is the trinity a biblical doctrine?

reply to post by Locoman8

My question to you is, do you think God and Jesus are the same thing?

Akenakin thought he was being smart by saying he had a superior religion. He said that the current priesthood was mistakenly worshipping the radiant energy from the sun, as if it was the sun. He understood that the real god was the actual disc of the sun from which the radiation emanated from.
We mortals were only capable of perceiving the radiation of the sun. Akenakin, by virtue of being Pharaoh of Egypt, was a god himself, so he was able to see beyond the mere radiation of the sun and comprehend the very disc of the sun and could give us the religion of the true god.(according to him)
My opinion is that Akenakin was creating a false dichotomy in order to innovate something of his own. By creating another level of god, he could elevate himself to equality with the previously known gods. Once he was positioned, he could then go about eliminating his competition. Then it could seem reasonable that he would be god, the son of God, only path to knowing the truth of who God is.
I think he was wrong. When we look up at the sun, we see the sun. Ok, so we see the sun through the radiation coming from it but the image we see is the image of the sun. I do not know how we can better identify what the sun is than to study what imitates from it. We can not go and walk around on the sun and touch it and taste it and smell it. So, from the best of our knowledge, what we are beholding when we direct our gaze towards the sun, is the sun.
The same sort of concept can be applied to God. We see the brilliant radiance of God in the son of God. We can not go and sit on His lap and touch Him. The Son can and does. When we turn our gaze to God, we see His Son. Though he is the radiation imitating from God, he is, as far as our perception is able to discern, God.

reply to post by jmdewey60


What???

So because humans can't see God Almighty but can see the Son/Jesus who is separate, that makes him God to our perception, but in actuality he isn't???
That's what I get out of your last post.

Wow could you get anymore confusing.

Locoman is it just me, or is this way out there as far as belief structure.
What do you think?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

. . .but in actuality he isn't???

If God says he is god, and he says he is god, then he is.
In heaven, before he was Jesus, the Son was the same thing as God. He was God but the external aspect of God. Being that did not make him not God.
God separated Jesus from Himself, but it did not remove any amount of himself, because the core of God was still intact.
Just as the Son was the active interface of the Father, as can be understood from looking at God from outside of God (but still basing your point of observation inside the boundaries of Heaven); Jesus is the active interface of God on Earth. He is still just as much God as he was before, because he is eternal in existence.
OK, if you think this is "out there", it is based on Hebrews 1:3 and John 10:36.
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, . . ."
"Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
I do not take this matter lightly and have been holding back on making a specific determination about it. (It might seem like I am still avoiding it) What I believe is that the story about Jesus' confrontation with the doctors of the Law in John 10 is where he spells it out who he is. The key to it is something I read in John Gill. He wrote this back in 1760 or something, (his commentary on the Bible) and is a Reformed writer from the Scottish old school. Anyway, Gill explains that Jesus was making a comparison between himself, and mortals who were given titles of gods, by God. The point of it, that he was saying, was that he was immortal. Before he came into this world, God sanctified him. Sanctification is separating something for a specific holy use. So here is Jesus' big moment to tell us what happened, and what does he say? God separated him and sent him into the physical universe.


[edit on 21-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

So then you are saying they use to be one being, but God separated himself from Jesus, and today they are separate beings???

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I give up on his point of view. I think he's talking around the subject and confusing himself to be honest with you. I have a crazy concept but it will be posted on the "pre-existence" thread.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
So then you are saying they use to be one being, but God separated himself from Jesus, and today they are separate beings???

God is not a being in the normal sense of the word. Jesus is a being but is god so maybe we can say that if God has a being, then it is Jesus, but there is no separation that exists on a permanent basis. There is an apparent separation because of an opposition of roles being played out. But the work of Christ the Mediator is coming to a close and there will be clearly a unity of God. That is a future event that we do not need to be overly concerned about because there is an immediate need, which is to be in brotherhood with Jesus for the rescuing of souls from this burning planet.

I think I finally get what you believe. To you God and Jesus are like the T-1000 from T2 (movie)
It can separate, then rejoin, later.

Well to me that is no better than the people that say God and Jesus are one in a trinity belief. Sorry.

I will repeat my belief, based on my extensive studies of the bible and language.

Almighty God had no beginning he existed by himself for infinity before time space and matter. In time he decided to create an only begotten Son, named Jesus, this spirit creature is very special to the Almighty God, as not only was it his first creative act , but the first intelligent life. Like a biological father passes on physical traits, God passed on spiritual traits of himself to Jesus.
Let's call it spiritual DNA. That is why Jesus has more godlike qualities than any other in the universe. But he still had free choice and will.
Then Jesus was used as a master worker to create all life and matter in the universe. God could say that HE was doing it because he gave the orders for Jesus to do it and gave Jesus the power to do it.
Angels, the universe, our earth, man & woman, Jesus did it all with the help of God's Holy Spirit. Without it he would have no power at all. That is why God IS the creator via the Holy Spirit.

When Jesus gave up his spirit body and came to the earth he was the son of God in the flesh a perfect man. Once he died, God resurrected him back to spirit form, he eventually returned to heaven for good where he was granted a most excellent reward for his sacrifice - immortality. Something the angels don't even have. Also in the future he would be given total control of the universe for 1000 years.

When that is over, he hands control back to his Father who gave it to him.

Jesus Christ and the Almighty God have always been separate entities and always will be. They are one in unity of purpose. They are one in that God gave Jesus his qualities, spiritual DNA in human terms. Jesus is the perfect reflection of his Father. The choices Jesus made on the earth reflect God's choices.

It is not a mystery or complicated or mind baffling it is very simple actually.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

It is not a mystery or complicated or mind baffling it is very simple actually.

I think my core belief is that God is uncategorizable.
There is a lot of stuff that I was taught when I was young that I found out later is just not in the Bible. But there is plenty of things in the Bible that are easy enough to let go right over our heads. If we can just understand properly, what we are given, then we would not have to make up other explanations.
Nicea fell into the trap of over-defining God. There is a principle in quantum physics that says, by describing something, you cause it to exist. If you completely define God, then you create a god, but of your own making. That god is then nothing better than a graven image, and if you go ahead and worship this creation of yours, you are an idolater.


[edit on 22-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
]I think my core belief is that God is uncategorizable.

then wouldnt that make knowing god very difficult?

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by jmdewey60
]I think my core belief is that God is uncategorizable.

then wouldnt that make knowing god very difficult?

According to your way of thinking, it would be. I suppose that you understand every instance in the Bible where it mentions God doing one thing or another, as literally God The Father, (or in your terminology, Jehovah). In that case He would be very knowable. My argument would have to be that the knowableness of God would be a result of all the apparent works of God being attributable to the personally active aspect of God, which is the Word or the Son, or if you like, Jesus. This can be possible if you understand was in the "was god" clause of John 1:1 to mean the same as. (which you, of course, reject)
I can say something that I know is not true, but I would mention it hypothetically, as a question. If God was knowable, why would we need a son of God? Of course things are just the way they are and it is not for us to question why they are, but we should at least be able to grasp the general concept. In order to understand that, it has to seem at least partially rational to us. We do not have to understand the mechanics of things like what is a spirit body, if there is such a thing.


[edit on 23-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My argument would have to be that the knowableness of God would be a result of all the apparent works of God being attributable to the personally active aspect of God, which is the Word or the Son, or if you like, Jesus.

jesus' presence or example did not make god knowable.

romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

we dont technically need jesus in order to know god. his attributes are evident though his creation, our existence.

if god is uncategorizable, then it would be very hard to see his attributes would it not?

This can be possible if you understand was in the "was god" clause of John 1:1 to mean the same as. (which you, of course, reject)

yes i do.

If God was knowable, why would we need a son of God? Of course things are just the way they are and it is not for us to question why they are, but we should at least be able to grasp the general concept.

our right, we dont know why god choose his son. we dont even know if his son volunteered. however, one thing is for sure, we did not NEED the son.

adam was a perfect human man. what was needed was a perfect human man. if god could turn jesus into a perfect human man, then he could have done it with any of his angelic host. there is nothing to say that we specifically needed jesus.

so your question is moot. any perfect human could have filled the job because perfect human men are all "in the image of god"

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My argument would have to be that the knowableness of God would be a result of all the apparent works of God being attributable to the personally active aspect of God, which is the Word or the Son, or if you like, Jesus.

jesus' presence or example did not make god knowable.

romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

we dont technically need jesus in order to know god. his attributes are evident though his creation, our existence.

if god is uncategorizable, then it would be very hard to see his attributes would it not?

This can be possible if you understand was in the "was god" clause of John 1:1 to mean the same as. (which you, of course, reject)

yes i do.

If God was knowable, why would we need a son of God? Of course things are just the way they are and it is not for us to question why they are, but we should at least be able to grasp the general concept.

our right, we dont know why god choose his son. we dont even know if his son volunteered. however, one thing is for sure, we did not NEED the son.

adam was a perfect human man. what was needed was a perfect human man. if god could turn jesus into a perfect human man, then he could have done it with any of his angelic host. there is nothing to say that we specifically needed jesus.

so your question is moot. any perfect human could have filled the job because perfect human men are all "in the image of god"

reply to post by miriam0566

we dont technically need jesus in order to know god. his attributes are evident though his creation, our existence.
if god is uncategorizable, then it would be very hard to see his attributes would it not?

Divine revelation comes in different ways, that is what Hebrews 1 starts out talking about. There is a progression of revelation, starting out with the most basic things like the physical creation which speaks of God's power. God has worked spiritually with men who desired the knowledge of God and we have Abraham who sought His will, and Moses and the prophets. They spoke of future events, and when the time was ripe for the fulfillment, the prophet of its present tense arose in John the Baptist. Each of these were to bring deeper understanding, in as much as a human person could be able to transfer the truth through their human interpretation.
The supreme revelation came to us through someone who was able to have a direct knowledge of truth through his intimate relationship with God, previous to his being of human form. He was in the form of God and was the brilliant radiance of the intense glory which is God. Jesus had to discontinue having a heavenly type of glory while on earth but he continued a kind of spiritual conduction of the glorious thought of God.
There was a reason for Jesus being here because of the degree of deception in the world. Under the peace of Rome, not just trade grew but along with it the migration of ideas. These were a lot of different beliefs associated with so many foreign gods. Jesus was the anti-dote to this by being the anti-deception. He was able to bring his disciples into the knowledge of truth. When he sent them out as apostles, he said he saw Satan falling to earth as lightning, that one who was the deceiver in the Garden of Eden. He was defeating deception by spreading truth and he could because he had the most direct truth that was possible, by what he knew from not being separate from God. He tryed to explain it by saying the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.
He was separate in regards of all of a sudden being a completely separate person in the flesh. He was still capable of being a receiver of knowledge without intercession because he was the Great Intercessor, not just as he was as Jesus, but also a continuation of what his role was before he was Jesus. Whatever we need to know about God, is provided to us through Jesus, Just as whatever needed to be known to the angelic host was what was delivered by the pre-human role of what was to later become Jesus.



[edit on 24-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


I think your way of thinking is nothing more than confusion for other people. Who is the creator of confusion? I'll let you answer that one.

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

I think your way of thinking is nothing more than confusion for other people. Who is the creator of confusion? I'll let you answer that one.

I can see why a lot of my previous posts would be hard to understand, but this last post seems to me to be the epitome of simplicity.
It could be understood by pretty much anyone, or at least that is what I thought. There are not a bunch of new concepts in it to have obstacles to maneuver through to get a grasp of the main point. I even thought about printing up some copies and bringing them to church because I thought I finally got it to a distributable sort of thing.
Maybe I expected you to disagree with what I was putting across because they do not go along with your view of Jesus and God. That would be understandable, but to act like I am on purpose trying to be confusing is a little bit of a shocker to me.
If there is something about it that you think is just not true, feel free to list them and I can try to address the issues in a rational sort of way. Name calling is not exactly very productive. Do I deserve it? Am I hurting Jesus or God? Am I holding back some sort of recognition that one of them deserves? Am I leading people to abandon God, or something? If you think so, go ahead and say it. Or am I using magic mind control techniques to scramble people's minds to make them unable to comprehend God? Is that it? I am really Satan here on ATS making people have a false religion that will make them automatically go to Hell? The secret formula, if you put just the right words togather in the right order, and someone says, "Seems reasonable to me" that gives me power to steal their souls?
What is your counter-Satan formula of magic words that if you string them together just right and say, "That's OK." then God lets you through the gate into His new little kingdom on Earth?


[edit on 24-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


First off, I wasn't making fun of you. I was letting you know that you are too "out there" with your thinking and it causes people to be confused as to what you believe. I still am scratching my head to what you actually believe. You, my friend, are mocking me and my religion with your little "little kingdom on Earth" comment... or did I read it the wrong way? See, you're confusing me again!

reply to post by Locoman8
You read it right.
I guess that is mean. Calling someone the servant of Satan is just fine.
By making your understanding of God simple, it makes it not true.
Sorry about that, God can not be defined period and definitely not in three or four words.



[edit on 24-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I guess that is mean. Calling someone the servant of Satan is just fine.
[edit on 24-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

Wow, that's a bold claim! I sure didn't say it though. See, here's my quote....

Who is the creator of confusion? I'll let you answer that one.

I guess you need help with your facts and getting them straight. I never called you a servant of Satan. Obviously you know the creator of confusion is Satan but I never called you a servant of his. I simply was mentioning that you are falling into Satans trap to confuse other christians. Does this mean you're a satanist? No. It means you're blinded by his deception. A far cry from being his servant.

reply to post by Locoman8

I simply was mentioning that you are falling into Satans trap to confuse other christians.

OK, fine. Don't worry about it too much.
But don't you see where your reasoning could lead to? Maybe that is just me, who likes to see how far you can project future consequences of a single action.
So, tell me what the trap is.
Anyway I was only kidding about mocking you. It was not my intention. I was trying to figure out your alternative to what most people would call heaven.
Just by asking me if I was mocking your religion made me feel like just going with it. Just pushing your button, sorry about that.


[edit on 24-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

That thread on "Making Hell" caused me to look at some things about Augustine. I found some real fun stuff in the introduction to his "Doctrines" book.

He lived at the end of a century that had worked out the church's basic trinitarian doctrines, at the ecumenical councils of Nicea in 325 and Constantinople in 381. Christians finally had a universal vocabulary in which to state what they believed about God, Christ, and the Spirit lucidly and concisely without error or imprecision..

Boy, I don't know. It looks like once you pick out so many words that are so "precisely understood" the words would become so ingrained into the doctrine that they would loose any meaning, other than how it is applied to the doctrine.
Now that the commentator establishes this as the context of Augustine's life, he goes into some critical analysis of the writings pertaining to that set of facts being used to set the context.

In a few chapters, Augustine then states the essentials of Christian belief in God, with a most important preamble: God is ineffable, that is, we can say nothing truly meaningful about one who transcends the categories of human language. Indeed, it is the wisdom of God that gives reasonableness to all things in human life.

So here you have man not being able to define God, but God is the One who defines the world that man lives in, and makes it understandable to him through revelation in the Word.
Notice any contradiction here between these two quotes? First you have the (so called) church defining God and then here is Augustine saying there is no defining God, and what He does reveal is really more about people, and not Himself.
If I understand correctly what Augustine is saying, I would have to side with him and against Nicea. If what came out of Nicea was not what it was, but was just another person's opinion and if I was to discuss it with him, I might say, "Nice that you concern yourself with spiritual matters and think about God but that is so much speculation and is claiming too much in how we can fit God in a box."
Well too bad because the ones who should have said that bailed out and we have no vote on the acceptance of this as an article of faith. It is a done deal and the horror of it is that this was published and broadcast and enforced.