Is God Three?
- Thread starter Tigger 2
- Start date
oatmeal
Well-known member
Well, that may be, but he did a poor job of providing evidence.
As I have shown, his first quote does not mention anything resembling trinity
He may as well as quoted
Luke 2:16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
as being a trinity, after all three people are mentioned in the same verse!
Or how about
Mark 13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
As often as Peter James and John are mentioned in the same verse,surely they are a triune God!
Or how about Job 1:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Since there are three, sons of God, the Lord and Satan, mentioned in the same verse, surely they are a triune God as well?
BR chose poor, even pitiful evidence to prove his point.
I believe he is far more intelligent than that.
However, had BR actually read what Tigger wrote, he would not have been arguing with him.
Tigger provides evidence that the trinity was not OFFICIAL doctrine
Did he state that it was not already being popularized by those who still held onto to their pagan triune gods?
Likewise, BR should take up his argument with the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" and whoever wrote that article. Argue with the source not the messenger.
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
Oh, by the way, BR,
I am a follower of The Way International and have been for 30 years, even longer if you include my awareness of them as honest workman of the word and my desire to be with them but could not.
I did not need The Way International to teach me that Jesus is not God as one of Dr. VP Wierwille's books is properly named.
I concluded that Jesus is not God in RC parochial school when I learned of I Timothy 2:5
The one mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus.
That is as simple and straightforward as it can get
However, I did learn a great deal more scripture on that subject as well as many other subjects, more in one hour than I could have ever learned in a lifetime listening to RC doctrines. You could accuse me of exaggerating, and I thought about that, but based on my experience with the Way International and how well they understand and teach scripture, that would be a mild exaggeration at best
I am a follower, not a leader, one reason is I probably do not have the social graces to be a leader.
jsanford108
New member
Can you explain how "the Lord God Christ Jesus" is not proof of Ignatius believing and teaching Trinity doctrine?
I think rather than BR choosing poor evidence, you simply rejected it due to it disproving your personal doctrines and alternate reality of history.
But if I am wrong, I apologize. You have simply failed to provide historical evidence in support of your position.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
oatmeal
Well-known member
When you read my posts carefully you will find I did not directly address all of his quotes
I looked closely at the first one and showed that it does not show any evidence of that person believing in a trinity. He may have, but that quote does not show it.
He makes a clear distinction between God as the Lord God and His son who is the high priest
You are right I reject fully and categorically, the trinity.
It is not, was not, no ever will be scriptural
However, I did not reach that conclusion based on what men taught me.
God filled my hunger and thirst for righteousness when He called my attention to I Timothy 2:5. He did not do this by revelation or any such thing but that verse was quotes in a class room setting in a different context, but I realized when I heard it, it answered my question as to whether Jesus is God or a man. According to I Timothy 2:5 It is the man Christ Jesus who is the one mediator between God and men.
When believers learn to simply accept truths that simple they too will find it scripturally impossible to believe in a trinity or that Jesus is God
That is your problem not mine. Why am I not surprised that you do not believe in the Trinity.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Actually, I have reached my conclusion from scripture.
Since scripture does not teach neither a trinity nor that Jesus is God, I am happy and blessed to know what scripture does teach.
It is my joy to know the truth of scripture that Jesus is not "God the Son" but the son of God.
Should you ever take a serious look at scripture without the preconceived notions you have been taught, you would reach the same conclusions I did.
Since I believe scripture, nor am I surprised that I reject the false doctrine of the trinity.
I am sure you are quite sincere in your beliefs, but sincerity is sincerity, sincerity is not a guarantee of truth.
John 17:17, God's word, God's written logos is truth, when we read it we are reading truth whether we choose to believe it or not.
Jesus is the son of God. Only God is God, and Jesus is the only begotten son of God. John 3:16
John 20:28 (NIV2011)
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
1)
Thomas is His disciple, a direct eyewitness. It's thus a valid account of testimony that who Jesus is.
2)
More importantly, if Jesus is not an equivalent of God and He didn't deny it when Thomas even ambiguously used that title by a mistake, then it's a huge sin of blasphemy. That says you either believe that He sinned or believe that He can be legitimately called God.
3)
It is extremely difficult for Jesus to formally claim to be God. As by Jewish laws, if a human (which Jesus 100% is) claims to be God, he can be executed legitimately. Jesus however didn't ever formally declare to be God, thus His execution is never legitimate. So you either want Him to be executed legitimately or reckon that the execution is not legitimate. It is for this reason that His identity needs to be testified by a valid (chosen by God) eyewitness, which is Thomas.
4)
On the other hand, it's extremely easy for Him to say that "I am not God" if He isn't. There's not constrain there to limit His this clarification if He's not to be called God, especially under the circumstance that His eye witnesses such as Thomas calls Him that way.
5)
There are tons of circumstances that He offended the Jews by implicitly acting on behalf of God.
To say that "I AM" is possibly the closest possible self declaration.
In Jewish concepts back then, only God can legitimately say that "I forgive you" or "you are forgiven".
Only God can be the source of life spring. "Come to me" for the spring of life also indicates that Jesus can be God Himself.
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
1)
Thomas is His disciple, a direct eyewitness. It's thus a valid account of testimony that who Jesus is.
2)
More importantly, if Jesus is not an equivalent of God and He didn't deny it when Thomas even ambiguously used that title by a mistake, then it's a huge sin of blasphemy. That says you either believe that He sinned or believe that He can be legitimately called God.
3)
It is extremely difficult for Jesus to formally claim to be God. As by Jewish laws, if a human (which Jesus 100% is) claims to be God, he can be executed legitimately. Jesus however didn't ever formally declare to be God, thus His execution is never legitimate. So you either want Him to be executed legitimately or reckon that the execution is not legitimate. It is for this reason that His identity needs to be testified by a valid (chosen by God) eyewitness, which is Thomas.
4)
On the other hand, it's extremely easy for Him to say that "I am not God" if He isn't. There's not constrain there to limit His this clarification if He's not to be called God, especially under the circumstance that His eye witnesses such as Thomas calls Him that way.
5)
There are tons of circumstances that He offended the Jews by implicitly acting on behalf of God.
To say that "I AM" is possibly the closest possible self declaration.
In Jewish concepts back then, only God can legitimately say that "I forgive you" or "you are forgiven".
Only God can be the source of life spring. "Come to me" for the spring of life also indicates that Jesus can be God Himself.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Ok then good point.
Let us apply that logic to Exodus 7:1
And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
See, not Thomas but the Lord said to Moses "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"
1) The Lord, the Lord God, a direct eyewitness. It's thus a valid account of testimony that who Moses is.
2)
More importantly, if Moses is not an equivalent of God and He didn't deny it when the Lord even ambiguously used that title by a mistake, then it's a huge sin of blasphemy. That says you either believe that He sinned or believe that He can be legitimately called God.
3)
It is extremely difficult for Moses to formally claim to be God. As by Jewish laws, if a human (which Moses 100% is) claims to be God, he can be executed legitimately. Moses however didn't ever formally declare to be God, . It is for this reason that His identity needs to be testified by a valid (chosen by God) eyewitness, which is the Lord.
On the other hand, it's extremely easy for Him to say that "I am not God" if He isn't.
It is easy for the Lord to say of Moses, you are not God, if it was not true what the Lord said of Moses.
"See, I have made thee a God to pharaoh"
Moses is as much God as Jesus is God. Are you going to call the Lord a liar?
For that matter, let us apply your thinking to
John 10
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Since God calls those unto whom the word of God came, then God should have corrected himself if they are not gods.
How many humans did the word of God come to?
That is how many humans are Gods!
If they are not then God should deny Himself and tell us that He is wrong!
Let me give you an analogy. Trinity is about the anatomy of God. You have only one God, God doesn't need you to understand how He is composed of in early stage of human encounters.
It is not necessary for ants of understand the anatomy of humans to establish an encounter. However as time goes by, the intelligent humans may find a way to reveal their anatomy to the ants in a way lying within the ants' comprehension.
To me, it's actually crucial for God not to introduce Himself as a "three person" to the Jews. He only introduce confusion to the ancient Jews, especially under the circumstance that polytheism was much more common than monotheism back then.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Thanks for offering an analogy,
but I am interested in scripture.
Now if scripture offers analogies, then I am interested.
I see that you are not willing to withdraw your "logic"
Even though your logic makes Gods out of many humansm maybe thousands maybe millions of humans depending on what God means by those unto whom the word of God came.
The three in one God theory is therefore off by maybe millions of God in one.
The trinity is not taught by scripture.
Jesus is no more "the God" than Moses or those unto whom the word of God came.
Jesus is the son of God.
An analogy?
Why not the egg analogy? You know the shell, white and yolk analogy?
Or the ice, water, steam analogy?
Why didn't God use those to explain himself or is it themselves?
Why do you use them?
God didn't, are you a better communicator than God?
Rest assured, God is the great communicator, if He wanted me to understand He knows how to communicate to me without your man made analogies.
God is not an egg, or is that news to you?
How many eggs do you use to make an omelet?
God is not fragile,you are not going to break God into three pieces.
Last edited:
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
atthew 27:46
About THREE in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you FORSAKEN me?").
About THREE in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you FORSAKEN me?").
jsanford108
New member
So, you did not take the time to pour over his other quotations?
Okay, then let us discuss this in a civil nature. I assure you, I will not attack you, nor your denomination.
Fair enough. Can you explain John 10:30?
There are several points I would like to address here. 1.) Who authored I Timothy?
2.) How do you reconcile that with John 1:1, John 10:30 (Mind you, these are from the Apostle John). What about other writings, such as Colossians 2:9, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, the list goes on.
3.) How do you know that what you interpret is correct? Another way to ask this is, by what authority do you render your interpretation accurate, logically?
This phrase can be your thesis. Please, go ahead and posit logical arguments that prove this doctrine.
(If you wish, I will do the same, as an introduction to and through rebuttals.)
oatmeal
Well-known member
No I did not take the time to read the entire post.
After reading the first quote is was clear that BR was grasping at straws.
Surely the pagan Roman Emperor, at least according to the New Catholic Ency., who was telling Christians what is right doctrine did not make up the trinity on the spot.
It is clear that the pagans who turned to Christianity had not fully discarded their triune gods so they tried to make a triune god out of the one true God, John 17.
the New C E tells us that the trinity became official doctrine of "Christianity" when the pagan Roman Emperor decreed it, until then it was the wishful thinking of Christians who had not yet renewed their mind to the truth that God is one God, not three gods in one.
What does John 10:30 say?
a. I and my Father are God
b. I and my Father are two parts of the three part god, but I do not know why the Holy Spirit is not one with us
c. I and my Father are one?
What does John 10:30 say?
God authored I Timothy
I have no need to reconcile I Timothy with John 1 and John 10:30, for God does not contradict himself
I Timothy 2:5 is clear, God is God, men are men and the one mediator between God and men is who?
a. the God Christ Jesus
b. the fully God/fully man Christ Jesus
c. the Godman Christ Jesus
d. God the son Christ Jesus
e. all of the above
f. the man Christ Jesus
Who does God, in I Timothy 2:5 say is the one mediator between God and men?
Hmmm?
"f" is the correct answer
You do not get to read your threeology into scripture just because you are told that the trinity is true.
Read what is written and leave it alone
oatmeal
Well-known member
Yes, that is correct
God is the Father who is also likes to be called the Holy Spirit
God is the Father is the Holy Spirit. Same God three different names or titles
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
One Infinity.......
One Infinity.......
Yes, Jesus wholly affirmed the Shema. More on this can be seen in one of my posts that got sent to the Spammner's wasteland thread here :thumb: - (a 'plural unity' may be implied in terms such as 'elohim', but not necessarily for 'echad' which describes YHWH uniquely and specially, so deeper study required)
God's being or character is never described as '3' in the hebrew scriptures, although a trinity concept can be applied to Deity, as well as any other computation that 'suits' one's own theological preference or taste
I love aspects of pan-theism, so in this context,...'God' can be any number of beings or things, ...since all comprises God 'God' is the whole of all that is, the entire cosmos, the Totality.
Universally, fundamentally, absolutely, and relatively....the nature of 'God' as Spirit, Energy, Light, Consciousness...is 'echad'...slice and dice it as you please. It really comes down to a battle of terminology and 'cosmetics' in the greater picture of things, since no matter what form, concept, image or assumption you entertain...there is only One Infinite Spirit thru-out, one infinity from out of whose womb comes all. - hence the proposition that 'God' is 'one' holds...no matter what differentiations or particulars arise in consciousness. 'God' is the spirit-reality and consciousness at the Heart.
One Infinity.......
Yes, Jesus wholly affirmed the Shema. More on this can be seen in one of my posts that got sent to the Spammner's wasteland thread here :thumb: - (a 'plural unity' may be implied in terms such as 'elohim', but not necessarily for 'echad' which describes YHWH uniquely and specially, so deeper study required)
God's being or character is never described as '3' in the hebrew scriptures, although a trinity concept can be applied to Deity, as well as any other computation that 'suits' one's own theological preference or taste
I love aspects of pan-theism, so in this context,...'God' can be any number of beings or things, ...since all comprises God 'God' is the whole of all that is, the entire cosmos, the Totality.Universally, fundamentally, absolutely, and relatively....the nature of 'God' as Spirit, Energy, Light, Consciousness...is 'echad'...slice and dice it as you please. It really comes down to a battle of terminology and 'cosmetics' in the greater picture of things, since no matter what form, concept, image or assumption you entertain...there is only One Infinite Spirit thru-out, one infinity from out of whose womb comes all. - hence the proposition that 'God' is 'one' holds...no matter what differentiations or particulars arise in consciousness. 'God' is the spirit-reality and consciousness at the Heart.
jaybird
New member
Yes, Jesus wholly affirmed the Shema. More on this can be seen in one of my posts that got sent to the Spammner's wasteland thread here :thumb: - (a 'plural unity' may be implied in terms such as 'elohim', but not necessarily for 'echad' which describes YHWH uniquely and specially, so deeper study required)
God's being or character is never described as '3' in the hebrew scriptures, although a trinity concept can be applied to Deity, as well as any other computation that 'suits' one's own theological preference or taste
Universally, fundamentally, absolutely, and relatively....the nature of 'God' as Spirit, Energy, Light, Consciousness...is 'echad'...slice and dice it as you please. It really comes down to a battle of terminology and 'cosmetics' in the greater picture of things, since no matter what form, concept, image or assumption you entertain...there is only One Infinite Spirit thru-out, one infinity from out of whose womb comes all. - hence the proposition that 'God' is 'one' holds...no matter what differentiations or particulars arise in consciousness. 'God' is the spirit-reality and consciousness at the Heart.
the way i see echad is it means one but one in a way that is bigger than any one you ever heard of. the glory of this one can not be contained in the heavens or earth. if it meant more than one such as three then why bother with the "one" in the first place and why all the emphases on this concept that the Most High is one, there are no gods beside Him, and no gods with Him.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Yep
many different forms,...also pan-en-theism is more fitting within a traditional theist context,...since all exists in (en) 'God', since nothing can exist outside of him. Isn't 'God' omnipresent?