The Trinity refuted by Christ Himself

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear amgid;

You said:

amgid:

The idea that the Trinity consists of “three Persons in one God” is itself logically flawed, because it implies that God (the ONE God) is not a “Person”. He does not have a Personality of His own, but His Personality is somehow divided into three.

This is incorrect. God in three persons - each person is God complete. God is not divided into three. Three persons are each God - the One God - each with a separate personhood. There is no division. There is unity. I think the discussion of greek versus latin fathers’ conceptions of the Trinity has an interesting comment to make that bears upon your mistake concerning nature versus person of God:

From the New Advent discussion of the Blessed Trinity:

V. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN GREEK THEOLOGY

A. Nature and Personality

The Greek Fathers approached the problem of Trinitarian doctrine in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days of St. Augustine, has become traditional in Latin theology. In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because God’s Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect. This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them.
. . . .
[But the Latin fathers - especially Augustine - see it this way…]

VI. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN LATIN THEOLOGY

The transition to the Latin theology of the Trinity was the work of St. Augustine. Western theologians have never departed from the main lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age of Scholasticism his system was developed, its details completed, and its terminology perfected. It received its final and classical form from St. Thomas Aquinas. But it is necessary first to indicate in what consisted the transition effected by St. Augustine. This may be summed up in three points:

He views the Divine Nature as prior to the Personalities. Deus is for him not God the Father,but the Trinity. This was a step of the first importance, safeguarding as it did alike the unity of God and the equality of the Persons in a manner which the Greek system could never do. As we have seen, one at least of the Greeks, Didymus, had adopted this standpoint and it is possible that Augustine may have derived this method of viewing the mystery from him. But to make it the basis for the whole treatment of the doctrine was the work of Augustine’s genius.
He insists that every external operation God is due to the whole Trinity, and cannot be attributed to one Person alone, save by appropriation (see HOLY GHOST). The Greek Fathers had, as we have seen, been led to affirm that the action (energeia) of the Three Persons was one, and one alone. But the doctrine of appropriation was unknown to them, and thus the value of this conclusion was obscured by a traditional theology implying the distinct activities of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
By indicating the analogy between the two processions within the Godhead and the internal acts of thought and will in the human mind (De Trin., IX, iii, 3; X, xi, 17), he became the founder of the psychological theory of the Trinity, which, with a very few exceptions, was accepted by every subsequent Latin writer… . . .

Read the whole discussion here:

The Blessed Trinity - New Advent

 

[StMarkEofE]

gurrato alaien:

In the ‘Gospel according to Mark’, chapter 12, verses 28-34, we are able to read one of the statements, made by Christ himself, which categorically denies the doctrine of the trinity:

"Then one of the lawyers, who had been listening to these discussions and noted how well he answered, came forward and asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’

Jesus answered, 'The first is, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is the only Lord; love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.”

The second is this: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

usislam.org/christianity/christrefute.htm

Peace.

According to many Muslims they believe in the Old Testament so what is meant by the following text in Genesis1:26:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, in **Our **likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Just from this passage one can quickly surmise that there must have been more than just one peronage in the One God. Because the angels cannot create, the devils cannot create, so it must have something to do with the Trinity here. Otherewise the Torah or Genesis may have been written as: I will make man in **My **image and My likeness…".

Things to ponder?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

amgrid:

I think that you need to decide whether the Trinity is mystery that you don’t understand; or whether you claim it is a revealed knowledge that you can clearly define. If you claim that it is a mystery that you don’t understand (as you appear to), then you shouldn’t attempt to define it. You should simply state that the Trinity is a “three in one” mystery that we don’t understand, and leave it at that. Anybody who tries to define a mystery that by their own admission they don’t understand is going to look silly. If on the other hand you claim that the Trinity is something that you do understand and define, then that definition must be clear and understandable to any intelligent person. What on earth is a “consubstantial Trinity”? That is unheard of in the Bible. Show me where it says anything like that in the Bible.

amgid

St Ambrose of Milan refutes your claim… and just because we call it a mystery doesn’t mean it can’t be revealed. Obviously, we can’t know everything about God, i.e. exactly how He created the universe (otherwise we’d be able to thus making it more than one God and God is uncreated unlike us).
Saint Ambrose of Milan:

1. Now the oracles of the prophets bear witness what close unity holy Scripture declares to subsist between the Father and the Son as regards their Godhead. For thus saith the Lord of Sabaoth: “Egypt hath laboured, and the commerce of the Ethiopians and Sabeans: mighty men shall come over to thee, and shall be thy servants, and in thy train shall they follow, bound in fetters, and they shall fall down before thee, and to thee shall they make supplication: for God is in thee, and there is no God beside thee. For thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of lsrael.”
2. Hear the voice of the prophet: “In Thee,” he saith, “is God, and there is no God beside Thee.” How agreeth this with the Arians’ teaching? They must deny either the Father’s or the Son’s Divinity, unless they believe, once for all, unity of the same Divinity.
3. “In Thee,” saith he, “is God”–forasmuch as the Father is in the Son. For it is written, “The Father, Who abideth in Me, Himself speaketh,” and “The works that I do, He Himself also doeth.” And yet again we read that the Son is in the Father, saying, “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” Let the Arians, if they can, make away with this kinship in nature and unity in work.
4. There is, therefore, God in God, but not two Gods; for it is written that there is one God, and there is Lord in Lord, but not two Lords, forasmuch as it is likewise written: “Serve not two lords.” And the Law saith: “Hear, O lsrael! The Lord thy God is one God;” moreover, in the same Testament it is written: “The Lord rained from the Lord.” The Lord, it is said, sent rain “from the Lord.” So also you may read in Genesis: “And God said,–and God made,” and, lower down, “And God made man in the image of God;” yet it was not two gods, but one God, that made[man]. In the one place, then, as in the other, the unity of operation and of name is maintained. For surely, when we read “God of God,” we do not speak of two Gods.

newadvent.org/fathers/34041.htm

the Trinity makes sense to me. orthodox Christianity (note the small “o”) has always confessed three persons and one God… that is… one Being. In Mormonism the Godhead can’t be true because the 3 “persons” of the Godhead are not equal.

The Orthodox Christian Trinity (not Orthodox as in the denominational sense):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png

 

[Joseph_Alison]

StMarkEofE:

Matthew 3:13-17

“Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.
And John tried to prevent Him, saying, " I need to be baptized by You, and are Your coming to me?”
But Jesus answered and said to him, " Permit it to be so now, for this it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him.
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God decending like a dove (Holy Spirit) and alighting upon Him.
And suddenly a voice came from heaven (The Father), saying “this is My beloved Son (The Word), in whom I am well pleased”.

So here in just one portion of Matthew you have the Trinity fully expressed and made known to mankind.

Salaam StMarkEofE;
Who heard the voice saying “this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?”

Joseph.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam StMarkEofE;
Who heard the voice saying “this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?”

Joseph.

The angels, demons, and the followers of St. John the Baptist and those righteous around Him. I dont think the Pharisees and other curious onlookers heard these words.

 

[JimG]

amgid:

All of these suggest that the ONE God is a Person,

Of course. That is Catholic Theology 101.

Beginning with a reflection on the attributes of God, we conclude that he is a Person. The Jews called that Person Yahweh. Jesus calls Him Father. But he also says that “The Father and I are One.” and “Before Abraham was, I AM.” appropriating for himself the Name of God.

Only One God. Three Persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

It does no good to quote bible verses to show that Jesus is human; because Christians firmly believe that Jesus is human. They also believe that the Person whom he is, is God the Son, who took on a human nature (already possessing in His essence the Divine nature.)

We would have known nothing of the Trinity had the Father not sent the Son to take on a human nature, for our sake.

None of that is logically impossible if you keep firmly in mind the distinction between person and nature. And none of it is scripturally impossible. Scripture demands it.

 

[StMarkEofE]

gurrato alaien:

In the ‘Gospel according to Mark’, chapter 12, verses 28-34, we are able to read one of the statements, made by Christ himself, which categorically denies the doctrine of the trinity:

"Then one of the lawyers, who had been listening to these discussions and noted how well he answered, came forward and asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’

Jesus answered, 'The first is, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is the only Lord; love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.”

The second is this: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

usislam.org/christianity/christrefute.htm

Peace.

Plaegerized from another’s post:
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 lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." **
Matt 28:19-20

 

[Mickey]

StMarkEofE:

Plaegerized from another’s post:
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 lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." **
Matt 28:19-20

Hey! That was me! :bigyikes:
That’s okay, I plagiarized it from the Bible!

 

[tdandh26]

gurrato alaien:

Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

In the time of Jesus, there were no such thing as Chapter or verses in scripture. If someone wanted to point to a passage they simple stated the first line of the passage they intended to reference.
I think it also important to note what else is said of this passage. Which is from verse 47 (Some of the bystanders who heard it said, “This one is calling for Elijah.”) I point this out to show why the bystanders did not realize what Jesus was saying. Jesus was anouncing the completion of a prophesy which occurs in PSALM 22.
The similarities in this Psalm and the crucifixion of Jesus are astounding.
Jesus alone fulfills all the prophesies. No other person in history had his advent prophesied. No one prophesied the coming of Muhammed or Buddah. But Christ was and He fulfilled every one of them. Thus He himself announces “It is consumated”.

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

This is incorrect. God in three persons - each person is God complete. God is not divided into three. Three persons are each God - the One God - each with a separate personhood. There is no division. There is unity. I think the discussion of greek versus latin fathers’ conceptions of the Trinity has an interesting comment to make that bears upon your mistake concerning nature versus person of God: . . .

Semper Fi:

St Ambrose of Milan refutes your claim… and just because we call it a mystery doesn’t mean it can’t be revealed. Obviously, we can’t know everything about God, i.e. exactly how He created the universe (otherwise we’d be able to thus making it more than one God and God is uncreated unlike us). . . .

Well, I hope all this makes sense to you guys, because I assure you it makes none to me. I don’t even think you had even read my posts very carefully, because most of your comments are irrelevant to it.

amgid

 

[amgid]

JimG:

Of course. That is Catholic Theology 101.

Beginning with a reflection on the attributes of God, we conclude that he is a Person. The Jews called that Person Yahweh. Jesus calls Him Father. But he also says that “The Father and I are One.” and “Before Abraham was, I AM.” appropriating for himself the Name of God.

Only One God. Three Persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

That would imply that the Trinity can also be defined as “Three Persons in One Person” then, wouldn’t it?

It does no good to quote bible verses to show that Jesus is human; because Christians firmly believe that Jesus is human. They also believe that the Person whom he is, is God the Son, who took on a human nature (already possessing in His essence the Divine nature.)

I don’t know what you are talking about here. Where did I “quote bible verses to show that Jesus is human”? It doesn’t look like you had even read my posts.

We would have known nothing of the Trinity had the Father not sent the Son to take on a human nature, for our sake.

And what relevance exactly does that have with what I had said?

None of that is logically impossible if you keep firmly in mind the distinction between person and nature. And none of it is scripturally impossible. Scripture demands it.

Relevant to what please?

Several people have so far attempted to reply to my post; but none of them it seems have read it; or have made the slightest effort to understand it. Not very promising for you guys I am sure.

amgid

 

[JimG]

amgid:

That would imply that the Trinity can also be defined as “Three Persons in One Person” then, wouldn’t it?amgid

No, that would imply that the Trinity can be defined as “Three Persons in One Nature.” The Trinity can never be defined as three persons in one persons (or for that matter as three natures in one nature.)

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

I think that you need to decide whether the Trinity is mystery that you don’t understand; or whether you claim it is a revealed knowledge that you can clearly define. If you claim that it is a mystery that you don’t understand (as you appear to), then you shouldn’t attempt to define it. You should simply state that the Trinity is a “three in one” mystery that we don’t understand, and leave it at that. Anybody who tries to define a mystery that by their own admission they don’t understand is going to look silly. If on the other hand you claim that the Trinity is something that you do understand and define, then that definition must be clear and understandable to any intelligent person. What on earth is a “consubstantial Trinity”? That is unheard of in the Bible. Show me where it says anything like that in the Bible

amgid

Amgid the quotes you use from Isaiah, can be reconcilled within the Trinity since Christians believe the Trinity is one God. All Christians admit the Trinity is a mystery, but we have the scriptural basis that tells us this is so, of course you can attempt to define a mystery, there’s no rules against that. And there is plenty of scriptural basis for it. But it has been exhausted over and over, and do we really need to rehash what has already been debated 1,000 times?

A more fitting question is how do you as a Mormon reconcile those sections from Isaiah below:

Isaiah 44:

6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses.** Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.**

Isaiah 45:

5 **I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: ** I girded thee, though thou hast not known me

21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not** I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me;** a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

How do you reconcile the sections fo Isaiah with Mormon doctrine that clearly states the Godhead is three seperate and distinct Gods? And that the faithful Temple Mormon’s will become Gods themselves? These sections from Isaiah don’t contradict Trinitarian doctrine, but they do contradict Mormon doctrine.

 

[Neithan]

amgid:

All of these suggest that the ONE God is a Person, and has an independent “Personality” of His own. Therefore you attempt to portray Him as someone without an independent Personality (as your definition of Trinity would necessarily require) is blatantly false, and possibly even blasphemous.

Two primary rebuttals to this:

1. 
   *]The use of singular pronouns to refer to God are referring to one of the three Persons. Usually the Father, or in some cases the Son.
   *]The understanding of God among the ancient Hebrews was primitive monotheism, and the Scriptures reflect this. In Christianity, Scripture is inspired, but revelation is gradual.
   
   Unlike the Quran, the Bible is not taken to be a holy book which came directly from God’s own hand. We recognise the human authors, the instruments who God inspired to reveal Himself in the written Word; therefore, the revelation of God in the Old Testament was gradual, incomplete, and any apparent depiction of God as One Person only is strictly accidental. There is no effort to describe the inner nature of God, and no denial of his Trinitarian Personality–merely the lack of its assertion, as it was not revealed until Christ.
   

   These verses are indeed very interesting. They teach not only that we, or all the disciples of Jesus, will be made one with the Father and the Son; but they teach that the nature of that unity will be of exactly the same as the unity that exists between the Father and the Son.

   The first part of your conclusion is correct, but the corollary does not at all follow. The verses do not state that the nature of this unity will be “exactly the same” at all. They speak of unity–of all human beings in communion with Christ. There is an analogy to the unity between the Father and the Son; but to extract a theological conclusion from this such that we humans will also become Divine Persons in God is some faulty exegesis taken to the extreme.
   You might want to read up on the Christian doctrine of the Communion of Saints.
   

   I have also read the quotes from the Catechism posted by Robert in SD in post #22, and frankly they don’t make any sense to me. I don’t think they make any sense to you. I don’t think they made sense to those who wrote it.

   What…!? If it doesn’t make sense to you, then it must not make sense to anyone else, right? Even those who teach it! If you don’t understand it, no one can! Who made you the great paragon of all human understanding?
   This would be such a stunning display of arrogant ignorance, that I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and accept this as a bit of sarcastic humour.
   

   That is unheard of in the Bible. Show me where it says anything like that in the Bible.

   The Bible does not detail the nature of the Trinity, and it doesn’t have to. We do not treat the Bible as Muslims treat the Quran. Consider how obnoxious it is to suggest that we do not understand our own Scriptures? What would you say if I told you that the Quran doesn’t make any sense to me? You might tell me to learn Arabic first. Well, I’m asking you to at least learn some basic Catholic theology first.
   Here’s a starter: The Bible. Try clicking on some of the links in it for some further insight
   
   God Bless!

 

[Ignatius]

gurrato alaien:

One small chapter describe the concept of God in Islam

gurrato alaien, you still have not explained the part that I don’t understand. I dont see how the fact that there is one God counters the Triune nature of God. Can you please clarify this for me.

 

[inJESUS]

Ignatius:

gurrato alaien, you still have not explained the part that I don’t understand. I dont see how the fact that there is one God counters the Triune nature of God. Can you please clarify this for me.

Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is** none comparable unto Him**

i dont think mohammad really adressed the nature of God.

 

[inJESUS]

you find this as well:

“Allah, there is no god except He. The Living, the Everlasting. Neither dozing nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is he that shall intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what will be before their hands and what was behind them. And they do not comprehend anything of His knowledge except what He willed. His Seat surrounds the heavens and earth. The preserving of them does not tire Him. He is the All-High, the All-Glorious.” Chapter 2:255.

PS: the first thing muslims usually learn is that allah does not beget, thats why they have a problem with Jesus being called Son of God…and no matter how much times you said you are monotheistic, they just cant grasp it.for them, allah is the human invented number 1.

PS: allah uses WE in quran as well.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

amgid:

Well, I hope all this makes sense to you guys, because I assure you it makes none to me. I don’t even think you had even read my posts very carefully, because most of your comments are irrelevant to it.

amgid

The doctrine of the trinity is acknowledged by all of christianity to be a mystery of faith. It is not easy, but just because something is difficult to grasp and impossible to fully comprehend, that does not make it false. Perhaps that’s why the existence of the trinity was revealed to us slowly by Jesus Christ during His own earthly ministry.

We Catholics (and most christians for that matter) know there are three persons who are divine - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We know also that there is one God. Thus, One God and 3 Persons.

We Catholics also know that the Word (Jesus) was eternal, was with God from the beginning and was the author of creation with God the Father before taking on His human nature. (see Jn 1:1-5)

Your reliance upon LDS doctrine for the belief that Jesus was a created being not co-eternal with the Father CLEARLY contradicts John’s Gospel (again, see Jn. 1:1-5). You cannot reconcile Christ’s co-eternal nature with the Father - as stated by John - with the belief that Jesus was the first of the spirit children created by the Father. Jesus cannot be both eternal and created, thus John is wrong or Joseph Smith is wrong. Whom do you believe?

LDS doctrine on this matter is just the latest form of Arianism. Arius’s unscriptural ideas were condemned long ago by the First Council of Nicea in 325 because they did not hold up to theological rigor and scrutiny. The latest incarnation will likely fail as well.

-Peace

 

[amgid]

JimG:

No, that would imply that the Trinity can be defined as “Three Persons in One Nature.”

And what exactly does that mean? Me and my dad and my next door neighbor have the same “nature”. All three of us are human beings; therefore we all have “human nature”. So we have the same nature. Does that make us into a trinity? Or does that mean that we are one and not three any more?

The Trinity can never be defined as three persons in one persons . . .

I thought you agreed with me that the ONE God is indeed a “Person”. If the ONE God is indeed a Person, then the Trinity can be defined as “Three Persons in One Person,” surely. What is wrong with that argument?

amgid

 

[amgid]

Mike_D30:

Amgid the quotes you use from Isaiah, can be reconcilled within the Trinity since Christians believe the Trinity is one God.

This shows that you had not carefully read or understood what I had written either. I had not given the quotes from Isaiah to show that Trinity cannot be reconciled with one-ness of God. I had given them to demonstrate that throughout the Bible (OT and NT) the ONE God is portrayed as a Person. He is depicted as possessing a unique, individual, and independent Personality of His own. Therefore the Christian definition of the Trinity as:

Three Persons in On God
Can also be defined as:

Three Persons in One Person
Wouldn’t you agree?

A more fitting question is how do you as a Mormon reconcile those sections from Isaiah below:

Isaiah 44:6, 8

Isaiah 45:5, 21

How do you reconcile the sections fo Isaiah with Mormon doctrine that clearly states the Godhead is three seperate and distinct Gods? And that the faithful Temple Mormon’s will become Gods themselves? These sections from Isaiah don’t contradict Trinitarian doctrine, but they do contradict Mormon doctrine.

This is different subject which requires a different thread. I believe it has been discussed before. When I joined this board around 6 months ago, I recall seeing a long thread on this subject. But I believe the thresd was closed when I joined, and I don’t think I contributed anything to it.

amgid