A Simple but Difficult Question for Trinity.

While reading the past post, “How can trinity believers explain this” posted on Nov. last year,I have noticed a simple logical anomaly among what Trinitarians say.First, Trinitarians say Jesus is not the Father in the flesh.
Second, Trinitarians say YHWH is the Father
Third, Trinitarians say YHWH is Jesus.Then, by simple logic,
If Jesus is not the Father in the flesh,
Then, if YHWH = the Father
then, Jesus must not be YHWH in the flesh.However, Trinitarians seem to say Jesus is YHWH in the flesh.It seems like: A: Jesus, B: Father, C: YHWH,It sounds like B = C and A = C but A ≠ B.The logical anomaly may be solved if they assume one of the following three: (Jesus = Father, Father ≠ YHWH, or Jesus ≠ YHWH,
A = B, B ≠ C, or A ≠ C).Does anyone can explain this logical anomaly?This message has been edited by dh26, 09-13-2005 08:32 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think your premise above causes the anomaly. I, for one, never claimed that YHWH was the name for the Father alone, nor for Jesus alone. On the contrary, I quote myself from msg 210 on that other thread : YHWH is the Hebrew name for the triune GOD. One facet of GOD became incarnate for 33 years (allegedly).The concept is that : Jesus is YHWH, the Father is YHWH, HS is YHWH.

---

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

The Trinity has been a problem for Christianity for almost its entire history. Many, many people have been killed for "heresy" for have the "wrong" explanation for the Trinity.I suggest reading about the history of Church doctrines. I have come to the opinion that many "heresies" were declared heretical (as opposed to allowed heterodoxy) mainly because of politiecs; as certain factions fought for power in the Church, they would eliminate rivals by declaring their doctrines as heretical. And so as various beliefs become declared heretical (like, that Jesus is the same as God the Father or that Jesus is a created divine being), suddenly people realized they were left with a mishmash of contradicting beliefs.Just an opinion -- I am not a Bible scholar. But I believe that the Eastern Church takes the only sensible view left of the whole business: they have decided that the Trinity is just part of the ineffability of God, and so cannot be explained.

I could be wrong, but wasn't there several different views of the Trinity early in the Church's history.Some believed Jesus was simply a man, some believed he was a man born with a "divine mind" (could percieve things at a deeper, truer level, while still being totally human with a human soul).
Others believed in various versions of "three aspects, one God" idea, but with different relations between Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit.I'm not that well read on early theology so I could be completely wrong.

I have claimed that Trinitarians said,
Jesus is not the Father in the flesh
Father = YHWH.
Therefore, Jesus is not YHWH in the flesh.I think your saying is that YHWH exists as three forms (Jesus, Father, and HS).
Jesus is not YHWH existing as a form of the Father, but Jesus is YHWH existing as a form of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is YHWH in the flesh.Your saying does make sense logically. So it was clearly not a logical anomaly.
I feel sorry for causing some confusion.However, then, Jesus, the Father, and HS are eventually one existence, one being, YHWH, one being, YHWH, exists as Jesus, the same being, YHWH, exists as the Father, and the same being exists as HS.Then, anyway, it seems impossible that there exists true love. If Jesus says Father loves me, then, it is essentially like YHWH loves YHWH, a kind of self or egoistic love.Bible says, Believers will become one as Jesus and his Father are one. Then, believers are one as YHWH is one and love themselves? This is exactly what Buddhists have taught. Buddhists says everyone is essentially myself, therefore, there is no such thing as good or evil, love or hatred, everything is an illusion. Everyone else is I, myself.Anyway, Trinity seems a kind of weird idea at least for me.Even when 100 % of the observed data fits one’s theory, we cannot say that the theory is the only correct one because other theory may also fit the observed data perfectly.
For example, a person, after observing every object is drawn to the ground, he makes a theory that every object and the earth are essentially one, and every object has a desire to merge to the earth, and that’s why the objects are drawn to the ground (gravity).
He observed all objects in his life time, and every object was drawn to the ground, and he concluded that his theory was the only correct one.
The other person come up with another theory that every object and earth are not one, but the object loves the earth and has desire to get as close as possible to the ground in order to feel the earth (gravity). 100 % of the observed data will also fit his theory well.In summary, the fact that the data fits one theory or the fact that 100 % of the Bible scripts fits one’s theory (e.g., trinity) doesn’t necessarily lead to the fact that the theory is the only correct one since the bible may fit other theories as well.Bible was written unclearly and ambiguously, and there can be more than two ways of interpretations (Jesus said he did it on purpose). Therefore, there is no objective criteria or objective standard by which everyone should follow or everyone should be agreeable on.
I was just curious why, how come trinity believes are so confident that they are the only correct one.

I don’t think trinity is a difficult or incomprehensible idea. It is because they are not used to it. It seems just one being exists eternally as three separate beings. It is like other religion such as Hinduism or Buddhism.

That would solve the whole problem wouldn't it.This subject can get very deep very quick, but here are two important points:

1. Only the Father is God (I Corinthians 8:6)
2. Jesus is NEVER referred to as "God the Son" in the Bible

Jesus is God (the Father) manifest in the flesh (the Son).--Jesus

Chiroptera,Try this. Try considering only the Bible to be Church history. Then compare all "churches" claiming to be "The Church" to the church in the New Testament.It is quite possible that something calls itself "The Church" and is not, isn't it?--Jason

Yes. Your suggestion would also solve the puzzle as I said before.Jesus is the Father in the flesh,
YHWH is the Father
Therefore, Jesus is YHWH in the flesh.”Another theory would also solve the puzzle.For example, I personally think that Jesus was YHWH, but the Father was not YHWH.Holy spirit is the same spirit coming out of both Father and Jesus, and the HS combines them as one, love.”Therefore, Father’s spirit is within Jesus, and Jesus’s spirit is within the Father, and they are combined as one by the same, common spirit.And, bible says "God is spirit," but bible doesn’t say "spirit is God."
Therefore spirit is not God, but spirit is common spirits of the two dieties, the Father and Jesus.(e.g., Bible says the Lord god is a sun and shield, but it doesn’t say a sun and shield is the Lord God).Therefore,Jesus was Jesus in the flesh.”
the Father was not YHWH, but Jesus was YHWH
Therefore, Jesus is YHWH in the flesh.I personally think the interpretation of the bible lies in the eyes of the beholder, and even though one can believe a thing he likes personally and privately, he should not claim that his idea is the only correct one.

You have correctly understood my position, AND acknowledged it as a possibility. I am impressed. What you are struggling with is very close to the truth. You are right that the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son are the same Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit.Where I must disagree with you is when you say that the Father and Jesus are two dieties. The Bible says in I Corinthians 8:6 There is only ONE diety -- the Father.Try these equations:God = Spirit (John 4:24)
The Holy Ghost = Spririt (obvious truth)
ergo: God = the Holy GhostGod = the Holy Ghost (see above)
God = the Father (I Corinthians 8:6)
ergo: the Father = the Holy GhostThe Holy Ghost = the Father (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:35)
(the Holy Ghost fathered the flesh of Jesus -- i.e., the Son)the Father = God (I Corinthians 8:6)
Jesus = God (John 20:28)
There is only one God (I Corinthians 8:6)
ergo: Jesus = the FatherThe Holy Spirit goes by many names: the Comforter, the Spirit of His Son, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of God, the Spirit. The Holy Ghost IS the Father.The name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus.
The name of the Father is Jesus.
The name of the Son is Jesus.(compare Matthew 28:19 with Acts 2:38)Remember, the term "Son" refers to the FLESH of Jesus. The flesh of Jesus is the "Son of God" because the Holy Ghost fathered the flesh. The flesh of Jesus is the "Son of Man" because Mary was the mother of the flesh. The flesh is not diety. The Spirit IN the flesh IS the diety.I am flesh and spirit, but one person. God (after the birth of Christ) is also flesh and spirit, but one person. Jesus is God the Father manifest in the flesh (John 1:1 and John 1:14)Just some points for consideration.Cheers,
Jason

Consider, then, II Peter 1:20, which says: I do not mind you thinking that what you believe is the truth and that I am wrong. You should then try to convince me of the truth. I'll do the same. God help us both to discover God's interpretation...that's the interpretation that counts!Cheers,
--Jason

The reason that I said one should believe what he believes to himself is that if we don’t do this way, and think one’s idea is the only correct one and force them to believe otherwise, then, there is possibility that peace should be broken, which is something negative according to the bible (we should be a peacemaker).I didn’t mean that we should interpret the bible alone or study alone, but the main point of my comments above was we should not force them to believe in a particular way.Bible says when they misinterpret the scripts; just let them not known about the correct interpretation. That is, probably, if they have already studied enough about the bible, and they insists something wrong is correct, then, we should just let them be as they are.I don’t have time now, and I will explain the above (#11) later.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your premise. let's not forget that Jesus was also a man and he said and did things a mere man would. When he says the Father loves him is it any different than saying that the Father loves any man ? Yes it's weird to many people. Though, personally, I find it weird that someone who easily accepts the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity that exists outside human constraints cannot accept the notion that this deity manifests itself to us in the form of a Trinity. Absolutely agreed! The Trinity doctrine, along with its companion Hypostatic Nature doctrine is just one way of making sense of the Bible and reconciling its theological and logical contradictions. Ditto! The Bible is what you want it to be! Absolutely! Look at how many different and opposing churches and dogmas base themselves on the Bible.Heaven forbid that an all-loving, all-powerful god would communicate with us in a clear, concise and unambiguous manner! I don't think Trinitarians are any more confident in their infallibility than any other dogmatic set of people are. Have you tried talking to any Mormons or JWs lately ?

---

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

Well, actually going by the Bible, we see quite clearly that there is no concept of the Trinity. That has to be read into the text by the believers themselves (the term, I believe, is called eisegesis).