Trinity

[Gatekeeper]

Truth doesn't change, Gatekeeper. Remember that.

True, truth does not change - The problem rests in how we define truth. The church is not above mistakes, nor am I - so lets be realistic, here. Who can honestly say w/o a doubt, that they 'know' the truth? God is beyond our comprehension, so until that day when we can say that we know the enirety of God, His will, and every little detail of His plan - We are simply blessed with ignorance. This is the way it should be [imo] It is when we ourselves think we have it 'all' right, that we become a danger to others, via forceful conversions. Besides, if the Church is worried about lil ole me, then they are surely in desperate times.

Yup, yup

James

 

[BlaznFattyz]

I simply view Jesus as the son of God, and our savior - nothing more, nothing less.

But only God is salvation, so if you are saying Jesus is saviour, who said he is the way, the truth, and the life, and who said he lays down his own life and has the power to take it up again, how do you reason that? and satan tempted, but didnt persuade or convince and was rebuked, jesus said you shall not tempt the Lord your God.

 

[Gatekeeper]

But only God is salvation, so if you are saying Jesus is saviour, who said he is the way, the truth, and the life, and who said he lays down his own life and has the power to take it up again, how do you reason that? and satan tempted, but didnt persuade or convince and was rebuked, jesus said you shall not tempt the Lord your God.

Blazn, I'm not sure where you get that "only God is salvation", but when Satan tempted Jesus to throw himself off the temple - Jesus was telling satan that He himself is not to put God to the test. Satan told Jesus that God would command His angels to [save him], and Jesus simply rebukes with a "It is written" ...

James

 

[Dream]

But only God is salvation, so if you are saying Jesus is saviour, who said he is the way, the truth, and the life, and who said he lays down his own life and has the power to take it up again, how do you reason that? and satan tempted, but didnt persuade or convince and was rebuked, jesus said you shall not tempt the Lord your God.

Blazznfatty, you weren't talking to me but it is your responsibility to find out what whether these verses are reasonable instead of assuming they are incomprehensible. How I understand these verses about Jesus in the light of other verses about Jesus? I do it carefully, and I think about it.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

I'm not sure where you get that "only God is salvation"...

Isaiah 43:3, "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"
Isaiah 45:21, "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

So if you are saying jesus is the saviour, and you read that god is your saviour, one has to then say that jesus is god, and that is understanding the trinity. but if you say that jesus is not the saviour because only god is the saviour, then your sins are not forgiven, because this is the reason jesus came and no one comes to the father but through him.

 

[Joedjr]

Hi BlaznFattyz,

because this is the reason jesus came and no one comes to the father but through him.

This is from John 6:44 from the NASB. I really don't like using one line from the text, and have used this quote elsewhere in this thread. Read the rest to get the point.

44:"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
It's there for all to read.

IMHO: one must read the whole of the text to hopefully gain understanding. If one likes to embrace the Old Testament along with the New then view it also as a whole. I'm not to sure about the pick and choose.

.02
Joe

 

[mee]

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."
We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors." ​

The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied.



would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it

 

[Gatekeeper]

Isaiah 43:3, "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"
Isaiah 45:21, "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

So if you are saying jesus is the saviour, and you read that god is your saviour, one has to then say that jesus is god, and that is understanding the trinity. but if you say that jesus is not the saviour because only god is the saviour, then your sins are not forgiven, because this is the reason jesus came and no one comes to the father but through him.

I still do not see where 'only' God saves, Blazn - You are free to believe what you wish, tho. I am not saying you are wrong, I simply don't see it all as you do. God certainly saves, but he could certainly give that power to Christ Jesus - His son. What is salvation anyway - if not the frededom that comes from truth. The Spirit is the Lord, and where that Spirit is, there is freedom- It is the the Spirit that gives life, and through that spirit we have truth.

James

 

[Thomas]

I look at it from a logical point of view, as it all corresponds with natural birth processes [imo] ...

Then you begin to anthropomorphise the Deity ... this is the way it happens for man, does not mean God must be subject to the same limitations.

In the natural order it takes two parents to create a child ... with God it does not, so the natural model does not apply.

I'm a product of my parents — I have both mothers, and fathers nature, but I cannot be considered either. I am an unique individual, just as Christ Jesus was. I inherrited the qualities of my father, and I inherrited the qualities of my mother, but I am not mum, or dad - I am James, son of both.

Jesus didn't have a biological father, did he? Furthermore it is believed that Jesus Christ was one Person with two natures, which is not the case with us, either...

Then, I suppose Peter was literally Satan, which the church was built upon. We can go even further, and suggest that God is actually Love also, in which case all one need do is love to be counted among the fold. [I'm pretty sure the Catholic church, and every other would resist these sentiments.

Well, how wrong you are!

In the first instance, if one actually reads Scripture to understand why Our Lord referred to Peter that way, it is obvious: "And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord... " Matthew 16:22.

So Peter tries to take control of Christ, to which He replies "thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." 16:23.

In the second case, God is love, and yes, all we have to do is love to be counted among the fold ... the problem is man is so conditioned by his appetites that he doesn't really understand what true love is.

But, like I told Blazn, I don't think our salvation depends upon the acceptance, or denial of the trinity. I don't think it matters either way...

I know ... everyone's got an opinion, that's the problem...

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

Then you begin to anthropomorphise the Deity ... this is the way it happens for man, does not mean God must be subject to the same limitations.

In the natural order it takes two parents to create a child ... with God it does not, so the natural model does not apply.


Jesus didn't have a biological father, did he? Furthermore it is believed that Jesus Christ was one Person with two natures, which is not the case with us, either...


Well, how wrong you are!

In the first instance, if one actually reads Scripture to understand why Our Lord referred to Peter that way, it is obvious: "And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord... " Matthew 16:22.

So Peter tries to take control of Christ, to which He replies "thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." 16:23.

In the second case, God is love, and yes, all we have to do is love to be counted among the fold ... the problem is man is so conditioned by his appetites that he doesn't really understand what true love is.


I know ... everyone's got an opinion, that's the problem...

Thomas

Are saying that I 'must' view it your way to be saved, Thomas? tsk, tsk - I never have bought into the whole fear based conversion bit - You have your opinion, and I have mine. There is no need to imply condemnation just because I view Christ differently than you...

Mans mental/intellectual concept of God makes no difference [imo] Do you really think babes have a concept of God? Are babes rejected for not having a mental concept of God, or is it enough that they love, and trust in this perfect fruit of the Spirit? I'll go with the latter. Same goes with the trinity - it is far too complicated for even the average adult to conceptualize, much less a child....


James

 

[BlaznFattyz]

I still do not see where 'only' God saves

then who can save man?

 

[Gatekeeper]

then who can save man?

The son of man, perhaps?

Matthew 9:6

Christ Jesus - son of God - He who [gave] His life that we might live. The blemishless lamb, He who [lived] his life in perfect obedience to the father.

James

p.s. This is pointless to argue about, since no one truly knows what is Christ's nature. [How can we] I'm not going to change minds, nor are you. It would take the hand of God to get me to view Jesus as God, Blazn - and vice versa.

 

[Thomas]

Are saying that I 'must' view it your way to be saved, Thomas? tsk, tsk -

Now, now. I am saying:
a - you are wrong to assume God is bound by the laws of nature,
b - you were factually wrong about the Church (the love thing).
That's all.

The opinion bit is self-evident.

Mans mental/intellectual concept of God makes no difference [imo]

Of course it does. What if your image is of Moloch?

Same goes with the trinity - it is far too complicated for even the average adult to conceptualize, much less a child....

Actually in my experience children accept it without too much difficulty.

The problem is with adults, who insist they have to understand it, and assume if they can't, it must be something wrong with the teaching.
1 Corinthians 3:2 "I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal."

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

Now, now. I am saying:
a - you are wrong to assume God is bound by the laws of nature,
b - you were factually wrong about the Church (the love thing).
That's all.

The opinion bit is self-evident.


Of course it does. What if your image is of Moloch?



Actually in my experience children accept it without too much difficulty.

The problem is with adults, who insist they have to understand it, and assume if they can't, it must be something wrong with the teaching.
1 Corinthians 3:2 "I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal."

Thomas

Are saying I am carnal because I don't view Jesus as God, then? Seriously Thomas - the point I was making about babes is that they have no concept of much of anything, cept the value of a loving/caring hand. This is how I prefer to view Christ - I'm not gonna try to change your mind, and I am not [able] to change mine. It has nothing to do with being Spiritual, or carnal.

I don't understand the trinity, and I'm not going to blindly accept a 'thought' just becaus esomeone tells me so. Especially when no one truly knows, bro. I hope you see my point - Salvation does not, nor will it ever depend upon our intellectual view of Jesus' nature [imo] Christ, and God deal with the heart of man; it is through the Spirit that we have life. It is enough for me to believe that both God, and his son love me, and simply want me to embrace that love, and extend it towards my nieghbor. I don't need to conceptualize an image of God - He is beyond my comprehension - but I do view God as spirit, and as love, and I view Jesus in the same light. [Just so you know]

Question: What do you mean I was wrong about the church? If I recall, all I said regarding the church is that - if they were worried about me, then they are in desperate times. [Speaking to Dream, of course] He suggested it was unwise to disagree with the church, so...

2Timothy 1:7 for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

James

 

[mee]

When Jesus died, even the Roman soldiers standing by knew that Jesus was not God:

"The army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: ‘Certainly this was God’s Son.’" (Matthew 27:54 )

They did not say, ‘this was God’ or ‘this was God the Son,’ because Jesus and his disciples taught that Jesus was the Son of God, not God Almighty in human form.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

The son of man, perhaps?

Matthew 9:6

Christ Jesus - son of God - He who [gave] His life that we might live. The blemishless lamb, He who [lived] his life in perfect obedience to the father.

James

p.s. This is pointless to argue about, since no one truly knows what is Christ's nature. [How can we] I'm not going to change minds, nor are you. It would take the hand of God to get me to view Jesus as God, Blazn - and vice versa.

it seems strange to me that when i asked you what seems to me a simple question, you answer it with an unsure question in light of all the things you seem to write about. how can you take a stand on anything if you dont even know who christ is? and find it also strange that you would call it arguing if i asked you a question, because it seems defensive as if you do not want to come to terms that christ is god if it goes that direction.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Gatekeeper —

What always astounds me is the readinless to assert that because I don't understand something, it cannot be understood.

Do we understand the nature of God? No. Do we not believe in Him then ... No.

But you do seem to be setting a limit ... that what we can know about God and the Divine Nature depends upon what you know and understand ... and anything you don't understand, can't be understood.

p.s. This is pointless to argue about, since no one truly knows what is Christ's nature. [How can we].

We know a lot more about the nature of Christ than you care or choose to to accept. Have you read Christology? Have you studied the Fathers? If you don't understand it, accept that others might, and that it remains a mystery to you ... but don't refute it on the basis of your own capacity. Because you choose to refuse it, does not mean it is not there.

I don't understand the trinity, and I'm not going to blindly accept a 'thought' just because someone tells me so. Especially when no one truly knows, bro.

Again, you don't understand, so assume no-one else can, and you're certainly not going to be enlightened by anyone, because you have decided you are the benchmark of what can and canot be known.

D'you see my point? At what age are we told old to learn? At what age do we assume we know all we need to know?

Just rhetorical thinking ... no answer required.

Thomas

 

[Joedjr]

Hi Thomas,

We know a lot more about the nature of Christ than you care or choose to to accept. Have you read Christology? Have you studied the Fathers? If you don't understand it, accept that others might, and that it remains a mystery to you ... but don't refute it on the basis of your own capacity. Because you choose to refuse it, does not mean it is not there.
Thomas

Since you used caps here are you talking about G!d the Father or are you giving church fathers Divinity?

Joe

 

[Thomas]

Hi Joe —

Since you used caps here are you talking about G!d the Father or are you giving church fathers Divinity?
Joe

I am using the conventional English practice of capitalising honorific titles.

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

it seems strange to me that when i asked you what seems to me a simple question, you answer it with an unsure question in light of all the things you seem to write about. how can you take a stand on anything if you dont even know who christ is? and find it also strange that you would call it arguing if i asked you a question, because it seems defensive as if you do not want to come to terms that christ is god if it goes that direction.

I'm not unsure at all, Blazn - It is Christ that saves. Matthew 9:6 The son of man has power to forgive sins. The son of man saves - I have no issue with this.

As for arguing - It has not gotten to that point, yet - I am/was simply suggesting that it is a pointless endevour to attempt to change minds when only God has that power. You are free to state your view, just as I am free to state mine. It is when we attempt to make others view it our way that argument begins - It was a cautionary statement, that is all, o.k?

Love

James