The Trinity.

[Elijah John]

Are these questions actually problems inherent with the doctrine of the Trinity?

1) If the Father is Spirit, (and according to John he is) and the Holy Spirit is Spirit, doesn't that make two Spirits? Why the distinction between the two?

2) Does a person recieve the "Risen Christ" or does a person recieve the Holy Spirit when a person becomes a Christian? Who "knocks on the door" of our heart? Who empowers the Christian to do the will of God? Who leads and guides the believer?

3) And if we consider that Jesus is (according to the Creed) is "eternally begotten of the Father" and had a pre-existance, doesn't that make three disctict Spirits in the Christian pantheon? How is that not three Gods?

4) Was Jesus full of the Holy Spirit, annointed of the Holy Spirit, and led by the Holy Spirit? If Jesus was already God, why would he need this?

In addition to the whole 3 in 1 "mystery" do these questions further illustrate that the doctrine of the Trinity causes more problems than it solves?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 6 by ttruscott]

All baptisms are valid regardless of what is believed?

Short answer is yes. Mikvah's, ritual cleansing of sin, were a very old practice of Isreal. The Jews still practice it today. John and Christ brought something not new, but very old. Baptism was already in practice under its Hebrew name.

[RightReason]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

The religion problem we face is not The Word of God, but the doctrine and traditions of men which cause the Word to seem to conflict.

The religion problem is in thinking/believing the Bible alone is our authority, when in fact no where in the Bible does the Bible say the Bible is our sole authority. In fact, the Bible says we are to listen to the Church (Sacred Tradition). In fact, the Church (Sacred Tradition) preceded the Bible. Therefore it is wrong, illogical, and unscriptural to say Sacred Tradition contradicts Sacred Scripture. We are to follow/listen to both and neither can contradict each other. Of course, if one only listens to one (say Sacred Scripture) and denies Sacred Tradition, well then he would be in error.

I implore everyone who have interest to just read the bible as a whole in complete harmony and stop after the 4 Gospels and write down every instruction of our messiah , keep those in mind to rectify and harmonize the rest with it.

That would be an incomplete instruction. Although one would see when doing that . . .

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.�

However, never should we only read parts of the Bible. The Bible should be read as a whole.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

The question presupposes that the Trinity developed along purely logical/philosophical lines; as if the first users of any term that might be translated (English) into Trinity were TRYING to come up with a Triune God.

They were not. Any study into the history of early Christian thought will be confronted with this:

On the one hand, the early Christian thinkers inherited from the apostles (as well from their philosophical traditions) monotheism. There can be only one God.

On the other, the language of the apostles also attributed to Jesus and the Spirit divine attributes, while STILL CLAIMING MONOTHEISM.

That was the complex package left the early philosophers of the church.

From this arose the doctrine of the Trinity.

All attacks against the Trinity should first start with exegesis the N.t., for that is where the doctrine itself began.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

The religion problem we face is not The Word of God, but the doctrine and traditions of men which cause the Word to seem to conflict.

The religion problem is in thinking/believing the Bible alone is our authority, when in fact no where in the Bible does the Bible say the Bible is our sole authority. In fact, the Bible says we are to listen to the Church (Sacred Tradition). In fact, the Church (Sacred Tradition) preceded the Bible. Therefore it is wrong, illogical, and unscriptural to say Sacred Tradition contradicts Sacred Scripture. We are to follow/listen to both and neither can contradict each other. Of course, if one only listens to one (say Sacred Scripture) and denies Sacred Tradition, well then he would be in error.

I implore everyone who have interest to just read the bible as a whole in complete harmony and stop after the 4 Gospels and write down every instruction of our messiah , keep those in mind to rectify and harmonize the rest with it.

That would be an incomplete instruction. Although one would see when doing that . . .

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.�

However, never should we only read parts of the Bible. The Bible should be read as a whole.

And when one finds mother church is wrong and unbiblical, should we then follow it anyway? Or should we follow as God instructs? Especially when we find by reading the entire bible, Neither Christ nor God instructs to practice as is practiced in Christianity today?

Their no such thing as Sacred tradtion of men. There is Sacred tradition of God. Given by Him directly to us in the Bible. He tells us how to live and what to celebrate. He also tells us not to celebrate as the pagan do.

So, in your opinion we are to follow men, because they have established the tradition? My oh my!

I never said don't read the whole bible. Read it all. read it a million times. Read a million times what Christ instructs us. Write it down. memorize it. Then examine Paul and the rest of the NT. If Paul or anyone contradicts Christ, they are false. However, they don't. Paul is never persecuted for teaching christianity, but rather teaching against the Law. Peter even defends him and Paul says he teaches the law and prophets. So, unless Paul is a liar, he taught as Christ did. The Law. Christ 's sacrifice only freed us from the curse of the law. Not following the law as heaven and earth still stand.

[RightReason]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

And when one finds mother church is wrong and unbiblical, should we then follow it anyway?

Can you provide an example? So far, she hasn’t been, because quite frankly she can’t be – Christ promised to remain with His Church.

Or should we follow as God instructs?

The Church has never contradicted God. If you think otherwise, please provide an example.

Especially when we find by reading the entire bible, Neither Christ nor God instructs to practice as is practiced in Christianity today?

Again, please be specific. What are you talking about?

Their no such thing as Sacred tradtion of men. There is Sacred tradition of God. Given by Him directly to us in the Bible.

Yes, and given by Him via His Church. Exactly as the Bible tells us—“He who hears you, hears me.� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.� The church is ‘the pillar and foundation of truth’.

He tells us how to live and what to celebrate. He also tells us not to celebrate as the pagan do.

True dat.

So, in your opinion we are to follow men, because they have established the tradition? My oh my!

Jesus Christ established His Church and told us to listen to her. Besides, by listening to Sacred Scripture you are in fact listening to the Church. It is the Church who gave us the Bible.

I never said don't read the whole bible. Read it all. read it a million times. Read a million times what Christ instructs us. Write it down. memorize it. Then examine Paul and the rest of the NT. If Paul or anyone contradicts Christ, they are false.

Of course.

However, they don't.

Correct.

Paul is never persecuted for teaching christianity, but rather teaching against the Law. Peter even defends him and Paul says he teaches the law and prophets. So, unless Paul is a liar, he taught as Christ did. The Law. Christ 's sacrifice only freed us from the curse of the law. Not following the law as heaven and earth still stand.

Uuummm . . . again, I have no problem with this. Therefore, neither should you with Christ’s Church.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 15 by RightReason]

The Sabbath, Christmas and Easter come right to mind. Holidays are Holy Days. Holy Days are given by God. Not by "christianizing" pagan rituals.

Right there, the church calls what is unholy, holy. There was no command by God. In fact God says His law and feast are for mankind and eternal and not a burden.

"and when you conquer these nations, do not think to worship Me as they worshipped their gods. They are an abomination to Me. They throw there children into the fire."

The old and new Testaments tell of us worshipping God as He decided. So, you say, 'we kept the sabbath and feasts and after the cross we don't have to, and then in the end we do?'

[RightReason]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

The Sabbath, Christmas and Easter come right to mind. Holidays are Holy Days. Holy Days are given by God. Not by "christianizing" pagan rituals.

You misunderstand these things greatly (if only God had established an earthly authoritative church to help us understand )

Right there, the church calls what is unholy, holy.

Are you implying Christ established an unholy church?

There was no command by God.

There most certainly was. “And I tell you thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.�…

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

The Sabbath, Christmas and Easter come right to mind. Holidays are Holy Days. Holy Days are given by God. Not by "christianizing" pagan rituals.

You misunderstand these things greatly (if only God had established an earthly authoritative church to help us understand )

Right there, the church calls what is unholy, holy.

Are you implying Christ established an unholy church?

There was no command by God.

There most certainly was. “And I tell you thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.�…

You misunderstand that Peter ever was in Rome. Historically, the rumors don't happen till 200 ad. The bones found were mixed with animals and no dna can be matched. A friend of the Pope just said they were Peter's.

You also misunderstand the direction apostlistic succession went. It was a family run synagogue. James ran it first. Then Simeon and then Jude. All brothers of Jesus. Then Rome sacked Jerusalem and all synagogues. The authority was grabbed in a vacuum by Rome and Hebrew religion of christ's followers became slowly Romanized until we have what we have today. Rome had no authority. It came not from Peter but Rome itself. Consequently, we are all taught to be the least in the kingdom, at best.

[bjs]

In addition to the whole 3 in 1 "mystery" do these questions further illustrate that the doctrine of the Trinity causes more problems than it solves?

These four questions all seem to be various ways of restating the whole 3 in 1 “mystery.�

If it creates or solves more problems depends on your view of what makes something a problem.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 6 by ttruscott]

Perfect:

conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type:
"a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman."
excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:
"There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect."

Unity:

the state of being one; oneness.
a whole or totality as combining all its parts into one.
the state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole; unification.
absence of diversity; unvaried or uniform character.
oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement.

Perfect unity implies they could not be any more united. I am not only a group of limbs and organs or cells and atoms, I am one person. The things that make up my being unify to make me, well, me. Would you say that I am many different entities or would you say I am one entity made of many unified parts? If this is an understanding of unity when reflecting upon identity what does "perfect unity" mean? To me it does not seem to reflect well on the Trinity concept regardless of who knocks or how many hands they use to do so.