Trinity: Is Jesus really God?

[Christ4Ever]

You feel that way because you give no thought to what I said concerning it.

Nick, do you purport to know my thoughts?

No more than you mine.

Nick, I am not open to the Trintiy because it is illogical and refuted by Scripture. I used to hold the doctrine and believed there was a hierarchy.

You have surprised me! You had not mentioned "hierarchy" until now. Most Trinitarians do not even discuss or acknowledge "hierarchy" when speaking of the Trinity. Therefore, I am interested in understanding how you initially encountered this knowledge or association between the Trinity & Hierarchy before deciding to reject it.

Regarding almighty, it can't be shared. It can't be spread among three persons. The word requires that it be applied to only one. The Father, Son, and Spirit cannot all be almighty at the same time.

Regarding Rev 1:18, yes, Jesus is referred to as almighty. However, we must understand the passage in context. Why is Jesus called almighty in this passage? It's because all authority was given to Him.

So, how then can Jesus have the authority given to Him, if as you say it can't be shared, unless He too is God?

I see a problem in this thought, because the Father would no longer be God when the authority was given to Jesus since you say it can't be shared. So, Jesus is now God, but the Father is not, because it has not been given back to Him by Jesus. We're just talking "Title" of course, because the essence is the same between them, and so they remain Divine, while currently only Jesus is God. (Yikes!)

Is it possible that you transitioned from disbelief in the Trinity Doctrine to acceptance of the Oneness Doctrine? I would be quite surprised if that were the case.

All power was given to Jesus. That means at that point He was almighty. However, notice His words. The power was given to Him. That means He didn't have it previously. Before that point He was not almighty. That means that there was someone else who had all power. That was the Father. Paul also tells us that Jesus hands it back to the Father.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. King James Version, 1 Co 15:24–28.

All power was given to Jesus. However, when the end comes, He turns it all back over to the Father. And He Himself is subject to the Father

To use your "President" analogy, it would be like Trump was President, then Biden became President, and now Trump is back to being President.?

Is that your reasoning then about God, understanding that we're viewing this as a Title?

That being said, my point above remains. Jesus is now God, and the Father is not! (My Yikes remains too)

And yet to me it makes perfect sense! Maybe you have a graph that can reflect what you believe with who we know exists, in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and look at what you have. Maybe then you can say there is no hierarchy.

How can it make perfect sense when the concept of one being consisting of three beings is completely illogical and impossible?

I don't have a graph. One isn't really necessary. We have the Father who begat a Son. The Son is the Father's agent in creation. The Holy Spirit is not a third person but rather is a manifestation of the Father.

It makes perfect sense in light of God being a Title, unless you have them switching hats all the time. That has less logic tied to it, when knowing they are in perfect harmony, it would not be an impediment to being God at the same time. Which of course would not be the same for any human, because look at us here now! lol However, for the Divine that is not created by man and is eternal, it would not be a problem!

On the not having a graph, I wonder why not. You say it would not be necessary, but I say it surely is needed! Because the process would then be seen on how God/prior to Fatherhood, existed (One/Not Father or Son), and then when He split His essence with the Son (Two/Now Father & Son), are not the same but different though they are of the same essence and no difference between them, except....in the hierarchal sense which you have discarded a belief in. So, graph very much needed to reflect your belief!!!

Since you did not dispute my statement, I assume that, apart from my mention of the Holy Spirit, you acknowledge the validity of my position, particularly as you provided scripture to support what I said about the Father & Son. That they don't need the distinction because they know each other fully, is evident in Matthew 11:27, but for the sake of us knowing God it is made plain for us to see.

Once I have your agreement here, we can discuss the Holy Spirit.

I agree that they know each other fully. However, the distinction is necessary because they are two completely separate beings. Just as a father and son are two completely separate beings.

Except for the Title and as I said before for our sake and not their own!!!
While "hierarchy" explains roles/authority, that they have no need to define to each other because they are always in agreement in all that they do!

Now read what you wrote above again with what I said about how they became separate, and I tell you how/why the Holy Spirit is included. He is the way it happened (same essence), role/authority different, and how the knowing/agreement of each other eternally can be and is.

Except what I believe was that one time on the Cross when the Father turned from the Son, when He took sin upon Himself for us. This I believe is where the Humanity of Jesus comes into play. ;(

Not preconceived, but taking into account that it also means "of its kind", as well as "to go out, come out, exit, go forth" etc.

Glad you don't see the Holy Spirit as Mother. However, I must ask this question that comes to me from what you stated above about the Holy Spirit. So, whenever the Holy Spirit is mentioned in scripture you believe it just as easily can be replaced with God the Father? So, that they are not just the same in essence, but are one and the same.

Yes, they are one and the same. There are multiple reasons for this. Primarily because Jesus said it. As an example, when the angel appeared to Mary regarding the birth of Christ he said,

Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. King James Version, Lk 1:30–35.

If the Holy Spirit is a third person, then it is He and not God the Father who is the Father of Jesus. God is called the Father because He is the Father of Jesus. That requires that the Holy Spirit must be a reference to the Father. There are other examples that draw this same conclusion.

The manifestation can be the Father and/or His power and working. Jesus said the Father was in Him. How was that? He was baptized with the Holy Spirit.

With a hierarchy, there is no problem, because roles/authority can be defined and are scriptural. Read again what I wrote in my last comment above this one, and you see what I mean about the role/authority of the Holy Spirit being needed and Divine.

Side note: This is why the Grieving of the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. You are grieving the Divine/Godhead!

Looking at your last comment, makes me think that you do believe in Oneness Doctrine.

Yes.

Can you somehow reason through that for me?

How can I address this issue when even the graph I provided does not aid your understanding, and you do not acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy in the Godhead? My previous reply, which I have included below, also appears to be incomprehensible to you. This seems to be because you do not consider the hierarchy as I mentioned or if you did it's not relevant to you.

But it's not talking about agreement. It's talking about power. The word means All might. Three different coequal persons cannot have all might. They would each have certain amount of might. Only one can have all might.

That is why you will not be open to the Trinity. If you viewed it within the hierarchy, then you would see it as possible. Otherwise, then without equivocating you must then accept Jesus as God, because if what you say is true that it's about power, and hierarchy is not a consideration then it can't be delegated or the originator no longer retains it and ceases to be "All might", but the other who the power was delegated to now becomes "All might".

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8 KJV

I am the alpha and the omega, says [the] Lord - God the [one] being - the one who is and the [one who] was and the [one] coming, the Almighty. Greek Interlinear Rev 1:8

Are you saying that though they are of the same essence, that a title makes them different?
If so, doesn't that speak to what I've been saying all along about a hierarchy?

No. What makes them different is that one was begotten out of the other. Yet, they are of the same essence. One had the title of God and one didn't. As an example, a man is king (title). He has a son. Him and his son are two completely separate beings. They are both of the same essence, human. Just because the son is the of the same essence as the father, the king, doesn't make the son a king.

We're going in a circle on this. I'll try this again. Prior to the Son, was the Father a Father? No. Yet His essence is as it has always been.
Now the Father begot (came from) the Son whose essence is the same as the Father and the Father's essence has also not changed for there is nothing else in existence from which He could come from. They are (and you're going to love this) One and the same in 2 persons. The Holy Spirit is the way this happened, making the 3rd person. The only way to tell the difference would be with a hierarchy that each accepts in role/authority and so the agreement. (Forgive me God for even attempting to explain who You are).

You really can't try to find an analogy though many try, that speaks of this in human terms, because that is the only way you think it needs to be explained in order for one to believe it and to be fully understood. To fully understand God we need Eternity. Still, we catch/given glimpses of understanding that has us longing for more. The problem is that many say that even then they won't believe in it if they can't understand it fully. I laugh, because in their own lives which is simple in comparison, they believe in so many things, that they can't explain fully, and it's not a problem to them!

I too felt that way, but unlike you, I made no decision to disbelieve the Trinity as a doctrine and move on to another doctrine of belief concerning God. As I mentioned before, until I was told the "Hierarchy," I neither professed faith in the Trinity nor rejected it. What I could say was that I did not know for certain.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

The problem I find with that is that the hierarchy idea is just another evolution of the doctrine, People keep trying to make it fit with Scripture and as such the doctrine keeps evolving. When the doctrine was codified, it read,

"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.
"Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood."

According to the doctrine there is no hierarchy. They are all coequal. None is before and none is after. Yet today we have this idea of a hierarchy. This is simply an evolution of the doctrine. This begs the question, which version, if any, is from the Holy Spirit? If it's not the first one, then the second one cannot be true. If the Trinity doctrine that was codified in the 5th century is not the true doctrine, then the one that evolved from it cannot be true. That means the one that evolved cannot be of the Spirit since it states the opposite of the codified version.

You like others here, state that this is how I came to my belief. It was not.
Again, a hierarchy does not conflict with the above which many just do not see.
Does Obedience mean you're less than the one you are being obedient to?
Was Jesus less for washing the feet of the Disciples?
Can one quantify "Love"?

Since the fall, humanity has wanted to put God in a box, to become god themselves, to make gods, say there is no God, etc. Don't you know the closer you get to knowing Him, the further away you realize you are from knowing Him in the fullest?

With the Love of Christ Jesus Dear Brother.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[KingJ]

Why the incessant desire to blame God? Did God cause Adam to sin?

Now you're just being ridiculous

Your examples are just asinine, and they don't even reflect the actual situation. Rather, they reflect this scenario you have created in your mind. Why this incessant desire to blame God?

A non-trinitarian belief does not fit with Christianity. That is asinine. My examples prove it.

I am open to correction. Take my lines and edit them to better describe your belief.

Try grasp the fact that I am telling you that any person on the planet with a working brain will come to the same conclusions as I have about a non-trinitarian belief. Christianity does simply not work without the trinity.

I am not going to hold my breathe waiting on a sound and logical reply. I feel you are in a space right now where you need to concede.

 

[Dylan569]

Merriam-Webster -
"Christianity 1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies"

What would be professed in unity across the wide spectrum of Christianity? The Trinity, whether the word Trinity is used or not, but the belief in One God existing as three Persons

From the Jewish Encyclopedia
"TRINITY The fundamental dogma of Christianity; the concept of the union in one God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three infinite persons. It was the Nicene Council and even more especially the Athanasian Creed that first gave the dogma its definite formulation: "And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Substance." Equalization of the Son with the Father marks an innovation in the Pauline theology: "Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him" (I Cor. viii. 6, R. V.), while in another passage the Holy Ghost is added (ib. xii. 3; comp. Titus ii. 13), thus rapidly developing the concept of the Trinity (II Cor. xiii. 14). Although the Judæo-Christian sect of the Ebionites protested against this apotheosis of Jesus ("Clementine Homilies," xvi. 15), the great mass of Gentile Christians accepted it."

TRINITY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

jewishencyclopedia.com

There is the popular term RINO, "Republican In Name Only"; maybe in like manner there is the "CINO".

 

[Dylan569]

It would be better to understand what the Christian doctrine is, before rejecting it. Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology has a good chapter on the Trinity beginning on page 89.

https://downloads.biblicaltraining.org/Systematic%20Theology%20by%20Louis%20Berkhof.pdf

"The doctrine of the Trinity has always bristled with difficulties, and therefore it is no
wonder that the Church in its attempt to formulate it was repeatedly tempted to
rationalize it and to give a construction of it which failed to do justice to the Scriptural
data." p89

*Human logic cannot fully understand or comprehend God, or He would be just like us, man; or we would be God.

"In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit." p94

*There is not 1 Being who is also 3 Beings, which is illogical. But that is not the Christian Trinity. The Trinity is one Being consisting of three Persons. p97

"The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. The
Trinity is a mystery, not merely in the Biblical sense that it is a truth, which was
formerly hidden but is now revealed; but in the sense that man cannot comprehend it
and make it intelligible. It is intelligible in some of its relations and modes of
manifestation, but unintelligible in its essential nature. The many efforts that were made
to explain the mystery were speculative rather than theological. They invariably
resulted in the development of tritheistic or modalistic conceptions of God, in the denial
of either the unity of the divine essence or the reality of the personal distinctions within
the essence. The real difficulty lies in the relation in which the persons in the Godhead
stand to the divine essence and to one another; and this is a difficulty which the Church
cannot remove, but only try to reduce to its proper proportion by a proper definition of
terms. It has never tried to explain the mystery of the Trinity, but only sought to
formulate the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner that the errors which endangered
it were warded off."

In summary, the ontological Trinity concerns God's internal nature and essence, while the economic Trinity deals with God's external actions and relationships with creation. Both concepts are essential for understanding the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

It helps to research and learn the difference between the two in Christian teaching.

 

[Curtis]

Jesus himself said that his Father was the only true God.

If God the "Father" is eternal, then it would be impossible for an eternal Father to exist without having an "eternal Son" who is also infinite.

 

[Butch5]

A non-trinitarian belief does not fit with Christianity. That is asinine. My examples prove it.

I am open to correction. Take my lines and edit them to better describe your belief.

Try grasp the fact that I am telling you that any person on the planet with a working brain will come to the same conclusions as I have about a non-trinitarian belief. Christianity does simply not work without the trinity.

I am not going to hold my breathe waiting on a sound and logical reply. I feel you are in a space right now where you need to concede.

Did you really say, "I am open to correction." Seriously? You haven't considered much of what anyone has said.

 

[Butch5]

A non-trinitarian belief does not fit with Christianity. That is asinine. My examples prove it.

I am open to correction. Take my lines and edit them to better describe your belief.

Try grasp the fact that I am telling you that any person on the planet with a working brain will come to the same conclusions as I have about a non-trinitarian belief. Christianity does simply not work without the trinity.

I am not going to hold my breathe waiting on a sound and logical reply. I feel you are in a space right now where you need to concede.

You've got that backwards. Trinitarianism doesn't fit with Christianity. I'm sure that anyone with a working brain who also started off with the same false premises would come to the same conclusions you have.

 

[Butch5]

If God the "Father" is eternal, then it would be impossible for an eternal Father to exist without having an "eternal Son" who is also infinite.

He wouldn't be a Father before the Son was begotten

 

[Butch5]

It would be better to understand what the Christian doctrine is, before rejecting it. Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology has a good chapter on the Trinity beginning on page 89.

https://downloads.biblicaltraining.org/Systematic%20Theology%20by%20Louis%20Berkhof.pdf

"The doctrine of the Trinity has always bristled with difficulties, and therefore it is no
wonder that the Church in its attempt to formulate it was repeatedly tempted to
rationalize it and to give a construction of it which failed to do justice to the Scriptural
data." p89

*Human logic cannot fully understand or comprehend God, or He would be just like us, man; or we would be God.

Logic is not of human origin. God created logic. Thus, something is logical, or it is not. People can reason properly or improperly. It's actually fallacious to call it human logic. By doing so he creates a false logic that is not capable of logic and then claims it can't understand something. Logic is in God's design and as such cannot be wrong.

The second part of his statement is also incorrect, it's a non sequitur. Even if we could completely and fully understand everything about God, that wouldn't make us God and it wouldn't make God just like me.

"In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit." p94

This is illogical.

*There is not 1 Being who is also 3 Beings, which is illogical. But that is not the Christian Trinity. The Trinity is one Being consisting of three Persons. p97

Both statements mean the same thing and as such contradict one another.

"The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.

This is what they say when they can't explain something. There is nothing in Scripture about a mystery of the Trinity. The mystery in Scripture is Christ. Just because the church says something is a mystery doesn't make it a mystery.

The Trinity is a mystery, not merely in the Biblical sense that it is a truth, which was
formerly hidden but is now revealed;

It's not Biblical truth that was hidden and now revealed. It is a contradiction. That is why no one can explain it. It actually has its source in the 5th century

but in the sense that man cannot comprehend it
and make it intelligible. It is intelligible in some of its relations and modes of
manifestation, but unintelligible in its essential nature. The many efforts that were made
to explain the mystery were speculative rather than theological. They invariably
resulted in the development of tritheistic or modalistic conceptions of God, in the denial
of either the unity of the divine essence or the reality of the personal distinctions within
the essence.

He's equivocating. At one point he has God as persons and at another point, he has God as an essence. He's changing the meaning of the word to fit his theology. However, when we look at Scripture the word God is used in the concrete sense, not an abstract sense, ie God is a person, not an essence. He is correct that they develop into either Tritheistic or modallistic conceptions of God. Trinitarianism is simply Tritheism in denial.

The real difficulty lies in the relation in which the persons in the Godhead
stand to the divine essence and to one another; and this is a difficulty which the Church
cannot remove, but only try to reduce to its proper proportion by a proper definition of
terms. It has never tried to explain the mystery of the Trinity, but only sought to
formulate the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner that the errors which endangered
it were warded off."

There is only a difficulty when one tries to force this doctrine onto the Scriptures. When we let the Scriptures speak, we find that there is no problem between the divine essence and the persons.

In summary, the ontological Trinity concerns God's internal nature and essence, while the economic Trinity deals with God's external actions and relationships with creation. Both concepts are essential for understanding the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

It helps to research and learn the difference between the two in Christian teaching.

If we look at the origin of the doctrine, we find no mention of an ontological vs. economic Trinity. It seems that this is yet another evolution of the doctrine attempting to make it fit Scripture.

 

[Curtis]

He wouldn't be a Father before the Son was begotten

So, God the Father was not always eternal?

 

[Butch5]

So, God the Father was not always eternal?

The being we call the Father is eternal. However, He was not always called the Father.

 

[Butch5]

What I find interesting in this thread is that many keep saying that we cannot understand the Trinity. Yet, those very same people continue to try to explain the Trinity. How can one explain that which they don't understand?

 

[Christ4Ever]

What I find interesting in this thread is that many keep saying that we cannot understand the Trinity. Yet, those very same people continue to try to explain the Trinity. How can one explain that which they don't understand?

Of course! That is the humanity in us, acknowledging that we cannot fully comprehend God and are unafraid to admit it. Accepting these indisputable facts demonstrates humility, unless one can assert with certainty that they know the entirety of God. Otherwise, we are all fellow seekers of God. The little we do know of God is that we know the Father through the Son who is in the Father, and the Father who is in the Son; without one or the other, we would not know either. For their relationship to each other is what comprises who they are.

As far as the Trinity is concerned. It is not that we lack understanding, but rather that we are unable to convey our understanding to others as effectively for them to achieve equal comprehension, as evidenced throughout this thread and many others.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Butch5]

No more than you mine.

I don't believe I've impugned any motives to your beliefs.

You have surprised me! You had not mentioned "hierarchy" until now. Most Trinitarians do not even discuss or acknowledge "hierarchy" when speaking of the Trinity. Therefore, I am interested in understanding how you initially encountered this knowledge or association between the Trinity & Hierarchy before deciding to reject it.

Two reasons. The first is the order they are listed. The second is that a father is always above his son in rank.

So, how then can Jesus have the authority given to Him, if as you say it can't be shared, unless He too is God?

I see a problem in this thought, because the Father would no longer be God when the authority was given to Jesus since you say it can't be shared. So, Jesus is now God, but the Father is not, because it has not been given back to Him by Jesus. We're just talking "Title" of course, because the essence is the same between them, and so they remain Divine, while currently only Jesus is God. (Yikes!)

We have to look at the Scriptures and context. Jesus said all power had been given to Him. That would indicate that there is none more powerful than Him. However, the apostle Paul gives us some additional information.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. King James Version, 1 Co 15:23–28.

Here Paul is telling us that when God put all things under Christ, God Himself was exempted from those all things. So, Jesus was given all power, however, that did not include power over God. What we can gather from this is that Jesus has power over everything except God. So, in the truest sense of the word Jesus would not be almighty, The Father would be. It's not any different than when Jesus said that the Father is the only true God. There are several in Scripture who are called god. Even Jesus is called God. However, in the truest sense of the word, only the Father is truly God.

Is it possible that you transitioned from disbelief in the Trinity Doctrine to acceptance of the Oneness Doctrine? I would be quite surprised if that were the case.

No. I don't hold to Oneness. I see the Father and the Son as two completely separate beings.

To use your "President" analogy, it would be like Trump was President, then Biden became President, and now Trump is back to being President.?

Is that your reasoning then about God, understanding that we're viewing this as a Title?

That being said, my point above remains. Jesus is now God, and the Father is not! (My Yikes remains too)

That would be the case with the United States. However, as I pointed out above, the Father is never subject to anyone so it wouldn't be a back and forth. The Father is the ultimate God. He gave all power to the Son to rule in His kingdom. This ruling gives the Son the title of God. However, when He turns the kingdom over to the Father the Son is no longer a ruler and as such is not call God.

It makes perfect sense in light of God being a Title, unless you have them switching hats all the time. That has less logic tied to it, when knowing they are in perfect harmony, it would not be an impediment to being God at the same time. Which of course would not be the same for any human, because look at us here now! lol However, for the Divine that is not created by man and is eternal, it would not be a problem!

If we're talking strictly about a title I agree. However, the doctrine as it's codified is not talking about a title. It's claiming that one being consists of three persons.

On the not having a graph, I wonder why not. You say it would not be necessary, but I say it surely is needed! Because the process would then be seen on how God/prior to Fatherhood, existed (One/Not Father or Son), and then when He split His essence with the Son (Two/Now Father & Son), are not the same but different though they are of the same essence and no difference between them, except....in the hierarchal sense which you have discarded a belief in. So, graph very much needed to reflect your belief!!!

When I say they are of the same essence I simply mean they are made of the same stuff for lack of a better description. It's not that they are blob of stuff for lack of a better description, and both consist as this one essence. What I am saying is that there are two different beings, just like you and I are two different beings. We are both human. So, whatever the God stuff is there are two of them. One of them is the Father and the other is the Son.

Except for the Title and as I said before for our sake and not their own!!!
While "hierarchy" explains roles/authority, that they have no need to define to each other because they are always in agreement in all that they do!

Now read what you wrote above again with what I said about how they became separate, and I tell you how/why the Holy Spirit is included. He is the way it happened (same essence), role/authority different, and how the knowing/agreement of each other eternally can be and is.

Except what I believe was that one time on the Cross when the Father turned from the Son, when He took sin upon Himself for us. This I believe is where the Humanity of Jesus comes into play. ;(

I have a suspicion that you are using the word essence differently than I am, please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that you see this essence called God and it consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is that correct?

I say the distinction is necessary because we are told to pray to the Father, not the Son. The Son is heir of all things, not the Father. There are many distinctions between the two that differentiate them. One is said to be our Brother the other our Father.

With a hierarchy, there is no problem, because roles/authority can be defined and are scriptural. Read again what I wrote in my last comment above this one, and you see what I mean about the role/authority of the Holy Spirit being needed and Divine.

If there is a third person, how can it be that He doesn't know the Father and the Son? Also, Why wouldn't it have a name? The Father is Yahweh, the Son is Jesus. Why doesn't the Spirit have a name. The Father is masculine, the Son is masculine. Why is the Spirit neuter. God is a He, Jesus is a He, and the Spirit is an it. Why isn't the Spirit also a He?

Side note: This is why the Grieving of the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. You are grieving the Divine/Godhead!

I disagree that that is the unpardonable sin. If one grieves the Holy Spirit they are grieving the Father.

Looking at your last comment, makes me think that you do believe in Oneness Doctrine.

Not at all. As I said, I see the Father and the Son as two completely separate beings. I see two, not three.

How can I address this issue when even the graph I provided does not aid your understanding, and you do not acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy in the Godhead? My previous reply, which I have included below, also appears to be incomprehensible to you. This seems to be because you do not consider the hierarchy as I mentioned or if you did it's not relevant to you.

It has nothing to do with understanding. I understand what the graph is portraying, and I understand the argument. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense. The graph is simply illogical. What it claims to portray is simply not possible. It's impossible.

What I often find when I debate this topic is that those who argue in favor of the Trinity argue as if their claim is possible. To have one being called God who consists of three persons is not possible. That is the claim of the Trinity doctrine. Those who argue in favor of the doctrine accept this premise. If one could prove this premise, then there would be something to base the doctrine on. But this premise cannot be proved.

We're going in a circle on this. I'll try this again. Prior to the Son, was the Father a Father? No. Yet His essence is as it has always been.
Now the Father begot (came from) the Son whose essence is the same as the Father and the Father's essence has also not changed for there is nothing else in existence from which He could come from. They are (and you're going to love this) One and the same in 2 persons. The Holy Spirit is the way this happened, making the 3rd person. The only way to tell the difference would be with a hierarchy that each accepts in role/authority and so the agreement. (Forgive me God for even attempting to explain who You are).

I thought that's how you were understanding essence in my question above. I disagree with this. In the beginning there was an eternal being. He begot a Son. That eternal being is now called Father. They are not one and the same in two persons. They are two completely separate beings or persons. Whatever God consists of there are two them that are completely separate. It's just like you and I. We both consist of human "stuff" but we are two completely separate beings. Just like a human father and son. They both consist of flesh, their essence, yet they are two completely separate beings.

You really can't try to find an analogy though many try, that speaks of this in human terms, because that is the only way you think it needs to be explained in order for one to believe it and to be fully understood. To fully understand God we need Eternity. Still, we catch/given glimpses of understanding that has us longing for more. The problem is that many say that even then they won't believe in it if they can't understand it fully. I laugh, because in their own lives which is simple in comparison, they believe in so many things, that they can't explain fully, and it's not a problem to them!

But this isn't trying to fully understand God. Because this concept is not in His word. What this is is trying to understand what is written in Scripture.
There is nothing in Scripture that states that there is one God in three persons. So, that means that we are not even trying to understand Scripture. What we find is that we are trying to understand and explain a doctrine that was formulated in the minds of men.

You like others here, state that this is how I came to my belief. It was not.
Again, a hierarchy does not conflict with the above which many just do not see.
Does Obedience mean you're less than the one you are being obedient to?
Was Jesus less for washing the feet of the Disciples?
Can one quantify "Love"?

Since the fall, humanity has wanted to put God in a box, to become god themselves, to make gods, say there is no God, etc. Don't you know the closer you get to knowing Him, the further away you realize you are from knowing Him in the fullest?

With the Love of Christ Jesus Dear Brother.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

I haven't stated how you came to your belief. As I said, I see a hierarchy, just not a Trinity. One has to wonder how the doctrine of God's Son has evolved. The Nicene Creed was the first creed that dealt with the relation of the Father and the Son. It's vastly different than the Trinity doctrine.

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,

They believed in one God, the Father. They didn't believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They believed that Jesus was begotten of the Father. The Greek text literally reads, begotten out of the Father. God out of God. He was begotten from the substance of the Father. We went from this in 325 AD to the idea of three coequal, coeternal persons who are all one God, by about 450 AD. The two creeds, the Nicene 325 and the Athanasian around 450, are so vastly different that it's almost impossible to reconcile them. Surely the Holy Spirit isn't teaching a bunch of contradictory and chaotic teachings all over the place. One thing to keep in mind is that by 450 AD "the Church" was the Roman Catholic Church. So, this doctrine is actually a Catholic doctrine. That in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean anything, however, one cannot overlook how drastically the two creeds diverge.

 

[Butch5]

Of course! That is the humanity in us, acknowledging that we cannot fully comprehend God and are unafraid to admit it. Accepting these indisputable facts demonstrates humility, unless one can assert with certainty that they know the entirety of God. Otherwise, we are all fellow seekers of God. The little we do know of God is that we know the Father through the Son who is in the Father, and the Father who is in the Son; without one or the other, we would not know either. For their relationship to each other is what comprises who they are.

As far as the Trinity is concerned. It is not that we lack understanding, but rather that we are unable to convey our understanding to others as effectively for them to achieve equal comprehension, as evidenced throughout this thread and many others.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

but again, it's not a about knowing God fully. That's a misnomer. God doesn't tell us that He is one God in three persons. The Scriptures tell us that there is one God, the Father. The idea that there is one God in three persons contradicts what Paul said and what Jesus said. That's one of the reasons I'm bewildered that people don't jettison this doctrine. It's not about knowing God. It's about understanding what we read in Scripture.

 

[Curtis]

The being we call the Father is eternal. However, He was not always called the Father.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Everlasting Father means eternal Father NOT something he became in the past for God changes NOT.

 

[Butch5]

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Everlasting Father means eternal Father NOT something he became in the past for God changes NOT.

Let's look at the Old Testament that Jesus and the apostles used.


6(5) because a child was born for us,
a son also given to us,
whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder,
and he is named Messenger of Great Counsel,
for I will bring peace upon the rulers,
peace and health to him.
7(6) His sovereignty is great,
and his peace has no boundary
upon the throne of Dauid and his kingdom,
to make it prosper and to uphold it
with righteousness and with judgment
from this time onward and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord Sabaoth will do these things.


A New English Translation of the Septuagint, Is 9:5–7.

Nothing about an everlasting Father. However, let's look at the Masoretic text that you posted.



1565a עַד (ʿad) I, perpetuity, continuing future.
1565b עַד (ʿad) II, booty, prey, used only in Gen 49:27; Isa 33:23; Zeph 3:8.
1565c עַד (ʿad) III, עֲדֵי (ʿădê) as far as, even to, until, while.

עַד (ʿad) I. Perpetuity. ASV, RSV translate similarly, except in Isa 45:17. Here the former has “world without end” while the latter has “to all eternity.”
It should be noted that there is no general word for time in Hebrew, neither are there special terms for the past, present, future, and eternity. The word ʿôlām should be compared, with special attention given to the nineteen times when these words are used together.
ʿad, like ʿôlām, is used only in connection with prepositions, as an adverbial accusative or as a genitive in a construct chain. Ugaritic bʿd ʿlm could correspond to Hebrew ʿôd as well as to ʿad (UT 19: no. 1813).
This word is used only twice relative to the past. The knowledge that the success of the wicked is short, has been known from of old (Job 20:4). In Hab 3:6 reference is made to the antiquity of the mountains.
Otherwise it always denotes the unforeseeable future; that is, it means in the following compounds: ʿădê-ʿad “forever” (Isa 26:4; 65:18; Ps 83:17 [H 18]; 92:7 [H 8]; 132:12, 14, laʿad “forever,” (Isa 64:9 [H 8]; Amos 1:11; Mic 7:18; Ps 9:18 [H 19]; 19:9 [H 10]; 21:6 [H 7]; 22:26 [H 27]; 37:29; 61:8 [H 9]; 89:29 [H 30];111:3, 8, 10; 112:3, 9; 148:6; Job 19:24; Prov 12:19; 29:14; I Chr 28:9); lĕōlām waʿad and ʿôlām waʿad “forever and ever” (Ex 15:18; Mic 4:5; Ps 9:5 [H 6]; 10:16; 21:4 [H 5]; 45:6 [H 7], 17 [H 18]; 48:14 [H 15]; 52:8 [H 10]; 104:5; 119:44; 145:1, 2, 21; Dan 12:3); and as well as in a construct chain in which it serves as the modifier (Isa 9:6 [H 5]) ʾăbî-ʿad “father forever”; 57:15; šōkēn ʿad “the eternal throne”; Hab 3:6; harĕrê-ʿad “the everlasting hills.”


Carl Schultz, “1565 עָדָה,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 645.

It seems the Hebrew had no word for eternity. The mountains didn't exist for eternity. I would also argue that this word doesn't even mean forever. Notice it means the unforeseeable future. Ad Olam simply means an undefined period of time, it's usually a long time, but not eternal.

 

[Curtis]

A New English Translation of the Septuagint, Is 9:5–7.

Nothing about an everlasting Father. However, let's look at the Masoretic text that you posted.

Isa 9:6 For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called: Amazing Adviser, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (NET) "New English Translation"

There is a word for time in Hebrew.

H5703 (Everlasting)

‛aḏ: A noun meaning eternity.

Again......

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; .....

 

[Butch5]

Isa 9:6 For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called: Amazing Adviser, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (NET) "New English Translation"

There is a word for time in Hebrew.

H5703 (Everlasting)

‛aḏ: A noun meaning eternity.

Again......

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; .....

Ive already shown you that the Scriptures Jesus and the Apostles used don't say that. Are you going with Jesus and the apostles or the unbelieving Jews?

As I've pointed out, Hebrew didn't have a word for eternity. Posting a Trinitarian translation doesn't make your case.

 

[Christ4Ever]

No more than you mine.

I don't believe I've impugned any motives to your beliefs.

Nor I you...

You have surprised me! You had not mentioned "hierarchy" until now. Most Trinitarians do not even discuss or acknowledge "hierarchy" when speaking of the Trinity. Therefore, I am interested in understanding how you initially encountered this knowledge or association between the Trinity & Hierarchy before deciding to reject it.

Two reasons. The first is the order they are listed. The second is that a father is always above his son in rank.

So, why did you reject it?

So, how then can Jesus have the authority given to Him, if as you say it can't be shared, unless He too is God?

I see a problem in this thought, because the Father would no longer be God when the authority was given to Jesus since you say it can't be shared. So, Jesus is now God, but the Father is not, because it has not been given back to Him by Jesus. We're just talking "Title" of course, because the essence is the same between them, and so they remain Divine, while currently only Jesus is God. (Yikes!)

We have to look at the Scriptures and context. Jesus said all power had been given to Him. That would indicate that there is none more powerful than Him. However, the apostle Paul gives us some additional information.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. King James Version, 1 Co 15:23–28.

Here Paul is telling us that when God put all things under Christ, God Himself was exempted from those all things. So, Jesus was given all power, however, that did not include power over God. What we can gather from this is that Jesus has power over everything except God. So, in the truest sense of the word Jesus would not be almighty, The Father would be. It's not any different than when Jesus said that the Father is the only true God. There are several in Scripture who are called god. Even Jesus is called God. However, in the truest sense of the word, only the Father is truly God.

You still didn't address my points. First, you said it can't be shared, and then you implied that Jesus is now God. You only mentioned that Jesus will return the power and authority (God's title?) to the Father at a future time. Which does not address either of the two points I addressed to you.

Your last sentence then is you stating that Jesus is currently a fake God, a God in place of an absent Father, or that there is more than one God in place since only the Father is truly God and never stop being God. So, in order for this to be true, "now", they must both must hold the Title of God at the same time. Which I believe you said is incorrect and an impossibility.

Is it possible that you transitioned from disbelief in the Trinity Doctrine to acceptance of the Oneness Doctrine? I would be quite surprised if that were the case.

No. I don't hold to Oneness. I see the Father and the Son as two completely separate beings.

Good, on the Oneness Doctrine. However since you share a little something of your belief here, I must ask, are the Father and the Son Eternal?

Note: Just my curiosity on these last 2 questions.

Also, can they disagree? If not, why not if they are separate beings?

To use your "President" analogy, it would be like Trump was President, then Biden became President, and now Trump is back to being President.?

Is that your reasoning then about God, understanding that we're viewing this as a Title?

That being said, my point above remains. Jesus is now God, and the Father is not! (My Yikes remains too)

That would be the case with the United States. However, as I pointed out above, the Father is never subject to anyone so it wouldn't be a back and forth. The Father is the ultimate God. He gave all power to the Son to rule in His kingdom. This ruling gives the Son the title of God. However, when He turns the kingdom over to the Father the Son is no longer a ruler and as such is not call God.

So, Jesus is God/Now, but the Father is not? (You haven't gotten ridden of my "Yikes" yet!)

It makes perfect sense in light of God being a Title, unless you have them switching hats all the time. That has less logic tied to it, when knowing they are in perfect harmony, it would not be an impediment to being God at the same time. Which of course would not be the same for any human, because look at us here now! lol However, for the Divine that is not created by man and is eternal, it would not be a problem!

If we're talking strictly about a title I agree. However, the doctrine as it's codified is not talking about a title. It's claiming that one being consists of three persons.

So, they do have different hats, in roles/authority, but only switch the Title of "God"?
Meaning you do believe in a "hierarchy" between the Father, Son, Holy Spirit!
Which then has me asking you, why state you left that belief behind you along with the Trinity?

I agree that the doctrine does not see it as just a Title, (see graph), however it is for the reason I've stated a couple of times, which is for the purposes of helping man to understand the relationship of Father, Son, Holy Spirit with each other. They need no such defining between themselves to Know who they are.

On the not having a graph, I wonder why not. You say it would not be necessary, but I say it surely is needed! Because the process would then be seen on how God/prior to Fatherhood, existed (One/Not Father or Son), and then when He split His essence with the Son (Two/Now Father & Son), are not the same but different though they are of the same essence and no difference between them, except....in the hierarchal sense which you have discarded a belief in. So, graph very much needed to reflect your belief!!!

When I say they are of the same essence I simply mean they are made of the same stuff for lack of a better description. It's not that they are blob of stuff for lack of a better description, and both consist as this one essence. What I am saying is that there are two different beings, just like you and I are two different beings. We are both human. So, whatever the God stuff is there are two of them. One of them is the Father and the other is the Son.

Exactly how the Trinity sees it!
If you only see the difference in the roles/authority they have chosen to accept, then we are more alike than not. The more you share the more I can see where you are coming from and gain the ability to compare. Now if you could only see the Title of God, as being a very big hat that allows three beings to exist in it.... lol
(Again, God my apologies! You know my humor gets the best of me. )

Except for the Title and as I said before for our sake and not their own!!!
While "hierarchy" explains roles/authority, that they have no need to define to each other because they are always in agreement in all that they do!

Now read what you wrote above again with what I said about how they became separate, and I tell you how/why the Holy Spirit is included. He is the way it happened (same essence), role/authority different, and how the knowing/agreement of each other eternally can be and is.

Except what I believe was that one time on the Cross when the Father turned from the Son, when He took sin upon Himself for us. This I believe is where the Humanity of Jesus comes into play. ;(

I have a suspicion that you are using the word essence differently than I am, please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that you see this essence called God and it consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is that correct?

I say the distinction is necessary because we are told to pray to the Father, not the Son. The Son is heir of all things, not the Father. There are many distinctions between the two that differentiate them. One is said to be our Brother the other our Father.

Yes.
And "Yes" the distinction is necessary for us and not for them!

That last part you added is a transitional one by adoption.

With a hierarchy, there is no problem, because roles/authority can be defined and are scriptural. Read again what I wrote in my last comment above this one, and you see what I mean about the role/authority of the Holy Spirit being needed and Divine.

If there is a third person, how can it be that He doesn't know the Father and the Son? Also, Why wouldn't it have a name? The Father is Yahweh, the Son is Jesus. Why doesn't the Spirit have a name. The Father is masculine, the Son is masculine. Why is the Spirit neuter. God is a He, Jesus is a He, and the Spirit is an it. Why isn't the Spirit also a He?

Really? The Holy Spirit has a lot of names. It just happens that "Holy Spirit" is the one He most frequently goes by.

Oh, and please don't go there!!!! You said you didn't believe in the "Mother" part, lol, but are now willing to go that route by stating the feminine nature of a word some believe is used for the Holy Spirit in certain instances? Don't forget in other name usages for the Holy Spirit, they are male. Or am I wrong in looking at what you wrote at the end above and where it was going to lead to?

Side note: This is why the Grieving of the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. You are grieving the Divine/Godhead!

I disagree that that is the unpardonable sin. If one grieves the Holy Spirit they are grieving the Father.

So, you don't believe it is grieving God?

Looking at your last comment, makes me think that you do believe in Oneness Doctrine.

Not at all. As I said, I see the Father and the Son as two completely separate beings. I see two, not three.

Glad you cleared the Oneness part...earlier. So, the Holy Spirit to you is not separate from the Father or Son but is actually the Father by another name? Aaaah, now I think I see where you are coming from. Interesting...but the one problem I see is Jesus talking about the Holy Spirit being sent to them by the Father. That might be a problem. Still, I'll look further into it to see how it might lineup with other parts of Scripture....if I don't forget that is!

How can I address this issue when even the graph I provided does not aid your understanding, and you do not acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy in the Godhead? My previous reply, which I have included below, also appears to be incomprehensible to you. This seems to be because you do not consider the hierarchy as I mentioned or if you did it's not relevant to you.

It has nothing to do with understanding. I understand what the graph is portraying, and I understand the argument. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense. The graph is simply illogical. What it claims to portray is simply not possible. It's impossible.

What I often find when I debate this topic is that those who argue in favor of the Trinity argue as if their claim is possible. To have one being called God who consists of three persons is not possible. That is the claim of the Trinity doctrine. Those who argue in favor of the doctrine accept this premise. If one could prove this premise, then there would be something to base the doctrine on. But this premise cannot be proved.

Please explain why it is not possible. Saying that God who consists of three persons is not possible, is to discredit the supremacy of God, that must fit our understanding and why I didn't accept or deny the Doctrine of the Trinity either until "Hierarchy" was brought to my attention.

It is possible, because my God is not confined to being understood fully by the finite mind, but your position is that He can be and that you find comfort in that knowledge and disregard any other that doesn't agree? That the impossibility of something that goes beyond human reason is just too difficult to grasp, and before moving on I must decide upon it?

As a child (3-4 or so) I looked at the night sky from a six-story building (top floor), and in my mind/being I said there is a God! I didn't know anything more than that at that time. I came to know later the verse of Psalm 19:1. That confirmed what I was seeing/feeling/knowing in my child existence. Yet, what does a child know! I tell you this premise will be proved whether you believe it or not, to everyone's satisfaction one day, because we will find ourselves in the presence of God, and if you are so bold, you are welcome to ask them, so which one of you is really God today. Any bets that you won't be asking, because it will no longer matter? lol

We're going in a circle on this. I'll try this again. Prior to the Son, was the Father a Father? No. Yet His essence is as it has always been.
Now the Father begot (came from) the Son whose essence is the same as the Father and the Father's essence has also not changed for there is nothing else in existence from which He could come from. They are (and you're going to love this) One and the same in 2 persons. The Holy Spirit is the way this happened, making the 3rd person. The only way to tell the difference would be with a hierarchy that each accepts in role/authority and so the agreement. (Forgive me God for even attempting to explain who You are).

I thought that's how you were understanding essence in my question above. I disagree with this. In the beginning there was an eternal being. He begot a Son. That eternal being is now called Father. They are not one and the same in two persons. They are two completely separate beings or persons. Whatever God consists of there are two them that are completely separate. It's just like you and I. We both consist of human "stuff" but we are two completely separate beings. Just like a human father and son. They both consist of flesh, their essence, yet they are two completely separate beings.

Actually, I do not believe they were never Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I used this to try to explain, to you that with God as only a Title which is what you see it as being, that reason required they either existed eternal as such Father/Son/Holy Spirit, which is what I believe, or that some "when" there was only "God", and that God separated into the Father/Son/Holy Spirit as a possibility. Not understanding your theology, I was throwing darts to see if I scored or not. So, eternal separate beings who decided to select the role of God, which they could be as it moved them to do?

Oh, if we are to play parts, you have to be the son, since I'm older than you, and I prefer dad instead of pa, or pappy!

You really can't try to find an analogy though many try, that speaks of this in human terms, because that is the only way you think it needs to be explained in order for one to believe it and to be fully understood. To fully understand God we need Eternity. Still, we catch/given glimpses of understanding that has us longing for more. The problem is that many say that even then they won't believe in it if they can't understand it fully. I laugh, because in their own lives which is simple in comparison, they believe in so many things, that they can't explain fully, and it's not a problem to them!

But this isn't trying to fully understand God. Because this concept is not in His word. What this is is trying to understand what is written in Scripture.
There is nothing in Scripture that states that there is one God in three persons. So, that means that we are not even trying to understand Scripture. What we find is that we are trying to understand and explain a doctrine that was formulated in the minds of men.

Sure, it is. For me, and maybe not for you, but the Godhead, Father, Son, Holy Spirit is all about a relationship. That it would take eternity, should not surprise you, if you've ever been married that is!

Nick, I am not open to the Trintiy because it is illogical and refuted by Scripture. I used to hold the doctrine and believed there was a hierarchy. The Scriptures have shown me otherwise.

I haven't stated how you came to your belief. As I said, I see a hierarchy, just not a Trinity.

I might be wrong on the first part, since enough people who discuss the Trinity and are against it, use it as a starting point for where Trinitarians come by their belief and why I'm not quoting the rest of your post. The second part you may not have been clear enough to actually say how you don't see how the hierarchy applies to the Trinity and why I added your original mentioning of it. As I've said, if you understand how a hierarchy works, and can apply it to a relationship, you will know how the Trinity is, and how it operates. It still doesn't offer you any greater knowing of Him, but the structure of it allows the finite mind to grasp a bit of what eternity will continue to provide to us as we grow in Him.

It fits better for me in accordance with what I find in Scripture than these beings switching from God, to not God, and then back to God, which is how I interpret what you are saying.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
P.S. Normally I go over what I'm going to post a couple of times, but I'm a bit tired right now. \o/