The Trinity Who came first???

[muhammad rasullah]

Many discussion have been done about the trinity and the fundamental concept of who God is and how we should understand him to be. The christians say God is three in one Father, Son , and holy spirit. Over the years many have struggled including christians themselves with the concept of the trinity to the point that they have concluded that its a mystery of God. The basic struggle of this concept comes when we ask the question that if these three are one in unity being equal then which one came first? Was it the father? Was it Jesus? Or was it the holy spirit? To christians this may seem as a illogical question but do not laugh because to many the idea of three distinctly separate entities being one always existing from the beginning is very strange and hard to grasp. It is clearly stated in the gospels that jesus was dependent upon the father. Jesus prayed, Jesus did not come to do his will but his fathers and so on. So the topic to be discussed is who came first in the trinity? Please use evidence to support your claim!

P.S. I am not suggesting that someone or something brought God into being I am posing the question to simply Who was there in the beginning first? Who is recognized as the eternal?

[Eph]

God + woman = abomination.


Consider God as a species and man as a different species.

Usually, entities reproduce with their own kind.

God with Goddess is then OK.

Man with woman is then OK.

God with woman is then. Not OK .

Man with Goddess is then Not OK.

There are lower species as well to us as we are to God.

God would not set a precedent that says it is OK to reproduce with a lower species. If He did, it would open the door for man and our meat.

Consider also, the trinity.

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

God is a full God. Not a chimera. To say that Jesus is somehow part of God is to insult both man and God.
He has the same position of highs and lows as we all get in heaven. Heaven is communistic demographic shape and no one shares 1st place with God the father.

God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

God + woman = abomination.


Regards
DL

Man is created in the IMAGE of God. (Genesis 1)

Jesus was the Son of God.

Bible teaches that we are the children of God, and if children, then heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ...if it so be that we suffer with him...that we might be glorified together...

Seems pretty clear to me, that we are the spirit offspring of God the Father and that his plan calls for us to become like him. This doesn't sound like a different species to me - in fact, it sounds like a direct lineage. (Romans 8;16-17)

Jesus did, in fact, have a human mother and a Divine Father (in the same way we all have earthly fathers, only his was a Heavenly Father - to say Jesus and His Heavenly Father are the same person really fouls things up)...the third party references are too many to name. From his mother came mortal attributes including pain, suffering and even death. From his Father came his ability to transcend death. There is no indication as to whether or not Mary and the Father were married, so to say they were or were not is merely speculation.

On another note, did we not exist spiritually before we were born? Christ obviously did. Why not the rest of us? There is evidence in the Bible that God knew us before he formed us in the womb. The Father certainly knew the Son in a pre-existent state, then certainly Jesus could have known Mary in a pre-existent state as well. In our family relationships, it is even possible that we knew each other also, but there is no revelation on this subject - although it seems highly likely.

[Greatest I Am]

God + woman = abomination.


Consider God as a species and man as a different species.

Usually, entities reproduce with their own kind.

God with Goddess is then OK.

Man with woman is then OK.

God with woman is then. Not OK .

Man with Goddess is then Not OK.

There are lower species as well to us as we are to God.

God would not set a precedent that says it is OK to reproduce with a lower species. If He did, it would open the door for man and our meat.

Consider also, the trinity.

Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

God is a full God. Not a chimera. To say that Jesus is somehow part of God is to insult both man and God.
He has the same position of highs and lows as we all get in heaven. Heaven is communistic demographic shape and no one shares 1st place with God the father.

God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

God + woman = abomination.


Regards
DL

Man is created in the IMAGE of God. (Genesis 1)

Jesus was the Son of God.

Bible teaches that we are the children of God, and if children, then heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ...if it so be that we suffer with him...that we might be glorified together...

Seems pretty clear to me, that we are the spirit offspring of God the Father and that his plan calls for us to become like him. This doesn't sound like a different species to me - in fact, it sounds like a direct lineage. (Romans 8;16-17)

Jesus did, in fact, have a human mother and a Divine Father (in the same way we all have earthly fathers, only his was a Heavenly Father - to say Jesus and His Heavenly Father are the same person really fouls things up)...the third party references are too many to name. From his mother came mortal attributes including pain, suffering and even death. From his Father came his ability to transcend death. There is no indication as to whether or not Mary and the Father were married, so to say they were or were not is merely speculation.

On another note, did we not exist spiritually before we were born? Christ obviously did. Why not the rest of us? There is evidence in the Bible that God knew us before he formed us in the womb. The Father certainly knew the Son in a pre-existent state, then certainly Jesus could have known Mary in a pre-existent state as well. In our family relationships, it is even possible that we knew each other also, but there is no revelation on this subject - although it seems highly likely.

If you want to believe scripture as written and want to be considered a son of that God then consider that Jesus/God, your father, used genocide against humanity. I call this God a traitor to humanity.

Why in hell would you like to see yourself as the son of a genocidal maniac. Love that God? Enjoy the feeling.

Do Jews love Hitler?

Regards
DL

[InTheFlesh]

Eph wrote:
"to say Jesus and His Heavenly Father are the same person really fouls things up"

Well actually, we don't need to say it.
The bible teaches it.
This is BY FAR the subject I have the MOST depth in.

Care to challenge me in head to head?

Title: Is Jesus God the Father?

I would like to spell it out for all Christians to compare for themselves.
This is the subject that seperates the true from the fake.
You up for it?

[Eph]

If you want to believe scripture as written and want to be considered a son of that God then consider that Jesus/God, your father, used genocide against humanity. I call this God a traitor to humanity.

Why in hell would you like to see yourself as the son of a genocidal maniac. Love that God? Enjoy the feeling.

Do Jews love Hitler?

Regards
DL

You seem to be going off point and creating a diversion. Your questions would be better treated in the Christianity and Aplogetics debate threads or in the Right and Wrong Thread.

[Eph]

Eph wrote:
"to say Jesus and His Heavenly Father are the same person really fouls things up"

Well actually, we don't need to say it.
The bible teaches it.
This is BY FAR the subject I have the MOST depth in.

Care to challenge me in head to head?

Title: Is Jesus God the Father?

I would like to spell it out for all Christians to compare for themselves.
This is the subject that seperates the true from the fake.
You up for it?

Yes, but only one or two points at a time...and please be patient for my replies...I am not an independantly wealthy seminarian with countless hours of computer time like some on this board...just a working class LDS guy with an interest in theology...and a moment to spare a couple times per week. I find that it helps the debate or discussion when understanding someone else's perspective. Now you know my religious preference, what is yours?

I will start by apologizing for not following up on your earlier response a couple weeks back. My primary objective in debating the Trinity is to determine: are they really one in substance? I would argue against. However, I think there is sufficient scriptural evidence (Biblical) to support an argument on either side of this all-important issue. I also believe that modern day revelation has cleared up this issue, although I understand that you may not believe in additional scripture - however, I might share a line or two to help you understand my perspective as we go along.

[InTheFlesh]

Are you Mormon?
Are you associated with The Church of Latter Day Saints?

[Eph]

Are you Mormon?
Are you associated with The Church of Latter Day Saints?

Yes, I am an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[InTheFlesh]

Eph,

I did not know your religion.
I have a different debate in mind.
I take the challenge back.

If you are willing to debate me about Jesus being God the Father
using ONLY Genesis to Revelation, I will re-consider.

[Eph]

Eph,

I did not know your religion.
I have a different debate in mind.
I take the challenge back.

If you are willing to debate me about Jesus being God the Father
using ONLY Genesis to Revelation, I will re-consider.

We can do this, but I think the idea of whether or not they are one in substance is applicable here. My religion should have nothing to do with whether or not you are willing to debate this issue. Where is your "I am not ashamed..." spirit? By the way, I do not believe the Bible to be free of inconsistencies on the concept of the Trinity. I also believe some scriptures can be interpreted several different ways. Therefore, you will make points, and so will I to further our understanding...in the end, the Bible alone cannot decide this issue. But we can go through the debate anyway.

Before, you did not really answer my questions, rather just posted some scriptures without any real explanation. Let's start here again:

John 17:3. "And this is life eternal, to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent".

To me this is plain and easy to understand. God the Father sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world. Father, Son = two separate individuals. If I said I am sending my son to do something, there is nothing mystical about it, it is elementary. There is a sender and a sendee.

[InTheFlesh]

Eph,

It's not that easy.
That's why I was challenging you to head to head.
It can't be explained in a few posts.
This subject is very deep.
I would like to "share" the WHOLE STORY.

BUT,
I don't want this particular subject to get sidetracked.
Believe me, I am well aware that there are plenty of Christians
who disagree with me about this.
I prefer to debate this subject
with someone who believes the Word of God does not exist outside the bible.
It has nothing to do with being ashamed.

-----------------------------------------------------

As far as the scripture you brought up.....

If God the Father is the ONLY TRUE God,
what does that make Jesus?

1. Not God?
2. Fake God?


John.14
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John.8
[19] Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.