish the persons.”1

To expand on the above quote, the Father (as He is called in Scripture) is in a paternal relation to the only begotten Son (as Jesus is called in Scripture, John 1:18; 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds (spiration) from the Father and the Son (John 15:26; Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1:19).2

Each of the three persons is fully divine in nature, but each is not different than the other persons in essence. We find in Scripture (See the Trinity Chart), that each has a will, loves, and says “I” and “You” when speaking. The Father is not the same person as the Son, who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, and who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods but one God. There are three individual subsistences or persons. The word “subsistence” means something that has a real existence. The word “person” denotes individuality and self-awareness. Though there is only one God, He reveals Himself to us in three simultaneous and distinct persons.

Each is fully divine or God. So we have three conscious beings that are fully divine and yet they are one fully divine being? How does that make sense? But, it gets even more interesting. Though there is only one God, He reveals Himself in three simultaneous distinct persons. OK, let's analyze this. We have a distinct being, the Father, a distinct being the Son, a distinct being the Holy Spirit, and we have a distinct God who is revealing Himself as these other three distinct beings. So, now we have 4 and not three. Remember, He said God is a being. We have one being revealing Himself as three other beings.

“…every act [in the Trinity] occurs in accordance with his simple essence. No matter which person we are referring to, they all have the one will in common just as they all have the one essence in common…On the other hand, the one, inseparable essence and will has three modes of subsistence: the Father as unbegotten, the Son as begotten, and the Spirit as spirated…the divine essence has three modes of subsistence, each person a subsistence of the one, simple essence.”3

Here he says there is one will. Above he said each has their own will.

Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8). Therefore, we must note that the doctrine of the Trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim. Trinitarianism is monotheistic.

This is just flat out not true. That any thinking person would make this statement is mind numbing. This is why I don't pay attention to these guys. If there are three distinct conscious beings who are fully God you have three Gods. It doesn't matter if they're of the same essence or not, They are distinct Gods. That is polytheism. No matter what kind of linguistic gymnastics people use to try to get around it, Trinitarianism is polytheism.

The Trinity

God is three persons.
Each person is divine.
There is only one God.

Many theologians admit that the term “person” is not a perfect word to describe the three individual persons found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God, there are not three entities nor three beings. God is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.

Entities, beings, and persons are all interchangeable words. This is nothing more than a word game.

Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.
Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.
Each of the three persons is related to the other two but are distinct from them.
Each of the three persons interdwells the other two (perichoresis) since they are all the one substance.

How is each totally divine and yet not the totality of the Godhead? Without one of them is the Godhead incomplete? If so, how then is each of them totally divine?

The word “trinity” is not found in the Bible, but this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word “monotheism” is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway when describing what the Scriptures teach in Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5. Likewise, the words “omniscience,” which means “all-knowing,” “omnipotence,” which means “all-powerful,” and “omnipresence,” which means “present everywhere” are not found in the Bible either; but we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn’t true because the word isn’t in the Bible is an invalid argument.

agreed. It's a bad argument.

Is there subordination in the Trinity?

There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity regarding order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).

This subordination of order does not mean that each of the members of the Godhead are not equal or divine. For example, we see that the Father sent the Son, but this does not mean that the Son is not equal to the Father in essence and divine nature. The Son is equal to the Father in his divinity but inferior in his humanity. A wife is to be subject to her husband; but this does not negate her humanity, essence, or equality. By further analogy, a king and his servant both share human nature. Yet, the king sends the servant to do his will. Jesus said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me,” (John 6:38). Of course, Jesus already is King; but the analogy shows that because someone is sent, it doesn’t mean they are different from the one who sent him.

agreed

Critics of the Trinity will see this subordination as proof that the Trinity is false. They reason that if Jesus were truly God, then He would be completely equal to God the Father in all areas and would not, therefore, be subordinate to the Father in any way. But this objection is not logical. The Son is subordinate in position – having been sent, and being made under the Law (Gal. 4:4). If we look at the analogy of the king and the servant, we certainly would not say that the servant was not human because he was sent. Being sent does not negate sameness in essence. Therefore, the fact that the Son is sent does not mean that He is not divine any more than when my wife sends me to get bread, it means that I am not human.

agreed

Is the Trinity confusing?

Another important point about the Trinity is that it can be a difficult concept to grasp, but this does not necessitate an argument against its validity. On the contrary, the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth. The Bible is the self-revelation of an infinite God. Therefore, we are bound to encounter concepts which are difficult to understand – especially when dealing with an incomprehensible God who exists in all places at all times. So, when we view descriptions and attributes of God manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that a completely comprehensible and understandable explanation of God’s essence and nature is not possible. What we have done, however, is derived from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity.

Sure, some things are difficult to understand. However, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about something that cannot be understood because it logically contradicts itself. It's not a matter of trying to study to understand. One could study this for eternity and would not be able to understand it. It's simply impossible. Again, if the Bible stated plainly that there is one being called God and He revealed Himself as three distinct persons, I'd jump on board whether I could understand it or not. However, the Bible say no such thing. The Bible clearly states the opposite. It says there is one God the Father. There is only one true God. There is only one potentate. One King of kings and Lord of lord. God says He is God and there is no other God beside Him. These are all spoken of the Father. There is nothing about a three in one God. The writer even admits that it's not there. He says, "What we have done, however, is derived from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity." I would submit that people have done a horrendous job of combining those, what he calls "truths". They have combined them in such a way as to make the Scriptures and the doctrine completely illogical and not understandable. That's the reason this discussion exists is because they've done such a horrendous job.

Instead of trying to explain the unexplainable, why don't we take those same "truths" and reconsider them and see if we can come to an understanding that makes sense? What he's written here is nothing more than the Athanasian Creed.

It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God’s word to their own reasoning and end in error. Nevertheless, the following verses are often used to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical:
Matt. 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
1 Cor. 12:4-6, “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.”
2 Cor. 13:14, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”
Eph. 4:4-7, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.”
1 Pet. 1:2, “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.”
Jude 20-21, “But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.”

Ah, and when the argument fails, compare your opponent to the cults. Ad Hominem. The Athanasian creed does it a little differently.

"Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things, it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally."

If you don't believe what we say you can't be saved. it's a smoke screen some people don't challenge what was said.

These passages don't' support the Trinty. People see the Trinity in them because they already believe the doctrine.

How do you accept this?

 

[Butch5]

But in accordance with what you said:

"I'll lay out what I believe. In the beginning there was the Father alone."

All I did was present 2 scripture verses, OT & NT, that speaks for itself, and goes without saying does not agree with your statement above. Which I repeat:

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I [am] the First and I [am] the Last; Besides Me [there is] no God. Isaiah 44:6 NKJV

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, [the] Beginning and [the] End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:8 NKJV

This why I said your argument is with God, irrespective of what I say, or what you believe, for clearly what you said and what God said do not agree. Also, discussing it with others here on Talk Jesus, won't get you any closer to getting to the truth of the matter. At least in a way that is acceptable to all of Scripture.

On the contrary. The way I understand it fits with all of Scripture.

These passages are easy reconciled when we look at the role of the Son. Jesus is the Father's agent in creation. The Father speaks and the Son carries out the command. In the Beginning God said let there be light. God the Father spoke the words. His Son created the light. Jesus said the words I speak are not mine they are the Father's.

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Jn 14:10.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
Jn 14:24.

The words Jesus spoke where those of the Father. John said no man has seen God as any time. The only begotten Son has made Him known.

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Jn 1:18.

That means that everywhere in the Bible that we see God interacting with man it was Jesus, not the Father. Jesus is the agent of the Father. Everything the Father want's done is done by the Son. People say yeah, but He's called God. Does that surprise us when He's acting as God's agent? We'd expect Him to speak in the first person because He's God's agent. God said,

20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries
Ex 23:20–22.

This messenger that God would send, it is Christ. Notice, God says, "My name is in Him." God's name is on this one that He sent. Do we see this in Scripture? Yes, we do. This is the event of Sodom and Gomorrah.

23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. 24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
Ge 19:23–25.

Both instances of the word LORD are Yahweh. There is one Yahweh on earth and one in heaven. We have two Yahwehs and one of them is the Son of God that spoke with Abraham. Yet here He is called God. Thus God's name is in Him. He can be called God because He is God (the Father's) agent and God has put His name on Him. So, all through the Old Testament, when God speaks, it's the Son speaking in the first person for God the Father. So when Isaiah speaks of the first and the last, it's Christ speaking for the Father. the book of Revelation was written after Christ resurrected. At that point He had been given all authority. So, He became the first and the last. When Paul is speaking 1 Tim 6 and says that the Father is the only potentate, he's speaking of the ultimate authority. Remember, Paul knows how it plays out. He explained that in 1 Cor. 15. The Son turns the kingdom and His authority back over to the Father.

So, there's no issue reconciling these passages in a way that makes perfect sense. Why would we choose an impossibility?

The issue as I see it is that you are stuck on not the Son of God's pre-begotten existence, and His being "begotten" in the Earthly Form of Jesus by His earthly birth as being two separate beings as being the only way of explaining the above. When you understand, that you will know in part that "No Man has seen the Father". As you have said before, "The Son emptied Himself of that essence and took on the essence or nature of man." And I will finish the thought you made that should have been continued "but He did not stop being the Eternal Son of God in order to be Jesus the Son of Man".

[Jhn 1:1-3 NKJV] 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (pre-existence)

[Rev 19:13 NKJV] 13 He [was] clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (post begotten)

[Jhn 17:5 NKJV] 5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (eternal joining of both)

Note: I was going to put John 17:5 before the Revelation 19:13 but thought better of it.

Reconciled?

Side note: If you answer, which I am sure you will, it may take me a bit to reply. I have a PT appointment for the surgery I had 3 weeks ago.
Lord willing she won't make me cry too much as she puts me through the paces! lol

With the Love of Christ Jesus Brother.
Nick
\o/
<><

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. I don't deny the pre-existence of the Son. I do deny the eternal pre-existence of the Son. If He eternally pre-existed then He wasn't begotten of the Father. That's separate from His being begotten of Mary.

How do you conclude that John 17:5 speaks of eternal joining? It seems to me that one must come to the text with that idea . If Christ existed before "the world was" and He had glory at that time, that could be restored without Him having eternally pre-existed.

What in Scripture tells us that He is the eternal Son of God? Paul said He is the first born of creation. How is He the first born if He wasn't born?

I hope all goes well at your appointment.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity?​

Chuckle!!!! There isn't one, of course. My favorite FLAWED ANALOGY is a three dimensional "CUBE", given that God is well beyond the human capability to quantify.

The CUBE is defined by three dimensions: Width, Height, and Depth.

EVERY POINT in the cube is found in all three dimensions all the time.

What you see depends on which "side" of the cube you're looking AT, BUT ALL THE DIMENSIONS ARE THE SAME ALL THE TIME. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are always the same, and only differ in the specific Ministry that they perform.

The "Water" analogy (Solid/Liquid/Gas) is a good analogy for "Modal Monarchianism" which has God ducking into a phone booth and changing clothes to become different "Persons " at different times. However at John's baptism, all three "Persons" are present simultaneously.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Three persons cannot be one single being. It defies everything in the known creation.

Why not? Who says it has to coincide with creation? Especially when the three persons are not created beings!
That is why I shared the narrative of the Problem of One and the Many. How would I begin to explain God, my Creator? Worse than an ant attempting to explain the boot that steps on it.
So, I accept what I am guided to by the Holy Spirit, with the understanding He provides.

Man's pride that they must be able to comprehend the completeness of the Creator is astounding to say the least! Don't you know that is what Eternity is for? Yet, having even the time, the blessing of being in His presence, the devil shows there is no accounting for the level pride can take one except like most who say there is no God! ;( Sadly, it has become necessary to put God in a box of our own comprehension, while only needing a minute understanding that God is who He in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit says He is. Must I be able to explain "How this is possible" for it to be true? I am sure by your own logic you feel the same.

I would be the first to say I do not understand it fully, but I accept it, because my understanding doesn't come from me but from Scripture and what the Holy Spirit continues to show me in it. When the Holy Spirit shows you something, you don't go and say that makes no sense, and keep looking, but instead you say thank-you, and fit another puzzle piece to your understanding. I do not need to comprehend it to understand it brother.

Why would we choose an impossibility?

lol - Scripture is full of impossibilities, but according to who, man's reasoning? I am sure God does not see impossibilities only man does.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. I don't deny the pre-existence of the Son. I do deny the eternal pre-existence of the Son. If He eternally pre-existed then He wasn't begotten of the Father. That's separate from His being begotten of Mary.

How do you conclude that John 17:5 speaks of eternal joining? It seems to me that one must come to the text with that idea . If Christ existed before "the world was" and He had glory at that time, that could be restored without Him having eternally pre-existed.

What in Scripture tells us that He is the eternal Son of God? Paul said He is the first born of creation. How is He the first born if He wasn't born?

I hope all goes well at your appointment.

Because Jesus is both the Son of God, and the Son of Man.

The appointment went with it's usual amount of pain, and the hope of a better tomorrow.

I know I won't convince you of the Trinity, just like you can't convince me of...I really can't say what you believe.
However, when it is all said and done, I do hope you are Saved in Jesus Christ.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC (At least I hope so.)
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Charlie24]

No man has seen God at any time. Paul adds that not only has no man seen God, no man can see God.

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Jn 1:18.

14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, ythe King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, adwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be dhonour and power everlasting. Amen.
1 Ti 6:14–16.

Butch, I think you have much to learn, and I think you thrive on arguing.

Vs. 16 "dwelling in the light which no man can approach."

This is the "glory" of God that I mentioned in my other posts. No man can see it and live.

Now look how God let Moses see Him and protected Moses from that glory so he could live

Exodus 33:18-23

"And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

 

[KingJ]

I know I won't convince you of the Trinity, just like you can't convince me of...I really can't say what you believe.
However, when it is all said and done, I do hope you are Saved in Jesus Christ.

Hi, from discussion with @Butch5, I think its only this matter that we disagree on . He is definitely a well versed Christian who loves the Lord.

 

[Butch5]

Why not? Who says it has to coincide with creation? Especially when the three persons are not created beings!
That is why I shared the narrative of the Problem of One and the Many. How would I begin to explain God, my Creator? Worse than an ant attempting to explain the boot that steps on it.
So, I accept what I am guided to by the Holy Spirit, with the understanding He provides.

"How would I begin to explain God." Nick, you've been doing that through this whole discussion. Three persons one God. Let's stop and think this through. The argument is that we can"t understand God, yet, somehow we are certain beyond any doubt whatsoever that He is one God in three persons. Is there not a problem in there?

You asked why does it have to coincide with creation. Creation and God's written word are all we have to work with. With that framework is the "Law of Non contradiction". It's a law of logic. It states that two opposing things cannot both be true at the same time. That means a glass can't be both full and empty at the same time. That means that God can't be both one and three at the same time. That Law was created by God. Is it possible that there is something that God hasn't told us? Is there some other realm of reality? Maybe. But, if there is we don't know of it or have access to it. All we have is creation and the written Word. So, if we make a claim that cannot be established within the framework we have, we're simply speculating. Because we have no way to "prove" that God is three persons in one God in a way that is rational, the claim is irrational. Some one can make the claim all day, but it's still just an irrational claim, that is beyond proof. That makes it just speculation. However, people don't say well, "this is what I think," or "this is my opinion." No, it appears to me that people are more sure of this doctrine than the fact that they are alive. People argue that the fact of the Trinity doctrine is as certain as God Himself.

Man's pride that they must be able to comprehend the completeness of the Creator is astounding to say the least! Don't you know that is what Eternity is for? Yet, having even the time, the blessing of being in His presence, the devil shows there is no accounting for the level pride can take one except like most who say there is no God! ;( Sadly, it has become necessary to put God in a box of our own comprehension, while only needing a minute understanding that God is who He in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit says He is. Must I be able to explain "How this is possible" for it to be true? I am sure by your own logic you feel the same.

You undermine you're own argument here. You've been insisting that I am wrong when I say God is not a trinity or when I say the Father and the Spirit are one and the same, yet at the same time condemn the idea of comprehending God. How do you know, and claim, that I am wrong about something that cannot be understood? More to the point, why are you arguing for the Trinity doctrine if we cannot comprehend God?

I don't think pride is the issue here. Those who hold the Trinity position obviously claim to know God. The say He is a loving God, a just God, omnipotent, and omniscient and so on. I've sat in many church services where Trinitarians have described God. Why is it only when the belief doesn't align with reality that we see this idea that no one can understand God? How is it pride to read in Scripture,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ 1 Co 8:4–6.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Jn 17:3.

these two passages and conclude that there is only one God and that He is the Father. Paul states it explicitly and so does Jesus. How is it pride to read this and conclude that this doctrine of one God in three persons simply cannot be?

Actually, this is one part that bewilders me. We have here two explicit statements. One from Jesus and one from Paul. One from Jesus. Jesus! Jesus said the Father is the only true God. Jesus! The one everyone says is a person of the Trinity said the Father is the only true God. The one people are calling God, said there is only on true God, and it's someone else. it's not Him. He didn't say, that they may know me the only true God. He said the only true God was someone else. Here's where it collapses. If Jesus is God, why don't Christians believe Him when He says the Father is the only true God? This is where it all falls apart. If Jesus is God, I'm not talking about the same essence, but rather being, then Christians should believe Him. The problem is, if they believe Him, then they have to believe He's not God. They're caught in a catch 22. If they believe Jesus is God, then they should believe what He says. But, if they believe what He says they will believe that He's not God.

Since Trinitarians believe the Trinity doctrine, that begs the question? Do Christians believe God? Now, I'm going to venture to say that the vast majority of Trinitarians have probably never contemplated the doctrine down at this level. However, this is where it leads when you follow it to it's conclusion.

Now, I know many will simply scoff and reject what I said. However, those who are intellectually honest with themselves will have to sit and consider these things.

I would be the first to say I do not understand it fully, but I accept it, because my understanding doesn't come from me but from Scripture and what the Holy Spirit continues to show me in it. When the Holy Spirit shows you something, you don't go and say that makes no sense, and keep looking, but instead you say thank-you, and fit another puzzle piece to your understanding. I do not need to comprehend it to understand it brother.

That raises the question, how do you know it was the Holy Spirit? Look at all of the denominations out there. Most started with things that were supposedly given to people by the Holy Spirit. If Christians are all being given understanding of the Scriptures from the Holy Spirit, why don't we all agree? Using that argument, would it be safe to say that anyone who disagrees with you is not being taught by the Holy Spirit? What about other doctrines like, the Rapture, Eternal Security, Baptism, etc. If people disagree with you does that mean all of them are wrong? If so, why didn't the Holy Spirit teach them correctly? Or is it that they don't have the holy Spirit? If it's just that one doctrine of the Trinity that Holy Spirit taught you, how do you know it was the Spirit and not simply the way you learned the other doctrines.

Another question would be, why didn't He teach the apostles? Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had given them the full council of God. Jude told his readers to contend for the faith that was once handed down to the saints. According to these passages the faith was complete before Paul died and yet Paul never said a word about this Trinity that was one God in three persons. None of the apostles did. Neither did Jesus. Neither did the early Christians. Why is it that the Holy Spirit supposedly revealed this to some unknown Christians in the fifth century? Not only were they fifth century Christians, they were Christians who had stray pretty far from the original faith of Jesus and the apostles. If this is such an important Biblical doctrine don't we think that God would have established it in the Bible so that Christians 2000 years later would be able to nail down the fact that it's there? In the article by Matt Slick, he acknowledges that the doctrine isn't in the Scriptures. He said people have taken "truths" gleaned from Scripture and formed the doctrine. So, we know it's not in the Bible and we know that it's a man made doctrine. Why are we arguing it's a Biblical one? Also, in the Athanasian Creek it says if you don't believe it you can't be saved. If this is required in order to be saved, why didn't the apostles teach it? I often hear people speak of Christ's finished work on the Cross. How was the work finished if this doctrine is necessary for salvation? Jesus didn't teach it. How did Paul give the 'full council of God?' He didn't teach it. So, one may say, well, it's not necessary for salvation. Ok, fair enough. That remedies the problem of it not being taught by Jesus and the apostles. But, it raises another question. If belief in the Trinity doctrine isn't necessary for salvation,, why would we believe the Athanasian creed at all. After all, when they said that one must believe their creed to be saved, they were at best wrong and at worst lying. If they were lying why would we believe anything they say? If they were wrong, why wouldn't we investigate everything they said to validate it? A simple cursory reading shows that the creed is illogical. If they were wrong that's a pretty big error. After all, all they had to do was look at the Nicene Creed and they could see they were way off base with their creed. On the other hand, if they were lying to gain control over the illiterate masses there is no reason to accept the creed at any level. So, even at it's very best the creed is dubious.

lol - Scripture is full of impossibilities, but according to who, man's reasoning? I am sure God does not see impossibilities only man does.

Because Jesus is both the Son of God, and the Son of Man.

Scripture says He put off the form of God and became man.

The appointment went with it's usual amount of pain, and the hope of a better tomorrow.

I know I won't convince you of the Trinity, just like you can't convince me of...I really can't say what you believe.
However, when it is all said and done, I do hope you are Saved in Jesus Christ.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC (At least I hope so.)
Nick
\o/
<><

Hopefully tomorrow is better.

As I mentioned, I used to be a Trinitarian. I struggled just like everyone else to understand and explain it. However, once I began to entertain the idea that the doctrine may be wrong a whole lot of things began to become clear and suddenly many things that formerly didn't make sense, made sense. You mentioned above about comprehending God, When things that don't make sense being to make sense, it's that an indication that we are beginning to comprehend God?

 

[Butch5]

Hi, from discussion with @Butch5, I think its only this matter that we disagree on . He is definitely a well versed Christian who loves the Lord.

Thank you sir!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Three persons cannot be one single being. It defies everything in the known creation.

That's a fine, BRAVE, and meaningless pontification!!! of course you've fenced it with the words "KNOWN CREATION". The fact is that YOU DON'T KNOW SPIT about the entirety of God, or his way, or his nature. NOBODY DOES, but that doesn't stop folks from PRETENDING that they do, and generating theologies "Proving" the truth of their opinions.

BUT HEY!!! Believe whatever lights your fire. Good bye.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, I think you have much to learn, and I think you thrive on arguing.

It's not that I love arguing. It's that my heart breaks to see people who love the Lord believing things that simply are not God. That's why the whole Heavenly Destiny doctrine just eats me up. God has prepared this incredible, wonderful, future for Christians and most haven't even been taught about it. Instead they've been taught that their hope is that of Plato and the Greek philosophers. Imagine that you've planned this great birthday for you child. You gotten this great present, you spent an enormous amount of time preparing for the day, you're turning inside out with excitement to give them this birthday and gift and when the moment finally arrives, they say, I don't want that, I was hoping for this. It's a poor analogy, as many are, but it does make the point. We hear over and over and over and over.... Christians talking about going to Heaven and God says, but, I have this for you. Imagine spending your whole life aiming for a goal and when you finally get there, you find out it was the wrong goal. That's where we are with a lot of Christian doctrine. It's because, as Paul said,

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Ac 20:28–30.

Paul knew these men and he said that even among them, men of the church, some would rise up speaking perverse things. He knew the church would be under attack from without and within. Well, that 's happened. We see it all through church history. It started before the apostle John died.

Now here's something to contemplate, that I don't think many Christians do. We all believe that what we believe is correct. We often look to the Church and find comfort in that many others believe the same things. Since so many agree, our beliefs must be correct. However, what if, what if, something happened a thousand years ago that fundamentally transformed the faith? What if the faith changed? What if it changed drastically? How would we know? When we go to church on Sunday and Wednesday, are we taught church history? Do we know what happened back then? For all we know we could be believing something that was never preached by Jesus and the apostles. Sure, we can make the passage fit what we believe today. It's not like they overturned things. Mostly we see smaller changes that entered the faith and over time they become embedded and people just assume they've been there from the beginning. Christians 1000 years later don't know how those things got in there. Look at Protestantism, it was a drastic change from the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Reformers believed the Catholic Church was teaching false doctrine. Well, the Catholic Church had it's beginnings as the church of Rome that we find in Scripture. This is the church that Paul wrote to. Yet, we find 1500 years later it was a far cry from the church that Paul wrote to. How is that? It was that attack from without and within. People rising up and preaching perverse things.

This is addressed to everyone. I think most in here are Protestants, That means you believe the Reformers doctrines as opposed to those of the Catholic Church. Let me ask a question. Protestants have accepted many of the Reformation doctrines and rejected those Catholic doctrines. How do you know the Reformers are correct? But, a bigger question is, how do you know that there weren't more doctrines in the Catholic Church that were wrong, doctrines that Reformers never addressed?

You see, if we study church history we find an evolution. The faith has been changing right from the beginning. Many, if not most, Christians seem to think that the faith today is identical to what the apostle preached. It's far from it. In fact, sometimes I almost think we're dealing with two different belief systems. I'll give an example. Today Christians serve in the military, law enforcement, etc. The first Christian would not and were not allowed to. If a Christian joined the military they were excommunicated from the church. They wouldn't even use self defense. One early Christian said, 'in our religion, it is better to be slain than to slay.' When they became Christians they left worldly things. They stopped going to the plays, the theater, the games, etc. Do today's Christians stop going to movies when they get saved? The majority don't. Even though it's supporting an anti-God community. The women dressed modestly. It's nothing today to see a Christian woman running around in a thong on the beach.

So a lot has changed. That goes for doctrine also. Today many Christians believe in the doctrine of Eternal Security. The early Christians knew that doctrine as a heresy of the Gnostics. They fought it tooth and nail. Today many Christian claim that Baptism is simple an outward expression of an inward reality. The early Christians knew no such thing. To them it was the "baptism of regeneration." They understood that baptism was the point where one became a Christian and was accepted by God. The Pre-tribulation Rapture. The early Christians knew nothing of that.

So, many of these doctrines that we believe today, were not believed by the early Christians, and some were heresies. One has to wonder how, what was Heresy in the 1st century, is somehow orthodox in the 21st century. They persist because we still have the same Greek mindset in the West that we had back then. We keep perpetuating the same errors. The whole point in showing this is that we see that what we believe today often differs drastically from what was believed in the beginning. That begs the question, where did it come from, and more importantly, is it Biblical? It doesn't matter how many millions of people believe it. If it's not Biblical, it's not Biblical. People will ask, how could so many millions be wrong? Well, that goes back to the issue of evolution. Slow small changes get embedded and accepted and over time become orthodox. Add to that that the vast majority don't study or know their Bible in any depth. I know people who have been Christians for 50 years and couldn't begin to defend their faith. Then you have seminaries. What do seminaries do? They produce clones. Each has a doctrinal position and that's what they teach. They produce clones of their doctrinal position. Those go out and then teach the congregation the same things they were taught and that is how we perpetuate error. I'm pretty sure every Protestant here would argue that Catholic seminaries are perpetuating error and I'd bet Every Catholic here would say the same about Protestant seminaries. So, if the other side is perpetuating errors, why isn't your side? In all honesty, both sides do.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get this long winded. Once I started answering it just all seemed to flow. My whole point is that where we are today is a far cry from where we were at the beginning. And, until we, as Christians, begin to acknowledge that we're out in left field, we'll never be able to get back. We'll continue to try to make unbiblical doctrines fit Scripture because we've been taught that these doctrines are Biblical when in fact they are not. So, it's not that I like to argue, I don't, I'd much rather teach. But, there are people who never post but only read these forums. I've had people message me and thank me for posts I've made. I don't usually expect a debater to change their position. Most people aren't going to admit publicly that their position is wrong. What the debating does is it sets up an argument on both sides of the issue and those following along can read both sides and draw their won conclusion.

Vs. 16 "dwelling in the light which no man can approach."

This is the "glory" of God that I mentioned in my other posts. No man can see it and live.

Now look how God let Moses see Him and protected Moses from that glory so he could live

Exodus 33:18-23

"And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

Right. But John tells us that that was the Son. He said no man has seen God at any time. Paul said no man can see God, Whatever Moses saw, he saw that one. How can it be that Moses saw God and John say that no one has ever seen God. Those two statements are contradictory. It has to be either people have seen God or they haven't. We're also told that Abraham stood and spoke with the Lord who is later called Yahweh. Abraham saw Yahweh. How can that be when John said no man has ever seen God. And, Paul too, said no one has seen God. Then he adds no one can see God. He tells us in another passage that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. God is invisible. So, what did Moses and Abraham see? It had to be "the image of the invisible God." That's only way we can understand the passages without claiming that John and Paul are wrong.

On a side note about the Trinity, notice John said no one has ever seen God. A lot of People saw Jesus. The only rational conclusion we can draw from that is that Jesus is not the one John calls God. We have the same thing with Paul. In 1 Tim 6 he says that when Jesus comes He will show is in the only ruler, the King of Kings and Lord of lords, who dwells in unapproachable light that no man has seen nor can see. So, this one that Jesus will show is definitely not Jesus Himself. Both of these passages contrast Jesus with God.

 

[Butch5]

That's a fine, BRAVE, and meaningless pontification!!! of course you've fenced it with the words "KNOWN CREATION". The fact is that YOU DON'T KNOW SPIT about the entirety of God, or his way, or his nature. NOBODY DOES, but that doesn't stop folks from PRETENDING that they do, and generating theologies "Proving" the truth of their opinions.

BUT HEY!!! Believe whatever lights your fire. Good bye.

Bob, the error with your argument here is you can't prove anything. Therefore everything is an opinion.

I used the words "known creation" to include any and all knowledge that man has access to. It wasn't to exclude what is unknown. However, we are not capable of reasoning with information that we don't have access to. We can only reason from what knowledge man has access to, that is the "known creation." Like the rest of us, you have no knowledge of what is outside of the "known creation." Therefore any statement that relies on information outside of the "known creation." is simply your musings and speculations ei. opinions.

Opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one.

 

[Charlie24]

It's not that I love arguing. It's that my heart breaks to see people who love the Lord believing things that simply are not God. That's why the whole Heavenly Destiny doctrine just eats me up. God has prepared this incredible, wonderful, future for Christians and most haven't even been taught about it. Instead they've been taught that their hope is that of Plato and the Greek philosophers. Imagine that you've planned this great birthday for you child. You gotten this great present, you spent an enormous amount of time preparing for the day, you're turning inside out with excitement to give them this birthday and gift and when the moment finally arrives, they say, I don't want that, I was hoping for this. It's a poor analogy, as many are, but it does make the point. We hear over and over and over and over.... Christians talking about going to Heaven and God says, but, I have this for you. Imagine spending your whole life aiming for a goal and when you finally get there, you find out it was the wrong goal. That's where we are with a lot of Christian doctrine. It's because, as Paul said,

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Ac 20:28–30.

Paul knew these men and he said that even among them, men of the church, some would rise up speaking perverse things. He knew the church would be under attack from without and within. Well, that 's happened. We see it all through church history. It started before the apostle John died.

Now here's something to contemplate, that I don't think many Christians do. We all believe that what we believe is correct. We often look to the Church and find comfort in that many others believe the same things. Since so many agree, our beliefs must be correct. However, what if, what if, something happened a thousand years ago that fundamentally transformed the faith? What if the faith changed? What if it changed drastically? How would we know? When we go to church on Sunday and Wednesday, are we taught church history? Do we know what happened back then? For all we know we could be believing something that was never preached by Jesus and the apostles. Sure, we can make the passage fit what we believe today. It's not like they overturned things. Mostly we see smaller changes that entered the faith and over time they become embedded and people just assume they've been there from the beginning. Christians 1000 years later don't know how those things got in there. Look at Protestantism, it was a drastic change from the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Reformers believed the Catholic Church was teaching false doctrine. Well, the Catholic Church had it's beginnings as the church of Rome that we find in Scripture. This is the church that Paul wrote to. Yet, we find 1500 years later it was a far cry from the church that Paul wrote to. How is that? It was that attack from without and within. People rising up and preaching perverse things.

This is addressed to everyone. I think most in here are Protestants, That means you believe the Reformers doctrines as opposed to those of the Catholic Church. Let me ask a question. Protestants have accepted many of the Reformation doctrines and rejected those Catholic doctrines. How do you know the Reformers are correct? But, a bigger question is, how do you know that there weren't more doctrines in the Catholic Church that were wrong, doctrines that Reformers never addressed?

You see, if we study church history we find an evolution. The faith has been changing right from the beginning. Many, if not most, Christians seem to think that the faith today is identical to what the apostle preached. It's far from it. In fact, sometimes I almost think we're dealing with two different belief systems. I'll give an example. Today Christians serve in the military, law enforcement, etc. The first Christian would not and were not allowed to. If a Christian joined the military they were excommunicated from the church. They wouldn't even use self defense. One early Christian said, 'in our religion, it is better to be slain than to slay.' When they became Christians they left worldly things. They stopped going to the plays, the theater, the games, etc. Do today's Christians stop going to movies when they get saved? The majority don't. Even though it's supporting an anti-God community. The women dressed modestly. It's nothing today to see a Christian woman running around in a thong on the beach.

So a lot has changed. That goes for doctrine also. Today many Christians believe in the doctrine of Eternal Security. The early Christians knew that doctrine as a heresy of the Gnostics. They fought it tooth and nail. Today many Christian claim that Baptism is simple an outward expression of an inward reality. The early Christians knew no such thing. To them it was the "baptism of regeneration." They understood that baptism was the point where one became a Christian and was accepted by God. The Pre-tribulation Rapture. The early Christians knew nothing of that.

So, many of these doctrines that we believe today, were not believed by the early Christians, and some were heresies. One has to wonder how, what was Heresy in the 1st century, is somehow orthodox in the 21st century. They persist because we still have the same Greek mindset in the West that we had back then. We keep perpetuating the same errors. The whole point in showing this is that we see that what we believe today often differs drastically from what was believed in the beginning. That begs the question, where did it come from, and more importantly, is it Biblical? It doesn't matter how many millions of people believe it. If it's not Biblical, it's not Biblical. People will ask, how could so many millions be wrong? Well, that goes back to the issue of evolution. Slow small changes get embedded and accepted and over time become orthodox. Add to that that the vast majority don't study or know their Bible in any depth. I know people who have been Christians for 50 years and couldn't begin to defend their faith. Then you have seminaries. What do seminaries do? They produce clones. Each has a doctrinal position and that's what they teach. They produce clones of their doctrinal position. Those go out and then teach the congregation the same things they were taught and that is how we perpetuate error. I'm pretty sure every Protestant here would argue that Catholic seminaries are perpetuating error and I'd bet Every Catholic here would say the same about Protestant seminaries. So, if the other side is perpetuating errors, why isn't your side? In all honesty, both sides do.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get this long winded. Once I started answering it just all seemed to flow. My whole point is that where we are today is a far cry from where we were at the beginning. And, until we, as Christians, begin to acknowledge that we're out in left field, we'll never be able to get back. We'll continue to try to make unbiblical doctrines fit Scripture because we've been taught that these doctrines are Biblical when in fact they are not. So, it's not that I like to argue, I don't, I'd much rather teach. But, there are people who never post but only read these forums. I've had people message me and thank me for posts I've made. I don't usually expect a debater to change their position. Most people aren't going to admit publicly that their position is wrong. What the debating does is it sets up an argument on both sides of the issue and those following along can read both sides and draw their won conclusion.

Right. But John tells us that that was the Son. He said no man has seen God at any time. Paul said no man can see God, Whatever Moses saw, he saw that one. How can it be that Moses saw God and John say that no one has ever seen God. Those two statements are contradictory. It has to be either people have seen God or they haven't. We're also told that Abraham stood and spoke with the Lord who is later called Yahweh. Abraham saw Yahweh. How can that be when John said no man has ever seen God. And, Paul too, said no one has seen God. Then he adds no one can see God. He tells us in another passage that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. God is invisible. So, what did Moses and Abraham see? It had to be "the image of the invisible God." That's only way we can understand the passages without claiming that John and Paul are wrong.

On a side note about the Trinity, notice John said no one has ever seen God. A lot of People saw Jesus. The only rational conclusion we can draw from that is that Jesus is not the one John calls God. We have the same thing with Paul. In 1 Tim 6 he says that when Jesus comes He will show is in the only ruler, the King of Kings and Lord of lords, who dwells in unapproachable light that no man has seen nor can see. So, this one that Jesus will show is definitely not Jesus Himself. Both of these passages contrast Jesus with God.

Butch, we have to use proper hermeneutics to interpret Scripture. That is done by Scripture interpreting Scripture to find a truth or find an explanation.

I've shown you an example of that with Moses and the statement, "no man has ever seen God." There are many other things misunderstood in Scripture because of poor hermeneutics. We let our minds wonder and end up with mortal explanations rather than finding it from Scripture.

It seems you have made up your mind on all of these related subjects and there is nothing I can say or do to change that.

There are no doctrinal contrasts in Scripture, plainly said, it's rather a lack of understanding.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, we have to use proper hermeneutics to interpret Scripture. That is done by Scripture interpreting Scripture to find a truth or find an explanation.

My friend,

The statement Scripture interprets Scripture is not hermeneutics. Actually, it 's a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of reification. Reification when used as a literary device is valid, when used in a logical argument it's a fallacy. You see, The Scriptures are the written word. The Bible is not alive and it doesn't have a mind. It cannot interpret. Interpretation requires a mind. The actual statement should say, we use passages of Scripture that seem more clear to understand passages that seem more obscure. The difference is, when we say, Scripture interprets Scripture, we're giving "our" interpretation a false sense of Biblical authority. What's really happening is, we are using "our" interpretation of one passage to interpret another and then claiming that it has Biblical authority because it's Scripture interpreting Scripture. In reality it is us interpreting one passage and then using the interpretation that we have drawn to interpret another passage and concluding with an interpretation based on what we believe the first passage says. That's just people interpreting what they read.

I've shown you an example of that with Moses and the statement, "no man has ever seen God." There are many other things misunderstood in Scripture because of poor hermeneutics. We let our minds wonder and end up with mortal explanations rather than finding it from Scripture.

Ok, but, you didn't explain here how we can understand and reconcile those passages in another way, other than what I presented. It's fine to say I'm misunderstanding the passages. However, that begs the question, how am I misunderstanding them? How else, other than the way I've presented it, can we understand that Moses saw God, in light of the statements from John and Paul which say no man has seen God or can see God, and that Jesus has made God known.

It seems you have made up your mind on all of these related subjects and there is nothing I can say or do to change that.

The reason I hold the positions that I do is based on my study of Church history and the Scriptures. Why would you want to change that?

Look at everything I've said in this thread, while you might not agree with it, can you show me anything that is flatly refuted by Scripture? I'm not talking about inferences, but something that Scripture flatly refutes. If not, why would you want to change what I believe? I don't expect people to change their beliefs. That's up to God. I'm just told to go and make disciples. In other words, spread the word. God will use it as He pleases. He will put it on the hearts of people to listen and/or consider as He pleases. I just have to put it out here. Remember what Jesus said to the seven churches, 'he who has an ear, let him hear.' I'm also reminded of the parable of the talents.

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. 19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mt 25:14–30.

How can I not take what God has given me and multiply it? That would make me a wicked and slothful servant.

If this sounds arrogant, please understand it's not meant to be. Long before I became a Christian, at least ten years, I tried reading the Scriptures and didn't really understand them. At that time I prayed to God and asked Him to give me understanding of the Bible. About ten years later or so I became a Christian. I learned all of the typical Christian doctrines and believed them. I was Christian for about 16 years, when certain events within churches began to make we wonder about some things. That was about 26 years after I prayed that prayer to God for understanding. Those events started a journey that continues to this day. Those events lead to others. They lead to different people. To make a long story short, God answered that prayer in spades. He answered it far beyond my wildest imagination. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying I know everything about the Bible. I surely don't. But, I can see God's hand in the path that has brought me to where I am today. And, I can't even begin to explain the privilege it is. Next to God Himself and salvation, His gift of understanding the Bible is a blessing beyond explanation. Again, this may sound arrogant, please understand it is not meant that way. If anything it's extremely humbling.

There are no doctrinal contrasts in Scripture, plainly said, it's rather a lack of understanding.

I agree. That's why I discuss these doctrines.

 

[Charlie24]

My friend,

The statement Scripture interprets Scripture is not hermeneutics. Actually, it 's a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of reification. Reification when used as a literary device is valid, when used in a logical argument it's a fallacy. You see, The Scriptures are the written word. The Bible is not alive and it doesn't have a mind. It cannot interpret. Interpretation requires a mind. The actual statement should say, we use passages of Scripture that seem more clear to understand passages that seem more obscure. The difference is, when we say, Scripture interprets Scripture, we're giving "our" interpretation a false sense of Biblical authority. What's really happening is, we are using "our" interpretation of one passage to interpret another and then claiming that it has Biblical authority because it's Scripture interpreting Scripture. In reality it is us interpreting one passage and then using the interpretation that we have drawn to interpret another passage and concluding with an interpretation based on what we believe the first passage says. That's just people interpreting what they read.

Ok, but, you didn't explain here how we can understand and reconcile those passages in another way, other than what I presented. It's fine to say I'm misunderstanding the passages. However, that begs the question, how am I misunderstanding them? How else, other than the way I've presented it, can we understand that Moses saw God, in light of the statements from John and Paul which say no man has seen God or can see God, and that Jesus has made God known.

The reason I hold the positions that I do is based on my study of Church history and the Scriptures. Why would you want to change that?

Look at everything I've said in this thread, while you might not agree with it, can you show me anything that is flatly refuted by Scripture? I'm not talking about inferences, but something that Scripture flatly refutes. If not, why would you want to change what I believe? I don't expect people to change their beliefs. That's up to God. I'm just told to go and make disciples. In other words, spread the word. God will use it as He pleases. He will put it on the hearts of people to listen and/or consider as He pleases. I just have to put it out here. Remember what Jesus said to the seven churches, 'he who has an ear, let him hear.' I'm also reminded of the parable of the talents.

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. 19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mt 25:14–30.

How can I not take what God has given me and multiply it? That would make me a wicked and slothful servant.

If this sounds arrogant, please understand it's not meant to be. Long before I became a Christian, at least ten years, I tried reading the Scriptures and didn't really understand them. At that time I prayed to God and asked Him to give me understanding of the Bible. About ten years later or so I became a Christian. I learned all of the typical Christian doctrines and believed them. I was Christian for about 16 years, when certain events within churches began to make we wonder about some things. That was about 26 years after I prayed that prayer to God for understanding. Those events started a journey that continues to this day. Those events lead to others. They lead to different people. To make a long story short, God answered that prayer in spades. He answered it far beyond my wildest imagination. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying I know everything about the Bible. I surely don't. But, I can see God's hand in the path that has brought me to where I am today. And, I can't even begin to explain the privilege it is. Next to God Himself and salvation, His gift of understanding the Bible is a blessing beyond explanation. Again, this may sound arrogant, please understand it is not meant that way. If anything it's extremely humbling.

I agree. That's why I discuss these doctrines.

Ok Butch, we disagree on many things, I'm sure nothing we say will change any of that.

 

[Butch5]

Ok Butch, we disagree on many things, I'm sure nothing we say will change any of that.

Is that the goal?

 

[Charlie24]

Is that the goal?

LOL, I don't have that argumentative gene you have.

 

[MedicBravo]

I think the gentleman in the video has pointed out there is no way for the mortal mind to present an analogy that's fault free in representing the Godhead (Trinity). It's the same with the origin of God. The mortal mind cannot comprehend something having no beginning or end.

The Scripture gives us no details. I take it that these things are not meant to be understood now, or we as humans are lacking the ability to understand. I believe the Godhead (Trinity) is one of those things we cannot understand in this mortal state but will in the future immortal state.

All we can do is envision the analogies we're capable of understanding. There will be no fault free analogy, as that is a different realm of understanding.

One analogy I heard many years ago was compared in construction terms. The Owner, the Architect, the Contractor.

God the Father is the Owner, Jesus Christ is the Architect, and the Holy Spirit is the Contractor.

God the Father owns everything, Jesus Christ drew up the plans for it to be made, and the Holy Spirit made it appear.

Simple, and full of fault finding I'm sure, but it does give some understanding that lines up with Scripture. Of course not perfectly, but to some degree.

You're right. It is foolish and stupid for any mortal human to think they can understand who and what the Trinity is on significant level.
God doesn't lie. If He said "I am...." and everything in the Bible it's true.
Some of it is parables and allegory b/c trying to explain it would be lost on us. When people and places are named you know it's not either of these but literal accounts.
Humans label and group everything good or bad.
God is a trinitarian being.
Of course his nature would bring up countless questions.
Trying to be on God's level is what started this mess.