freeatlast
New Member
Yes but that is not trinity and God has neither flesh nor blood.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Triune God
- Thread starter th1bill
- Start date
Yes but that is not trinity and God has neither flesh nor blood.
preacher4truth
Active Member
I thought Jesus had flesh and bone in His glorified body?
All your quotes are out of context! The Bible, all of it is inspired by God and although it is safe to stand and proclaim that there were about 40 writers, more or less, it is still the truth that there is only one author and that is God, the same God we see in the New Testament.
Here is where everybody that fails to see this goes wrong... God has had one message from the beginning to the end of His Revelation of Himself to us. God gave every one of these men the inspiration to pen these books in His name and God is the only irresistible anything, anywhere. If you believe that the Bible contains the Word of God, you are, very likely, lost! If you believe that the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek contained the Word of God but that men have distorted it in their translations of the manuscripts, again, you need to look into your salvation because there is only one God and He will not fit into any box, building or universe that has ever been constructed. God wrote the Bible in one context, from the beginning to the end. He began with, "In the beginning" and ended with the very last "Amen" of The Revelation of the Christ to John.
If you have never read the entire Book as one reads a book, you have not read the Bible! If you have struggled and beat your way through the pages without the Holy Spirit, you have built in vain.
Your quotes must be viewed in the light of all other scripture to find their context.
walkbyfaith
New Member
Bill, I generally like your posts, and I hope that this is a typo or I am just misunderstanding you.
Your first paragraph contradicts what you say in the second paragraph, that the bible does not contain the Word of God.
You cant really believe the bible is NOT the Word of God? He didnt write it Himself, but He inspired every word of it.
freeatlast
New Member
Yes but Jesus said that God is Spirit;
God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
And then he said about Spirit;
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
The point is that male and female abiding in their relationship to one another is the image that is in view in Gen 1, not the individual as body, soul and spirit.
If we take our cues from the Scriptures and not how two fallen, sinful individuals fall short of God's plan for marriage, it is easier to see.
It seems you're saying here that the Father and the Son are not capable of independent thought or will, but that would be a mistake. Christ prayed, "Not my will, but thine . . . " Without independent thought or will, there would be nothing to submit.
I didn't say that the Bible is not the Word of God, it is. My statement was and is that the Bible does not contain the Word of God, as some contend it does but never being quite willing to point out the passages they feel are not His Word. I always have and always will teach that the Bible, from beginning to end are the inerrant Word of God.
I did something here that I teach others not to do, proving all of us, me included are far from perfect, I posted without proof reading or I would ave elaborated and specified my intent.
Sorry about the short sightedness but it just goes to prove that all, myself included, need accountability. Thanks for the check!
walkbyfaith
New Member
Just want to make it clear in my mind. You are saying the bible does not CONTAIN the Word of God, that it IS the Word of God?
Interesting. Never thought of it that way.
Yes sir, that is my position. This position will only stand if God is limitless in the scope of His power but if He can, and He did, speak the universes into existence, who can ever know, let alone explain the limit of His power. Those that contend that the Bible contains the Word of God, whether they claim men have played with the words or not, have left that door open and it becomes incumbent upon them to define what is and what isn't the actual Word of God and why it is that the creator of everything that has been created (John 1:1-5) allowed exactly what He promised to condemn and destroy, to happen. There are many New Testament Christians that contend that this is only found at the end of the Revelation of the Christ to John and therefore only applies to that 22 chapter passage. The same promise is, however also found twice in Deuteronomy. Since it is becoming an issue of some prominence on the internet today, I'm trying to remember to note every time I find it in scripture on my current read through.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alive in Christ
New Member
walkbyfaith... (and KyRedneck.)
Dont worry about it, brothers. The egg and water examples are both very good ways of explaining it. And there are others as well.
The way some people get about correctly articulating the triune nature of God makes me think some people have too much free time on their hands. :laugh:
God bless.
AiC
Last edited by a moderator:
Alive in Christ
New Member
Amy,
That one is very good! I've used it.
Please disregard any attacks that might come your way.
You done good! :thumbs:
AiC
walkbyfaith
New Member
Thank you for the kind words AiC.
I didnt take what was said as an attack. Not at all. Like preacher4truth said, I am a newer believer, and I found it kind of amusing......there seems to be an 'ism' for everything! Those were terms I had never heard before, and his post made me look them up and study them to a degree.
Martin did send me a pm, apologizing for any hard feelings.....which there were none. I found it a nice gesture though.
As a new believer, if I say something blatantly incorrect, I expect to be corrected. I try to remember that you cant tell a persons tone of voice on the internet. Sometimes things typed come across the wrong way.
I didnt take what was said as an attack. Not at all. Like preacher4truth said, I am a newer believer, and I found it kind of amusing......there seems to be an 'ism' for everything! Those were terms I had never heard before, and his post made me look them up and study them to a degree.
Martin did send me a pm, apologizing for any hard feelings.....which there were none. I found it a nice gesture though.
As a new believer, if I say something blatantly incorrect, I expect to be corrected. I try to remember that you cant tell a persons tone of voice on the internet. Sometimes things typed come across the wrong way.
I'm sorry, but they're really, really not, and it actually is rather important.
Modalism is the belief that God is one but appears in three 'modes,' rather as Superman sometimes appears as Clark Kent and sometimes as Superman. The problem with this understanding is that it denies the relationship within the Trinity. The Father cannot say, "This is My beloved Son," nor can the Son pray to the Father. if the Lord Jesus is no more than the Father in a different garb, as ice is water in a another mode. Clark Kent cannot love Superman because they are the same person.
Also, Modalism means that God actually suffered and died on the cross in His Christ 'mode.' That is why modalists are sometimes called Patripassians. In fact, of course, God was still reigning in heaven when the Lord Jesus died (Luke 23:46).
The Trinity is three separate Persons in the Godhead, who relate to each other (eg. John 17:24-26). The relationship is entirely harmonious, otherwise God would be divided. The Son freely took on the nature of a servant and became obedient unto death (Phil 2:5ff), and even though, as a Man, He shrank from the agonies of the cross, He still said, "Your will be done." The Spirit voluntarily puts Himself in the background and exalts Christ (John16:13f); the Father is pleased that all His fulness should dwell in Christ (Col 1:19).
All human analogies fail in describing the Trinity. We just need to understand what the Bible is saying, and believe it.
That is all I have to say on this subject. It's not the least bit original. You can find the same stuff in any orthodox Systematic Theology or book on the Trinity. If folk prefer to carry on with an erroneous understanding, that is their problem, not mine.
Maybe. :smilewinkgrin:
Steve
freeatlast
New Member
No I am saying I do not see how marriage identifies with the trinity. Two does not mean three.
I didn't say it was the Trinity, I said it's the best aid in understanding the Trinity.
Two persons, one flesh.
Three pesons, one God. Similar kind of thing.
How do you explain God? If I could explain God, would that not mean that He is equal to His creation instead of far above it?
It's like trying to explain to a worm what a human is.
Frankly, I'm glad we serve a God that is too high above us to be explained. He is too wonderful to fully comprehend! It's for this reason that I am always in awe of Him.
It's like trying to explain to a worm what a human is.
Frankly, I'm glad we serve a God that is too high above us to be explained. He is too wonderful to fully comprehend! It's for this reason that I am always in awe of Him.
freeatlast
New Member
I see nothing even remotely similar. In the case of marriage they are two separate beings that join because of a contract and an act of intimacy. In the case of God what we have termed as the Trinity is nothing like that unless you are suggesting that God is three seperate beings.
God is not understandable in His being at least by us in our present state. How there can be one God and yet three persons all claimed as God is beyond me. In fact if I was not saved and did not believe the bible I would say it is a false teaching, but that is what the scripture teaches so I believe it, but I have no clue as to how it can be. I do not have to understand it to believe it because I believe the One stating it.
Now I have listened to many different attempts to explain God (the trinity) and none of them satisfy. Some believe that each person of the trinity is distinct from the other and some don't. In the OP one option was "one God manifest in three distinct persons. Well what does that mean. Does that mean that He is really only one but He presents Himself as three persons though distinct in manifestation but are not literally individually separate? or does that mean He is one and yet there are actually three persons who because they agree call themselves one? Until God Himself reveals to us His being and essence then no one has a clue as to how it all works. All we can do is simply accept what is given and not add to it with useless speculation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alive in Christ
New Member
Brother Martin...
Yes...those "water" and "egg" examples really really are perfectly acceptable ways of articulating the triune nature of God.
They are not going to turn anyone into a "Sabbalian" or the "Wicked Witch of the West or a Communist spy, or any thing else. :wavey:
They get the point across wonderfully.
(I get the impression you might be spending waaaaaay too much time listening to Hank Hannegraff.) :BangHead:
AiC
Yes...those "water" and "egg" examples really really are perfectly acceptable ways of articulating the triune nature of God.
They are not going to turn anyone into a "Sabbalian" or the "Wicked Witch of the West or a Communist spy, or any thing else. :wavey:
They get the point across wonderfully.
(I get the impression you might be spending waaaaaay too much time listening to Hank Hannegraff.) :BangHead:
AiC
Last edited by a moderator:
freeatlast
New Member
How do they get the point across wonderfully when you nor anyone else has a clue as to how there can be one God and three persons claiming to be God?