The "Trinity" is a "Triunity." They are distinct, but never separate, otherwise you have 3 Gods instead of 1 and that is heresy. Jesus said, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me (Jn. 14:11). "The last Adam [Jesus], became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor, 15:45)." "Now the Lord is that Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). Read Romans 8:9-11. How many Spirits do you think are in you (if you've received the Spirit)? The type which shows the unity of the Triune God is the compound ointment in Exodus 30. That is the anointing we all have that is mentioned in 1 Jn. 2:20.
Regarding your reference that He left us the Holy Spirit (from Jn, 14, I assume), verse 16 says that He will ask the Father and He will given us another Comforter, the Spirit of reality (v. 17), but in v. 18, He says, I am coming to you. So, who is coming? The Spirit of reality, or the Son? Both, because the Son is "compounded" into the Spirit. They are one. Distinct, but not separate. The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Spirit. Triune.
Trinity is the word that the early church used. Triunity is made up and unnecessary if it means the same thing and if it doesn’t, it’s heresy. The Holy Spirit is with us in a different way than the Son is with us, since the Son is at the right hand of the Father and physically present in the Eucharist.
Trinity was also made up, even if by the early church, to describe a real thing as best they understood it. If I hold up 3 fingers, that is a trinity. Applied to God, that would be tri-theism. However, if I put tea leaves into hot water and add honey, that is a tri-unity. Applied to God, that is 3 distinct but not separate hypostases, but 1 God. If you split the 3 of the Godhead into separated persons, that is tri-theism, which I believe was rejected as heresy by the Catholics.
As for Christ being physically present in the Eucharist, in John 6, Jesus does say that to have eternal life we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, however, He explains what He means in verse 63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." The eating and drinking are not a matter of the flesh, they are a matter of the Spirit. Christ is the Spirit. The blood is in the Spirit, "If we walk in the light (the Spirit) as He is in the light...the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from every sin (1 Jn. 17). To "eat" Him, is to take Him in, first into our spirit through believing, then He makes His home in our heart as our mind is renewed with the mind of Christ.
This is gnosticism. It’s false. Jesus taught the disciples at the last supper how to prepare the passover meal from that point on and that the bread and wine was His Body and His Blood. He didn’t say “this wine represents my blood.” He said this IS my blood.
I'm not a student of gnosticism, but I believe, perhaps wrongly, that they thought that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. That, of course, is incorrect according to the Scriptures. In His incarnation, He had both divinity and sinless humanity complete with blood.
In Matt. 26:28, Jesus says, "This is My blood of the [new] covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." This is a reference to the new covenant God said He would enact in Jeremiah 31:31-34. There, He said that in this new covenant, He would put His law in our inward parts and write it upon our hearts...for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. The blood of animals could not take away sin, but the blood shed on the cross could. The wine foreshadowed the blood that would be shed for the forgiveness of sin. The reality was the blood that was shed on the cross. But, according to Heb. 9:14, Christ offered Himself through the eternal Spirit. And according to 1 John 1:7 (above v. 17 is a typo), the blood is now in the Spirit. And in one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body, and are given to drink the one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). A sister verse to the Jeremiah reference in Ezekiel 36:27 says that God will put His Spirit in us.
As for eating His flesh, remember John said, "In the beginning was the Word (v.1)...and the Word became flesh (v. 14). Jesus said, I am the living bread (Jn. 6:51). "Eat My flesh...My words are spirit and life (v. 63). The flesh profits nothing. But it is the flesh that would profit if transubstantiation were real. Peter said, "You have the words of eternal life (v. 68). We eat His flesh and drink His blood whenever we turn our heart to the Lord in the word. Then the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit. Then we can behold Him and are transformed into His image from glory to glory by the Lord Spirit (2 Cor. 3:15-18).
The Trinity is three distinct persons in one God. When you start talking about adding honey to tea you have gone beyond your ability to convey truth. Stick to the basics: three persons: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. There is no analogy in created nature that works to describe He Who created them. The name of God is:
I agree, they are 3 distinct hypostases (the Greek word) for the one God. But they are not separate. That would be tri-theism.
God, Himself, gives analogies for us to be able to understand the spiritual realities. The Bible is full of them. He is the fountain of living waters (Jer. 2:13). He is the Bread that came down out of heaven (Jn,. 6:51), He is the Lamb which takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:36) and the Lamb standing as having just been slain (Rev. 5:6). He's the ladder from Jacob's dream (Jn. 1:51). He is also the water of life (Jn. 7:38-39), light (1 Jn. 1:5), and on and on.
False. First of all, John’s gospel wasn’t even written down for half a century, and in that time they had been celebrating the Eucharist and teaching the doctrine that later came to be known as transubstantiation. This bears out in the writings of John’s successors such as his immediate successor, Ignatius of Antioch.
The interpretation you put forth of those words of Christ is an interpretation that did not exist until so long after the fact of their being spoken, that you should be scratching your head at why it took the Church so long to “finally understand” what Christ meant. The truth is simpler: the newer interpretation is bunk.
The Eucharist is truly Christ. He didn’t chase after those who left saying, “no no I mean it’s just spiritual, guys come back seriously guys” He instead turned to His disciples and said “will you leave also?” They responded, “where will we go?” Meaning they also did not understand but were willing to submit even so.
The fact that the early church wrote about the Eucharist in exactly the same terms of unchanging doctrine (and by early I mean direct successors of the Apostles) should really make you think a little deeper about the bunk theology that didn’t even exist until after Luther apostatized.
The Jews picked up stones to kill Jesus when he said, "Before Abraham, I Am."
I AM = the name God gave to Moses through the burning bush when Moses asked God, "Whom shall I tell them [the Israelites in Egyptian captivity] sent me?"
The Jews knew Jesus was claiming equality with Yahweh.
Blasphemy - equating oneself with the Creator God - was punishable by death. There are a many more verses where Jesus takes the names of Yahweh in the OT and attributes them to himself in the NT. Each time Jesus did this the Religious Leaders (Pharisaic Jews) objected.
The Virgin Mary received the Spirit to conceive the Son. Yes they are separate and still the same; behind our understanding. But the Blessed Virgin Mary is the one human who would know best. Being there with the apostles at Pentecost would have been a deep and wonderful reunion for her...
Are you your Father? NO he is in you. Can you be one in purpose? Yes.
I and the Father are one (in purpose)
The devil did a number with that doctrine.
Jesus Christ said the work that I do ye shall do also and greater works than these shall ye do because I go unto myself? No
Because he went to the Father. So we can fo greater works than God who empowers us? Would not make sense.
There are three for sure, but they are not one and the same.
"In purpose" is your interpretation and addition. It is not in the text. Isaiah 9:6 says, "A child is born to us (the humanity of Jesus from Mary), a Son is given to us (the divinity of Jesus from the Father through the Spirit), and His name will be called...Eternal Father...The way this works is the tri-unity of God in the Spirit.
I did not say that the 3 are "one and the same." The 3 are distinct, but not separate. If They were physical, They could not be one. We would have to reason, as you said, that it must mean They are one in purpose. However, God is Spirit. All 3 are Spirit. It's like the oil that the ingredients of the compound ointment are compounded into to make one compounded ointment (Ex. 30). That is how God can be simultaneously 3 and 1, and we don't have to reason away that Jesus said, "I and the Father are one."
The "Trinity" is a "Triunity." They are distinct, but never separate, otherwise you have 3 Gods instead of 1 and that is heresy. Jesus said, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me (Jn. 14:11). "The last Adam [Jesus], became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor, 15:45)." "Now the Lord is that Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). Read Romans 8:9-11. How many Spirits do you think are in you (if you've received the Spirit)? The type which shows the unity of the Triune God is the compound ointment in Exodus 30. That is the anointing we all have that is mentioned in 1 Jn. 2:20.
Regarding your reference that He left us the Holy Spirit (from Jn, 14, I assume), verse 16 says that He will ask the Father and He will given us another Comforter, the Spirit of reality (v. 17), but in v. 18, He says, I am coming to you. So, who is coming? The Spirit of reality, or the Son? Both, because the Son is "compounded" into the Spirit. They are one. Distinct, but not separate. The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Spirit. Triune.
Trinity is the word that the early church used. Triunity is made up and unnecessary if it means the same thing and if it doesn’t, it’s heresy. The Holy Spirit is with us in a different way than the Son is with us, since the Son is at the right hand of the Father and physically present in the Eucharist.
Cheers.
Trinity was also made up, even if by the early church, to describe a real thing as best they understood it. If I hold up 3 fingers, that is a trinity. Applied to God, that would be tri-theism. However, if I put tea leaves into hot water and add honey, that is a tri-unity. Applied to God, that is 3 distinct but not separate hypostases, but 1 God. If you split the 3 of the Godhead into separated persons, that is tri-theism, which I believe was rejected as heresy by the Catholics.
As for Christ being physically present in the Eucharist, in John 6, Jesus does say that to have eternal life we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, however, He explains what He means in verse 63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." The eating and drinking are not a matter of the flesh, they are a matter of the Spirit. Christ is the Spirit. The blood is in the Spirit, "If we walk in the light (the Spirit) as He is in the light...the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from every sin (1 Jn. 17). To "eat" Him, is to take Him in, first into our spirit through believing, then He makes His home in our heart as our mind is renewed with the mind of Christ.
“To eat him is to take him in spiritually”
This is gnosticism. It’s false. Jesus taught the disciples at the last supper how to prepare the passover meal from that point on and that the bread and wine was His Body and His Blood. He didn’t say “this wine represents my blood.” He said this IS my blood.
I'm not a student of gnosticism, but I believe, perhaps wrongly, that they thought that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. That, of course, is incorrect according to the Scriptures. In His incarnation, He had both divinity and sinless humanity complete with blood.
In Matt. 26:28, Jesus says, "This is My blood of the [new] covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." This is a reference to the new covenant God said He would enact in Jeremiah 31:31-34. There, He said that in this new covenant, He would put His law in our inward parts and write it upon our hearts...for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. The blood of animals could not take away sin, but the blood shed on the cross could. The wine foreshadowed the blood that would be shed for the forgiveness of sin. The reality was the blood that was shed on the cross. But, according to Heb. 9:14, Christ offered Himself through the eternal Spirit. And according to 1 John 1:7 (above v. 17 is a typo), the blood is now in the Spirit. And in one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body, and are given to drink the one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). A sister verse to the Jeremiah reference in Ezekiel 36:27 says that God will put His Spirit in us.
As for eating His flesh, remember John said, "In the beginning was the Word (v.1)...and the Word became flesh (v. 14). Jesus said, I am the living bread (Jn. 6:51). "Eat My flesh...My words are spirit and life (v. 63). The flesh profits nothing. But it is the flesh that would profit if transubstantiation were real. Peter said, "You have the words of eternal life (v. 68). We eat His flesh and drink His blood whenever we turn our heart to the Lord in the word. Then the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit. Then we can behold Him and are transformed into His image from glory to glory by the Lord Spirit (2 Cor. 3:15-18).
The Trinity is three distinct persons in one God. When you start talking about adding honey to tea you have gone beyond your ability to convey truth. Stick to the basics: three persons: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. There is no analogy in created nature that works to describe He Who created them. The name of God is:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
That is the name of God.
I agree, they are 3 distinct hypostases (the Greek word) for the one God. But they are not separate. That would be tri-theism.
God, Himself, gives analogies for us to be able to understand the spiritual realities. The Bible is full of them. He is the fountain of living waters (Jer. 2:13). He is the Bread that came down out of heaven (Jn,. 6:51), He is the Lamb which takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:36) and the Lamb standing as having just been slain (Rev. 5:6). He's the ladder from Jacob's dream (Jn. 1:51). He is also the water of life (Jn. 7:38-39), light (1 Jn. 1:5), and on and on.
False. First of all, John’s gospel wasn’t even written down for half a century, and in that time they had been celebrating the Eucharist and teaching the doctrine that later came to be known as transubstantiation. This bears out in the writings of John’s successors such as his immediate successor, Ignatius of Antioch.
The interpretation you put forth of those words of Christ is an interpretation that did not exist until so long after the fact of their being spoken, that you should be scratching your head at why it took the Church so long to “finally understand” what Christ meant. The truth is simpler: the newer interpretation is bunk.
The Eucharist is truly Christ. He didn’t chase after those who left saying, “no no I mean it’s just spiritual, guys come back seriously guys” He instead turned to His disciples and said “will you leave also?” They responded, “where will we go?” Meaning they also did not understand but were willing to submit even so.
The fact that the early church wrote about the Eucharist in exactly the same terms of unchanging doctrine (and by early I mean direct successors of the Apostles) should really make you think a little deeper about the bunk theology that didn’t even exist until after Luther apostatized.
So, you reject that the whole Bible is divinely inspired? You pick and choose which books are authoritative to fit your doctrine? We're done.
Did you kbow you are also seated at God right hand as a member of the body of Christ?
Heresy is making Christ God when he is the Son of God.
The Jews picked up stones to kill Jesus when he said, "Before Abraham, I Am."
I AM = the name God gave to Moses through the burning bush when Moses asked God, "Whom shall I tell them [the Israelites in Egyptian captivity] sent me?"
The Jews knew Jesus was claiming equality with Yahweh.
Blasphemy - equating oneself with the Creator God - was punishable by death. There are a many more verses where Jesus takes the names of Yahweh in the OT and attributes them to himself in the NT. Each time Jesus did this the Religious Leaders (Pharisaic Jews) objected.
One Being/Nature, three Persons.
No contradiction, but a Mystery.
The name Jesus means, "Jehovah Savior." "God is my yeshua...for Yah Jehovah...is become my yeshua (Isa. 12:2)."
The Virgin Mary received the Spirit to conceive the Son. Yes they are separate and still the same; behind our understanding. But the Blessed Virgin Mary is the one human who would know best. Being there with the apostles at Pentecost would have been a deep and wonderful reunion for her...
Are you your Father? NO he is in you. Can you be one in purpose? Yes.
I and the Father are one (in purpose)
The devil did a number with that doctrine.
Jesus Christ said the work that I do ye shall do also and greater works than these shall ye do because I go unto myself? No Because he went to the Father. So we can fo greater works than God who empowers us? Would not make sense.
There are three for sure, but they are not one and the same.
"In purpose" is your interpretation and addition. It is not in the text. Isaiah 9:6 says, "A child is born to us (the humanity of Jesus from Mary), a Son is given to us (the divinity of Jesus from the Father through the Spirit), and His name will be called...Eternal Father...The way this works is the tri-unity of God in the Spirit.
I did not say that the 3 are "one and the same." The 3 are distinct, but not separate. If They were physical, They could not be one. We would have to reason, as you said, that it must mean They are one in purpose. However, God is Spirit. All 3 are Spirit. It's like the oil that the ingredients of the compound ointment are compounded into to make one compounded ointment (Ex. 30). That is how God can be simultaneously 3 and 1, and we don't have to reason away that Jesus said, "I and the Father are one."