Proof of Trinity

[chessman]

As we know Christ, his love shows through in our character.

Ouch. Did u really have to say that? I was having such a good time

 

[chessman]

I have never claimed He was no longer the Son of God, being the second person in the God Head. I said He emptied Himself of His Divine power.

I was not really talking about (replying to) your pArticular post. More Outofsync's post.

I get what you said earlier and Mondar's reply to you. Which was gentle, yet corrective and as we can see, called for.

With all due respect, I assume you simply mis-spoke a little earlier and even here. For if Jesus "emptied himself of his divine power", you have no savior in Jesus (The Son).

 

[Chopper]

It seems, from Philippians Chapter two, that this important Chapter on the act of Jesus to become a servant, the focus of the Chapter is all about humility. In Verse 6 it says "Who though He was in the form of God" He made Himself "nothing". So being in the "form of God" tells me that all divinity was still in Him. The only thing that He gave up was His right standing as the King of Kings. In order to carry out the plan of the Trinity, it was necessary to take on a body and give up some information, not divinity.

 

[chessman]

In Verse 6 it says "Who though He was in the form of God" He made Himself "nothing". So being in the "form of God" tells me that all divinity was still in Him.

Can you imagine that? God (whether simply in His form of or both in His form and as this text says "equal to God", making Himself nothing and what's more, to die for OUR sins on a Roman cross? Now that's love! Praise God (Jesus) as all nations will eventually:

Psalm 117:1 Praise the LORD, all you nations; extol him, all you peoples.
2 For great is his love toward us, and the faithfulness of the LORD endures forever. Praise the LORD.

Rom 15:11 And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles; let all the peoples extol him."

12 And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope."

 

[Chopper]

Can you imagine that? God (whether simply in His form of or both in His form and as this text says "equal to God", making Himself nothing and what's more, to die for OUR sins on a Roman cross? Now that's love! Praise God (Jesus) as all nations will eventually:

Psalm 117:1 Praise the LORD, all you nations; extol him, all you peoples.
2 For great is his love toward us, and the faithfulness of the LORD endures forever. Praise the LORD.

Rom 15:11 And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles; let all the peoples extol him."

12 And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope."

Oh, I like your post Mr. Chessman! Praise the Lord indeed!

 

[Edward]

th1b.Taylor: 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.

Excellent point. Trying to understand the Spiritual realm from a carnal mindset is a waste of time. Too many other Christians responsibilities that we should be spending our time upon. All will be revealed one day, in the twinkling of an eye and then we will understand. We will understand, and we will see Him as He is, for we shall be like Him.

 

[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.

Well I don't think we are ever going to agree. We shall certainly see when we get to heaven.

I think you missed the point in the question. By the way God states He is Jesus's God and in Rev the risen Lord Jesus continues to call the Father His God. Which means the Father is Jesus's God. Jesus's uses truth. Jesus has always been the Son and its clear to me the Jesus who was occupied that human body - a body was prepared for Him. Jesus was not emptied of the Father . If you want to see Jesus as always being the Son yet one who has no beginning thats fine but I would state your mistaken.
The part of the question you miss or ignore. "MY SPIRIT" Jesus calls the Father the One true God . Jesus stated on the cross Father into your hands I commit "MY SPIRIT" how then do you believe in ONE God if your premise is Jesus has no beginning and has always been God?

Jesus stated before Abraham was born "I AM" which was a reply to the challenge from the Pharisees about knowing Abraham. Such a age statement is consistent with Gods firstborn (who would be a being) and was before the world began.

 

[Jesse Stone]

I read the Bible first, prior to reading any Christian literature. Starting at the beginning. Old Testament first. The first sentence presumes the existence of God. One knows right off the frame of reference. The Old Testament clearly presents a God of one person. Yet Christians interpret the New Testament as if it refers to a Trinity of persons in one God. Either the Old and New Testaments contradict one another - or - the idea of a God of three persons is an interpretation, and the New Testament references used to prove a Trinity can be understood in a way that they don't contradict what the Old Testament clearly says.

The Trinity is the primary essential doctrine of Christianity. The choice is simple. Believe it and be a Christian or don't believe it and be a non-Christian. Doesn't really matter whether or not I believe in the God (Old Testament) or the Son of God and his purpose on the earth (New Testament) of the Bible. I can't be a Christian because I think the idea of a God composed of three persons is just a theory, not a fact. Christians, like Evolutionists, think their theory is a fact.

I don't think Christians believe in the Bible. Not really. They believe in interpretations of the Bible. Christian denominations are based on different interpretations. Even their music is based on different interpretations for the most part. Sometimes interpretations of the Bible. Sometimes interpretations of interpretations of the Bible. The Trinity is one of their interpretations. An essential interpretation. Christians are strangely unified regarding the basics of the Trinity interpretation.

Christian denominations are like an exclusive club. One either goes along with the program and believes the interpretations (by-laws) or not be a member. The Bible is just a figurehead. The interpretations and their interpreters have the real authority. I've never been one to belong to exclusive clubs for long. They tend to think way too much of themselves. And that can feed the need for interpretations that solve all problems. Except the problem of exclusivity. That's solved by an action, closed communion or banning. An action based on interpretation. The necessity for such an action is another area that Christians are strangely unified about.

This post is not a rant. I hope it is received in the spirit given. It would be nice to read a profoundly useful response to the concerns presented above. For or against.

 

[Asyncritus]

Gregg and the other new guys:

Instead of standing round mutually back-slapping one another, how about facing up to the GREAT PROBLEM AND PRODUCING SOME KIND OF ANSWER?

The GREAT PROBLEM

God CANNOT sin.

Jesus COULD sin, but didn't.

God CANNOT be tempted with evil.

Jesus WAS TEMPTED in ALL POINTS like as we are, but did no sin.

Therefore , Jesus was NOT God, otherwise He did NOT conquer sin. There would have been no contest.

Therefore, His example was no example at all. His sacrifice was no sacrifice at all either.

He NEVER claimed to be God, but instead said many times, that He was the Son of MAN, and the Son of God - facts which we all know very well.

He did say I and my Father are one - but then He added, regarding His disciples, 'that they may be one EVEN AS we are one. The disciples were not God either. He further stated that His Father was greater than Himself.

So how about an explanation, guys. No matter how lame. I've been waiting for a long time now,.

Do I wait in vain?

 

[Asyncritus]

I read the Bible first, prior to reading any Christian literature.

Good on you pal. I never even bother reading christian literature. It can only corrupt.

Starting at the beginning. Old Testament first. The first sentence presumes the existence of God. One knows right off the frame of reference. The Old Testament clearly presents a God of one person.

How true!

Yet Christians interpret the New Testament as if it refers to a Trinity of persons in one God. Either the Old and New Testaments contradict one another - or - the idea of a God of three persons is an interpretation, and the New Testament references used to prove a Trinity can be understood in a way that they don't contradict what the Old Testament clearly says.

Again, how true!

And it is our duty to clear up the apparent contradictions - which, to be truthful, are not that many.

As I just pointed out to Mondar, the word 'Godhead' does not occur anywhere in the OT - and is therefore a foreign concept, which really ought not to be in this discussion, but in a discussion of philology or etymology.

But that was a very sensible post.

 

[chessman]

, how about facing up to the GREAT PROBLEM AND PRODUCING SOME KIND OF ANSWER?

The GREAT PROBLEM

God CANNOT sin.

Jesus COULD sin, but didn't.

God CANNOT be tempted with evil.

Jesus WAS TEMPTED in ALL POINTS like as we are, but did no sin.

Therefore , Jesus was NOT God,

Jesus could NOT sin, AND PROVED THAT HE didn't.
'Great' problem solved.

 

[chessman]

...that there is One God, and that He has no equals.
Trinitarians say the exact opposite.

It's clear that you don't understand very much at all about the Trinity (or either you do and are continuing to misrepresent Trinitarian doctrine intentionally).

You either understand what Trinitarians believe and disagree with them and want to make arguments against it (which is fine), or you don’t understand the Trinity. But it’s not very convincing to anyone to obviously misrepresent what Trinitarians believe. Furthermore, if you don't understand the Trinity and are closed minded about learning the Trinity through Scriptures you've been shown being correct, which is what you have said previously, then why spend time on this.

I know a lot of Trinitarians (am one) but I don’t know any that think there are multiple Gods nor any that think God has other equals. Yet you are saying that’s a Trinitarian view. No wonder you don’t like it, you don’t understand it.

...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.

Or the LEX: 15 For we do not have a high priest who is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but who has been tempted in all things in the same way, without sin.

1. You might notice that the text specifically says that the weaknesses (i.e. the infirmities) are ours, not Jesus’. Which is rather odd if this writer thought Jesus was just another human creature that was like us and could sin (only older or had a better prayer life or something). Why even say what this verse says, if Jesus was capable of sinning and this author thought He was? The text doesn't support a premise that Jesus was capable of sin. Nor any other text.

2. And to be “touched with feelings” (i.e. to sympathize) with these weaknesses is not the same thing as actually having the capability/weakness.

3. To illustrate: Let’s just say I am married man that had never committed adultery against my wife (which I am). Let’s further assume that I had some kind of condition that prevented me from… umm “committing adultery” (which I don’t). I would know what that sin was, could sympathize, yet not even have the capacity to do it. Yet my wife committed adultery against me (which she hasn’t, but let’s just assume she did). You think I might be able to sympathize with her adultery more or less having been married for 22 years? Would I be able to say “I sympathize with you dear” (yet still be pissed) if I’d been a bachelor my whole life? No. Not really as much as having been married.

Within my illustration above, there’s zero evidence that I could have committed adultery for remember, I have this hypothetical condition that literally prevents me from being able to commit adultery. Yet, adultery would still “touch my feelings”. I could sympathize with “adultery” way better by actually having been married.

4. If you think the author of Hebrews thought Jesus was not God, you’ve not read/understood Heb 1:8

5. On the other hand, If you think the author of Hebrews thought Jesus was The Father, then you’ve also not read or understood Heb 1:4

6. If you think God is just like a big old man in the sky because Heb 1:1 says “God spoke” (i.e. God has a mouth and vocal cords) then you’re just not being very serious.

7. If you think God is a big old man in the sky and bred “a Son” via sex (after or before Adam was created) because passages refer to Jesus as “a Son”, “my son”, “The Son”, etc. then you’re just being silly and you'll convience no one that you're right.

Hebrews 1:8 but concerning the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of righteous is the scepter of your kingdom.

 

[chessman]

Instead of standing round mutually back-slapping one another,

How true!

Good on you pal.

Again, how true!

But that was a very sensible post.

 

[Asyncritus]

Jesus could NOT sin, AND PROVED THAT HE didn't.
'Great' problem solved.

You missed the bit about being tempted. Why is that?

I wonder if I'm not making myself clear about this very simple point.

If Jesus COULDN'T sin, then the fact that He didn't proves nothing at all.

A statue can't sin - does that make it any better than us? Of course not. It's no example at all.

If Jesus couldn't sin, then His example is worthless. It's not an example at all, is it?

Then He wasn't tempted - He couldn't be. So we have two gospels lying to us about His experiences in the wilderness, and after He emerged from it.

But we all know that He conquered sin, and crucified it on the cross.

(Heb. 2: 14) He took part of the same nature as we have :

which is temptable, sin-prone and erring. As far removed from God's nature as it is possible to be.

Therefore, He was NOT God for the reasons stated above.

The nature we have is diametrically opposed to the divine nature. James keeps telling us that:

"God cannot be be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.

But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed..."

Remember?

 

[Randy]

Jesus could NOT sin, AND PROVED THAT HE didn't.
'Great' problem solved.

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.

Welcome to the club!

kidding.

Randy

 

[Asyncritus]

It's clear that you don't understand very much at all about the Trinity (or either you do and are continuing to misrepresent Trinitarian doctrine intentionally).

Do you want me to quote the creeds to you, or have you read them?

You either understand what Trinitarians believe and disagree with them and want to make arguments against it (which is fine), or you don’t understand the Trinity. But it’s not very convincing to anyone to obviously misrepresent what Trinitarians believe.

Do you want me to quote the creeds to you, to show that I do understand what they are saying?

Furthermore, if you don't understand the Trinity and are closed minded about learning the Trinity through Scriptures you've been shown being correct, which is what you have said previously, then why spend time on this.

The whole of scripture is unanimous in declaring that there is One God, and that Jesus is His Son, our Lord.

It took 400 years for the theologians to make a complete mess of that simple statement. Is it any wonder nobody with any sense wants to listen to them? And is it any wonder that the whole thing is so incomprehensible to anybody with a bit of common sense?

How do I know? Even the most stalwart defenders here admit that it is incomprehensible, and that 'many believers' haven't a clue about what it's all about? We have many such statements in this very thread, and good examples of people ducking out of trying to explain the great problem, including yourself.

I know a lot of Trinitarians (am one) but I don’t know any that think there are multiple Gods nor any that think God has other equals. Yet you are saying that’s a Trinitarian view. No wonder you don’t like it, you don’t understand it.

If we have this: (London Baptist Creed), can you explain how this differs from the three gods idea:

3._____ In 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.

Sure they duck the consequences of their peculiar illogic, but if there are three, all equally eternal, all co-equal, all equally powerful etc etc, then how does this differ from there being 3 gods of equal power and might?

Or the LEX: 15 For we do not have a high priest who is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but who has been tempted in all things in the same way, without sin.

1. You might notice that the text specifically says that the weaknesses (i.e. the infirmities) are ours, not Jesus’.

It is perfectly plain that he is saying that Jesus could sympathise BECAUSE he suffered the same things.

It's a pity he uses the double negative - but the clear sense of it is that He IS ABLE to sympathise BECAUSE He was tempted exactly as we are: ie. with the possibility of sinning.

Which is rather odd if this writer thought Jesus was just another human creature that was like us and could sin (only older or had a better prayer life or something). Why even say what this verse says, if Jesus was capable of sinning and this author thought He was? The text doesn't support a premise that Jesus was capable of sin. Nor any other text.

You're not reading carefully enough. He was tempted IN ALL THINGS like we are, but WITHOUT SIN.

WHEN YOU ARE TEMPTED, ISN'T THERE THE DISTINCT LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SIN?

Therefore, if Jesus was tempted in all points/ in every way like you are, then isn't there the distinct likelihood that He could have sinned? You know that's the truth - but you don't like it.

2. And to be “touched with feelings” (i.e. to sympathize) with these weaknesses is not the same thing as actually having the capability/weakness.

He is saying that if you suffer the same things as someone else, you can sympathise with them. It's very simple, and I don't know why you're making such a mess of its simplicity.

4. If you think the author of Hebrews thought Jesus was not God, you’ve not read/understood Heb 1:8

You are in the unfortunate position of not having read and understood Psalm 40 which is being quoted here - and there is a huge fly in your ointment which Jesus Himself resolves.

8 But as to the Son, He says to Him, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (to the ages of the ages), and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of absolute righteousness (of justice and straightforwardness).

We have the Father, calling Jesus "O God".. How can Jesus possibly be the Father's God? It is all explained perfectly simply in John 10:

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

A person in high authority can be, and is called God in the OT. It is referring to the judges of the land, who stood in the place of God. That is Jesus position, and is why He is called God here, and the Father is giving Him that title.

5. On the other hand, If you think the author of Hebrews thought Jesus was The Father, then you’ve also not read or understood Heb 1:4

I most certainly don't think so, trust me.

6. If you think God is just like a big old man in the sky because Heb 1:1 says “God spoke” (i.e. God has a mouth and vocal cords) then you’re just not being very serious.

Please get serious. But how do you know He doesn't when He says so so many times?

7. If you think God is a big old man in the sky and bred “a Son” via sex (after or before Adam was created) because passages refer to Jesus as “a Son”, “my son”, “The Son”, etc. then you’re just being silly and you'll convience no one that you're right.

This is utter nonsense, and you know it.

But you still have the problem of the 'firstborn' not having a mother, or even being born!!!! Get round that if you can!

Not to mention the little problem that at the time Psa. 89.28 was written, Jesus was NOT the firstborn, and in fact calls on His Father, His God, and the rock of His salvation!

26 He shall cry to Me, You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation!
27 Also I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

It's clear that He WASN'T he firstborn at the time of writing the Psalm. So how do you reconcile that little problem, I wonder?

But I missed your explanation of how Jesus could be tempted (see Mt 4, Lk 4, Heb 4 as examples of this happening), when God cannot be tempted with evil. James said so, above.

 

[chessman]

If Jesus COULDN'T sin, then the fact that He didn't proves nothing at all.

A statue can't sin -
.

1. first, If Jesus couldn't sin, then the logical 'argument' you posted from the internet falls apart.

2. If Jesus couldn't sin, yet He ate, breathed, bleed, died and oh yes, raised Himself from death proves He's God.

3. We're not talking about a statue.

So we have two gospels lying to us about His experiences in the wilderness, and after He emerged from it.

The Gospel is not about His experience in the wilderness.

Why do you capitalize "His" and "He" above?

 

[Randy]

Do you want me to quote the creeds to you, or have you read them?


Do you want me to quote the creeds to you, to show that I do understand what they are saying?


The whole of scripture is unanimous in declaring that there is One God, and that Jesus is His Son, our Lord.

It took 400 years for the theologians to make a complete mess of that simple statement. Is it any wonder nobody with any sense wants to listen to them? And is it any wonder that the whole thing is so incomprehensible to anybody with a bit of common sense?

How do I know? Even the most stalwart defenders here admit that it is incomprehensible, and that 'many believers' haven't a clue about what it's all about? We have many such statements in this very thread, and good examples of people ducking out of trying to explain the great problem, including yourself.



If we have this: (London Baptist Creed), can you explain how this differs from the three gods idea:



Sure they duck the consequences of their peculiar illogic, but if there are three, all equally eternal, all co-equal, all equally powerful etc etc, then how does this differ from there being 3 gods of equal power and might?

Or the LEX: 15 For we do not have a high priest who is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but who has been tempted in all things in the same way, without sin.



It is perfectly plain that he is saying that Jesus could sympathise BECAUSE he suffered the same things.

It's a pity he uses the double negative - but the clear sense of it is that He IS ABLE to sympathise BECAUSE He was tempted exactly as we are: ie. with the possibility of sinning.



You're not reading carefully enough. He was tempted IN ALL THINGS like we are, but WITHOUT SIN.

WHEN YOU ARE TEMPTED, ISN'T THERE THE DISTINCT LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SIN?

Therefore, if Jesus was tempted in all points/ in every way like you are, then isn't there the distinct likelihood that He could have sinned? You know that's the truth - but you don't like it.


He is saying that if you suffer the same things as someone else, you can sympathise with them. It's very simple, and I don't know why you're making such a mess of its simplicity.



You are in the unfortunate position of not having read and understood Psalm 40 which is being quoted here - and there is a huge fly in your ointment which Jesus Himself resolves.

8 But as to the Son, He says to Him, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (to the ages of the ages), and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of absolute righteousness (of justice and straightforwardness).

We have the Father, calling Jesus "O God".. How can Jesus possibly be the Father's God? It is all explained perfectly simply in John 10:

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

A person in high authority can be, and is called God in the OT. It is referring to the judges of the land, who stood in the place of God. That is Jesus position, and is why He is called God here, and the Father is giving Him that title.



I most certainly don't think so, trust me.


Please get serious. But how do you know He doesn't when He says so so many times?


This is utter nonsense, and you know it.

But you still have the problem of the 'firstborn' not having a mother, or even being born!!!! Get round that if you can!

Not to mention the little problem that at the time Psa. 89.28 was written, Jesus was NOT the firstborn, and in fact calls on His Father, His God, and the rock of His salvation!

26 He shall cry to Me, You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation!
27 Also I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

It's clear that He WASN'T he firstborn at the time of writing the Psalm. So how do you reconcile that little problem, I wonder?

But I missed your explanation of how Jesus could be tempted (see Mt 4, Lk 4, Heb 4 as examples of this happening), when God cannot be tempted with evil. James said so, above.

I also first-born do appoint him, Highest of the kings of the earth.

I would suggest to you God appointed His Firstborn to the line of David.

Randy

 

[Randy]

1. first, If Jesus couldn't sin, then the logical 'argument' you posted from the internet falls apart.

2. If Jesus couldn't sin, yet He ate, breathed, bleed, died and oh yes, raised Himself from death proves He's God.

3. We're not talking about a statue.



The Gospel is not about His experience in the wilderness.

Why do you capitalize "His" and "He" above?

The fact that Jesus didn't sin suggests to me that He wasn't a slave to sin not that He was incapable of sin but Jesus chose NOT to sin. Like in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus the Son, had His own will but submitted to the Fathers will out of love. Jesus taught that He remained in the Fathers love because He always did what pleased the Father. (Fathers Will)

Randy

 

[chessman]

Do you want me to quote the creeds to you, or have you read them?
.

No I don't want you to quote the creeds to me.

Yes, I've read some of them.

Do you want me to quote the creeds to you, to show that I do understand what they are saying?
.

No. But it would be helpful if you didn't say you don't read them, then turn right around and say you have.

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.

or

I never even bother reading christian literature. It can only corrupt.

We have many such statements in this very thread, and good examples of people ducking out of trying to explain the great problem, including yourself.
.

Excuse me but I'm not ducking your 'great' problem. I'm telling you that your premise 2 is false. As plain as I know how. Jesus could not sin. Yet you say He could without Scripture that says so.

If you cannot even understand that, and say I'm ducking your 'great problem' then once again you are just misrepresenting people.