Explain the Xian Trinity

Great Debates
61

I never said it was incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine, and this comment highlights the intractable nature of the Trinity Doctrine among believers.

I said it was incompatible with the Bible. The earlier [Luke] cite is in direct contradiction to the Trinity Doctrine. When pressed to reconcile the glaring discrepancies between the Doctrine and the Bible, it has been common to get an answer like this one that is essentially saying, ‘The Trinity Doctrine is it’s own cite.’ That is untenable, and indefensible.

Once again, I’m not disputing the tenets of the Doctrine. (and, btw, I was raised, in part, Catholic and attended Catholic school and attended mass for years) But the Doctrine cannot be “self validating”, especially if it purports to accept the Bible as valid. Further, there is no basis to expect the Bible to reconcile to the Doctrine, but rather the Doctrine must reconcile to the Bible; and to the extent it doesn’t (and boy o’ boy it doesn’t) explain to us why we should accept it in light of the discrepancies.

Lastly, by way of reconciliation, using the Trinity Doctrine as it’s own cite, comments such as “It’s a divine mystery”, and flowery analogies and metaphors (which we never seem to run out of) do not answer the question.

62

I just read and reread your post again (post number 44) and I can’t find a way to interpret it other than as arguing that the Luke verse is incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity. One reason I think it should be read as saying that is that it contains the following text:

But in any case, later in your last post, you say:

Now you’re back to saying the Luke passage contradicts Trinitarian doctrine again!

You’re mistyping somewhere, and as a result I’ve completel lost track of what you actually meant to say. Please clarify! :wink: Do you think the Luke passage you were discussing contradicts Trinitarian doctrine, or not? If not, what is it you think it contradicts, and why do you think it contradicts it?

-FrL-

(Just to clarify, I’m not believer in the innerancy of the Bible so I’m not here to defend it. I’m just wanting to make sure I understand your meaning.)

63

No, it is not suggested in those texts. Read them again please, and especially in the surrounding texts for context.

And then ask yourself: In the absence of a a priori belief and acceptance of the Trinity Doctrine, do these texts implicitly or explicitly state that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person, part of a Triune, or some one in three, or three in one entity?

No.

In other words, if a person who was unacquainted with the Trinity Doctrine read these texts would they naturally come to the conclusion that they were the same Trinitarian Godhead?

Of course not.

If I asked you to do something and told you you had the blessings (approval) of Mangetout, Frylock and Strassia would you naturally conclude they were the same person, in essence; or were joined in a Trinitarian fashion?

Of course not. For you to believe this would require a a priori belief—a previous awareness and acceptance of the Doctrine----because the simple statement “You have Mangetout, Frylock and Strassia’s approval” neither implicitly or explicitly supports a Trinity viewpoint. Neither do those texts.

Cites like these are examples of a Doctrine looking for it’s validation.

64

I’m sorry if I’m not clear.

What I’m saying is that the Trinity Doctrine has no compelling biblical basis; and to that end I’m being kind. I would like to say it has no basis at all, compelling or not. However, there are a few texts that are used to support the Doctrine, but in my view they quickly wither under scrutiny. (especially when compared to the literally hundreds of places in the texts that stand in glaring discrepancy to the Doctrine)

Taken with history, and the evolution of the Doctrine itself, it is clear to me that the Doctrine------while well meaning and sincere-----is not found in the bible.

For the non-believer this is probably nothing but an interesting exercise. For the believer, it seems to me that worshiping God requires that the believer not be subject to a Doctrine that has pagan roots and is in contradiction to the Bible. The OT amd NT Jews were [are] not Trinitarians, nor was Jesus, his followers, or the early Church, and so I’m hard pressed to see a case for the Doctrine now, Tradition or not.

65

It is worse than that, IIRC there is evidence that the last line in Matthew 28:19 was changed later.

[searching]

Yep:

http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

66

The only way Jesus could be fully God and Fully man would be that man is also God, and God is also human.

The psalmist says," I say you are gods, sons of the most high", Jesus uses this quote when he was accused of Blasphmey.

We do not know how much Jesus did suffer, but if I were going to suffer(as many people do) and knew I would die in about 36 hours then Ressurectecd I wouldn’t call that as good a sacrifice as the soldirers make every day; their suffering can go on for years and have no proof that they will ressurect.

There are many people (if one believes in some religions) who believe that there are a lot of people in Hell suffering for all eternity, then Jesus suffering did no good for them.

Monavis

67

Certainly if it was a natural, run-of-the-mill type of thing that happened every day, yes, but I think it’s supposed to be a massive exception to the norm - that’s kinda the whole point.

68

One should always understand that the whole of the Catholic/Orthodox/Christian belief is not contained in the Bible. The belief in sola scriptura is a heretical, extremely modern view held by small numbers of Protestants.

69

We have this in human form already:

Husband and wife are one being, so is Adam and Eve (the 2 shall become one flesh Mark 10:8). At one time Adam and Eve were a single physical being, Adam. For that matter the sex act alone accomplishes this (1 Cor 6:16), and for that matter the thought of the sex act can also do this (Matt 5:28). This united the people together as one.

The body of believers are part of the body of Christ (Eph 5:31-32), they form one body.

The Israelites came out as ‘one man’ Judges 20:1.

We have trouble seeing this relationship, I believe because God has confused our language (Gen 11:7,9), which is the tower of Babel, causing communication problems tends to disrupt a harmonious operation of a single being, much like a person who has nerve damage, though that person is still one being. The tower of Babel is usually use to explain the different languages, but according to the Word of God it points twards more then that, and reads more like that language is confused on the person to person level, and does not read that God divided languages up into groups of nations.

God does not have the communication trouble of the Tower of Babel, so Father, Son and Holy Spirit can and are a single God. Believers being part of the body of Christ also act in the Spirit in this way, totally coordinated by God who controls all actions of His body, though the person him or herself can’t see this coordinated effort, which is one of the reason faith is needed.

70

This is simply not true, and smacks of a rationalization in explaining why modern Christianity is so far off the path of Christ and the teachings contained in the Bible.

The absolute irony in comments like this is that it is in direct contrast to the message of Christ. Christ was a Jew, and came not to start some newfangled religion called Christianity, but to clean up Judaism.

He saved his harshest criticism for those who had perverted the Law Code with a series of man made traditions that contradicted the Law Code and added burdens (in the form of rules and rituals that were not contained in the Law) to the people.

One can hardly imagine a religion that hewed closer to it’s written Law Code than Judaism. It was central to every aspect of Jewish life, from business practices to marriage, to family life----even to things like menstruation and sanitation.

The Christian movement proved no less interested in using the Holy Scriptures as the “handbook” from which Christians were to live.

I’d be pleased to discuss this further with you. To begin, I’d be interested in whether your reading of the Bible suggests that they had the type of laissez-faire attitude toward Scripture that modern Christianity has, and whether there is any evidence of the sentiments the Bible authors, Jesus and his followers, including the early Church might have towards this cavalier approach towards the Holy Scriptures.

71

A very insightful post. Thanks for sharing that.

72

This “one flesh” speaks of singularity of purpose, a joining in marriage for life, the creation of the nucleus of the family, and the propagation of the species. *It doesn’t say they become the same person, or a single being! *

This is absurd. Prior to Eve’s creation she simply didn’t exist. With this logic, every one of Adam’s ribs constituted another human being.

1 Cor 6:16:Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”
Matt 5:28:But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The 1 Cor cite speaks of singularity of purpose, not that they become a single person! This is a clear case of metaphor.* In any event, it doesn’t speak at all about God, the nature of God, or the Trinity!
*
Lurkers, can you see why there is so confusion about the Trinity?

With this logic, I am God as well.

None of this speaks to the Trinity, none of it.

There is nothing in what you’ve posted that establishes the Trinity, speaks to or about the Trinity, or establishes that Jesus is God. None of it.

Once again the only way to find the Trinity in these texts is to impute meaning that the authors didn’t say. To achieve that, one must to have a prior knowledge and acceptance of the Trinity Doctrine, because in the absence of both the [prior] knowledge and acceptance of the Doctrine, the Trinity cannot be found by the casual reader nor scholar. That’s because it doesn’t exist in those texts.

:smack:

73

You must be joking. That was pure gibberish.

74

AFAIK there is no scripture that supports this, please tell me where you got this from. THe Word clearly states the two shall become one flesh, you can’t get any clearer then that.

The Word of God clearly states that ‘she was taken out of the man’ (Gen 2:23b). Taken out means she was in before, it does not mean nonexisance, again if you can support your case by the Word please do.

Again I don’t believe you have any scriptural leg to stand on, but please provide the place where you get this ‘singularity of purpose’ from.

Don’t you think God can get us His Word in terms of absolute truth? don’t you think that He has to? Since the Word itself is God (John 1:1).

75

FTR, kanicbird, I’ve read many of your posts and have enjoyed many of them, and agreed with many. I respect you. In this instance I profoundly disagree, and I think it is a benefit that we have come to this point because it affords those interested a clear difference between viewpoints.

I was driving here this afternoon and gave some thought to our exchange here and it occurred to me this is an instance where a poster has offered up a series of texts that not only doesn’t make his case, but makes the opposite case.

The texts that you’ve offered up do not speak at all to the Trinity, but have been offered up as examples we can point to that help us understand the Trinity. For example, you started your post with, “We have this in human form already:…”

Even if one accepts that these “one flesh” examples must also apply to Jesus/Jehovah/HS (a case that the texts don’t even imply) it’s still absolutely clear to me that these texts are metaphor. Rather than running to them, I would think a Trinitarian would be running from them.

When Eliot Spitzer made himself horizontally available with a woman not his wife, it cannot be rationally said they became “one flesh” in as much as they became a single entity with a single will, thoughts, intentions, authority, or power.

But that’s exactly the case you’re making, and continue to make. It boggles the mind, frankly.

The cite you made------- 1 Cor 6:16:"Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”------makes them “one flesh” in as much as they had a “singular purpose” to complete a transaction; he for sexual gratification, she for pecuniary gain.

In the first place, these texts do not speak of the Trinity and are being used as [tortured] examples. In the second, they are clearly metaphor and not literal.

76

I don’t think so. The whole point of the trinity, as I understand it, is to stress the oneness of the Godhead. I thought kanicbird did an excellent job of providing scriptural examples of how we, who are made in His likeness, can be one in a similar manner. The reason we are like Him is not that He is bipedal, but that we are spirit. That said, I personally tend more toward belief in an infinity — one that includes us — than a trinity per se.

77

the raindog I didn’t really go into the trinity as it was not my intention, but to give examples that perhaps are more understandable for humans. To define the trinity, just going on memory here, we can define via the Word that the Father is God, the Son, Lord Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, put together with ‘God is one’ and the trinity must exist as it is just a term that is defined as the 3 in 1. But that doesn’t help trying to understand it, which is why I went into the human examples.

As for our and Jesus’ relationship, Jesus is the bridegroom, the church (the body of believers) are the bride of Jesus, this is also another form of oneness, and is the reason we get to pray in the name of Jesus (just as the wife (usually) takes her husband’s name, we get to use His name).

Scripture simply does not support singularity of purpose, but actually single flesh. We can see this with Mark 6:21-29 where King Herod offers ‘up to half my kingdom’ to daughter of Herodias, (we also see this is Ester in similar situations) who dances for the king. This is not a marital relationship, but most likely some lust of the part of the king towards her and automatically she gets half, because they are now one in flesh. This plays out today through divorce where a common line is that the wife gets half.

BTW in the occult this is how forms of voodoo work, soul ties are used to control the other person, many times a voodoo doll is a sexual partner of some sort, either directly or through lustful thoughts even of a 3rd person.

78

A bit more on 1 Cor 6:16:

We can see the downward spiral of the desire that one has for a prostitute:

James 1:15

Which simply can be put is once you go down a sinful path it becomes easier to sin, after a while no guilt is felt, then it becomes normal and is the path one goes down. Here’s anotehr way of loooking at it:

79

Well kanicbird, my contribution to this thread has run it’s course I think. I appreciate the interchange of ideas.

I will leave this for the lurkers, should any be out there.

It seems to me that an honest, unbiased assessment of the validity of the Trinity Doctrine can be done by endeavoring to read the Bible with an open mind. Ask yourself,

  1. Does Jehovah God, at any point, identify himself as part of a Triune Godhead? (No, and, in fact, identifies himself every single time in the singular)

  2. When reading the Bible are there instances where Jehovah, Jesus or the Holy Spirit are identified as a Trinity or part of a 3 in 1 Godhead? Ever? (No)

  3. Does the bible always identify Jehovah God with words that distinguish him as “Sovereign” or distinct? (yes)

  4. Did Jesus ever—ever----identify himself as God, equal to God, or part of a Triune God? (not only “no”, but showed himself as subordinate to God at every occasion)

  5. Were the OT Jews Trinitarians? The NT Jews? Jews today? Jesus? The Apostles? The first century Christians? (no, no, no, no, no and…no)

  6. Is the Trinity found in the bible? (no)
    If you believe in the Trinity and stumble upon texts that “suggest” validation of the Trinity, ask yourself, ‘Independent of my knowledge of the Trinity, and my acceptance of the Doctrine, do these texts indicate the Trinity?’ In other words, ‘if I, or another person, was unacquainted with the Trinity would I/they naturally come to the conclusion that these texts established the Trinity?’ In other, other words, ‘does my belief in the Trinity precede the meaning I attach to this text?’

80

I would have to say that I cannot reasonably expect to find any legitimate exegesis or understanding of scripture from anyone who continually refers to the imaginary being “Jehovah” who is nowhere mentioned in any part of the bible.

:smiley: