How Can Trinity Believers Explain This

This is not a definition of a Trinity, but rather of a Triumvirate, or a Triad. There is a huge difference. Members of a Triumvirate or a Triad may share common goals and purpose but they are distinct, separate beings, much like you and your family. Members of a Trinity are of the same essence, though they may exhibit distinct behaviour and form, much like water(ice,water, steam) or time (past, present, future).Which part of the above do you find difficult to understand? You posted some, which I refuted in Message 12. You never replied to this post, so I assume you have nothing to say on these passages. Maybe you'd like to post some more where a reference is made to three three distinct beings.**EDIT message referenceThis message has been edited by Legend, 11-10-2004 06:07 PM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I agree, which is why I was trying to emphasize the idea of Unity. I think water is a bad example to describe that though, because you and I are both composed of the same kind of blood and skin and bones, just like one piece of ice is made up of the same kind of H2O as another piece of ice. Time is a better example, I have been trying to think of an example that is more tangible, but haven't succeeded.

quote:

---

This is not a definition of a Trinity, but rather of a Triumvirate, or a Triad. There is a huge difference. Members of a Triumvirate or a Triad may share common goals and purpose but they are distinct, separate beings, much like you and your family. Members of a Trinity are of the same essence, though they may exhibit distinct behaviour and form, much like water(ice,water, steam) or time (past, present, future).

---

Again, you can call it what you want, I call that one,(2) a Godhead.
Which can be found in the Bible.

quote:

---

Which part of the above do you find difficult to understand?

---

The part where they are all one Being?

quote:

---

You're presumably referring to Acts 7:55-56. I think you're interpreting this passage literally. In the context in which it is given (Stephen being stoned to death), it is largely symbolic. The phrase 'on the right hand' is often used to symbolise a position of power and authority. In this context, it symbolises the role of Jesus as a mediator to God.

---

It gives no reason to not be spoken literally. It doesn't say will be next to, it says standing next to.If you don't mind, answer these for me?
1) If no one can see the face of God without gaining instant death, how is it that, if Jesus were God, the people (followers of Christ, judges, Priests, etc.) were even alive to tell about it?
2) Why would Jesus need to pray, if He were in fact God Himself in the flesh?
3) Why would Jesus refer to God as His Father?I have a long list but these are the three that trouble me most when it comes to the trinity, can you clarify these. Without saying they are all figurative?P.S. I must have over looked your earlier post, and apologize for that, I was not trying to ignore you, I don't know how I missed it.

---

Angel

First, not everyone subscribes to the idea that if you see the face of GOD that you would die. Many Christians see that as a fairly common literary device and aspect of other bronze and stone age religions. In addition, it is countered by examples where individuals did look on the face of GOD and did not die.It's simply figurative.On your second question, Jesus, before his resurection, was in the flesh. He was made man, with all of the limitations that implies.The third question is similar to why many Christians pray "Our Father..."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

First, not everyone subscribes to the idea that if you see the face of GOD that you would die. Many Christians see that as a fairly common literary device and aspect of other bronze and stone age religions. In addition, it is countered by examples where individuals did look on the face of GOD and did not die.

---

Well, it says it in the Bible, and it is taken to be a direct quote from GOd, so are you saying that He is wrong? Also, can you tell me where someone actually looked upon the face of God, I must have missed that in my many studies?

quote:

---

It's simply figurative.

---

Major problem there, so everything that is directly from the Bible that doesn't fit into the trinty becomes figurative? I asked for an answer that wasn't figurative, if you don't have one, simply avoiding the question altogether would be better than explaining to me what other people fell, I am asking for direct Biblical teaching.

quote:

---

On your second question, Jesus, before his resurection, was in the flesh. He was made man, with all of the limitations that implies.

---

Well, that's better, at least you avoided the real question, instead of telling me what others think or feel.

quote:

---

The third question is similar to why many Christians pray "Our Father..."

---

Another avoidance, but it's close to an answer so I will respond. Christian= Christ Follower, so why would Jesus need to do as His followers, if He was to be the leader? Besides, I wasn't asking for a similar answer to another question, I wanted an answer for that question. "Our Father which is in heaven...." So wouldn't that also make Jesus a hipocrite (I AM NOT SAYING THAT HE IS, but that's what that answer implys) If Jesus were God, and He was saying that He (as God) is in heaven, when in fact He is here on land, doesn't that make a contradiction in itself?

---

Angel

Nope, I'm saying that most of the stuff in the Bible is not to be taken literally.As to others, IIRC, Adam and Eve spoke directly with GOD. I think it's in one of the early books.You asked. If you don't like the answer then fine.The Bible is a collection of tales told by stone and bronze age folk.And I see no conflicts or contradictions. Jesus, before the resurrection, was man. I explained that. He was GOD made flesh.If you read it differently, okay. I have never asked anyone to believe as I do.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

As to others, IIRC, Adam and Eve spoke directly with GOD.

---

Spoke is different from seen. So, still doesn't answer the question. When did anyone "see" the face of God?

quote:

---

You asked. If you don't like the answer then fine.

---

But there wasn't an answer?

quote:

---

And I see no conflicts or contradictions. Jesus, before the resurrection, was man. I explained that. He was GOD made flesh.

---

That may answer another question quite clearly, but the question that was asked was

quote:

---

2) Why would Jesus need to pray, if He were in fact God Himself in the flesh?

---

.

quote:

---

If you read it differently, okay. I have never asked anyone to believe as I do.

---

Thats is perfectly fine with me I can always agree to disagree At least you were honest in your efforts

---

Angel

Dear Angel;You are correct, there is no Trinity. You know this and with some simple logic I see you are succeeding in tying the Trinitarians in knots. Thought I would throw some gas on the fire, here is a post I like to use in these kind of debates with some of the scriptures that sends the Trinitarians running away screaming with their hands over their heads in panic. (Well, at least they can't truthfully answer them) Once you read the Bible with open eyes, it is obvious that there is no Trinity. But you will almost never convince a Trinitarian of this, since the Trinity is an exercise in "double think," knowingly believing in something that contradicts itself. To believe in the Trinity you have to check your logic thinking ability at the door when you go in, so by accepting the doctrine Trinitarians have rejected reasoning logically reasoning on the scriptures, the foundation of Christianity.The truth is simple, it is lies that are complicated. The reason for this is that the truth is in harmony with the facts, while lies are not and require endless attempts to explain the differences. Some of the most convoluted and complicated statements ever made surround what is suppose to be the central doctrine of Christianity, the trinity. If anyone states that they understand the trinity, they haven't really examined the details of what it is that they have put their faith in. For it is impossible for "three to be one and still be three and still be one." The preceding statement is what is called mutually exclusive, a self contradiction. The trinity doctrine is contrary to common sense, a brain pretzel. Trying to make sense of the trinity will twist even the finest minds into a well knotted pretzel. Ironically, the pretzel was invented by a monk as a symbol of the trinity, and a very appropriate symbol it is indeed. The three equals one nonsense is the least of the problems with the trinity, once Trinitarians start using the Bible, then the real pretzel twisting begins.The first and most severe form of twisting is actually altering the Bible in an attempt to support the trinity. Throughout the long period of the dark ages, the Bible was in the care of a certain religion with a vested interest in having scriptural support for the trinity. The discovery of ancient manuscripts predating the dark ages has revealed that certain Bible verses had been altered in an attempt to try to prove the trinity. For example, in the King James Version 1 John 5:7 reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Sounds like proof of the trinity, only one problem, the verse is spurious and doesn't appear in ancient manuscripts. In the King James Version, 1 Timothy 3:16 states "God was manifest in the flesh," Proof of the trinity? Nope, "God" was added to this verse, it should read "he" instead referring to Jesus and not his father. The reason I have brought up these spurious additions men have made to the word of God, is to ask why? Think about, why did some feel the need to attempt to alter the very word of God. The obvious conclusion is that they felt they had to add words supporting the trinity to the Bible because without them the Bible didn't support the trinity.Without man made additions to the word of God, proving the trinity is of course impossible, which is why they were inserted in the first place. That of course is the reason, and why some today still try to use these altered verses to support their view, despite the fact that it has been known for over two hundred years that they are spurious.
Without the support of spurious verses, the trinity doctrine rests on interpreting and sometimes even translating a few Bible verses in a manner contrary to the intended meaning. For example the most commonly used verse is of course John 1:1 "what, God was, the Word was." (REB) Now the point of this verse is to highlight the Word's (Jesus Christ) pre human existence in heaven with his heavenly father, not that he was the Father. Many Bible translators have chosen to render this verse as "the word was God." Now this translation is very curious considering the wording of the next verse. "He was with God at the Beginning" Due to this and the rules of Greek grammar, a number of Bibles render John 1:1 stating the Word was like God, rather than stating he was God. Consider what an extreme logic contradiction it is to translate one verse saying the Word is God and the next saying he is with God, for you can be a person or you can be standing next to the person, but you can't do both. The only real reason to chose such a self contradictory rendering for two successive verses is to try to support the trinity. The trinity is supposed to be the main doctrine of Christianity, yet this huge massive doctrine ends up resting on the flimsiest of reasonings. Words that appear in some Bible translations, but not others, is frequently invoked as support. Translations vary, for translating is more of an art than a science. Translators have to use their judgment in discerning which word or phrase best expresses the thought expressed by the words of a different language. Translators have their religious beliefs too, so it is to be expected that some translations of the Bible in their wording will tend to appear to support things that the Bible doesn't. This is why it is wise to consult more than one Bible translation when the wording of a verse is in question. For most of the verses claimed to support the trinity, they only appear to do so in certain translations and not in others. The other translators, the ones free of the compulsion to create support for things nonexistence in the Bible, generally produce translations completely free of any Trinitarian wording at all.Trinitarians like to quote John 10:30 "The Father and I are one." and John 12:44 "to see me, is to see him who sent me." (REB) and John 14:9 "Jesus answered, 'Have I been all this time with you, Philip, and still you do not know me? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (REB) The argument that these scriptures unequivocally prove the trinity falls flat when you remember that the people who added the spurious trinity scriptures knew about these verses. Why would they add false scriptures if these verses already proved the trinity? The answer of course is even they knew these verses fail to provide any real support for the trinity. To find this out for yourself all you need to do is carefully read the gospels. In fact all you need to do to is read a few verses more to see what Jesus is talking about, in John the seventeenth chapter, verse twenty through twenty three Jesus states. "It is not for these alone that I pray, but for those also who through their words put their faith in me. May they all be one; as you Father, are in me, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. The glory which you gave me I have given to them, that they may be one as we are one; I in them and you in me, may they be perfectly one." (REB) Jesus is talking about unity. He is praying that his followers would all be one just as he is one with his Father, one in purpose not one in body. Christ's followers were to be one or in union, in the same way Jesus and his father are one or in union. The terms "in union" and "one" are used to state working together towards a goal, team work. God and Jesus are no more the same person than all Christians are really just one person with a lot of names. What Jesus was saying when said he wanted his followers to be one, was that he wanted them not to split into different groups, he wanted them to remain united in true worship. This scripture also points out that God does not approve of the current mess of fragmented religions. Just as God and Jesus work together in the oneness of unity, Jesus wanted his followers to do the same.Constantly Jesus repeatedly emphasized that he was doing his father's will, that he came as his father's representative and that he was doing exactly what his father wanted him to do. The scriptures the Trinitarians claim prove the trinity, are talking about loyalty and unity and acting with oneness in purpose. Christ is just like his father, but he is not his father. If you still think these scriptures may somewhat support the trinity, remember that the Bible doesn't contradict itself as we consider some verses the Trinitarians don't want you to read..At one time, if you were caught reading a Bible, you would tied to a stake and burned along with your Bible. In many lands even today people are still told not to read the Bible, that interpreting the Bible is for their religious leaders to do. Did you ever wonder what it was that they didn't want you to read? Some of the scriptures they didn't want you to read are "for the Father is greater than I am." John 14:28 (REB). This verse clearly contradicts the belief that Jesus is coequal with his father. Here we have Jesus himself clearly stating that his father is greater than he is. This scripture has challenged the best minds the Trinitarians have and has resulted in a vast body of wordy philosophical writings which basically try to worm their way around this verse and many others that clearly contradict the trinity. Then there is John 6:38 "I have come down from heaven, to do not my own will, but the will of him who sent me." (REB) Look closely at this verse, Jesus was doing his father's will instead of who's will? Yes, Jesus has his own will. His doing his father's will was his decision, his choice. He was not a part of his father's body, to be commanded mindlessly like a hand or a foot. By his obedience and submitting his will to his father's will, he set the example for us to follow. Luke 22:42 "Father, if it be your will, take this cup from me. Yet not my will but yours be done." (REB) When you read this verse, you can not help being struck by its strong emotional impact. These words charged with feeling are of a son talking to his father, they are not the words of someone talking to himself. Jesus not only has his own will, he also has a mind of his own. Matthew 24:36 "Yet about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son; no one but the Father alone." (REB) Jesus here stated that there were some things he didn't know, but his father did. In order for this to be possible, it requires that Jesus and his father each have their own mind. If they were truly one in the sense the Trinitarians mean, Jesus would know everything his father knows, it would be impossible for it to be any other way. Once again we see how the trinity runs contrary to what the Bible tells us about Jesus and his father. When you step back and look at the whole over all structure of the Bible, we find the trinity is completely incompatible with the word of God. If there really was a trinity, it would be necessary to rewrite the entire Bible. For the trinity doesn't fit with what the Bible teaches. For example Satan tested Jesus' loyalty to his father, by trying to get Jesus to worship the devil instead. Now if Jesus was his father, testing his loyalty would be impossible, for how could he be disloyal? Now remember in the book of Job, Satan had been in heaven before God, Satan would know if Jesus and his father were the same person. The main reason Jesus came to earth was to sanctify his father's name by his obedience under test. Jesus by his integrity proved that Satan's claim in Job, that no one would serve God under test was a lie. Jesus set the example for us to follow. Now if he was God, it would have been impossible for him to fail, it would not have been a real test and would have answered nothing and would not have set a realistic example for us to follow. By giving his life for us, Jesus then used the value of his sacrifice to free mankind from sin. He did this by presenting the value of his sacrifice before his heavenly father. Hebrews 9:24 (REB) "for Christ has not entered a sanctuary made by human hands which is only a pointer to the reality: He has entered heaven itself, to appear now before God on our behalf." This event was foretold and illustrated by the high priest once a year going into the most holy of the temple and offering the blood of the atonement sacrificial lamb before the ark of the covenant. Jesus is the true high priest and he has mediated the new covenant for his followers with his heavenly father based on the value of his blood. Jeremiah 31:31 "The days are coming, says the LORD, when I shall establish a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah."(REB). Matthew 26:27-28 "Then he took a cup, and having offered thanks to God he gave it to them with the words: 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"(REB)In Hebrews the seventh chapter, the new covenant and Jesus' role as high priest is explained. Now the whole point of this prophetic drama was that Jesus by his blood, mediated a new covenant between his father and his followers. Now if Jesus was God, to whom did he offer the value of his sacrifice to? And how could he act as a mediator between God and mankind, for our reconciliation, if he himself was God almighty? Notice Paul states there is no mediator if there is only one person. Galatians 3:20 (REB) " but an intermediary is not needed for one party acting alone, and God is one." Now at 1 Timothy Paul states that Christ is the mediator between God and man, which would of course be impossible if Jesus and his father were one in the same. 1 Timothy 2:5 (REB) "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus," Hebrews 8:6 (REB) "But in fact the ministry which Jesus has been given is superior to theirs, for he is the mediator of a better covenant, established on better promises."Clearly the Bible would not speak of Christ as high priest or the mediator of the new covenant if he was God Almighty. He would not be spoken of in the Bible as having these roles if there was a trinity. If there was a trinity, when the high priest offered the blood in the most holy, wouldn't he have had to offer it in front of a mirror to conform to the trinity view of Jesus offering his blood before his father? The fact is the trinity is not part of the Bible. The Jews never believed in it and no one in the Bible teaches it. Jesus never sits his disciples down and explains what is suppose to be the central doctrine of Christianity to them. The trinity is a great mystery that is solved when you realize it is not part of what the Bible teaches, which is why it is so hard for people to understand.When you read the book of Hebrews the absence of any explanation of the trinity is particularly strange if Paul believed in it. The book was written for the Jews and the main point Paul stressed through out the book was the importance of Jesus Christ. In chapter after chapter Paul shows how Christianity is far superior to Judaism, the new being the fulfillment of the old and showing to the Jews the key role Christ had. Now if the reason Paul wrote Hebrews was to teach the exalted role Christ has in our salvation, why didn't he explain or even mention that "by the way, Jesus is God Almighty"? The conspicuous omission of the supposedly main doctrine of Christianity in a book about how important Christ is, points to the fact that Paul didn't believe in or teach the trinity. Belief in the trinity was not taught by Jesus or any of the apostles, it is something that came later when the apostasy came and many began to follow doctrines of men. The trinity is unknown in the Bible, but is found in the religions of Egypt and Babylon, it is from these non-biblical sources that the doctrine came.Jesus Christ and his father are one in spirit, unity, purpose and love; but are not one in body. Jesus is the exact representation of his father, but he is not his father. This can be compared to a husband and wife. The two become one flesh, and should be one in unity and love. But they remain two people and the loyally of each to the other can be tested. The Husband is head of the wife, and she in turn is (at least in theory) obedient to him in all things. Is the relationship similar between Jesus and his father? Yes it is, Paul said it was. 1 Corinthians 11:3 (REB) "while every man has Christ for his head, a woman's head is man, as Christ's head is God." God and Jesus are no more the same person than married couples are really only one person with two names.Once we set a side the spurious scriptures, certain wording found only in some Bible translations and understand the concept of unity and being one with someone; we find the trinity has no scriptural support at all. Additionally the Bible contains many verses which directly contradict the trinity. The anti trinity scriptures cited here are just the tip of the massive iceberg of Bible verses which sink the trinity. The trinity is in complete conflict with the whole spirit of the Bible and only serves to confuse people and cloud their minds making it harder for them to know God.Sincerely Yours; Wm. Scott AndersonThis message has been edited by wmscott, 11-11-2004 08:54 AM

quote:

---

Again, you can call it what you want, I call that one,(2) a Godhead. Which can be found in the Bible.

---

But, then you have two definitions of Godhead (1 and 2) which are totaly different. What is the Godhead - a Trinity or a Triad?

quote:

---

The part where they are all one Being?

---

What is so difficult to understand about this ? If you happily accept that a Being crated the universe, why is it hard to accept that this Being has three distinct personnae? Maybe you could point out your difficulty with this concept?

quote:

---

It gives no reason to not be spoken literally.

---

That's a valid point. I suppose, you have to look at it in the context in which it was said. Let's not forget that the Bible was written by men and men use allegory and symbolism all the time. It is difficult to describe exactly what Stephen saw, however there are indications that this sentence is symbolic: (a) he couldn't have seen the Father and (b) Jesus is described as standing, which symbolises empathy and support, rather than the most common posture of sitting.

quote:

---

1) If no one can see the face of God without gaining instant death, how is it that, if Jesus were God, the people (followers of Christ, judges, Priests, etc.) were even alive to tell about it?
2) Why would Jesus need to pray, if He were in fact God Himself in the flesh?
3) Why would Jesus refer to God as His Father?

---

All of the above can be answered by accepting the doctrine of Hypostatic Union. This teaches that Jesus had two natures: divine and human. He had to accept the limitations of his humanity, Hebrews says he was made lower than the angels (Heb 2:9). He is fully human and at the same time, fully divine. As human, Jesus would have to eat, sleep, learn, pray, etc. This doesn't mean, though, that Jesus was not divine since they reference his human nature and not his Divine one. If you accept this, then you can understand why Jesus had to pray, call God his Father and why people who saw his face didn't die. You may want to read up on this doctrine, as there are people out there who can explain it far better than I ever could.

quote:

---

I must have over looked your earlier post, and apologize for that, I was not trying to ignore you, I don't know how I missed it.

---

That's OK - people ignore me all the time. I think it's my aftershave!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Angel

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

Scott,Amen! Beautifully put! Thank you!God Bless

---

Angel

quote:

---

But, then you have two definitions of Godhead (1 and 2) which are totaly different. What is the Godhead - a Trinity or a Triad?

---

No, on the contrary, you have trinitarians that believe in the Godhead, and don't realize it. A Godhead, is a Godhead, but as I said before, it doesn't matter what you call it, it is the belief that is important.

quote:

---

What is so difficult to understand about this ? If you happily accept that a Being crated the universe, why is it hard to accept that this Being has three distinct personnae? Maybe you could point out your difficulty with this concept?

---

I already have, it was just avoided.

quote:

---

All of the above can be answered by accepting the doctrine of Hypostatic Union.

---

No offense, but no thank you, I will stick to the Bible. Just curious as to why you would believe the HU over the words of the Bible though?

---

Angel

Ok, now if you ONLY read those versus you might have a point. Moses never seen God's face. Man to Man Face to Face those are used figuratively, and if you were to read what comes before and after that, it would be obvious to you. Now did you just look that up from somewhere, because for example: In this case, God was granting Moses a favor, Moses wanted to see His face, God told him no, because he would die....I am referring to when you posted these....

quote:

---

Ex.33:11
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."

​

Ex.33:23
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."

---

Now when you go back and read the rest, you will find similar situations. But when you run across someone who actually seen His FACE let me know. Not, His hand, foot, back, or a fire, or His voice, but His face.

---

Angel

Angel "Sigh"So it is used figuratively only when it contradicts you but if I were to bring out these verses where it states that god was never seen. Then these verses are not figurative? How do you tell? Hang on my dear. The claim that god is never seen rests with you and it is yours to defend so please show how each of those instances are only figurative since I do suspect you are picking and choosing support for your views.Show the means by which you reason this out.

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is so difficult to understand about this ? If you happily accept that a Being crated the universe, why is it hard to accept that this Being has three distinct personnae? Maybe you could point out your difficulty with this concept?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I already have, it was just avoided.

---

No, it hasn't! You say that the Bible points to three different beings, but you fail to show how. You seem to be unable to accept the concept that something can have three manifestations and still be one. I find this absurd, particularly when you happily accept that the same being is the creator of everything and can do whatever it wants.

quote:

---

Just curious as to why you would believe the HU over the words of the Bible though?

---

I, personally, don't believe in either. That doesn't mean that I can't understand it or explain it though. And, no, you don't have to believe the HU doctrine over the Bible, you can believe both at the same time. The HU doctrine was developed for that very reason: to make sense of the bible, not to contradict it. To put it bluntly, it was developed to reconcile some of the ..ahem.. difficulties that the Bible presents (dogmatic inconsistencies, et al.). But that's probably another topic for another thread.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."