Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then you don't know "Trinity Doctrine" at all. To converse intelligently about the doctrine itself, I would suggest a little background reading. Probably a Wiki article would give you some idea of the complexities.
I know what you are calling THE Trinity Doctrine but I do not accept your claim that there is only one way to view it. Prove that first and then we can discuss it.
Noteworthy, is that "for" carries the connotation of "Because of" humanities sinful nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by balunman
Tell that to any "Church of Christ" person in relation to Act's 2:38!
But "Because of" works just as well. I know a man who went to jail for/because of his crime. Jesus died for/because of our sin. Same meaning. A penalty existed that had to be fulfilled. Jesus took care of that.
The penal substitution theory follows that of believing in a Trinity with a mindset of scapegoating; crucifying the innocent. Truly, he paid the market price with his life! But the wages of sin is still death. Thus, is wasn't to satisfy a penalty.Christ’s sacrifice was not to conciliate the Father to men through that of second hand punishment. Rather, it was to restore or reconcile that which was lost from the power of sin and death.
The death, burial, and resurrection were truly an act of love, mercy and grace within the envelope of forgiveness, overturning the hypocritical verdict of an illegal system of justice that professes to be judge, jury, and executioner; sentencing to death the innocent. And, at the same time, proclaiming the righteousness of him who died - as their blood sacrifice in a pretense of having his virtues imputed to themselves, according to the letter of their own misconceptions.
The penal substitution theory follows that of believing in a Trinity with a mindset of scapegoating; crucifying the innocent. Truly, he paid the market price with his life! But the wages of sin is still death. Thus, is wasn't to satisfy a penalty.Christ’s sacrifice was not to conciliate the Father to men through that of second hand punishment. Rather, it was to restore or reconcile that which was lost from the power of sin and death.
The death, burial, and resurrection were truly an act of love, mercy and grace within the envelope of forgiveness, overturning the hypocritical verdict of an illegal system of justice that professes to be judge, jury, and executioner; sentencing to death the innocent. And, at the same time, proclaiming the righteousness of him who died - as their blood sacrifice in a pretense of having his virtues imputed to themselves, according to the letter of their own misconceptions.
The penal substitution theory follows that of believing in a Trinity with a mindset of scapegoating; crucifying the innocent. Truly, he paid the market price with his life! But the wages of sin is still death. Thus, is wasn't to satisfy a penalty.Christ’s sacrifice was not to conciliate the Father to men through that of second hand punishment. Rather, it was to restore or reconcile that which was lost from the power of sin and death.
The death, burial, and resurrection were truly an act of love, mercy and grace within the envelope of forgiveness, overturning the hypocritical verdict of an illegal system of justice that professes to be judge, jury, and executioner; sentencing to death the innocent. And, at the same time, proclaiming the righteousness of him who died - as their blood sacrifice in a pretense of having his virtues imputed to themselves, according to the letter of their own misconceptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcamps
Fantastic post....fortune cookie man
I concur. I am waiting for the publication of his wise aphorisms.
Ok, pardon me while I get on my soap box for a minute.
I do not bring to the table my opinion of my understanding of God but instead bring the scripture itself to this discussion. Check my scripture references and read the truth for your self.
For those who do not believe in the oneness of God and prefer the doctrine of the trinity. What about the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6 that says " For unto us a child is born and unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon His shoulder. And His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." If you are a Christian you clearly know who the child is that the prophet is referring to. It's Jesus. Tell me why then did the prophet ascribe to this child not only the title of Mighty God (singular) but also The Everlasting Father? I mean there is only one Father, right? But yet this strict monotheistic prophet Isaiah said that this child would in fact be The Everlasting Father.
This sheds light on Jesus' response to Phillip's question in John 14:8-10. Phillip asked for Jesus to show them the Father and Jesus said, " Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father, so how can you say, show me the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?" That came straight from Jesus' mouth!
This gets brought out further in 2 Corinthians 5:19 where the Apostle Paul says that, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. God robed Himself in flesh and came and paid the price for our sins.
The trinity says that there are three persons in the Godhead.
But what about Colossians 2:9 that says, " For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Fullness is fullness my friends.
That's why Revelation 1:8 says, " 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." In the Old Testament the title of Almighty was given to one being and that was the one God of the Jews yet in the New Testament in the Book of Revelation we find this title being ascribed to Jesus. I tell you my friends, when we get to heaven there will not be three thrones for three persons but there will indeed be one throne with one sitting upon it. It will be Jesus the Almighty.
Jesus is not one person in the trinity or one third of the Godhead contrary to popular belief. But actually all the fullness of God dwells in Him.
Why is it so easy to believe in the virgin birth but yet everyone cannot believe that God robed Himself in flesh and became what the bible said He would be, which is Immanuel (God with us)? Come on folks read your bibles.
So which do you reject? Do you reject God the father? or do you reject Jesus Christ the Son? Or do you reject the Holy Spirit? If there is not 3 ways in which God has manifest Himself then which do you claim are not of God?
To answer your question. There should be no rejection of any of those. I did not say that there was not three ways in which God manifests Himself. I simply stated that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily (Colossians 2:9). The thing that is "not of God" is where the trinity dogma states that these are three separate persons.
If the scriptures teach us that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Then in all reality the father and son terminology is just in reference to the different manifestations or ways God has revealed Himself to man. It does not denote any kind of separation whatsoever. Jesus was indeed The Father incarnate but yet the physical man Jesus was "physically speaking" the son of God through the conception in Mary's womb through the spirit of God.
This conception was actually the process of the Father entering into a physical body.That is why Jesus emphatically said that " I am in the Father and the Father in me." And is why Jesus was so upset with Phillip in John 14 when he asked for Jesus to show them the Father. This is also why the religious officials wanted Him killed for Blasphemy because "Jesus being a man made himself out to be God." Like I said before this is how Jesus was Immanuel (God with us).
Just because God has revealed Himself in different ways does mean that these manifestations are separate entities or persons in the Godhead. The fragmentation of God in the dogma of the trinity is what is "not of God" and unscriptural.
To answer your question. There should be no rejection of any of those. I did not say that there was not three ways in which God manifests Himself. I simply stated that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily (Colossians 2:9). The thing that is "not of God" is where the trinity dogma states that these are three separate persons.
If the scriptures teach us that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Then in all reality the father and son terminology is just in reference to the different manifestations or ways God has revealed Himself to man. It does not denote any kind of separation whatsoever. Jesus was indeed The Father incarnate but yet the physical man Jesus was "physically speaking" the son of God through the conception in Mary's womb through the spirit of God.
This conception was actually the process of the Father entering into a physical body.That is why Jesus emphatically said that " I am in the Father and the Father in me." And is why Jesus was so upset with Phillip in John 14 when he asked for Jesus to show them the Father. This is also why the religious officials wanted Him killed for Blasphemy because "Jesus being a man made himself out to be God." Like I said before this is how Jesus was Immanuel (God with us).
Just because God has revealed Himself in different ways does mean that these manifestations are separate entities or persons in the Godhead. The fragmentation of God in the dogma of the trinity is what is "not of God" and unscriptural.
I believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. I believe God is the Father in heaven and the Holy Spirit is God's spirit. How is this unscriptural and "the fragmentation of God". I believe in those three manifestations of God. I have never understood why people calling themselves "oneness" say I am wrong for believing God has manifest Himself as the Father, as the Son and as the Holy Spirit. I also fail to see what they believe differently than I do.
I looked up how we word it in our doctrinal statement for our church and here it is "God is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."
Last edited by balunman; 07-27-2013 at 06:13 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
