The Trinity

[BanjoPicker]

Jesus always prayed to the Father as a separate person Mt. 11:25; Jn. 17.

The Father existed outside the body of Jesus so He could not be Jesus Mt. 2:12; 3:17; 17:5; Jn. 12:27-30.

Both Jesus and Satan refer to a God separate from "Jesus" Mt. 4:6-10.

God was the Father of Jesus, not Jesus, Himself Eph. 1:3, 17; 3:14.

In parables Jesus illustrates His relationship to the Father as that of separate persons Mt. 21:3546; Jn. 1-8.

Men are taught to go directly to the Father and not to pray to Jesus Jn. 14:12-15; 15:16; 16:23-26.

The Father knew things Jesus did not know Mk. 13:32; Acts 1:7.

Others saw Jesus as a separate person from the Father Dan. 7:9-14; Acts 7:56.

Jesus committed His own spirit to the Father not to Himself Lk. 26:46.

Jesus claimed that He came back FROM God and WAS GOING BACK TO God Jn. 8:42, 16:5; 10:36; 17:8.

 

[BanjoPicker]

God is a Spirit and not flesh and blood, like Jesus was Jn. 4:24; 19:34; Mt. 16:17; Lk. 24:39.

Men on earth with Jesus heard God speak as a separate person FROM heaven Mt. 3:17; 17:5; 2 Pet. 1:16-18.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not the Father Himself Jn. 5:17-35.

Jesus called the Father My God even after the resurrection Jn. 20:17; Rev. 3:12.

Jesus called God My Father 57 times Jn. 15:1; Rev. 2:27. How could He be His own God and Father and beget Himself?

When Jesus was born on earth angels and men still recognized God in heaven Lk. 2:7-16. Were they mistaken about God? was the child all of God on earth and was He in heaven also?

Mary and Joseph acted with utmost ignorance if the baby Jesus was all of God, for they presented Him to the Lord who was someone other than Jesus Lk. 2:22.

Simeon had a revelation and guidance from the Holy Spirit that Jesus was not the only member of the Godhead Lk. 2:26-33.

John the Baptist knew the Father, but he did not know the Son Jn. 1:31-34.

Jesus was the only begotten Son of the Father so could not be the Father or the begetter of Himself Jn. 1:14.

 

[Spotlite]

How God do that???

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

 

[Artfuldodger]

How God do that???

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

That's an interesting verse, I don't recall ever reading it. It sure points to a Oneness view more than Trinitarian.
Doesn't Paul normally refer to the church as Christ's Church and the blood as Christ's blood?
If we are going to say God has blood then I guess we can say Mary was the mother of God.
And you didn't even want to give God eyes and hands and now you are giving Him blood.

 

[Spotlite]

That's an interesting verse, I don't recall ever reading it. It sure points to a Oneness view more than Trinitarian.
Doesn't Paul normally refer to the church as Christ's Church and the blood as Christ's blood?
If we are going to say God has blood then I guess we can say Mary was the mother of God.
And you didn't even want to give God eyes and hands and now you are giving Him blood.

God is a spirit?

His hand is Jesus? His blood. Think about it - who was the Word and who was made flesh? Your question in another thread concerning the thief brings up a very good question - if Jesus was in the tomb 3 days and not anywhere else because He is separate and distinct person, how could He tell the thief he’d be with Him today in paradise?

 

[gordon 2]

Maybe we are playing basketball with a bouncing baseball? <<<< Maybe it's not about sin at all the thief on the cross? We think we've "got this" because by using the sin baseball we get "good" fast.

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

After Jesus dissuaded the accusers of a lady caught in adulty from stoning her and they were gone away. Jesus asks her," Woman, where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?” 11“No one, Lord,” she answered. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Now go and sin no more."

Why did Jesus say "neither do I condemn you", " Now go and sin no more." He did not condemn her because she was a sinner or because of her sin? Was it a case of love the sinner but not the sin?

I notice that one of the criminals crucified with Jesus acted like the devil tempting Jesus while to other declared that both he and the other criminal deserved what they were getting but that Jesus was innocent and that is was not correct not to fear God, that Jesus was not deserving of mockery and he proved it by his respect of asking to be remembered when Jesus comes into his kingdom.

So maybe, just maybe it is the criminal's fear of God or his respect of Jesus that get's him Paradise with Jesus and his sin like the lady caught in adulty not sufficient cause to be unworthy of God's mercy. It could be argued that the sinner loved God and or man and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Like Cain God gives him asylum. The other criminal was looking out for number one, himself. Maybe the one who asked to be remembered was called to God from birth, but got on the lost highway.

 

[BanjoPicker]

The Son died, not the Father 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Pet. 2:24.

Jesus claimed that He could not and did not do anything of Himself, but that the Father worked through Him Jn. 5:19, 30; 6:38; 8:28; 12:49, 50.

He did not come to do His will, but that of the Father who sent Him Jn. 5:30; 6:38.

His doctrine was not His, but the Father's Jn. 7:6-17; 8:26.

He did not speak of Himself, but of the Father who sent Him Jn. 7:16-18; 8:26-40.

He did not please Himself, but the Father Jn. 8:29.

He was a Son, not a Father over the house of God Jn. 8:35, 36; Heb. 3:6.

He had the same relation to His Father that men have with Satan Jn. 8:16, 3-44; 9:4.

He honored the Father as all men should Jn. 8:49.

He did not seek of His own glory, but that of the Father Jn. 8:50-54; 17:4.

He knew the Father, but was not the Father Jn. 8:55; 10:15.

 

[gordon 2]

The Son died, not the Father 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Pet. 2:24.

Jesus claimed that He could not and did not do anything of Himself, but that the Father worked through Him Jn. 5:19, 30; 6:38; 8:28; 12:49, 50.

He did not come to do His will, but that of the Father who sent Him Jn. 5:30; 6:38.

His doctrine was not His, but the Father's Jn. 7:6-17; 8:26.

He did not speak of Himself, but of the Father who sent Him Jn. 7:16-18; 8:26-40.

He did not please Himself, but the Father Jn. 8:29.

He was a Son, not a Father over the house of God Jn. 8:35, 36; Heb. 3:6.

He had the same relation to His Father that men have with Satan Jn. 8:16, 3-44; 9:4.

He honored the Father as all men should Jn. 8:49.

He did not seek of His own glory, but that of the Father Jn. 8:50-54; 17:4.

He knew the Father, but was not the Father Jn. 8:55; 10:15.

Right but Jesus was God. The Father was not Jesus. And Jesus was not the Father. Jesus is God. The Father is God. And God is THE ONE GOD, "I Am Who I Am"

The God that dealt with our fathers is the same God that deals with us now. Jesus prayed to the God that was, the God that is and the God that will be.

I suspect when Jesus prayed to the Father it is/was like when we check with our past in order to go forward towards the future. The proof for this might be in the reason Jesus and the Father send the Holy Spirit-- aka the Comforter aka the Advocate.

["And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you....

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. <<<< That's it right here one God Three persons.

The last verse above is the most uncomplicated description of God that I have ever read that would show God to be one and three in what we call persons.

It is simpler that a description of the sunrise and the sunset.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Maybe we are playing basketball with a bouncing baseball? <<<< Maybe it's not about sin at all the thief on the cross? We think we've "got this" because by using the sin baseball we get "good" fast.

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

After Jesus dissuaded the accusers of a lady caught in adulty from stoning her and they were gone away. Jesus asks her," Woman, where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?” 11“No one, Lord,” she answered. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Now go and sin no more."

Why did Jesus say "neither do I condemn you", " Now go and sin no more." He did not condemn her because she was a sinner or because of her sin? Was it a case of love the sinner but not the sin?

I notice that one of the criminals crucified with Jesus acted like the devil tempting Jesus while to other declared that both he and the other criminal deserved what they were getting but that Jesus was innocent and that is was not correct not to fear God, that Jesus was not deserving of mockery and he proved it by his respect of asking to be remembered when Jesus comes into his kingdom.

So maybe, just maybe it is the criminal's fear of God or his respect of Jesus that get's him Paradise with Jesus and his sin like the lady caught in adulty not sufficient cause to be unworthy of God's mercy. It could be argued that the sinner loved God and or man and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Like Cain God gives him asylum. The other criminal was looking out for number one, himself. Maybe the one who asked to be remembered was called to God from birth, but got on the lost highway.

The adulterer episode is much like the criminal on the cross. Neither were seeking Jesus, both were sinners. Both were forgiven of at least the present sin. Maybe the adulterer got to go to paradise as well. Jesus didn't condemn her.

 

[gordon 2]

The adulterer episode is much like the criminal on the cross. Neither were seeking Jesus, both were sinners. Both were forgiven of at least the present sin. Maybe the adulterer got to go to paradise as well. Jesus didn't condemn her.

When I try to think about it, what is "sinful" about sin is that we would not admit that we are full of all kinds of spiritual sins. Spiritually we are adulterers, thieves, liars, idolaters etc... but we tend to erase it from our consciousness where the sins are like a tooth cavity starts unseen, then gets to be small, then bigger and than we need a tooth extraction. etc..

The Thief on the cross did not hide that he deserved what was happening to him. He admits he is an evildoer. It was a confession of sorts, as when we say like the centurion said:

"The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me."

Maybe the thief on the cross was spiritually where the centurion was. "I am not worthy but when you get to your kingdom remember me"... and so recognizing one is not worthy there is "space" for improving perhaps. He has a living heart with some still working flesh that God can work with.

The criminal on the other side of Jesus seems to be in personality opposed to this way of being. He does not ask for mercy or consideration but just an escape, perhaps like any other escape, from the pickle he's in.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Romans 15:6
so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He was the God and Father of Jesus.

 

[gordon 2]

Romans 15:6
so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He was the God and Father of Jesus.

Yes. Jesus was a Jew, an Israelite. If we are brothers to Christ we are made Israel by adoption. Our God is also the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father that we are Israel, the Son that He is the cause of our life with Him and the Holy Spirit who's purpose it is to teach us by divine power, supernatural power, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and same "entity" of one divine nature and so one God.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Yes. Jesus was a Jew, an Israelite. If we are brothers to Christ we are made Israel by adoption. Our God is also the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father that we are Israel, the Son that He is the cause of our life with Him and the Holy Spirit who's purpose it is to teach us by divine power, supernatural power, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and same "entity" of one divine nature and so one God.

I agree but with Jesus, God was his actual real Father, both spiritual and physical.
Paul said "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Jesus mentions the he wants or yearns for us to have the same relationship that he has with his Father. It's a closer bond that he has that we haven't achieved or gained yet.

 

[BanjoPicker]

He was love of the Father as a separate person Jn. 10:17, 18.

He kept the Father's commandments, and they were not His own Jn. 12:49, 50; 15:10.

His disciples were given to him by the Father Jn. 10:29; 17:1-25.

He was equal with the Father in some things, but not in others Mk. 13:32; Jn. 5:17-39; 8:13-19, 29-42; 19:18-29; Acts 1:7; 1 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 1:1.

He and the Father were in unity and in each other in the same sense believers are to be in unity and in God Jn. 10:38; 14:10, 11, 23; 17:11, 21-23.

He was the only way to the Father Jn. 6:37; 14:6.

He said Iam not alone or the only witness of My Sonship The Father is another witness Jn. 5:36-38; 8:13-19, 54; 12:49, 50; 14:10, 11.

 

[BanjoPicker]

Over 80 times Jesus affirmed that He was not the Father and not the only one person in the Godhead. Christ was the speaker, but not the one spoken of or to Mt. 7:21; 11:27; 18:10, 35; Lk. 2:49; Jn. 5:17-43; 8:19-49; 10:17-37; 14:7-28; 15:1-26; Rev. 1:1; Is it any wonder that the Godhead, the Trinity, and the unity of God are so mysterious when we force separate persons to become only one person, all because we do not want to recognize the true meaning of the word one as referring to unity, not to individually in some scriptures? Men would be just as great a mystery if we forced the meaning of all men to refer to one person.

 

[gordon 2]

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Test your understanding against those in scripture who would testify of God's love, since you use scripture to proof text your very own understanding. Lean your understanding on the understanding heart of the saints in scripture.

It is easing to be well meaning and yet be directed towards leasing when we would add our understanding and our extras to the real attitude of God.

Personally I don't care much how a man or women would cut his god into parts and then would rejoin the parts. John picks up the pie pieces and declares God is love. Now in my estimation John is the Babe Ruth of rounding all the bases regards God in single attitude. God is love...

Now due to the nature of love which like God we cannot see I have a problem that we would take our god pieces and make each different piece a separate god and not only separate but that separately each piece would live in a separate place, say each piece to its own warmer planet in the heavens. Maybe I'm wrong, all wrong, but if this was the case that god is a three separate spirits, it makes John into a dummy, a man possessed in a kumbaya cult and all of his love gospel and God as love and love as we mean loving to be plain silliness. John is not only drunk, he's a man still possessed.

When I understand that someone understands, perhaps incorrectly, that God is a community of independent god spirits and yet that person will agree that scripture states that salvation is of the Jews then Moses and me are rolling in our graves. Moses because he fought to kick out the gods from their places and me because Jesus came and made just one to live with me and so I might not be confused.

Your god-gods is a hard pill to swallow for me. It is a god that is neither said trinity as per the faith nor one in attitude as per the faith. It just does not add up spiritually for me. It makes in me to think that the prayers of the Hebrew captives was the "hook of conflict"_ common to lead us into any good fictional story and it is of a this fiction that I'm possessed and yet you somehow are not.

 

[Spotlite]

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Test your understanding against those in scripture who would testify of God's love, since you use scripture to proof text your very own understanding. Lean your understanding on the understanding heart of the saints in scripture.

It is easing to be well meaning and yet be directed towards leasing when we would add our understanding and our extras to the real attitude of God.

Personally I don't care much how a man or women would cut his god into parts and then would rejoin the parts. John picks up the pie pieces and declares God is love. Now in my estimation John is the Babe Ruth of rounding all the bases regards God in single attitude. God is love...

Now due to the nature of love which like God we cannot see I have a problem that we would take our god pieces and make each different piece a separate god and not only separate but that separately each piece would live in a separate place, say each piece to its own warmer planet in the heavens. Maybe I'm wrong, all wrong, but if this was the case that god is a three separate spirits, it makes John into a dummy, a man possessed in a kumbaya cult and all of his love gospel and God as love and love as we mean loving to be plain silliness. John is not only drunk, he's a man still possessed.

When I understand that someone understands, perhaps incorrectly, that God is a community of independent god spirits and yet that person will agree that scripture states that salvation is of the Jews then Moses and me are rolling in our graves. Moses because he fought to kick out the gods from their places and me because Jesus came and made just one to live with me and so I might not be confused.

Your god-gods is a hard pill to swallow for me. It is a god that is neither said trinity as per the faith nor one in attitude as per the faith. It just does not add up spiritually for me. It makes in me to think that the prayers of the Hebrew captives was the "hook of conflict"_ common to lead us into any good fictional story and it is of a this fiction that I'm possessed and yet you somehow are not.

For me it’s not so much as how many parts you can cut your God into…..

If a God is omnipresent and omniscience……..all knowing and everywhere………it’s the flesh characteristics placed on that Deity……..limited knowledge, you can hide from, reliant on something in order to work…..etc.

Basically the most supreme “thing” we think we know is now limited to how we operate and kept inside our parameters. It’s no longer a God of the impossible……..the Ark story…….

 

[gordon 2]

For me it’s not so much as how many parts you can cut your God into…..

If a God is omnipresent and omniscience……..all knowing and everywhere………it’s the flesh characteristics placed on that Deity……..limited knowledge, you can hide from, reliant on something in order to work…..etc.

Basically the most supreme “thing” we think we know is now limited to how we operate and kept inside our parameters. It’s no longer a God of the impossible……..the Ark story…….

On the theme of: "‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive,..." Sir Walter Scott--- in F major for old sounding blues guitar with deep and stern voice.

Rooms For The Gods.

What a tangled web we would conceive,
So to weave in our comforts, they never enough.
And so to fit in our gods,
Pedestaled gods and gods on crystal globes;
Gods on rocks and stone gods,
Gods out of books,
Gods that jump out of trees and fishing holes,
God spirit knitted and ginned,
Out from animal skins.
Gods made from guitar frets,
And banjo strings.
To collect them in our menageries.
And so making rooms for them, ouhwho, ouhwho,
And so making room for gods,
Man don't care what Peter and Paul say.
From them he weaves and runs away. ouhwho, ouhwho.
Hum, Hum, weaves and runs.
Hum, Hum, weaves and runs away.
Hum, Hum do you hear them run away?
Listen, they weave and run away.

 

[BanjoPicker]

He was not as great as the Father Jn. 10:29; 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3.

The Father Mt. 3:17, Jesus Jn. 10:36, angels Lk. 1:32-35, demons Mk. 3:11; 5:7, and apostles Mt. 16:16; Jn. 1:14: Rom. 8:32; 2 Jn. 3, all declare a Christ-Fatherhood.

The Father and Son spoke to each other in audible voices at the same time and place being heard by many witnesses Mt. 3:16, 17; 7:5; Jn. 12:27-30; 2 Pet. 1:17, in no single instance could such speaking be explained as the voice or of one individual or be used to prove one person in the Deity.

The word both is used of the Father and the Son, proving two persons Jn. 15:24; 2 Jn. 9.

The word also is used of the Father and the Son proving two persons Jn. 5:19, 27; 8:19; 13:32; 14:1.

Jesus constantly invited and provoked study of the Scriptures, and even rebuked men for lack of knowledge of revealed truth. He attributed all error to lack of knowledge of the Bible. He answered His critics by saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” Mt. 22:29.
He also said to them “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” Lk. 24: 25-27.
I have no problem with the truth of Gods Word and His meaning of it 2 Tim. 2:15 “a man that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[gordon 2]

He was not as great as the Father Jn. 10:29; 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3.

The Father Mt. 3:17, Jesus Jn. 10:36, angels Lk. 1:32-35, demons Mk. 3:11; 5:7, and apostles Mt. 16:16; Jn. 1:14: Rom. 8:32; 2 Jn. 3, all declare a Christ-Fatherhood.

The Father and Son spoke to each other in audible voices at the same time and place being heard by many witnesses Mt. 3:16, 17; 7:5; Jn. 12:27-30; 2 Pet. 1:17, in no single instance could such speaking be explained as the voice or of one individual or be used to prove one person in the Deity.

The word both is used of the Father and the Son, proving two persons Jn. 15:24; 2 Jn. 9.

The word also is used of the Father and the Son proving two persons Jn. 5:19, 27; 8:19; 13:32; 14:1.

Jesus constantly invited and provoked study of the Scriptures, and even rebuked men for lack of knowledge of revealed truth. He attributed all error to lack of knowledge of the Bible. He answered His critics by saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” Mt. 22:29.
He also said to them “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” Lk. 24: 25-27.
I have no problem with the truth of Gods Word and His meaning of it 2 Tim. 2:15 “a man that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I'm getting to warm up to what your saying.

And I think this might be it: Because it was a common understanding for some ( many in the 1700s and 1800s) that the mainline churches ( church) was in apostacy very early in its history, Arius must of been right all along.

The early church found Arius with his understanding that the Trinity was in fact a hierarchy of separate beings and not coeternal even before creation--- to be heretical. And it is at this point that the Great Apostacy was understood to begin to manifest by those who would reclaim the Arian understanding in the 18th century.

Being to Arian makes one immune of all the sins of the church, of Christianity, since the councils of the 4th century. It is a " we told you so religion" because we were right from the beginning. All the Protestants, formal and isolationist, don't have it right. God is now issuing new revelation to his new prophets especially at the many frontier lines in America. And freedom from authority, the renewed faith, the self anointing faith, is making for quickly catching and fast grass fires.

The North American Christian prophets of the 18th century are remarkable for digging out from the Christian dirt the items of repair and so restore rightly from a universal apostacy the long needed genuine trust of the Christian faith. The rapid increase of the new faiths was justification enough that the new prophets had it right.

I have two assumptions as to the cause of it:

a) the puritanical doctrine that God was a rigid task master where none were deserving of salvation but some are saved by exception of randomly selection and so by making for Himself remnant---the elect, that regardless of faith and grace man is still "abandoned" to indifference and fate.

b) The Civil War and the "politics" and "religion" before the civil war and after, whereby the Protestant North and the Protestant South both bible based interpreted scripture differently. Protestant Christianity in North America could not have their religion right if they were leveling hostile lines and eventually real lines of rifle volley against each other. This Christianity was not that separate from the world.

Arius must of been right all along. And the 18th century prophets found him convenient to salve their crisis of faith. Arius was the salve that would scrub clean the sins and the sicknesses brought in with the Plymouth Brethren. The new prophets had the vaccine. The gods of the trinity were not coeternal. We were fighting for the wrong God. Someone must of had him better defined. Someone like Arius. Add, " You don't know if it will work until you try." Some are still trying.