Trinity

[Tigerstar Truth Seaker]

Hi, TTS. The thing which you would know about Biblical interpretation is that we can't isolate one or two passages of scripture and interpret them by themselves without looking at what the rest of the Word of God says about the same subject.

In Genesis 1 we read, "In the beginning GOD...." (the Father is mentioned right there), then, "...and the SPIRIT of God...", then "... and God SAID.." (the Word of God).

John 1.1 tells us that the Word of God is God, and John 1: 14 says that the Word was made flesh.

2Cor.5: 19 says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and Col.2: 9 tells us that in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily.

Jesus did not say to Philip, "Have WE been with you such a long time, and yet you have not known US" when Philip asked Him to show them the Father, He said "Have I been with you... and yet you have not known ME"

Also, Jesus said that His words are:

1) the works of the Father.

2) Spirit and Life.

And He said that God is a Spirit.

But we know that Jesus is the Son of God, but He's also the son of MAN, and we are told by Paul,

For He put all things under His feet. But when He says that all things have been put under His feet, it is plain that it excepts Him who has put all things under Him. But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subject to Him who has subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all things in all." (1Co 15:27-28);

and:

"... then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power." (1Co 15:24).

Bearing in mind that the Word of God teaches us that God's Word is subject to God, we shouldn't have a problem with this, because God said,

"For as the rain comes down, and the snow from the heavens, and does not return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring out and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do." (Isa 55:10-11)

This implies that the Word of God who is God, is subject to God. But until the kingdom is delivered by the Son of God/ Son of Man back to God, the authority is in the hands of MAN - IN JESUS THE MAN:

lekh, Thanks for that, it was very insightful. I would consider myself a "concerned Trinitarian" but this discussion forum is helping.

[lekh l'kha]

lekh l'kha It's not the truths that the doctrine of the Trinity seeks to express that i have a problem with - it's the use of the extra Biblical word "persons" (plural) in the same sentence with the extrea-Biblical word "Trinity" which to me, negates the Oneness of God because it conjures up images in the human mind of three Gods.

I agree....the Old Covenant talks about G-d, and the Spirit, and the Angel of the L-rd etc, and yet there was never any confusion about the Oneness of G-d...there was no attempt at division, or to define the indefinable. (although I suspect in some of the Jewish commentaries there were certain controversies)

The New Covenant extends this same understanding, and we see more clearly, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, which to me mysteriously consolidates and unifies G-d and at the same time helps me appreciate some of the revelation about Himself to us.

I don't have any worries about the use of extra-biblical words, but I think the way the 'Trinity' has been promoted and the very nature of the name, has been the probable cause of further separation between Jewish and Gentile Believers...but it is an ongoing concern that warrants further reseach on my part...especially the idea that it was somehow a carefully chosen and deliberate undertaking.

Yes. I think if we put ourselves in the shoes of conscientious Jew who would enquire if Jesus is the Messiah, but had been brought up to recite the Sh'ma morning and evening every day, the words "three persons" and "Trinity" would ring alarm bells.

[lekh l'kha]

lekh, Thanks for that, it was very insightful. I would consider myself a "concerned Trinitarian" but this discussion forum is helping.

This is a deep subject, takes a lot of (non-emotional) thought, and many, many Christians I know have grappled with it, including me.

[lekh l'kha]

It's not the truths that the doctrine of the Trinity seeks to express that i have a problem with - it's the use of the extra Biblical word "persons" (plural) in the same sentence with the extrea-Biblical word "Trinity" which to me, negates the Oneness of God because it conjures up images in the human mind of three Gods.

It is no more extrabiblical than a lot of words we use like "legalism" and when we refer to "ceremonial law," "Millennium," and other words/phrases we have in our language meant solely to communicate a biblical concept. The concept of Trinity is defined as one God, but three persons, not three gods. It has been, over the years, competently taught and explained to a degree that to continue asserting that it refers to three gods in the face of those many explanations amounts to a frivolous claim.

I disagree. The nature of God is a far, far deeper subject that the millennium or the subject of law vs. grace and the balance between legalism and license, and not only myself but many, many Christians I know have grappled with the Trinity at some stage. I don't think that the doctrine of the Trinity has been "competently taught" over the years as you claim - not even in theological seminaries and Bible colleges. What's taught is: "This is the most sacred of all Christian doctrines. Accept it without questioning it. If you don't accept it, you're a heretic."

[Guest shiloh357]

I disagree. The nature of God is a far, far deeper subject that the millennium or the subject of law vs. grace and the balance between legalism and license, and not only myself but many, many Christians I know have grappled with the Trinity at some stage.

That does not change the fact that we have all kinds of "extrabiblical terms" in play in all of our discussions and so using the extrabiblical argument simply doesn't wash. The nature of God is a deeper issue, but that isn't really material to the extrabiblical argument.

I don't think that the doctrine of the Trinity has been "competently taught" over the years as you claim - not even in theological seminaries and Bible colleges. What's taught is: "This is the most sacred of all Christian doctrines. Accept it without questioning it. If you don't accept it, you're a heretic."

That is baloney. No one is considered a heretic for not buying into the Trinity. That is an unfair, emotional rant. You really don't know what is taught in colleges and seminaries.

[lekh l'kha]

That is baloney. No one is considered a heretic for not buying into the Trinity. That is an unfair, emotional rant. You really don't know what is taught in colleges and seminaries.

Nope, the only one posting in this thread whose often prone to get emotional and to rant is yourself. But you're right about the fact that I really don't know what is taught in colleges and seminaries regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, so maybe I must not speak from ignorance (which is your next accusation, judging by your words which are portraying more and more irritability on your part with the fact that I don't agree with your position).

Nevertheless, I truly doubt that colleges and seminaries would be truly open enough to allow their students to bring the sacred doctrine of the Trinity into question too much. Maybe just a little, but I'm preety sure that I'm right to assume that they will all have to conform eventually to the traditional doctrine of the Trinity if they hope to pass their degrees.

[BlindSeeker]

No one is considered a heretic for not buying into the Trinity. That is an unfair, emotional rant.

I think it would be fair to say that antitrinitarianism has resulted in many heretical doctrines and cults thoughout the Christian era.

and visa vera . . .

[Guest yod]

shiloh357 writes

But the teaching on the Trinity is not an attempt to define or explain God, in the first place.

maybe not in the first place but it always boils down to that.

Christians fought 400 years over what the "substance" of the Holy Spirit is just because a greek word was interpreted in a greek way.

I believe it adds to and subtracts from what the Bible says.

Really? How so?

Because there are multiple definitions of the word "trinity" and it is confusing. "Tri-unity" would be accurate. Though I understand what people mean when they say "trinity", I'm not sure if they realize what they're saying.

God is not 3 people made into one. He is One expressed in three (and now we start trying to define the essense of God )

Did a quick google for the definition of Trinity and got this:

The primary definition being the literal number "3"

1. trinitytrinity - the cardinal number that is the sum of one and one and one

3, deuce-ace, III, tercet, ternary, ternion, terzetto, three, threesome, trey, triad, trine, trio, triplet, troika, tierce, leash

digit, figure - one of the elements that collectively form a system of numeration; "0 and 1 are digits"

The secondary definition being the one we are supposed to accept and understand the difference between this and definitions #1 & #3

2. Trinity - the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead

Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity, Sacred Trinity

Almighty, Creator, Divine, God Almighty, Godhead, Lord, Maker, Jehovah - terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God

hypostasis of Christ, hypostasis - any of the three persons of the Godhead constituting the Trinity especially the person of Christ in which divine and human natures are united

And this third definition is the one that most jewish people think Christians are supporting

3. trinitytrinity - three people considered as a unit

threesome, triad, trio

assemblage, gathering - a group of persons together in one place

triumvirate - a group of three men responsible for public administration or civil authority

[Guest shiloh357]

Nope, the only one posting in this thread whose often prone to get emotional and to rant is yourself. But you're right about the fact that I really don't know what is taught in colleges and seminaries regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, so maybe I must not speak from ignorance (which is your next accusation, judging by your words which are portraying more and more irritability on your part with the fact that I don't agree with your position).

If I am a bit irritable it has nothing to do with whether you agree with me or not. I am more than well equipped to answer any arguments against the trinity.

I just don't care for the way people like you blindly assign values to others. You don't know what seminaries teach, but for some reason, that doesn't stop you from leveling baseless accusations at them.

Nevertheless, I truly doubt that colleges and seminaries would be truly open enough to allow their students to bring the sacred doctrine of the Trinity into question too much. Maybe just a little, but I'm preety sure that I'm right to assume that they will all have to conform eventually to the traditional doctrine of the Trinity if they hope to pass their degrees.

No university or seminary can control what you believe. You can graduate believing whatever you want. Now your chances of landing a job in the ministry will be slim probably, but frankly, your assumptions are based on a lack of practical knowledge of just how much is questioned in Christian universities and seminaries.

It would be wiser for you to actually base assumptions on something that had some semblance of fact instead of just throwing jabs at people and institutions that you don't really know anything about.

[lekh l'kha]

It would be wiser for you to actually base assumptions on something that had some semblance of fact instead of just throwing jabs at people and institutions that you don't really know anything about.

Leave a lamb exposed who had lost it's way a little, and the first hyena or vulture that sees it will tear it to shreds

But your point is valid, and is taken