Trinity

[Butch5]

I woulcorrect that it's not that both sides are able to support their arguments with Scripture . I would submit that one side is using Scripture wrongly. The Bible doesn't both support and reject the idea of a Trinity. It's one or the other. I would encourage everyone to try and figure out which side is using Scripture correctly.

That was supposed to say, " I would submit", not I would correct.

 

[Beetow]

I woulcorrect that it's not that both sides are able to support their arguments with
Scripture . I would submit that one side is using Scripture wrongly. The Bible
doesn't both support and reject the idea of a Trinity. It's one or the other. I would
encourage everyone to try and figure out which side is using Scripture correctly.

yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, and the beat goes on.
_

 

[Butch5]

yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, and the beat goes on.
_

It only makes sense that the Bible can't be supporting to opposing ideas. If the Bible is without error, then one of the idea must be wrong.

 

[Searchingtoo]

I did read the Bible and take it for what it says, but I also know that the Bible does not contradict itself. The bible says that the first man was created on Day Six, a person, as in a human being which God formed from the dust, did NOT exist at the beginning on Day One. The Word was at the beginning, man was not, therefore Jesus as a man could not exist at the beginning, but as the Word he did. The Bible doesn't say in the beginning was Jesus as a man, it doesn't say in the beginning was the incarnation of God, it says in the beginning the Word, then the creation by Him, and the Word didn't become flesh until 1:14.

So do you believe that the Word was Jesus or not. Previously said that Jesus was not the Word

Paul speaks in metaphors quite often. Calling Christ the second Adam, has nothing to do with the time of His creation. It has to do with God restoring creation. Paul also said that Christ is the first born of all creation. Thus he preceeded Adam.

No, God is referred to as He because He is a person. I didn't call my mother He when she provided, protected, and taught me. I called her, her, because she was a person.

You're correct that the Father isn't referred to as the Father in the OT. That doesn't mean He wasn't one. There are references to the Son in the OT.

Psalm 2:1–7 (KJV 1900): Why do the heathen rage,
And the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder,
And cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:
The Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath,
And vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king
Upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree:
The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; This day have I begotten thee.
Proverbs 30:4Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

So, even though He's not called Fathee in the OT, we see that He was one

Incomprehensible means something can't be comprehended. Maybe you're looking for a different word.

This whole conversation reminds me of "who's on first" if either of you are old enough to remember that Abbot and Costello routine and makes just as much sense as that to me. Sorry.

 

[Searchingtoo]

It only makes sense that the Bible can't be supporting to opposing ideas. If the Bible is without error, then one of the idea must be wrong.

Seems so simple to me. If Jesus said that his Heavenly Father was the only true God (which eliminates everyone else) then surely Jesus did not think he was the true God or the Holy Spirit or anyone else. If you check the Greek meaning of these words you will see it means just exactly that. I think I'll take Jesus' word for it.

 

[Butch5]

Seems so simple to me. If Jesus said that his Heavenly Father was the only true God (which eliminates everyone else) then surely Jesus did not think he was the true God or the Holy Spirit or anyone else. If you check the Greek meaning of these words you will see it means just exactly that. I think I'll take Jesus' word for it.

I agree. I don't see any other way to understand His words in that passage.

 

[Butch5]

So do you believe that the Word was Jesus or not. Previously said that Jesus was not the Word

This whole conversation reminds me of "who's on first" if either of you are old enough to remember that Abbot and Costello routine and makes just as much sense as that to me. Sorry.

I remember it. The problem is that people equivocate on the meaning of the word God. Just ask people to define what they mean by the word God. I've asked people this again and again and they usually just beat around the bush and never give a straight answer. If we can't even define the word how are we to form doctrine based on it?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I woulcorrect that it's not that both sides are able to support their arguments with Scripture . I would submit that one side is using Scripture wrongly. The Bible doesn't both support and reject the idea of a Trinity. It's one or the other. I would encourage everyone to try and figure out which side is using Scripture correctly.

maybe you should study Rev. 12-13 to see how Satan works through his trinity. “Trinity” is among a lot of concepts summarized by theologians in their own terms, just because it’s not in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s not real, otherwise Satan wouldn’t counterfeit it with his own version.

 

[Butch5]

maybe you should study Rev. 12-13 to see how Satan works through his trinity. “Trinity” is among a lot of concepts summarized by theologians in their own terms, just because it’s not in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s not real, otherwise Satan wouldn’t counterfeit it with his own version.

It's not just that it's not in the Bible. The Bible flatly refutes it.

1 Corinthians 8:4–7 (KJV 1900): As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Here Paul is referencing the many gods of the pagans and says, 'to us there is one God, the Father'. He's comparing the many gods of the pagans with the one God of the Christians and He says that one God is the Father. That flatly refutes the idea of a Trinity. He's talking about number here, the one God of the Christians compared to the many gods of the pagans.

 

[Beetow]

● John 20:28 . .Thomas said to him: My Lord and my God.

Apparently Jesus had been telling his men all along that he was on track to be
elevated to a position of divinity per Phil 2:9-11 and I suspect Thomas honestly
didn't believe such a thing was possible. And I further suspect Thomas never
would've believed it had he not seen for himself that Jesus' crucified dead body was
restored to life.

● John 20:29 . .Then Jesus told him: Because you have seen me, you have
believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

In other words: folks insisting that Jesus isn't divine do so because they've
somehow missed out on the blessing.
_

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

So do you believe that the Word was Jesus or not. Previously said that Jesus was not the Word

I've answered this before - yes AND no. The Word is not Jesus, the INCARNATED Word is Jesus. "That's illogical! That's a bunch of nonsense!" Oh really? Here's the thing, you have your unique DNA, according to which you're built and with which you can be identified, is your DNA you or not you?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

It's not just that it's not in the Bible. The Bible flatly refutes it.

1 Corinthians 8:4–7 (KJV 1900): As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Here Paul is referencing the many gods of the pagans and says, 'to us there is one God, the Father'. He's comparing the many gods of the pagans with the one God of the Christians and He says that one God is the Father. That flatly refutes the idea of a Trinity. He's talking about number here, the one God of the Christians compared to the many gods of the pagans.

The bible redutes the traditional doctrine of "three co-equal persons", or tritheism, but it teaches manifestation of this one God. "You worship a god you don't know, we worship a god we know." How do we know? Because he revealed himself to us! And for the millionth time, I've never, ever espoused this doctrine, I refute it as much as the bible does, it is you who are actually defending it by arguing that they are three beings.

 

[Butch5]

The bible redutes the traditional doctrine of "three co-equal persons", or tritheism, but it teaches manifestation of this one God. "You worship a god you don't know, we worship a god we know." How do we know? Because he revealed himself to us! And for the millionth time, I've never, ever espoused this doctrine, I refute it as much as the bible does, it is you who are actually defending it by arguing that they are three beings.

My friend, did you read what I posted about this when you mentioned Jesus' baptism? I said there is the Father and there is the Son. That's two, not three. I said the Holy Breath was the power of the Father. How am I supporting a Trinity when I'm claiming there are only two?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Paul speaks in metaphors quite often. Calling Christ the second Adam, has nothing to do with the time of His creation. It has to do with God restoring creation. Paul also said that Christ is the first born of all creation. Thus he preceeded Adam.

That's what's really illogical and unbiblical. Why can't you simply take what the bible plainly stated instead of playing mental gymnastics? Did John 1:1-2 say "in the beginning was the incarnated Word with God ... he was an incarnated person in the beginng?" or In the beginning was the Word ... He (the Word) was in the beginning with God?

In Gen. 1, God didn't create a broken world, all creation was GOOD, meaning perfectly functional and sustainable, nothing is evil and in need of restoration, until it was broken through Adam's transgression, and God restored it through the sacrifice of his own human form, that's not an afterthought, not a response to fix the mess, this plan of salvation was there in the beginning, and it finally came into fruition through Jesus.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

My friend, did you read what I posted about this when you mentioned Jesus' baptism? I said there is the Father and there is the Son. That's two, not three. I said the Holy Breath was the power of the Father. How am I supporting a Trinity when I'm claiming there are only two?

Oh great, so you deny the Holy Spirit then? The last time I checked that passage, the spirit descended like a dove, which is so conveniently ignored by you.

 

[Butch5]

That's what's really illogical and unbiblical. Why can't you simply take what the bible plainly stated instead of playing mental gymnastics? Did John 1:1-2 say "in the beginning was the incarnated Word with God ... he was an incarnated person in the beginng?" or In the beginning was the Word ... He (the Word) was in the beginning with God?

In Gen. 1, God didn't create a broken world, all creation was GOOD, meaning perfectly functional and sustainable, nothing is evil and in need of restoration, until it was broken through Adam's transgression, and God restored it through the sacrifice of his own human form, that's not an afterthought, not a response to fix the mess, this plan of salvation was there in the beginning, and it finally came into fruition through Jesus.

What are you talking about. I didn't say Jesus was incarnate at the beginning. I said, God brought forth out of Himself a Son. That Son was with God in the beginning. That Son created all things. Then that Son emptied Himself of the form of God and became man. That was at the incarnation. That Son that created all things is the same life that is incarnate Jesus. He's not called Jesus before the incarnation but it is the Same being.

If His human form died, who raised it up again?

 

[Butch5]

Oh great, so you deny the Holy Spirit then? The last time I checked that passage, the spirit descended like a dove, which is so conveniently ignored by you.

I've not ignored anything. I don't deny the Holy Breath. I do deny that it's a third person.

 

[Searchingtoo]

I remember it. The problem is that people equivocate on the meaning of the word God. Just ask people to define what they mean by the word God. I've asked people this again and again and they usually just beat around the bush and never give a straight answer. If we can't even define the word how are we to form doctrine based on it?

God - Definition: The Supreme being, whose distinctive name is Jehovah [not Jesus, the Word or holy spirit]. The Hebrew language uses terms for "God" that convey the idea of strength, also of majesty, dignity, and excellence. In contrast to the true God, there are false gods. Some of these have set themselves up as gods: others have been made of objects of worship by those who serve them.

This is how the Bentons Septuagint (LXX) reads, which agrees with KJV in Psalms 83:18 except it uses Jehovah instead of Yahweh which is the name mostly used today. 83:18 That [men] may know°° that° thou,° whose name° alone° [is] YAHWEH,° [art] Elyon° over° all° the earth.° No mention of HS or Jesus/Word/Michael or anyone else. Just Jehovah or Yahweh if you prefer.

The Jews did not believe in a trinity nor did the first century Christians, nor did Jesus, but 400 years later suddenly people thought they knew better. I don't think so.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

No, God is referred to as He because He is a person. I didn't call my mother He when she provided, protected, and taught me. I called her, her, because she was a person.

You're correct that the Father isn't referred to as the Father in the OT. That doesn't mean He wasn't one. There are references to the Son in the OT.

Psalm 2:1–7 (KJV 1900): Why do the heathen rage,
And the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder,
And cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:
The Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath,
And vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king
Upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree:
The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; This day have I begotten thee.
Proverbs 30:4Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

So, even though He's not called Fathee in the OT, we see that He was one

Even if that's true, from human perspective He wasn't known as the father yet, neither Moses, David or any prophet addressed him as the Father, and none of them regard themselves as the son in these verses you quote, they were rulers appointed by God, the only intermediary between man and God by then was the high priest who went to the temple once a year on the day of atonement to communicate with God and pray for forgiveness. That arrangement was superceded by Christ, our eternal and exalted high priest. Therefore, whether God was a person or not, there's no way to know, we were not there at the beginning, we were not Levite high priest. We can only know Him and relate to him as the Father with absolute certainty through Christ the son. Maybe you have a different definition of "person" or "personhood", all I can tell you is that, the only "person" or "personhood" is a human being of fresh and blood, and that took place on Day Six.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

What are you talking about. I didn't say Jesus was incarnate at the beginning. I said, God brought forth out of Himself a Son. That Son was with God in the beginning. That Son created all things. Then that Son emptied Himself of the form of God and became man. That was at the incarnation.

If he didn't incarnate at the beginning, then he was NOT a person - yet. He didn't empty himself as a humble servant, a son of a carpenter from Nazereth - until he did.

That Son that created all things is the same life that is incarnate Jesus. He's not called Jesus before the incarnation but it is the Same being.

No, it's not. Your DNA is not the same thing as the fully grown person of you, my DNA is not the same thing as the fully grown person of me. The God I believe in is a God of distinction, not a god of confusion or conflation.