Proof of Trinity

[Rollo Tamasi]

Only God can save us.
Jesus saves us.
Jesus is God.
This is done through God's spirit, we call the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Three in one.
Done.
Next.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Only God can save us.
Jesus saves us.
Jesus is God.
This is done through God's spirit, we call the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Three in one.
Done.
Next.

Amen!

 

[mondar]

I haven't looked in here for a bit and, frankly, I'm disappointed this string is still active. The answer to this issue is grounded in truth and Phil. 2:7.

The first thing is that we, man, are to live by the gift of faith and not knowledge. No human, male or female, can give a reasonable explanation of the Trinity, such is a foolish idea rooted in vanity.

I would agree that certain implications of the doctrine of the trinity and the encapsulation of deity within human flesh are not easy doctrines to understand because they have no parallel with creation. This does not mean I agree that no one can understand the doctrine of the trinity, or the fact that deity, in the 2nd person of the trinity, became flesh and remained completely and absolutely deity.

Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, emptied Himself of His divinity before He was born a man. This is attested to by Paul, the only disciple to spend three years at the feet of Jesus for one on one instruction. Paul knew the Son of God, likely, better than any other man to ever live and because the only Almighty God has commissioned him to record certain truths for Him, he can be trusted in what he says.

Jesus was not a mere man, but a God/Man.
Colossians 2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
Colossians 2:9 is very clear that when Christ became human flesh, that he was fully God in every aspect. In him, dwelt the fulness of the Godhead in bodily form.

When the Son of God determined to pay the price for our sins and emptied Himself of His divine powers, it made Him no less the creator. I've bumped heads with you in the past I believe but you were not then and you are not now cute the way you corkscrew words, my friend.

Here your words have a tension. How can you say "it made him no less the creator? Yet you say he emptied himself of divine powers. If Christ, in bodily form, emptied himself of the ability to create, then he was certainly less then the creator. Christ did not empty himself of divine attributes, but he chose not to make use of his divine attributes. The works he did was by the Fathers will and the Holy Spirits power. Not making use of his divine attributes is not the same thing and shedding those divine attributes. He remained fully God when in human flesh.

If you blow up on me you already know I will drop you like a hot potato so, let's keep this civil, ok?

If I buy a 56 Mercury but I pull the old Y shaped V8 and install a Chevy 427 and a Borg Warner T10 with a 411 rear end, I still have a 56 Merc. The same, in this case, is true of the Son of God. Jesus is a man with the Spirit of the Son of God, dwelling in Him.

You can discuss this with a mature Christian, like myself, 'til the Rapture and the truth that we must believe by faith will remain. The only things this false argument of yours can ever accomplish is to keep some out of Heaven... including yourself?

Yes, Asyncritus believes in an heresy called Arianism. Its newer form is called Jehovah Witness. The only thing Asyncritus will do is make long lists of verses. That is nothing but a cheap debating trick. He knows that if the list is long enough, no one will reply to every verse. It makes him feel as if he won a debate. I have read through his lists and it is noticeable that he does not even understand the doctrine of the trinity that he is trying to refute. The list has many verses that merely demonstrate that Jesus is a different person then the Father, something that the doctrine of the trinity also affirms. So he has not even begun to refute trinitarian doctrine because he does not understand trinitarian doctrine. Asyncritus does not know the difference between trinitarian doctrine and modalism. Asyncritus is not the question thought. The problem is that you are making statements that are not trinitarian in nature. When you speak of Christ "emptied himself of divine powers" that is not Orthodox trinitarian doctrine.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

 

[Asyncritus]

Yes, Asyncritus believes in an heresy called Arianism. Its newer form is called Jehovah Witness. The only thing Asyncritus will do is make long lists of verses.

Hey guys

I don't know what you mean by 'Arianism'. I do no reading in theologians, because I believe they are by and large not worth bothering with, and only multiply words to very seriously dangerous effect. As we can see with the doctrine of the trinity: it is the product of theologians battering the truth into submission.

The truth, of course, being that :There is but One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

And 'The Father is greater than I' and other words like it. If that is a list of incomprehensible passages, then I'm sorry - but the teaching of scripture is exceedingly plain to me, as it should be to you, but obviously is not.

That is nothing but a cheap debating trick. He knows that if the list is long enough, no one will reply to every verse. It makes him feel as if he won a debate.

I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to express the simple truth of the whole of the Bible in as plain and simple form as is humanly possible, so that any fairminded and open-minded person may behold the truth for what it is..

The length of the lists are simply due to the enormous number of times the scriptures speak of the Unity of God. Why you guys won't listen to scripture, but prefer the theologians' trickery is beyond me.

I have read through his lists and it is noticeable that he does not even understand the doctrine of the trinity that he is trying to refute.

The plain fact is that you certainly don't understand it. As I said to Jason, it is impossible to treat the illogical as logical. If I press you, you will be forced to admit that 'it's a mystery' - won't you?

And what is a 'mystery'? Basically the incomprehensible. Here. let me remind you of the greatest mystery of all. Try explaining it - and notice that there is no huge list of passages involved:

"I note that absolutely NO-ONE has attempted to answer the most serious problem that faces a trinitarian, which I have raised a couple of times in previous posts.

We may argue about Php2 and Jn 1 till the cows come home, but none of these arguments touches the REAL BIG PROBLEM. Once this one is solved, the others fall neatly into line.

So I'm looking to you for answers, or even AN answer.

Problem

God CANNOT sin.

God CANNOT be tempted with evil.

Jesus COULD HAVE SINNED.

Jesus WAS TEMPTED TO SIN (in all points like as we are).

Therefore, Jesus CANNOT BE, AND WAS NEVER God.

He NEVER claimed to be God, not even when He had the most glorious opportunity to do so (Jn 8 and Jn 10). How could He?


If He was God, then he could not have sinned.

Then, His 'conquest of sin' was no conquest at all. Because He couldn't lose.

Therefore, as an example to us, the whole thing was a complete failure.

But it wasn't."

The list has many verses that merely demonstrate that Jesus is a different person then the Father, something that the doctrine of the trinity also affirms. So he has not even begun to refute trinitarian doctrine because he does not understand trinitarian doctrine. Asyncritus does not know the difference between trinitarian doctrine and modalism. Asyncritus is not the question though. The problem is that you are making statements that are not trinitarian in nature. When you speak of Christ "emptied himself of divine powers" that is not Orthodox trinitarian doctrine.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. Even you supporters of the doctrine don't seem to know what you're talking about, and end up by disagreeing among yourselves.

If you don't know, then how can you expect anyone else to understand?

You guys have got a serious problem - and till you sort it out among yourselves, there is no point in berating me for not understanding what you're talking about.

In the meantime I will continue preaching the plain scriptural teaching which runs like a mighty backbone all the way through the Bible:

There is unto us but One God, the Father....and one Lord, Jesus Christ...

 

[Asyncritus]

No human, male or female, can give a reasonable explanation of the Trinity, such is a foolish idea rooted in vanity.

As I said, a mystery!

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus said:

John chapter one says Jesus is the living word of God
...

What your teaching is clearly heresy.. "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.. "The Word was with God and the Word was God" Who taught you this doctrine that Jesus isn't God?

tob

Why, Jesus did.

He said: My Father is greater than I, and 'I ascend to my Father,and your Father; to MY GOD, and to your God.

And John, because

on 78 occasions, last time I counted, John declares that Jesus is subordinate to His Father.

And Paul, too:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...

But you know the passages. So why won't you believe them?

 

[th1b.taylor]

mondar,
When we go Home, God will correct us both but I'll stand this life on two things and none other;
1. The Word of God.
2. Faith.

You seem, by your statement, to have this god thingy in a match box but I'll not go there. I'm not nearly as smart as My LORD.

 

[Free]

What was made according to scripture? (genesis)

Clearly everything that has ever come into existence. That's the whole point. Anything else has always existed, which would only be God.

I showed you were you are wrong but you refuse to answer the question.
Jesus called the Father the One true God. If Jesus always was and always was God then how do you believe in One God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit my spirit"?

No, you have not shown where I have been wrong. Jesus calling the Father the One true God does not mean that Jesus isn't also God in nature. His calling out and praying to the Father do not meant that he isn't also God. This is all answered in Phil 2, which I have discussed at some length. Jesus is both truly God and truly man.

Not to mention that Jesus referred to himself as the "I Am," God's name and clear statement of Jesus claiming to be God.

There is only one God. This is affirmed from beginning to end of Scripture and is a foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. But another foundation is that Jesus is shown to be God in nature, the Holy Spirit is shown to be God in nature, and yet they are distinct from each other and the Father. Those are biblical truths of which the doctrine of the Trinity tries to reconcile without damaging any of them. This cannot be said for any other position.

Showing me scripture that states Jesus is God does not refute my position as the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him and therefore in that context "Jesus is the image of the living God "and the exact representation of Gods being" All that the Father is. The fullness was given and Jesus is the Firstborn then He is not God but has alway been the Son. Jesus is not that fullness. The Father is in the Son.

The Scriptures I have given most certainly refute your position as they clearly show that the Son has always existed, that there was not a time when he didn't exist.

So despite all that Jesus stated (The Father is greater and is His God) you hinge everything on what you state above. I can read what was created. (Genesis) Neither the angels of God nor the son are listed in the aspects of the creation as defined by scripture which starts "In the Beginning"

I do not "hinge everything on what [ I ] stated above." If you think that, then you are not following the discussion very well. I am simply pointing out irrefutable conclusions of Scripture which anti-trinitarians continue to ignore, and must ignore if they are to believe their position is true. I have said many times in this thread that every statement of Jesus that the Father is greater is answered in Phil 2. Jesus is God incarnate, both God and man.

The main problem with anti-trinitarians is precisely this type of thinking and argumentation. They take all such statements of Jesus to the exclusion of all else. It is the trinitarian position alone that at least attempts to make sense of all of it. One thing anyone reading this thread will notice is that no trinitarian is arguing that those passages which clearly speak of the deity of Jesus overrule those which speak of his humanity, making him only truly God. Yet, it is the anti-trinitarians who take all the passages that speak of Jesus' humanity and use those to overrule those which speak of his deity, making him a mere human or mere creature. But that is very poor exegesis; there is no biblical basis for doing so.

And what about John 1? What is the word of God? The word of the Father. Hebrews 1:1-2 even Rev was given to the Son by the Father Rev 1:1

As for Hebrews 1, I will once again point you to what else is said there, which you never responded to:

8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (ESV)

The Father calling the Son, God. We know there is only one God and we know that the Father and Son are distinct from each other in some way. Interesting then, isn't it, that the Son calls the Father, God, and the Father calls the Son, God? Hence why the Incarnation and the Trinity are rightly called mysteries.

Whatever understanding of what is said in Hebrews 1 that one has, it must not ignore this statement by the Father.

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.

Angels don't die. Are they God as well?

Yes, He is all that the Father is
No, He has always been the Son.

I have addressed this significant contradiction before. Jesus cannot, in any rational sense, be said to be both God and not God. That's like saying a woman is both pregnant and not pregnant. It is utterly irrational.

As I have stated before, one of the very characteristics of God, one of those things which make God, God, is that he has always existed. If, as you say, Jesus is God, then by definition, he must have also always existed. There is no escaping that fact.

And once again you have avoided addressing my logical argument regarding John 1:3.

 

[Free]

Why, Jesus did.

He said: My Father is greater than I, and 'I ascend to my Father,and your Father; to MY GOD, and to your God.

And John, because

on 78 occasions, last time I counted, John declares that Jesus is subordinate to His Father.

And Paul, too:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...

But you know the passages. So why won't you believe them?

This is precisely what I just addressed in Randy's post--this continual erroneous thinking. You want to make this some sort of numbers game where whoever has the most number of passages wins. That simply is not how biblical interpretation is done. Your erroneous argument has been addressed, several times in this thread and many times in past threads. You have absolutely no biblical basis for taking verses which speak of Jesus' humanity, which no trinitarian denies, and using them to overrule and completely ignore those which clearly speak of his deity. The trinitarians don't do this with passages speaking of his deity, for good reason.

 

[chessman]

I don't know what you mean by 'Arianism'. I do no reading in theologians, because I believe they are by and large not worth bothering with, and only multiply words to very seriously dangerous effect.

How do you know they are ‘by and large not worth bothering with’ and only multiply words to very seriously dangerous effects, if you don’t read them? Your logical flow above is not any better than it is with the “argument” below:

Problem
God CANNOT sin.
God CANNOT be tempted with evil.
Jesus COULD HAVE SINNED.
Jesus WAS TEMPTED TO SIN (in all points like as we are).
Therefore, Jesus CANNOT BE, AND WAS NEVER God.

Or with this statement:

He NEVER claimed to be God, not even when He had the most glorious opportunity to do so (Jn 8 and Jn 10). How could He?

How in the world would you know that Jesus never claimed to be God?

First, neither you, nor I, have everything Jesus ever said recorded in the Scriptures. The Scriptures specifically say that Jesus said things to His disciples in private (Mark 4:34). So you really have no logical basis to your claim about Him above.

Second, Jn 8 and Jn 10 are not “the most glorious opportunity” to say that He was God. Common sense would be that it’s after His resurrection and glorification (proving to His followers that He was God) that He would make the clearest claim. Not before his resurrection when there was only the other miracles. Talk about proof of deity and of two natures. Resurrect yourself while your human nature was dead! Now that's proof.

Thirdly, you’re wrong. There are places in Scripture where Jesus does claim to be God. He never claims to be the first person of the Trinity (The Father), or course, as that would contradict the Trinity doctrine. Which is your main error in all your argument above (among others).

But you can see it most clearly in Revelation (post His ressurection when He pretty much proved it to His nay say'ers) and John.

 

[Randy]

Only God can save us.
Jesus saves us.
Jesus is God.
This is done through God's spirit, we call the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Three in one.
Done.
Next.

Hi Free and you other guys

I note that absolutely NO-ONE has attempted to answer the most serious problem that faces a trinitarian, which I have raised a couple of times in previous posts.

We may argue about Php2 and Jn 1 till the cows come home, but none of these arguments touches the REAL BIG PROBLEM. Once this one is solved, the others fall neatly into line.

So I'm looking to you for answers, or even AN answer.

Problem

God CANNOT sin.

God CANNOT be tempted with evil.

Jesus COULD HAVE SINNED.

Jesus WAS TEMPTED TO SIN (in all points like as we are).

Therefore, Jesus CANNOT BE, AND WAS NEVER God.

He NEVER claimed to be God, not even when He had the most glorious opportunity to do so (Jn 8 and Jn 10). How could He?


If He was God, then he could not have sinned.

Then, His 'conquest of sin' was no conquest at all. Because He couldn't lose.

Therefore, as an example to us, the whole thing was a complete failure.

But it wasn't.

I have a Lord who defeated the sin that I cannot. He is a worthy Leader, the Captain of my salvation. I can look to Him for help, because He can be touched with the feelings of my infirmity.

If he couldn't sin, then He can't be touched with the feelings of my infirmity. He doesn't know what it's all about.

His sacrifice was therefore no sacrifice at all - just a deception, designed to con us.

Is that really what you believe?

That God only had a divine will incapable of willing sin, and not also a human will capable of willing sin was deemed heretical as monothelitism in the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681. Assuming one is catholic (smile) From what I read protestants only hold to the first four.

To me Jesus was without sin therefore Jesus was not a slave to sin. All that sin are a slave to sin unless the Son sets them free and in the writings we do find sanctification associated with those who belong to Jesus. 1 John 3:9

Though Jesus prayed sometimes with tears. He sought help. He also overcame the world as a servant.

R.

 

[Randy]

Clearly everything that has ever come into existence. That's the whole point. Anything else has always existed, which would only be God.


No, you have not shown where I have been wrong. Jesus calling the Father the One true God does not mean that Jesus isn't also God in nature. His calling out and praying to the Father do not meant that he isn't also God. This is all answered in Phil 2, which I have discussed at some length. Jesus is both truly God and truly man.

Not to mention that Jesus referred to himself as the "I Am," God's name and clear statement of Jesus claiming to be God.

There is only one God. This is affirmed from beginning to end of Scripture and is a foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. But another foundation is that Jesus is shown to be God in nature, the Holy Spirit is shown to be God in nature, and yet they are distinct from each other and the Father. Those are biblical truths of which the doctrine of the Trinity tries to reconcile without damaging any of them. This cannot be said for any other position.


The Scriptures I have given most certainly refute your position as they clearly show that the Son has always existed, that there was not a time when he didn't exist.


I do not "hinge everything on what [ I ] stated above." If you think that, then you are not following the discussion very well. I am simply pointing out irrefutable conclusions of Scripture which anti-trinitarians continue to ignore, and must ignore if they are to believe their position is true. I have said many times in this thread that every statement of Jesus that the Father is greater is answered in Phil 2. Jesus is God incarnate, both God and man.

The main problem with anti-trinitarians is precisely this type of thinking and argumentation. They take all such statements of Jesus to the exclusion of all else. It is the trinitarian position alone that at least attempts to make sense of all of it. One thing anyone reading this thread will notice is that no trinitarian is arguing that those passages which clearly speak of the deity of Jesus overrule those which speak of his humanity, making him only truly God. Yet, it is the anti-trinitarians who take all the passages that speak of Jesus' humanity and use those to overrule those which speak of his deity, making him a mere human or mere creature. But that is very poor exegesis; there is no biblical basis for doing so.


As for Hebrews 1, I will once again point you to what else is said there, which you never responded to:

8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (ESV)

The Father calling the Son, God. We know there is only one God and we know that the Father and Son are distinct from each other in some way. Interesting then, isn't it, that the Son calls the Father, God, and the Father calls the Son, God? Hence why the Incarnation and the Trinity are rightly called mysteries.

Whatever understanding of what is said in Hebrews 1 that one has, it must not ignore this statement by the Father.


Angels don't die. Are they God as well?


I have addressed this significant contradiction before. Jesus cannot, in any rational sense, be said to be both God and not God. That's like saying a woman is both pregnant and not pregnant. It is utterly irrational.

As I have stated before, one of the very characteristics of God, one of those things which make God, God, is that he has always existed. If, as you say, Jesus is God, then by definition, he must have also always existed. There is no escaping that fact.

And once again you have avoided addressing my logical argument regarding John 1:3.

 

[Randy]

Hebrews

Jesus is all that the Father is as God should know. The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him.

The testimony of the Father that He is the God of the Son He set above all. Jesus uses truth -The Father is His God.

But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is[c] forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your[d] kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”


Perhaps I am misunderstanding your answer to my question as I can't seem to find your answer. Your premise is Jesus always was and always was God. No beginning So I state and ask :
Jesus called the Father the one true God. How then do you believe in ONE God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit MT SPIRIT"?

I believe the angels also existed before the world began but like the Son at some point in history they were born from the Father. Jesus is the firstborn and only with the firstborn the fullness was pleased to dwell. God set Jesus apart and above all others except of course Himself. The fullness wasn't born or created but given. The Father is in the Son. In that they are one.

Randy

 

[mondar]

Hey guys

I don't know what you mean by 'Arianism'. I do no reading in theologians, because I believe they are by and large not worth bothering with, and only multiply words to very seriously dangerous effect. As we can see with the doctrine of the trinity: it is the product of theologians battering the truth into submission.

It seems to be a cultural thing today that it is real cool to reinvent the wheel. Of course in practice, no such thing is possible. There is absolutely nothing wrong with knowing about Arianism, or the history of the Church. Those without such knowledge are certain to repeat the same mistakes of history that have already been made.

The truth, of course, being that :There is but One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

I take it your implying that the two terms should designate different kinds of deity or something like that?
Jesus was called both terms in John 20:28 "Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." It seems like you would have serious problems establishing that the language of "Lord" and "God" distinguishes the essence or attributes of Christ and the Father. There is much more that could be written here.

And 'The Father is greater than I' and other words like it. If that is a list of incomprehensible passages, then I'm sorry - but the teaching of scripture is exceedingly plain to me, as it should be to you, but obviously is not.

Yes, the old Arians quoted this very same passage. Your referring to John 14:28. With the incarnation, Christ accepted subordination to the Father. This does not mean his attributes were less completely deity, but merely that he accepted subordination while in the flesh. Christ did not give up even one of his divine attributes, but he did accept subordination to the will of the Father. He came to do the Fathers will, and thus the Father was greater only in that sense.

I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to express the simple truth of the whole of the Bible in as plain and simple form as is humanly possible, so that any fairminded and open-minded person may behold the truth for what it is..

LOL. I am sure you are not suggesting we trinitarians lack fairmindedness and openmindedness? Well, maybe not explicitly suggesting that we are lacking, just implied.

The length of the lists are simply due to the enormous number of times the scriptures speak of the Unity of God. Why you guys won't listen to scripture, but prefer the theologians' trickery is beyond me.

Ahhh, so because the bible says the same thing so many times you feel obliged to quote each and every one of them? I guess it would have been next to impossible to pick the best, most forceful verse and focus on the context of that verse? Every time I see a long list of unexplained verses, no matter what thread, the same thought occurs that this person wants to win a debate using cheap debating tricks. I see no other possible motive for such a behavior. Good behavior would quote the one most convincing verse, the most forceful air tight passage, and then give a paragraph or two in explanation of the context.

Also, why would trinitarians need to see a long list of scriptures on the unity of God?

The plain fact is that you certainly don't understand it. As I said to Jason, it is impossible to treat the illogical as logical. If I press you, you will be forced to admit that 'it's a mystery' - won't you?

I am certainly not all wise. While there are depths to the doctrine of the trinity that I no doubt have not explored to the bottom, on the other hand, I do understand trinitarian doctrine. I understand it well enough to see when you have misrepresented the doctrine.... and you did. In your list of verses, you pointed to the fact that the Father and Son are two different persons several times. Modalism denys that the Father, Son and Holy spirit are different persons, but trinitarian doctrine affirms the different persons of the trinity, but we affirm that they are the same essence and attributes.

And what is a 'mystery'? Basically the incomprehensible. Here. let me remind you of the greatest mystery of all. Try explaining it - and notice that there is no huge list of passages involved:

"I note that absolutely NO-ONE has attempted to answer the most serious problem that faces a trinitarian, which I have raised a couple of times in previous posts.

We may argue about Php2 and Jn 1 till the cows come home, but none of these arguments touches the REAL BIG PROBLEM. Once this one is solved, the others fall neatly into line.

So I'm looking to you for answers, or even AN answer.

Problem

God CANNOT sin.

God CANNOT be tempted with evil.

Jesus COULD HAVE SINNED.

Gotta stop here. Show me chapter and verse were it was within the nature of Jesus that there was the possibility of him falling and sinning. Oh sure, Satan can throw what might be temptations from Satans perspective. Since it was not within the divine nature of Christ that he could sin, it was not a temptation to him.

Jesus WAS TEMPTED TO SIN (in all points like as we are).

Christ was challenged to sin, but not in an identical way as we are. We have a sin nature, and are in Adam. We sin because we are sinful. Remember Psalm 51? David was conceived in sin, and born in iniquity. King David was evil even before he ever committed his first sin. This is because he was in Adam. Being a sinner, he was under the penalty of death. When Adam sinned, he brought an evil nature to his posterity, the entire human race. Jesus was different. He was born of a virgin and he hated sin by his divine nature. He could not sin by nature. We sin by nature. He was tempted as we are, but he, being God, could not sin.

Therefore, Jesus CANNOT BE, AND WAS NEVER God.

He NEVER claimed to be God, not even when He had the most glorious opportunity to do so (Jn 8 and Jn 10). How could He?


If He was God, then he could not have sinned.

Then, His 'conquest of sin' was no conquest at all. Because He couldn't lose.

Therefore, as an example to us, the whole thing was a complete failure.

But it wasn't."

I must admit a degree of logic in your statement above. The logical syllogism would go something like this........ If God cannot sin, and if Jesus could sin, then Jesus was not God. Of course the logic fails at the point where you state Jesus could sin. Chapter and verse? And please do not go shallow on me and quote Matthew were Satan tried to tempt Jesus. That would prove nothing. It just proves that Satan was mistaken in that he thought he could tempt Christ.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. Even you supporters of the doctrine don't seem to know what you're talking about, and end up by disagreeing among yourselves.

If you don't know, then how can you expect anyone else to understand?

You guys have got a serious problem - and till you sort it out among yourselves, there is no point in berating me for not understanding what you're talking about.

In the meantime I will continue preaching the plain scriptural teaching which runs like a mighty backbone all the way through the Bible:

There is unto us but One God, the Father....and one Lord, Jesus Christ...

Well, in my previous post on this thread I rebuked a fellow trinitarian for not being consistently trinitarian on the complete deity of Christ. I must admit that way too many people in our Churches clearly do not have the foggiest idea of what trinitarian doctrine is really about. Yes, we have a serious problem. On the other hand, this does not excuse you for misrepresenting trinitarian theology. Sure, you can always go after the low hanging fruit. Jehovah Witnesses seem famous..... or infamous to me for going after those who are ignorant of the teachings of their Church.

As far as me "berating" you, I hope I have not done that. I am do not always express myself in the best ways, if I have said something insulting, let me know and I will try to do better.

On the other hand, if you misrepresent trinitarian doctrine again, I will certainly let you know. Feel free to look up authoritative statements of faith. I am would accept the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith in 1689, or the Westminster as having appropriate definitions of the trinity. Please do not go shallow and assume that I consider a creed or doctrinal statement to be inspired. I would accept definitions as proper and would certainly take notice if I had one wrong.

t like the Son at some point in history they were born from the Father. Jesus is the firstborn and only with the firstborn the fullness was pleased to dwell. God set Jesus apart and above all others except of course Himself. The fullness wasn't born or created but given. The Father is in the Son. In that they are one.

Randy

This allusion to Colossians 2:9 is really bad.
Col 2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
The passage simply speaks of the fulness of Christs deity. It would be good to talk about this more, but I have to go.

 

[Asyncritus]

It seems to be a cultural thing today that it is real cool to reinvent the wheel. Of course in practice, no such thing is possible. There is absolutely nothing wrong with knowing about Arianism, or the history of the Church. Those without such knowledge are certain to repeat the same mistakes of history that have already been made.

There is a great deal wrong, in my view.

You can only drink so much poisoned water before becoming seriously ill yourself.

Reading that stuff is a guarantee that you're going to get confused, misled and a major headache.

Just think of reading through Mosheim's Ecclesiastical history, however many volumes of the tripe. It'll take you months to read, time that would be far better spent in your garden or on the text of scripture itself.

I take it your implying that the two terms should designate different kinds of deity or something like that?

Jesus was called both terms in John 20:28 "Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." It seems like you would have serious problems establishing that the language of "Lord" and "God" distinguishes the essence or attributes of Christ and the Father. There is much more that could be written here.

No, I'm not. If you would only read the context, all these silly problems would vanish.

'There are gods many, and lords many'. But to us, there is but One God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

God is the God of the new creation, and Jesus is the boss/lord of the new creation. It's as simple as that. Why confuse the issue?

LOL. I am sure you are not suggesting we trinitarians lack fairmindedness and openmindedness? Well, maybe not explicitly suggesting that we are lacking, just implied.

OK. Implied then. I personally am not open minded on the matter. It's so glaringly obvious that denying it seems extremely dangerous and unwise.

Also, why would trinitarians need to see a long list of scriptures on the unity of God?

Because you don't recognize the simple truth of any one of them.

Just look at Free 'explaining' 1 Cor 8.6. It's so straightforward even a kid could understand it. Paul is quoting Deut 6.4 and a few other passages - all of which say extremely clearly that there is One God, and that He has no equals.

Trinitarians say the exact opposite.

Jesus Himself says exactly the same thing "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord". Why won't you guys listen?

Jesus was different. He was born of a virgin and he hated sin by his divine nature. He could not sin by nature. We sin by nature. He was tempted as we are, but he, being God, could not sin

He was the son of Adam - the genealogies say so quite clearly.

'By nature' does not excuse the error. If that does make a difference, then explain:

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

This merely underlines my point. He COULD HAVE SINNED. Otherwise that highlighted bit is meaningless.

But if He could have sinned, then He could not be God. HIS NATURE WAS DIFFERENT TO GOD'S because God CANNOT SIN. And your statements about his 'nature' are incorrect.

He was a man - and still is. How many times does He call Himself 'Son of Man'? Do you want that list again to convince you?

I must admit a degree of logic in your statement above. The logical syllogism would go something like this........ If God cannot sin, and if Jesus could sin, then Jesus was not God.

I'm glad you've got this far. The logic is irrefutable.

Of course the logic fails at the point where you state Jesus could sin. Chapter and verse?

Heb. 4.15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

1 Pet.2.21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

All of which plainly indicate that He could have done so, had He chosen to do so.

And in that, there is our example. We can choose not to sin, as He did. We can choose not to lie, as He chose not to lie. And so on.

Note the word CHOSE. He had the option, but did not exercise it.

And please do not go shallow on me and quote Matthew were Satan tried to tempt Jesus. That would prove nothing. It just proves that Satan was mistaken in that he thought he could tempt Christ.

Why do you say he was mistaken? If he was this all-powerful evil angel who knows nearly everything, then surely he knew that Christ wasn't going to listen? BUT HE COULD HAVE LISTENED - but chose not to do so,. Again that nasty little word CHOSE. Implying that He could, but didn't.

Well, in my previous post on this thread I rebuked a fellow trinitarian for not being consistently trinitarian on the complete deity of Christ. I must admit that way too many people in our Churches clearly do not have the foggiest idea of what trinitarian doctrine is really about. Yes, we have a serious problem. On the other hand, this does not excuse you for misrepresenting trinitarian theology.

If you guys don't know what its all about, and haven't 'the foggiest notion', then how do you know that I'm misrepresenting the case?

I quoted the Athanasian creed which seems to be the biggie on this, and makes a whole deep mess of the whole thing. And it is a mess. So much in fact, that it took over 400 years to get sufficiently deep into it!

Those theologians didn't know what they were talking about, and I'm afraid that their descendants are in just as much of a fog as they were. I wouldn't be surprised if an awful lot of churchgoers don't or didn't just throw up their hands and walk off after reading that incredible stuff.

Sure, you can always go after the low hanging fruit. Jehovah Witnesses seem famous..... or infamous to me for going after those who are ignorant of the teachings of their Church.

But you've just admitted that 'many people' don't know what it's all about.

The JW's, to their credit, don't accept the doctrine of the trinity, but make a serious mistake about the pre-existence of Christ.

Randy is on the right lines, but errs where it comes to the business of the 'firstborn'-ship of Christ. I don't know if he has read what I wrote about it. Have you?

LBC:
I

n this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.
( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinth

It started off well, then deteriorated into this.

Pity.

 

[Asyncritus]

This allusion to Colossians 2:9 is really bad.
Col 2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
The passage simply speaks of the fulness of Christs deity. It would be good to talk about this more, but I have to go.

I don't understand why you guys don't just look up the way the word is used in the concordance. It would save you a lot of trouble and misunderstanding.

This is a classic case in point.

The word dwelleth is katoikew.

Where else is it used? Here is Jesus Himself using it:

Matt 23.21

21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth (katoikew) therein.

So here it refers to God dwelling in the temple.

Jesus spoke 'of the temple of His body' and Paul is saying that the' fulness of God' dwells in it, just as the glory of God dwelt in the temple.

Isn't it obvious that God and the temple are two different things?

This passage sheds some light on it too:

Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

The very fact that the word 'dwelleth in' is used, tells us that there is no trinitarian equality being spoken of. It is God's spirit dwelling in Christ - 'without measure' as John said: meaning, in 'fulness' ie without restriction.

So 'we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth'.

The literal Shekinah glory is replaced in Christ by the spiritual 'grace and truth'.

 

[mondar]

I don't understand why you guys don't just look up the way the word is used in the concordance. It would save you a lot of trouble and misunderstanding.

This is a classic case in point.

The word dwelleth is katoikew.

Where else is it used? Here is Jesus Himself using it:

Matt 23.21

21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth (katoikew) therein.

So here it refers to God dwelling in the temple.

Jesus spoke 'of the temple of His body' and Paul is saying that the' fulness of God' dwells in it, just as the glory of God dwelt in the temple.

Isn't it obvious that God and the temple are two different things?

This passage sheds some light on it too:

Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

The very fact that the word 'dwelleth in' is used, tells us that there is no trinitarian equality being spoken of. It is God's spirit dwelling in Christ - 'without measure' as John said: meaning, in 'fulness' ie without restriction.

So 'we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth'.

The literal Shekinah glory is replaced in Christ by the spiritual 'grace and truth'.

Asyncritus, your reply is not even beginning to scratch the surface of what Colossians 2:9 is all about. No trinitarian claims that the issue of the single word "Dwelleth" demonstrates the concept of the trinity. The concept of the absolute deity and equality with the Father in attributes is found the in phrase παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως
Let me post the verse. I can work in Greek, and I noticed you tried to use Greek.
9 οτι εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως

It is painfully obvious that the word " κατοικει" is used in a variety of contexts. It is not proper exegesis to assume because one context is using the word κατοικει to talk about God dwelling in the temple, that the word cannot be used in this context to refer to full and absolute deity dwelling in Jesus Christ. That would be very sloppy and incorrect exegesis. Also, the word "dwell" does not decide the issue of the trinity, but the object of the verb is where the trinitarian doctrine is found.

I need to stop and try to be graceous here. I recognize in your defense, I did not explain the verse last night in the previous post. I just threw the verse up unto the screen and then shut down the computer and went to bed last night. I would have added comments, but my computer was crashing and it was getting late for me, so I just quit without explaining how the verse relates to the trinitarian issue. First, I admit it is obvious that the three persons of the trinity are not mentioned in the verse. The verse does not speak to the full and complete deity of the Father, or the Holy Spirit. What the verse does, it express the absolute deity of Christ. That of course is something Arian or Jehovah Witness doctrine fails to do.

I am not going to discuss Matthew 23:21 because it is a dog trail leading away from what needs to be discussed. Yes, it is painfully obvious that God dwelt in the temple in that passage, but that is not how exegesis is done. Colossians 2:9 is not about the Temple, is it?

I hope we can agree that the term κατοικει is the verb, and simple means to dwell.

The trinitarian concern that I have relates to the phrase "παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος" (all the fulness of the Godhead).

Of course the phrase begins with the accusative case which is the case of the direct object of the verb. The phrase "παν το πληρωμα" does not just merely mention "the fulness" but it mentions "all" the fulness. There is no more fullness then what "dwelt" in Christ. You cannot get any more full.
The indirect object is found in the phrase της θεοτητος (the godhead). If you read greek you will recognize the article as the case for an indirect object. This would modify what is found in the concept of "all the fulness." It answers the question, "all the fulness of what." The key word is θεοτητος. Unfortunately, that word is rare in the New Testament. I do not have tools with me to know how many times it is found, but I believe this is the only use of that noun in the NT. It is the word "God head" and speaks of the nature and attributes of God.

So then, Jesus had "all" or every little bit of the "fulness" of all the attributes and nature of deity that compose the "Godhead." He was God of very God. He was absolute deity.

The most amazing thing that I rejoice at his the connection with the end of the verse. The very last word is σωματικως. Jesus was not only deity, he was not only fully and completely deity without any lesser attributes then the Father, but he was all that the Father was, but during his incarnation he was in bodily form. In other words, the verse is teaching that Jesus did not loose one iota of his deity when he entered bodily form. The fantastic and glorious truth is that Jesus never lost even one aspect of the nature he had in eternity past in his preincarnate state and nature.

Asyncritus, to draw doctrine from a passage, you must do much more then just look at one word, you look at all the words of the passage and also you look at the interrelationship of those words. What you did was not exegesis, but it was merely just a dash away from the context of Colossians 2:9. I cannot say I blame you for running from that context, words like "θεοτητος" (Godhead) pack a doctrinal punch. Christ was not only θεοτητος (God in his attributes) but he was "fullness" (πληρωμα) of God. He was not even merely just the fullness of the Godhead, but he was "all" (παν) the fulness of the Godhead.

And to God be all glory!!

 

[mondar]

There is a great deal wrong, in my view.
...................................................................................................
.....................................................................................

It started off well, then deteriorated into this.

Pity.

Asyncritus, I read the post you made. I am tempted to address it point by point and its many flaws, but your going all over the place in that post and getting quite passionate. It also takes too much space to reply. I wrote a reply but it exceeds the 10k character limit. So I am going to forgo replying. I will reply to what you say about Colossians 2:9.

 

[Gregg]

When the Son of God determined to pay the price for our sins and emptied Himself of His divine powers, it made Him no less the creator. I've bumped heads with you in the past I believe but you were not then and you are not now cute the way you corkscrew words, my friend.

Hello Taylor,

You mentioned above that the Son of God "emptied Himself of His divine powers," where Phi 2:7 just says that Jesus "emptied himself."

I am curious what leads you to think that Jesus emptied Himself of His 'divine powers.'

God bless you brother.