If God is not The Trinity, when what did He mean...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
holdencaulfield said:
Let’s look at how this passage looks in English:

“Then God said, Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26)

By using the plural “us” God indicates that He is talking to someone else. Otherwise He would use “me” to indicate He was talking to Himself. However God uses the singular “image” not images. This would indicate that He must be taking to someone else who is also himself. With the doctrine of the Holy Trinity this makes perfect sense. He is talking to the Son who although a different person has the same image because The Holy Trinity has plural persons, but only one image.
Click to expand...
I adressed this in post 122 but i don’t think I got an answer. If you could read it and comment, I’d appreciate it.
 
Valke2 said:
2ndGen;3214907:
no idea what your dictionary metaphor means here. If you are going to services today, I’d be interested in hearing what your priest has to say on this. Or when you get the chance to discuss it with him. I ask because I skimmed the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Trinity and while it gives many scriptual supports for Trinity (which I would disagree with but that’s for another thread), it does not quote the verse you are referring to. Below is a portion of the article:

The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 16:18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, “Dial.”, 60; Irenaeus, “Adv. haer.”, IV, xx, 7-11; Tertullian, “Adv. Prax.”, 15-16; Theophilus, “Ad Autol.”, ii, 22; Novat., “De Trin.”, 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of “the Spirit of the Lord”, the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (Irenaeus, “Adv. haer.”, II, xxx, 9; Theophilus, “Ad. Aut.”, II, 15; Hippolytus, “Con. Noet.”, 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom 7:25-26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, “Or. theol.”, v, 26; Epiphanius, “Ancor.” 73, “Haer.”, 74; Basil, “Adv. Eunom.”, II, 22; Cyril of Alexandria, “In Joan.”, xii, 20.)
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you wanted me to respond to?
Click to expand...
 
holdencaulfield said:
Valke2;3214917:
I’m not sure what you wanted me to respond to?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the Catholic Church does not rely on verse 26 in its finding of scriptural support for the Trinity. At least it does not seem to be mentioned in the Article on Trinity Doctrine found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I had previously argued that while there may be verse that can be relied upon to support the doctrine, this verse is not one of them.
Click to expand...
 
Valke2 said:
holdencaulfield;3221254:
It seems to me that the Catholic Church does not rely on verse 26 in its finding of scriptural support for the Trinity. At least it does not seem to be mentioned in the Article on Trinity Doctrine found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I had previously argued that while there may be verse that can be relied upon to support the doctrine, this verse is not one of them.
Click to expand...
Oh yea it doesn’t you are correct in saying that. However many people (myself included) do use that passage, although the Church has no official teaching about it.
Click to expand...
 
fbl9 said:
🙂 look up 1St. John 5:7
Click to expand...
Yep, that proves it as well:

“For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” (1 John 5:7-8)
 
holdencaulfield said:
I think I have to argue with you on that one. How then could God love?

“God is love.” (1 John 4:16)
Click to expand...
There are different kinds of love. (For an introduction to this idea see The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis.) God’s love for man is not an emotive love. Likewise, the highest form of human love is not an emotion. In both cases, love is a matter of will.

For example, partners in marriage love each as a matter of choice or will. Along with this love, hopefully, there are positive emotions and emotive love. However, at times when the good feelings are absent, their relationship continues on the basis of love (in good times and bad). If either or both partners choose to no longer love the other, then the marriage fails.

This kind of married love involves commitment, and is a matter of will, not emotion. In this regard, no one “falls” in love. Love is a choice. Love wills the true well-being and happiness of another.

By a comparison of this kind of human love with God’s love, we can see that God’s love for man, is a matter of Divine will. Reflect also on what St. Paul has to say in 1 Corinthians, Ch. 12, regarding love (caritas).

itinerant1:tiphat:
 
FaithofAbraham said:
While your belief is that God’s Word is like a little God, and God was talking to it as another person in a polytheistic relationship.

Instead of God’s Word just being what God says and commands.

So I stick with my belief as it is just more sensible, monotheistic, and scripturally supported. I can’t really say more than that about this except to keep repeating what I already say.
Click to expand...
Dear FoA,

In our creed we believe “…Begotten not made, one in being with the Father, Through Him all things were made,…”

Then you can refer to the story of creation. Off course, we believe that God create something out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo). Before God created something, it is always begun with “And God Said…”.

John 1:1 “In the beginning there was the word… and the word was God”.

It should be clear that God created things through His Word (not through his finger’s snap or by mean of telephaty). And, His Word is Jesus. Jesus one in being with the Father, because God the Father and His Word is one being.

With respect to God, God himself and His Word is always be one being. We see that God’s Word as also God because God himself and His Word is one.

When God’s words became human, and that human live among other humans, then **with respect to human ** we know God the Father, and God the word (or in human terminology called God the Son as there is no human language can describe the relationship between God the Father and His Word as His word became human) as if they are different.

But indeed God the Father and God the Son is inseparable and cannot be independent. The difference of God the Father and God the son, is with respect to human being, as viewed by human being.

Those who says that Christianity worship three Gods (four if you want to add Mary) means they don’t know Christianity but dare to make judgement based on self-view of others. If you don’t understand a thing does not make such thing is wrong. If you don’t understand the relativity of Einstein, does not mean that Einstein is wrong.
 
swariffin said:
Dear FoA,

In our creed we believe “…Begotten not made, one in being with the Father, Through Him all things were made,…”

Then you can refer to the story of creation. Off course, we believe that God create something out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo). Before God created something, it is always begun with “And God Said…”.

John 1:1 “In the beginning there was the word… and the word was God”.

It should be clear that God created things through His Word (not through his finger’s snap or by mean of telephaty). And, His Word is Jesus. Jesus one in being with the Father, because God the Father and His Word is one being.

With respect to God, God himself and His Word is always be one being. We see that God’s Word as also God because God himself and His Word is one.

When God’s words became human, and that human live among other humans, then **with respect to human ** we know God the Father, and God the word (or in human terminology called God the Son as there is no human language can describe the relationship between God the Father and His Word as His word became human) as if they are different.

But indeed God the Father and God the Son is inseparable and cannot be independent. The difference of God the Father and God the son, is with respect to human being, as viewed by human being.

Those who says that Christianity worship three Gods (four if you want to add Mary) means they don’t know Christianity but dare to make judgement based on self-view of others. If you don’t understand a thing does not make such thing is wrong. If you don’t understand the relativity of Einstein, does not mean that Einstein is wrong.
Click to expand...
Very good rebuttal. 👍
 
swariffin said:
Dear FoA,

In our creed we believe “…Begotten not made, one in being with the Father, Through Him all things were made,…”

Then you can refer to the story of creation. Off course, we believe that God create something out of nothing (Creatio ex Nihilo). Before God created something, it is always begun with “And God Said…”.

John 1:1 “In the beginning there was the word… and the word was God”.

It should be clear that God created things through His Word (not through his finger’s snap or by mean of telephaty). And, His Word is Jesus. Jesus one in being with the Father, because God the Father and His Word is one being.

With respect to God, God himself and His Word is always be one being. We see that God’s Word as also God because God himself and His Word is one.

When God’s words became human, and that human live among other humans, then **with respect to human ** we know God the Father, and God the word (or in human terminology called God the Son as there is no human language can describe the relationship between God the Father and His Word as His word became human) as if they are different.

But indeed God the Father and God the Son is inseparable and cannot be independent. The difference of God the Father and God the son, is with respect to human being, as viewed by human being.

Those who says that Christianity worship three Gods (four if you want to add Mary) means they don’t know Christianity but dare to make judgement based on self-view of others. If you don’t understand a thing does not make such thing is wrong. If you don’t understand the relativity of Einstein, does not mean that Einstein is wrong.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of different things. Yes God’s Word isn’t just His speech, rather it is His words, commands, wants, desires, plans for all humanity.

So all things were created with and by God’s Word, according to plan.

But in that plan is for Jesus to be the best human like a new Adam to lead the humans with God’s Word, he speaks as God does, and acts like God over us. It doesn’t mean that God turned into a human, but God gives the human all that power.

So Jesus is God’s Word, the plan for all humanity, and also the human who speaks for God, His spokesman, two slightly different things. But still only born human.

So we are really close to agreeing, it’s just that I say God took on the human nature seen in Jesus from a human named Jesus created the natural way, being born to David and Bathsheba, killed for David’s sin, then resurrected into Mary to receive his reward of the everlasting kingdom from his flesh father David and from his spiritual father God.

Rather than God taking on the human nature from something He just created out of thin air.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
There are a couple of different things. Yes God’s Word isn’t just His speech, rather it is His words, commands, wants, desires, plans for all humanity.

So all things were created with and by God’s Word, according to plan.

But in that plan is for Jesus to be the best human like a new Adam to lead the humans with God’s Word, he speaks as God does, and acts like God over us. It doesn’t mean that God turned into a human, but God gives the human all that power.

So Jesus is God’s Word, the plan for all humanity, and also the human who speaks for God, His spokesman, two slightly different things. But still only born human.

So we are really close to agreeing, it’s just that I say God took on the human nature seen in Jesus from a human named Jesus created the natural way, being born to David and Bathsheba, killed for David’s sin, then resurrected into Mary to receive his reward of the everlasting kingdom from his flesh father David and from his spiritual father God.

Rather than God taking on the human nature from something He just created out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Like we said before there is no point in arguing with you because you refuse to say “hey thats possible” you won’t even acknowledge other points of view. And because you don’t believe in the Bible it is impossible to convince you of your error.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Like we said before there is no point in arguing with you because you refuse to say “hey thats possible” you won’t even acknowledge other points of view. And because you don’t believe in the Bible it is impossible to convince you of your error.
Click to expand...
I believe in it, I just interpret it differently.
 
holdencaulfield said:
That’s why you should follow the interpretation of people who are more qualified to interpret Scripture. (Not me) The Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I think I have it more correct. The Church is just made up of humans like me, not gods. After Jesus and God and the prophets I trust my own judgment first above all men.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
I think I have it more correct. The Church is just made up of humans like me, not gods. After Jesus and God and the prophets I trust my own judgment first above all men.
Click to expand...
However the Church is made up of people who knew God very well. The Church is made up of people who actually knew Jesus Christ and people who knew the people who knew Him. So as you see it is a continued Tradition.
 
holdencaulfield said:
However the Church is made up of people who knew God very well. The Church is made up of people who actually knew Jesus Christ and people who knew the people who knew Him. So as you see it is a continued Tradition.
Click to expand...
We don’t need to get into details but if the Church knew best it wouldn’t have allowed the sex scandals to keep going on. It was made worse because it is placed on so high a pedestal then when it topples it shakes everyone’s faith. So I don’t put my faith in any religion, only what I see myself from the derived teachings.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
I believe in it, I just interpret it differently.
Click to expand...
Dear FoA,

That what this forum is for, I believe. We compare our interpretations and our belief. By no mean that I force my interpretation or you force yours. By making comparisons, let us not accuse or judge one another. I welcome your interpretation no matter how different it is. God bless you FoA, God bless you also, all of my brothers here in this forum.
 
FaithofAbraham said:
I believe in it, I just interpret it differently.
Click to expand...
Dear FoA,

That what this forum is for, I believe. We compare our interpretations and our belief. By no mean that I force my interpretation or you force yours. By making comparisons, let us not accuse or judge one another. I welcome your interpretation no matter how different it is. God bless you FoA, God bless you also, all of my brothers/sisters here in this forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top