The trinity has been explained and it's similar to the relationship with a husband and wife except not sexual. The trinity mirrors our relationships.
The Trinity EXPLAINED. Please Read
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
>it's similar to the relationship with a husband and wife except not sexual
3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.
So if all the Olympic gods got married, it wouldn't be polytheism anymore?
arian moment. the trinity is co-equal, there's no subordination, the son is equal to the father.
some better theological explanations (one gets a little bit scientific but helps);
But the author says they are of the same nature so it can't be Arian.
I like InspiringPhilosophy videos. He made a good point there that the trinity can be compared to the higher dimensions. It's hard for us to comprehend for example the 5th dimension but it can exist.
>there's no subordination
Well that's just unbiblical. The "subordinationism" of Arianism is ontological, meaning the Son is of a subordinate substance. This is not relevant to the relations of the Godhead, which concerns how the persons of the trinity interact. The bible says that the Father sent the Son into the world; the Father gave the Son a command, and the Son obeyed, and this before He took on flesh.
The trinity members are co-equal in substance but the Son submits to the Father within the trinity as the author states.
>but the Son submits to the Father within the trinity as the author states.
There is no trinity mentioned in the scriptures, why do you keep talking like with forked tongues?
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matthew 28:18-20)
>baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
And where does it say these three are one?
no. learn to summarize.
The Father and Son are coequal in substance but the Son submits to the Father's will as the author states
There's no god and jesus didn't exist. All religions are a bunch of fake, made-up shit.
Right. We just appeared out of nowhere. Okay. A bunch of stuff floating in space suddenly put itself together. Sounds very reasonable to me.
Right. A magic space wizard just did it all with magic powers out of nowhere. And then hid from everyone. Sounds reasonable.
>magic space wizard just did it all with magic powers
All atheists are petulant children
>One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: ’Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
You don't need to explain anything, cause there is nothing to explain. The prophet has spoken plainly and without deceit.
…57Then the israelites said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?” 58“Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Yes, the prophet walked the earth before Abraham indeed.
When was this?
After Adam and before the flood.
Shitslam is incoherent garbage, your narrative on Jesus is stolen from the infancy gospel of james
You would know i suppose, i never read it ...
>it's similar to the relationship with a husband and wife
So three gods.
God is complex. 3 is one in God
>Christ: "God is one."
>Christians: "Nope, you are wrong."
Yes, God is one, made up of 3 distinct persons. Something can be made of 3 and still be one. We aren't polytheists. We recognize the monotheistic nature of the LORD while also recognizing that he is 3 distinct persons in one trinitarian God. They do not contradict eachother, and they are one.
You are not monotheists, you are trinitarians, stop lying to yourselves and other people.
The law says the Lord is one, the prophet says the Lord is one. You are disobeying a direct commandment, the most important commandment according the prophet.
You love your religion more then truth, for when the truth speaks you resent his words.
>can pray to each person independently, they have different roles and talk to each other and love each other
That's polytheism. The mere fact that you condemn actual monotheists tells me everything I need to know about your "monotheism".
The trinity is NOT polytheism.
You worship three deities aka polytheism.
3 persons one God. This is the definition of the trinity.
Trinity is not scriptural, it is human doctrine and not from God. Scripture says God is one and not three, so why do you persist that your falsehood is superior to the truth?
>Trinity is not scriptural
But it is precisely that.
>Therefore, the doctrine of the trinity...
Like i said it is not scriptural, it is doctrine. Scripture is inspired by the knowledge of God, doctrine is inspired by the confusion of men. The point of doctrine is to explain scripture, but scripture is the explanation, and we don't need explanations for the explanation.
Do you not see the unnecessary convoluted confusion that reigns over trinitarians?
>Therefore, the doctrine of the trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of scripture, not in a single verse.
As i see it, you are making yourselves crazy over nothing by picking little bits and pieces and turning them into a collage.
Anyway, we can pick this up some other time if you like, i appreciate your time and attention. Time for me to go to bed.
I’m not one with my wife.
We may have a relationship, but we still are 2 different persons.
God can crush Satan any second
Jesus is God and coequal in substance to the Father but subservient to the Father as the author has stated. Even in the book of mark it is written:
35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[h]
37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
The large crowd listened to him with delight.
This indicates Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity because it indicates Jesus is Lord in relation to the other Lord the Father.
This is just such an utter stretch when we have passages like "the Father is greater than I", and "I did not come on my own initiative, only because it was the will of the Father". Ect. Etc. We have hundreds of these very direct crystal clear announcements by Jesus. You have these vague stretches to try to piece something together in contradiction to his clear statements.
It's not in contradiction because as the author in the OP pic states, the Son submits to the Father's will but share the same nature. Christ is under God's authority doing His Father's will within the Holy Trinity.
I understand the statement but it's logicless. It would be like saying the worship of the Olympic gods would not be polytheism If they got married. Besides, there's nothing in the Bible to indicate that the OP image is correct. That is called a rationalization to try to make a theology work when the word does not present it.
Like Jesus said. He did not come on his own initiative, but only did the will of the Father. He says he only does the will of the Father. He does not indicate that he is God at all beyond these statement about his relationship with the father.
>This indicates Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity
There is no Holy Trinity, so the prophet cannot be part of that wich does not exist. You have made up your own words, your own understandings that are not of God.
>The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw, that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
God is superior to the Christ, Christ is superior to the Spirit, the Spirit is superior to man. They are not one, they are not equals, it is hierarchy that connects them, not trinity.
>God is superior to the Christ, Christ is superior to the Spirit, the Spirit is superior to man. They are not one, they are not equals, it is hierarchy that connects them, not trinity.
Yes this is yet another biblical announcement that Jesus is not God. The Bible tells us the head of woman is man, the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.
The author uses this same quote but still believes Jesus is divine but subservient to the will of the Father. This is also what church fathers have believed. Non divinity of Jesus is Islamic and not a Christian concept.
Well there was a lot of disagreement in the church even during Paul's time. In fact he even states none of the Asia Minor churches acknowledged him. Of course the winning narrative had their writings preserved. Justin Martyr and erinas and all them of course wrote about Jesus being God. I did mention this. Where are the ratings from those who disagreed? Those who were on the opposing end of these letters? Those were not preserved for good reason. They did not win the narrative. But this is why scripture is so important. We have to go with scripture not what people said 100 years after Jesus and more.
We have to use logic and critical thinking. God said come let us reason together. He gave us these gifts for a reason. If Jesus wanted to state that he was God, he could have done so very clearly so nobody could misconstrue it. But instead all we have is subservience and deflection of praise that belongs to God. There was no way that he would leave this in the word without crystal clarity on him actually being God in the flesh.
The book of John in the Bible makes it clear as day
Here in John 1 it states:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
This is a clear pointing to divinity within the Biblical text.
There is no indication that Jesus is the word.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
This later in John 1 indicates that Jesus was the Word. The Word (Jesus) became Flesh on Earth. This makes it very clear who the Word is referring to.
Yes, like I said the Gospel of John, which came many decades after Mark and Matthew, is the first time we get the idea that Jesus might be God. It's a bit schizophrenic though because it also says the opposite at times. Regardless, The point stands at Matthew and Mark were the original Gospels and give knowing indication of this Godhood. Obviously John was written because the debate had developed since Mark and Matthew were written. Or perhaps it has been manipulated.
Mark and Matthew we're good enough for every Christian for many decades. We do not need anything more than them. Especially things that contradict Jesus in those gospels.
God would not have allowed John to be in the Bible if God did not will John to be in the Bible.
>Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
If the Son is God, then why does Simon not call him God?
This isn't a contradiction because Jesus is the Son part of the trinity. As the author of the text states, Christ is under God's authority, doing His Father's will. But the author also states the Father is not higher than the Son but the Father is the source or fountain head of the trinity to whom the Son submits to.
I'm going to use this picture as a visual and have colored it in for clarity.
It says the Son is not the Father, but the Son is God.
Why then does Simon say he is the Son of God?
Because he is the SON part of the trinity
So is the Father, so is God, we are looking for consistency.
In order to know the truth, one must test the truth against itself, if it is inconsistent with itself then it is not truth.
So if the Son is God, how can Simon say that God is the father of the Son.
I absolutely despise this doctrine because it confuses those who believe in it, and God is not the author of confusion according to 1 Corinthians.
Because as the author explains, God the Father is the source from which the trinity emanates. God the Father is the Fountainhead and thus has a similar relationship to a real-life father and son. The Father is the fountainhead from which the Son emerges just as your genes have emerged from the genes of your father.
Last attempt, cause we are nearing a stalemate.
I understand the relations as explained, what i am asking is why Simon contradicts this explanation.
Simon says: You are the Son of God.
Now according the trinity, the Son is God, but the Son is the son of the Father who is God. So going by the trinity, Simon is basically saying; You are God the son of God.
It is not congruent with the trinity teaching and it makes no sense. If you dont understand its fine i'll drop for today and go do something else, its late anyway.
But do you see my point?
> The Bible tells us the head of woman is man, the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.
Paul tells has taught you this understanding, but he is a false prophet, a false teacher, a wolf in sheeps clothing, a destroyer of truth and understanding.
>But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.
The prophet is your teacher and instructor, and Paul is not your father.
>Paul tells has taught you this understanding, but he is a false prophet, a false teacher, a wolf in sheeps clothing, a destroyer of truth and understanding.
I would even agree with that. I'm just speaking from the context of somebody who might believe Paul. Even Paul speaks about Jesus not being God.
But honestly, you can use Paul to argue against Paul. He was a confused soul..
>I'm just speaking from the context of somebody who might believe Paul.
Very well, it helps to know such details in conversation.
Paul is easily refuted in many ways, but the many Christians and their many Christianities are rooted in Paul, they will not seperate themselves for the sake of the Moschiach who by all means should be superior to Paul.
>He was a confused soul..
And a cause for many other confused souls.
The only gospel a Christian should need is Matthew. Or Mark. These were the original gospels. Paul's letters and the Gospel of John and Luke all came much later and contradict Jesus' own words. They should be discarded by anybody truly following Christ.
All four gospels are patchworks put together by different people working from similar archives. I know there are plenty contradictions, but i assume no single gospel to be absolute.
I maintain and suggest for people to abide by the four gospels and the revelation for study, but i tell that truth and understanding only comes from the Spirit.
I never even read the books in full, this is the honest, i barely touched up on the Hebrew scriptures. But it is not books that guide my understanding.
I think this is well said. Can agree to that.
Let me ask you a personal question, where did your baptism occur?
That was baptized as a Catholic when I was born. Later in life I was baptized Anabaptist.
So you received the Spirit as an Anabaptist i assume. Are you still with the Anabaptists?
The fact is there isn't a Trinity written about in the scripture. Jesus is subservient to the Father, And reroutes all praise meant for him to him. Though the very early church said Jesus was God. People like Justin Martyr. But, you just have to go with scripture. The very first gospels Christians had were Mark and Matthew. And in these gospels, Jesus did not think it important enough to even mention something that might remotely present him as God. Any of these pre-Gospel of John Christians would look at you like you were an alien if you told them Jesus was God.
If Jesus was God, he would have made that crystal clear like he made it clear he was subservient to the Father. You could easily have made it clear. I could think of hundreds of different ways to make it very clear that he is in fact God. Jesus chose not to. This being an extremely basic fundamental of trinitarian Christianity, it makes no sense for him to have never directly and crystal clearly said such a thing. But instead to consistently and constantly show only his subservience to the Father. As the Bible states, God is not the author of confusion. If Jesus was in fact God, he would have been stating it in a very confusing way.
The church fathers believed in the trinity, and this was the understanding of early Christianity. Saying Jesus is not divine is heresy according to these same church fathers.
>Before Abraham was, I AM
Doesn’t get much clearer than that
>claims to explain trinity
>only explains 2 parts
what the FUCK is the Holy Spirit? and don't give me apophatic, "I'm going to stick strictly to the boilerplate definition that provides no substance and maybe give you some vague scripture lines" shtick. give me your best SOVLful shot, even if it's incomplete
There's even less citation for the Holy spirit's relationship, so it's much better debunked through Jesus's declared relationship with the Father. I don't have an argument as to whether the Holy Spirit and the Father are different. If you believe they have the same then that is acceptable to me. But Jesus most definitely bis not God.
The third part of the trinity which proceeds from Jesus and the Father to share truth.
…12I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. 14He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you.…
What of Asherah?
Nobody ever talks about the wife of God who breathed life in this world with him
Asherah was the wife of Yahweh, these are remnants of Canaanite religion.
Bishop Baron explained one aspect of the trinity like this:
God is the Lover. Jesus is the beloved and the holy spirit is Love itself.
That's a really beautiful explanation. It also coincides with filioque because as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, love proceeds from the lover and the beloved. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit would be love as a person.
That sounds beautiful, but it doesn't mean anything and again is not consistent.
God = the lover
Jesus = the beloved
Spirit = love itself
Father = ?
I know thoughts of violence are evil, but i wanna strangle the inventor of the trinity doctrine, i'm gonna build myself a time machine.
the Father is the lover.
God = ?
Father = the lover
Jesus = the beloved
Spirit = love itself
This looks better, but well save this conversation for another time. Imma gonna bid you a good day/night.