Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity?

Awwww man! Butch, you have taken that statement totally the wrong way and ran with it.

"Just as the Father" is saying just as the Father has no beginning and no end, so is Christ with no beginning and no end.

I'm not saying they are the same person as you have ridiculously assumed.

Look, we are not on the same level here, not even close. So anything I say will be confused by you.

I'm sorry, but this is like a NBA player trying to teach a 5th grader how slam dunk.

Just count me out of the conversation, I like my lazy life and don't need this tutoring job for the unteachable.
Ok, I see what mean. I misunderstood you. I thought meant as mean Chist was the Father rather than as, in like manner. My bad.

But, even as you stated Chirst in like manner. It's not correct. The Scriptures clearly show He had a beginning.

I do like your NBA analogy though. Keep studying and you can be an NBA player too.!
 
That is prophecy. Talking about his future sacrifice and resurrection.

John 3:16
“Gave” is speaking of prophetic.
We have not attained yet.
It is prophecy. What does John 3:16 have to do with it?
 
Dear @Butch5
I thought you might find this interesting to listen to. You will find he is a bit rough around the edges. :)
Now, as I've said, just because I can't seem to be able to explain the Trinity to your satisfaction, doesn't mean I won't continue to seek to find someone who can.
As I've said I don't need to have a full understanding of something for it to be true. I hope you don't either.


With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC (Hopefully)
Nick
\o/
<><
 
It is prophecy. What does John 3:16 have to do with it?

Gave”is past tense. But he wasn’t sacrificed,or Given,when he spoke those words. So he was speaking of future event…. His resurrection
 
Gave”is past tense. But he wasn’t sacrificed,or Given,when he spoke those words. So he was speaking of future event…. His resurrection
He was. Those are John's words. John wrote his Gospel in the 90's
 
That was foolishness, even in making a point. Anathema!
If you have no respect for man, at least have some for God!
It was foolishness. That's the point. People are making ridiculous statements in this thread. When we allow logical contradictions we can make any claim no matter how ridiculous it is.

If we were talking about a person who was claiming He was one being consisting of three persons, we tell him to seek professional help. Somehow what is absurd in the real world is perfectly acceptable when we're speaking of God. How is that? Since we should reverence God, shouldn't we also do likewise with Him word? Why are we loose and flippant with His word?

I gave a list in a previous post showing just some of the issues this doctrine has with Scripture and not one of them has been address. However, there's been no lack of people telling me I don't what I'm talking about. There is no rational reason accept this doctrine.

I asked a serious question, what is it that drives you guys to accept this doctrine. Not one person attempted to answer. Not one.

People say I just want to argue, yet everyone is telling me I wrong when they're not proving I'm wrong. So, that's just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Posting a passage that refers to Jesus as God doesn't prove one God in three persons. It simply proves that Jesus is referred to as God. Referring to the Genesisi passage, 'let Us make man in Our image,' Doesn't prove there is a three in one God. It simply means God was speaking to at least one other being in whose image man is made. It doesn't say how many other beings or that the other or others are all one God.

People read their beliefs into the Scriptures. They already believe in a Trinity when they read the passage. Since they already believe in a Trinity they see one there, even when one doesn't exist.

It's amazing that people just accept as fact what is nonsensical
 
It was foolishness. That's the point. People are making ridiculous statements in this thread.
So, to make your point you think it's okay to blasphemy God? Your justification is because no one is answering your questions?
That's foolishness. Whether you believe in God, or not, or in the Trinity or not!
Anathema!
 
Dear @Butch5
I thought you might find this interesting to listen to. You will find he is a bit rough around the edges. :)
Now, as I've said, just because I can't seem to be able to explain the Trinity to your satisfaction, doesn't mean I won't continue to seek to find someone who can.
As I've said I don't need to have a full understanding of something for it to be true. I hope you don't either.


With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC (Hopefully)
Nick
\o/
<><
That was really poor Nick. I hope you didn't buy that. You can tell he doesn't know what he's talking about by the way he yells and condemns his opponent. He likes to embarrass people so I invited him to embarrass me. Let's see if he accepts
 
So, to make your point you think it's okay to blasphemy God? Your justification is because no one is answering your questions?
That's foolishness. Whether you believe in God, or not, or in the Trinity or not!
Anathema!
It's not blasphemy Nick. I said one could say. I didn't say God was a chocolate bar. But, as this thread has gone, let's deal with everything except the subject.
 
Jesus said it then 90 years before John wrote it

I give up
Jesus didn't say it. Look at the passage not the red words.

John 3:13–16 (KJV 1900): 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

When the statement was made Jesus was in Heaven. How exactly did Nicodemus come to Jesus by night if Jesus was in Heaven? Obviously he didn't. Those are John's words not Jesus' words. John is the one who said, for God so loved the world, not Jesus.
 
Dear @Butch5
Just because I, others, on the site disagree with your position, have we not heard you out here?
My suggestion to you is to step, back and away from this thread/topic. Unless you can stop yourself from making such comments.
People in the world have no problem insulting God, we as Christians insult Him too, but usually in a different manner. I would say compliance. However, your intelligence and knowledge of the Word, as such should have you above making those type of comments, so to me (Moderator) you have no excuse for doing so.
It's not blasphemy Nick. I said one could say. I didn't say God was a chocolate bar. But, as this thread has gone, let's deal with everything except the subject.
Actually, you for all extensive purposes you did. Let's see...reread what you wrote.

What is the implication, even after what I have told you what eternity is for and that is to know God, and Jesus Christ.

I've been respecting what you have been saying, because you believe it, by the reasoning/intellect given by God to you to have and use.
So, as I have said, I have heard you out. Yet you've crossed a boundary, maybe invisible to you, since it is all an exercise for you as far as I can tell.
I don't ask for an apology, but I do ask that you do not repeat this manner of speech in order to make a point you feel needed to be made. Resist the temptation!

That was really poor Nick. I hope you didn't buy that. You can tell he doesn't know what he's talking about by the way he yells and condemns his opponent. He likes to embarrass people so I invited him to embarrass me. Let's see if he accepts
lol - I do hope he accepts, and even is willing to video tape it to be viewed! I am sure you are made of sterner stuff and is why I shared it with you.
Note: Monies not needed for YouTube. :)

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC (Hopefully)
Nick
\o/
<><
 
Dear @Butch5
Just because I, others, on the site disagree with your position, have we not heard you out here?
My suggestion to you is to step, back and away from this thread/topic. Unless you can stop yourself from making such comments.
People in the world have no problem insulting God, we as Christians insult Him too, but usually in a different manner. I would say compliance. However, your intelligence and knowledge of the Word, as such should have you above making those type of comments, so to me (Moderator) you have no excuse for doing so.

Actually, you for all extensive purposes you did. Let's see...reread what you wrote.

What is the implication, even after what I have told you what eternity is for and that is to know God, and Jesus Christ.

I've been respecting what you have been saying, because you believe it, by the reasoning/intellect given by God to you to have and use.
So, as I have said, I have heard you out. Yet you've crossed a boundary, maybe invisible to you, since it is all an exercise for you as far as I can tell.
I don't ask for an apology, but I do ask that you do not repeat this manner of speech in order to make a point you feel needed to be made. Resist the temptation!


lol - I do hope he accepts, and even is willing to video tape it to be viewed! I am sure you are made of sterner stuff and is why I shared it with you.
Note: Monies not needed for YouTube. :)

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC (Hopefully)
Nick
\o/
<><
Nick,

I didn't mention this before because I has hoped we debate the subject on its merits. However, since it's come up
I could also say the same but have refrained from doing so. If what I said is blasphemy then how isn't the claim you guys have been making in this entire thread?

Is something not blasphemy simply because a lot of people believe it?

I don't see how what I said is blasphemy, but if it is how is it any different thanwhat you guys are arguing?

I mean the idea that God consists of three persons? Since we're talking about blasphemy let's break it down. Paul said there is one God the Father and Jesus said theFather is th only true God. God says He is God and there is no other. He says He is God Almight. The doctrine you guys are arguing for says no. There's not one almighty, there are three.

From the Athanasian Creed

"Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other."

Nothing is before or after. Three equal almighties.

Beside the fact that that's impossible. Almighty means All Mighty, not partially mighty. It puts two others on equal footing with the Father who both Paul and Jesus say is the only God.

So I ask, is it blasphemy to give God's glory others?

Jesus said to the Apostles, the time is coming when you will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

However, in the doctrine we have three coequals who are worshipped.

I ask, is it blasphemy to worship anyone other than God?

Remember, Both Jesus and Paul said there is one God and it's the Father.

The Trinitarian has a conundrum here. Does he believe Scripture, the words of Jesus and Paul, or does he reject them. If he accepts them then he's faced with the problem that the doctrine blasphemes God. If he rejects them in favor of the Trinity, he's rejecting the God he serves, unless of course he doesn't believe the Bible is God's word in which case he has no dilemma.

The doctrine robs God of His glory and it diminishes Christ's sacrifice.

I mean, you may think what I posted is blasphemy, I don't. But, if it is, which do think God the Father would rather see? A ridiculous statement or people giving His, honor, glory, and worship to others?

And no one can equivocate here with the word God. Because both Jesus and Paul said the one God is the Father. So worship, glory, and honor, to anyone else is not to the Father.

And, this is in addition to all of the other issues I've posted.
 
Nick,

I didn't mention this before because I has hoped we debate the subject on its merits. However, since it's come up
I could also say the same but have refrained from doing so. If what I said is blasphemy then how isn't the claim you guys have been making in this entire thread?

Is something not blasphemy simply because a lot of people believe it?

I don't see how what I said is blasphemy, but if it is how is it any different thanwhat you guys are arguing?

I mean the idea that God consists of three persons? Since we're talking about blasphemy let's break it down. Paul said there is one God the Father and Jesus said theFather is th only true God. God says He is God and there is no other. He says He is God Almight. The doctrine you guys are arguing for says no. There's not one almighty, there are three.

From the Athanasian Creed

"Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other."

Nothing is before or after. Three equal almighties.

Beside the fact that that's impossible. Almighty means All Mighty, not partially mighty. It puts two others on equal footing with the Father who both Paul and Jesus say is the only God.

So I ask, is it blasphemy to give God's glory others?

Jesus said to the Apostles, the time is coming when you will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

However, in the doctrine we have three coequals who are worshipped.

I ask, is it blasphemy to worship anyone other than God?

Remember, Both Jesus and Paul said there is one God and it's the Father.

The Trinitarian has a conundrum here. Does he believe Scripture, the words of Jesus and Paul, or does he reject them. If he accepts them then he's faced with the problem that the doctrine blasphemes God. If he rejects them in favor of the Trinity, he's rejecting the God he serves, unless of course he doesn't believe the Bible is God's word in which case he has no dilemma.

The doctrine robs God of His glory and it diminishes Christ's sacrifice.

I mean, you may think what I posted is blasphemy, I don't. But, if it is, which do think God the Father would rather see? A ridiculous statement or people giving His, honor, glory, and worship to others?

And no one can equivocate here with the word God. Because both Jesus and Paul said the one God is the Father. So worship, glory, and honor, to anyone else is not to the Father.

And, this is in addition to all of the other issues I've posted.
Dear @Butch5
One has nothing to do with the other.
The discussion on the thread is doctrine for or against the Trinity at least that is what it has come down to.
Each person has been making analogies either for or against, but your comment was not made that way or made to further the discussion. Maybe you meant for it to be facetious, or to belittle I can't say which, but when talking about God in the way you did it was neither funny nor warranted.

I have not asked you to apologize, or even to explain yourself, I am just letting you know don't do it again. Resist the Temptation! (2X)

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC (Hopefully)
Nick
\o/
<><
 
Dear @Butch5
One has nothing to do with the other.
The discussion on the thread is doctrine for or against the Trinity at least that is what it has come down to.
Each person has been making analogies either for or against, but your comment was not made that way or made to further the discussion. Maybe you meant for it to be facetious, or to belittle I can't say which, but when talking about God in the way you did it was neither funny nor warranted.

I have not asked you to apologize, or even to explain yourself, I am just letting you know don't do it again. Resist the Temptation! (2X)

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC (Hopefully)
Nick
\o/
<><
Nick,

I didn't mean it to be facetious. I didn't mean it to be sarcastic. I didn't mean it to belittle. I didn't mean it as joke. I was simply illustrating a point

However, since it offended you, I apologize. If it offended anyone else, I apologize.
 
Nick,

I didn't mean it to be facetious. I didn't mean it to be sarcastic. I didn't mean it to belittle. I didn't mean it as joke. I was simply illustrating a point

However, since it offended you, I apologize. If it offended anyone else, I apologize.

Good morning Butch. Could you take just a moment and tell me exactly who Jesus Christ is to you?

In a quick summary, who is He in your mind and life?
 

None of those say that in my Bible.
In fact, just the opposite.

Prov 8:22; "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.
Prov 8:23; "From everlasting I was established, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
Prov 8:24; "When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no springs abounding with water.
Prov 8:25; "Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills I was brought forth;
Prov 8:26; While He had not yet made the earth and the fields, Nor the first dust of the world.
Prov 8:27; "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
Prov 8:28; When He made firm the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed,
Prov 8:29; When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Prov 8:30; Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,

Jesus was always there. Before the Universe was created.

Col 1:15; He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16; For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17; He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Just because He was the "firstborn of all creation", doesn't mean He didn't exist before creation. He existed before the universe was created.
 
Back
Top