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.
Well, I would call it a misunderstanding too. I just wasn't aware that there was a disagreement among trinity believers about their understanding of the doctrine.
Well, I would call it a misunderstanding too. I just wasn't aware that there was a disagreement among trinity believers about their understanding of the doctrine.
Well, I've always been 'the odd man out' so to speak. When I was younger I did believe the Trinity because that's what I was taught in my church. However as I 'aged' and began to 'rightly divide' the Word of Truth I realized just because we are taught something doesn't make it TRUE!! That can be said for MANY things Christians believe, and teach. Another example...eternal punishment.
Let me say up front I believe in Christ's deity, but I have to point out a couple of things to you....
quote:So, if God is triune as the Bible teaches, then Jesus (the Word) could be WITH the Father (a separate and distinct Person), but also share the same nature as the Father.
The problem with you reasoning here is this. The word 'Word' in the Greek is 'logos' and means 'a spoken word.' So what John 1:1 is saying is this:
In the beginning was "the spoken Word" and "the spoken Word" was with God, and "the spoken Word" was God. This shows us that God's logos, His verbal word, became God in the flesh when His logos (spoken Word) became Jesus. So that makes Christ an extention of the Father i.e the Father in the flesh. If Jesus was, as you state, a seperate and distinct person, then there would be 2 Gods, not one.
Thanks for the good post. We can play on words if you want. But using your same reasoning, then are you saying that Jesus and the Father are ONE IN THE SAME AS NOT BEING TWO DISTINCT PERSONS? Am I right?
There is ONLY ONE GOD, and I thought I clearly said that God has manifested or revealed himself through his Son--both BEING ONE, BOTH BEING DIVINE, and BOTH HAVING THE SAME NATURE.
Well, I would call it a misunderstanding too. I just wasn't aware that there was a disagreement among trinity believers about their understanding of the doctrine.
This is why we need to dialogue about this topic to see where we all stand or believe. We can learn from each other, and I am first to admit when I need to stand corrected ON ANY BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OR TOPIC.
Thanks for the good post. We can play on words if you want. But using your same reasoning, then are you saying that Jesus and the Father are ONE IN THE SAME AS NOT BEING TWO DISTINCT PERSONS? Am I right?
There is ONLY ONE GOD, and I thought I clearly said that God has manifested or revealed himself through his Son--both BEING ONE, BOTH BEING DIVINE, and BOTH HAVING THE SAME NATURE.
First of all I was not playing with words. And second I'm not sure just what you are asking me ?
Let me say up front I believe in Christ's deity, but I have to point out a couple of things to you....
quote:So, if God is triune as the Bible teaches, then Jesus (the Word) could be WITH the Father (a separate and distinct Person), but also share the same nature as the Father.
The problem with you reasoning here is this. The word 'Word' in the Greek is 'logos' and means 'a spoken word.' So what John 1:1 is saying is this:
In the beginning was "the spoken Word" and "the spoken Word" was with God, and "the spoken Word" was God. This shows us that God's logos, His verbal word, became God in the flesh when His logos (spoken Word) became Jesus. So that makes Christ an extention of the Father i.e the Father in the flesh. If Jesus was, as you state, a seperate and distinct person, then there would be 2 Gods, not one.
Hi all new here! The early Israelites, Hebrews and early Jewish believers didn't consider God a trinity either, they believed in a two powers in heaven, the one seen God and the one unseen. What we would call God and the Lord God and . The OT is ripe with instances of the two powers of God, you have them talking to one another, refering to one another and the prophets seemed to know who those two were. In Proverbs 30:4 it says 'What it is His name and what is His Son's name', if you know, sounds like two and not three. And in I cor. 8:6 it says 'yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.' If they felt that the Holy Spirit was part of a Godhead then its curious why they don't mention that here.
In the greek there is no difference in the word God neither plural or singular, I think, but one word to descripe both Father and Son. Christ was always very clear that God was His father and He was from Him and part of Him but never refers to the Holy Spirt that way. Christ calls the Holy Spirit a helper if I am not mistaken. I have always wondered why it took until the 4th century to hammer out what the trinity was seems if the apostles and early believers knew what it was then there wouldn't have been the need to call a council to hammer out the issue. Just my two cents.
Jesus Christ..."Begotten, not made,..... one in being with the Father....."
I always wondered if Jesus was created as some would believe, why doesn't the bible directly teach that HE was created or made by God. The Greek word for BEGOTTEN implies to me that you can only beget a child that has the same nature as HIS FATHER.
There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). In other words, my son or daughter will inherit his or her nature from me (my genes, my personality) You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.
Now think about this very carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as his Father (who is God), then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten--which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God making him unique (one of a kind) sharing the same nature just like his father.
Are you saying that God created another God equal to Him? If so, does that give the son the same authority as the one who begot him?
My daughter is the spitting image of my husband, but is more like me in temperment and personality. We are still her parents and in no way equal in authority.
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.
