A terrific TRINITY Scripture passage

[teddy trueblood]

Free wrote:

“Unless you have been formally trained in Greek, your understanding of it is useless and will not be accepted if you do not consult theologians.â€

Ted:

Does that apply to your definition for en (‘in’)
and hn (‘was’) which theologians define differently (Q&A Forum - ‘Can
3 Persons Be One God?’)?

And considering John 1 (for future reference), do you agree with the following theologians concerning theos/elohim (a god/gods)?

…. [excerpt below]:



The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97:7...â€

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.†- Vol. 3, p. 187.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
explains that elohim [‘god, gods’] is, of course, applied to God. But it is also applied “to those who represent the Deity (Jgs 5 8; Ps 82 1) ...†- p.

1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.

[and much more] ….

………………………………..

I do respect your acceptance of these many theologians’ explanation of “god†and “gods†being used for representatives of God.


However, what about my first, emphasized question above concerning your definition versus that of many respected theologians which has been shown to you several times now?

 

[Asyncritus]

Is there a point in this somewhere? Yes, theos is used in different ways. However, John's point is abundantly clear that the Word, the Christ, is very much God in nature, equal to the Father but not the Father. There is only one true, living God; only ever has been one and only ever will be one.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Note the present tense, and the emphatically stated human nature of the resurrectedChrist.

The word 'equal' is being abused here, I think.

Equality, to my mind, suggests that if Jesus decides to set up on His own, then there's not a lot the Father can do about it, since they are 'equal'.

Which smacks dangerously of bi-theism, instead of monotheism. But that is in flat contradiction to 1 Ti. 2.5, with its loud echo of Deut 6.4 : There is ONE God.

So where are you going with this 'equality' thing Free? Bi- theism? Polytheism? What?

It's no good saying 'there are two equal beings' who really aren't two, but one. And not really one but two. That's just casuistry.

And, of course,if we add the Holy Spirit into the mix, we've now got 3: so we have 3 equal beings, who really aren't three, but one, and not really one but three!

Or was it 2 that's three? Or three that's 2, or one, or....

If that isn't confusion twice (or is it thrice? or once?) confounded, I don't know what is.

Where does it all end, Free? How many are you prepared to admit into the 'god-head'? Are we included too? You know: 'that they may be one in us' (Jn 17).

And if we are, isn't that polytheism many times over?

There's theologians for you! Why not stick to scripture alone? Much simpler!

But I have to tell you, I despair. :bigcry

 

[Former Christian]

Free

I was going to give you and Francisdesales a response concerning my view of Relativism. But in view of what has happened, I no longer think it’s safe to do so.



Asyncritus

One thing that I despair of is how few in Christianity can tell the difference between what the Biblical writers actually said, and an interpretation of what they said. The practice of interpretation in relation to the Bible implies only one thing. That those who practice interpretation believe consciously or unconsciously that the Bible was written by men now dead and unable to give the correct understanding themselves. Which in turn implies that they don’t actually believe that the Bible is related to a Supreme Being at all. Even though many interpreters claim the help of the Holy Spirit in their formulations of their interpretations.

And here’s something I don’t understand. Why the Laws of this Forum use the term Biblical and historical Christianity, that the Catholics believe applies to themselves more than to anyone else, when Protestant Christianity would serve better without any confusion as to what is meant.

TheLords gave an answer to the question I posed concerning the person of Jehovah. Jehovah of the Old Testament is Jesus. Would you care to comment on that?

FC

 

[John Zain]

We as humans are capable of nothing more than subjective determination based on
whatever facts we can gather and understand.
And how we put the facts together is the truth as best we can determine and understand it.
Since we’re all different in all kinds of different ways, the truths we believe are different.
To think that we can know objective truth is sheer arrogance on our part.

This is excellent ... It has to do with man's ridiculous opinions (however derived).
Spiritual Truth cannot come from ANY intelligence, education, logic, reasoning, etc.

What I've been saying is this: One needs a stable reference point that can be trusted.
If one has none, then it's all downhill ... trusting in one's derived opinions.
And that is totally ludicrous ... when it comes to spiritual things.

My stable foundation is the Bible (errors and all).
And God honors that.
After all, it's all we have of what He has inspired His chosen ones to write.

Believe me or not, God honors todays Bibles, and He honors those who honor them.
It's all we have of Him, except for when He speaks to us.
And the point is ... God just cannot speak to us hundreds of pages of information.
It's just too much, isn't it?
So, what we have of Him is just that ... what we have of Him.

Believe it, or believe it not.

 

[francisdesales]

The fact that you believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church is based on a subjective decision.

Truth doesn't depend upon your opinion or my opinion. Relativism is a philosophy. IT is not empirically scientific - it is based upon YOUR OPINION that no one can have "objective truth", which, of course, is contradictory - making an objective claim that there is no truth - that is an objective claim...

Relativism bows at the altar of egoism, it's "god" being "tolerance", which, ironically, is INTOLERANT of any claim of knowing an objective truth. It is a good fit for the secular individualism and hedonism that exists in Western culture today. It is the "excuse" for the lifestyle that some people live.

Sorry if I am being politically incorrect, but I am not a relativist, so being truthful is more important to me than not hurting someone's ego...

Regards

 

[Asyncritus]

FC

Be glad to. Now if I can only upload it...

FC

Always happy to oblige,

.:IS THE TRINITY A BIBLICAL CONCEPT?


In the Scriptures, we read that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:21-23; 46:9), and yet the Father is called “God†at 1 Peter 1:2, the Son is called “God†at John 20:28, and the Holy Spirit is called “God†at Acts 5:3-4.

The Angels are called God.

Ex 3.2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
[...]
4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Ex 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Men are called God.

Ps 82.6 ¶ I said, Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.


Idols are called God.

1 Cor 8.5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many;

Whether that lot is to be included in the trinity, I wouldn't care to say. Augustine and Athanasius may have had something to say about it, if they knew about it that is.

The Scriptures also reveal that each member of the Trinity has the attributes of Deity and performs activities that only God can perform.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit....â€â€”Matthew 28:19​

Notice that the word “name†is singular (not plural i.e., “namesâ€). Also, the definite article “the†is placed in front of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, thus implying plurality within unity.

It completely defeats me as to why something as simple as this is overlaid with such complexities.

I arrest you 'In the name of', as I have pointed out before, simply means 'by the authority vested in me by the king and queen of this country.

An ambassador speaks in the name of his country, but cannot be regarded as embodying the whole country, any more than he is the whole 10 million or so people in that country.

In this case, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together because it means : We baptise you for the remission of your sins by the authority given us by the Father who raised His Son from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit, by which action our sins are forgiven.

The Trinity is not Modalism—the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one person; nor is it Tritheism—the view that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods. Although the Trinity cannot be totally comprehended, it can be apprehended and seen illustrated in the world of nature.

This, to me is confusion twice or thrice confounded. Whether casuistry is a fair description for an attempt to make the impossible seem possible, I can't say.

Take, for example, an illustration involving three candles. Even after lighting each candle, they are still separate and distinct. However, when one combines each of the three flames together, they become one flame.

Such illustrations are invariably suspect, and cannot be located anywhere in scripture. God never said anything of the sort about Himself, and Jesus didn't either.

So I pass on that one.

Nor do I find any such mathematical representations in scripture:

“God is not triplex (1+1+1)—He is triune (1X1X1), and he has revealed Himself fully in the Person of our Lord, Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9, John 14:9).â€

I may quote Sir Isaac Newton on the subject, as we're on methematicians, and he was by far the greatest who ever lived:
...he explicitly declares only the Father to be supreme; the Son is a separate being, different from the Father both in substance and in nature; Christ is not truly God but is the so-called Word and Wisdom made flesh, divine to be sure, but only so far as divinity is communicated by the Father.


Wtih regard to the Holy Spirit, I believe it to be the power of God, which is personified, so I have no real objections to what follows.

IS THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON?
​

• He testifies about Christ (John 15:26).
• He intercedes for believers (Romans 8:26).
• He teaches believers (John 14:26; Revelation 2:7; 1 Timothy 4:1).
• He has a “will†and issues commands (1 Cor. 12:11; Acts 8:29; 13:2-4; 16:6).
• He guides believers (John 16:13; Romans 8:14).
• He has a “mind†and “searches all things†of God (Romans 8:27; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11).
• He has emotions and can “grieve†(Ephesians 4:30; Isaiah 63:10).
• He is treated as a person and can be lied to (Acts 5:3), blasphemed (Matthew 12:31), and tempted (Acts 5:9). How can an “impersonal force†do things that only a person can do?

The following section requires some close attention.

THE JEHOVAH WHO WAS SEEN BY OLD TESTAMENT BELIEVERS IS JESUS.​

• “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.†—John 1:18

This is axiomatic, and perfectly correct.

• “In the year King Uzziah’s death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted...Woe is me, for I am ruined!...For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.†—Isaiah 6:1, 5

If no man has seen God at any time, then Isaiah did not see God Himself. He saw a Representative of His, as did Jacob.

As Teddy had listed, and I did some time before, any properly appointed representative of God is, and can be called 'God'.

I'm not quite clear why the following is relevant:

“...yet they were not believing in Him; that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled....These things Isaiah said, because he saw His glory, and spoke of Him. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him....†—John 12:37, 41-42

Isaiah saw many things concerning Jesus, and John here gives us a selection of the relevant passages.

38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? That's ch 53, the prophecy about His death.

40 He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them.

This is another prophecy which Jesus was fulfilling.

41 These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.

This may be a reference to:

3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

I hope that theLords isn't attempting to say that Jesus is the Lord of hosts? Because the 'whole earth is full of his glory' is a direct reference to the time which is coming when:

Hab 2.14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea

and that time will be when Jesus is enthroned as King in Jerusalem, and has extended His dominion 'from sea to sea, and from the River unto the ends of the earth'.

And all that, says John, will take place despite the fact that they were going to murder Him.

 

[Asyncritus]

Reply to FC

“He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’?†—John 14:9

Given the first quotation made by theLords, I really think that this one is quite a stretch.

If no man has ever seen the Father, then it is very obvious, is it not, that Jesus isn't the Father?

So what did He mean?

Simply:

1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth,

the same who is described as:

3 ... being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance...

Oh yes, they had seen the Father all right!

I have addressed the question of 'all things' in another thread which I have just started, where I show that the expression 'all things' has specific reference to the church.

THE JEHOVAH WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE “ALL ALONE†IS THE JESUS WHO CREATED EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.​

• “I the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone.â€â€”Isaiah 44:24

• “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.†—John 1:3

IS JESUS YOUR “ONLY LORDâ€?​

• “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.†—John 17:3

If Jesus is not the “only true God...â€

He makes no such claim, because you missed the 'AND' in that verse!

“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him....For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.†—Colossians 1:19; 2:9

The word 'fulness' refers to riches, richness, thus:

Nu 18:27 And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshingfloor, and as the fulness of the winepress.

The beauty of what Paul says is most clearly seen in the blessings pronounced upon the man who is the most marvellous type of the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament: Joseph.

Moses pronounces blessings upon him in a way that is so wonderfully prophetic of the blessing that would come upon Jesus that it almost beggars description, and elucidates the meaning of 'fulness' in staggering fashion.

The fundamental meaning of the word is 'riches, richness, excellence, wealth' and related words:

13 And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath,
14 And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,
15 And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills,
16 And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren.
17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Paul also says that we too shall be filled with the fulness of God. Does that make us members of the trinity too? I doubt it somehow:

Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Meaning, of course, that all the blessings that God has to give, will come upon us because we know the love of Christ.

And now, she falls upon her own sword.

I have presented the following verses to Drew and Free, because here is the Almighty declaring that He has no equal. Where is there a trinity here?

• “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me....I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.†—Isaiah 46:9; 48:12

• “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.†— 1 Timothy 1:17

Curiously, she has missed the context of this verse:

• “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.†—John 14:14

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

As always, Jesus is ensuring that His Father gets the glory that is due to Him alone, and to Him first. No trinity here!

Conclusion

Some time ago, I put up a list of 79 or so verses in John's gospel alone which state either directly or by implication that Jesus is dependent on, subject to, copying, speaking only what God told Him to say and so forth.

Would you like me to re-post it? It is quite a serious collection, and seeing those passages in one place conveys major impact.

 

[theLords]

The Angels are called God.

You should be careful with this. The theologians of the Jehovah's Witnesses came up with this doctrine! :o Not theologians! And, here I thought you were "above" all that. And that God was a Jealous God.

I'm not a trinitarian, but your mental gymnastics are amusing. ;)

Wtih regard to the Holy Spirit, I believe it to be the power of God, which is personified, so I have no real objections to what follows.

So, you're a binitarian? You only believe in 2/3rds of the Trinity? Or are you a polytheist (like the Mormons)?

 

[teddy trueblood]

TheLords posted:

Originally Posted by Asyncritus


The Angels are called God.

You should be careful with this. The theologians of the Jehovah's Witnesses
came up with this doctrine!

As clearly shown in post #136 and repeated in #140 this knowledge has been propounded from the early Christian Fathers, the Catholic Fathers, and trinitarian scholars through the centuries. The lengthy list of noted scholarly sources given is mostly (if not all) of trinitarian theologians.

I came here to discuss "who is God" - nothing else. Can we get back to the topic instead of personal/church attack?

 

[theLords]

TheLords posted:





As clearly shown in post #136 and repeated in #140 this knowledge has been propounded from the early Christian Fathers, the Catholic Fathers, and trinitarian scholars through the centuries. The lengthy list of noted scholarly sources given is mostly (if not all) of trinitarian theologians.

I came here to discuss "who is God" - nothing else. Can we get back to the topic instead of personal/church attack?

What attack? I was not addressing you, nor was I "discussing" anything with you, was I? The point, which you proved, is that Asyncritusios is using THEOLOGIANS to get his ideas and understanding from. Something that he explicitly condemns others for doing.

So, anyway, back on topic:

 

[theLords]

It is not surprising that virtually every non-Christian cult and world religion rejects and denies the doctrine of the Trinity. Mainly due to a misapprehension along with a strain of misunderstandings of the doctrine itself. Hence, the objections asserted by the JWs are based not on sound biblical grounds but rather on their prior theological commitment- that Jesus is not God. Whereas Christians believe, Jesus is fully God and that God is Tri-Personal, solely on the basis of Scripture. In discussing the Trinity with the JWs, the major problem that precludes most Christians from gaining biblical ground, is commonly known as the: language barrier. In other words, distinct Christian terms that are used so freely by Christians are also used by JWs but in a completely difference sense.
Therefore, you must define your terms first. If terms are not defined in their proper context, then equivocation will preclude your gospel presentation. You will be speaking the same words but applying different meanings.
So, when addressing the doctrine of the Trinity, remember: DEFINE YOUR TERMS FIRST. In other words, before you even get to the passages in Scripture your first question to the JWs should be: "How do you understand the doctrine of the Trinity?" Then, depending on how they answer, proceed to explain biblically the correct definition.

Note: As with all religious groups that are “unitarian†in their theology (i.e., maintaining that God exists as one Person), JWs reject the Trinity chiefly on the basis of their false notion as to what the doctrine actually teaches. As with Oneness Pentecostals and Muslims, JWs see the Trinity as teaching three separate Gods. Thus, because of their misrepresentation of the doctrine (i.e., Jehovah existing as one Person), JWs naturally reject the deity of Jesus Christ falsely concluding if Jesus were God, then, there would be more than one God.

​

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY PLAINLY STATED​

There are three premises that demonstrate the biblical data for the Trinity:
· Premise one: There is one true eternal God.
· Premise two: There are three Persons that are called God/Yahweh and presented ontologically (by nature) as God/Yahweh.
· Premise three: The three Persons are presented as personally distinct from each other.
· Conclusion: The three distinct, self-aware Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--share the nature or essence of the one God: Trinity.
The three *distinct* Persons are coequal, coeternal, and coexistent.

PREMISE ONE:
There exists one eternal God (ontologically: i.e., innature cf. Gal. 4:8).

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one (Deut. 6:4)
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of host; "I am the first, I am the last; and beside me there is no God. . . ." "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know of not any (Isa. 44:6, 8; emphasis added)
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
"I, the LORD, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone (Isa. 44:24; emphasis added)


PREMISE TWO:
Scripture presents three DISTINCT Persons or Selves (not "people"1), the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, that are God ontologically (by nature) and are called "God" or Yahweh.

The Father is God​

See the salutations to the Epistles of Paul: "Grace and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (e.g., Rom. 1:7; Gal. 1:1). The Jehovah's Witnesses do not argue this point. Although they will make a distinction: God the Father is "Almighty" and Jesus is only "mighty" or "a god." However, by asserting, that Jesus is "a god" or "mighty" but not "Almighty" completely ignores the fact that the Jew's were strict monotheist: The belief in one true God. They did not accept the idea of two true Gods: a big Almighty and a little "g" god. This was a pagan concept, not Christian.2
That the term "mighty God" (Heb. El gibbor) as in Isaiah 9:6, was a reoccurring title for Jehovah in Old Testament is not considered by the JWs (e.g., Deut. 10:17; Ps. 24:8; Jer. 32:18; cf. Heb. text). In fact, even their own Bible (i.e., The New World Translation) Jehovah is called "mighty God" (Isa. 10:21; Jer. 32:18).
When citing Isaiah 9:6: "His [Messiah] will be called mighty God. . . ." the JWs cry out: "Jesus is mighty but not the Almighty." However and completely missed by the JWs, is that the term, "mighty" (as in mighty God) is an adjective, as with El "shaddai" that can only denote the true "God" ( El). Hence, the Hebrew term El (in contrast with Elohim; being in the plural) was a term reserved for Jehovah ALONE. Neither mighty men or angels were called El in the the Old Testament. Again, the Jews were monotheist they would not have put-up with such an utterly pagan concept as two true Gods: a big God and a little god, as the JWs teach, that belief is polytheism not monotheism.

​

​

Jesus IS and is called “The God†(o qeoj, ho theos):​

John 1:1: Jesus is the Eternal God distinct from the God Father:
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (theos en ho logos, "God was the Word").

John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus (direct address): ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou, lit. “the Lord of me and the God of me†(see the WT’s own Greek interlinear called: The Kingdom Interlinear Translation)3.

Philippians 2:6:
Who, although He [always] existed [huparchōn] in the form ["nature" cf. NIV] [morphē] of God,4 did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form [morphē] of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in the appearance of a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. . . . so at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW. . . and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father " (emphasis added).

Colossians 2:9:
For in Him all the fullness of Deity [theotētos] dwells in human flesh."

Titus 2:13: “The great God and Saviorâ€: tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Christou Iēsou, lit. “the great God and Savior of us Christ Jesus.†Note: in 2 Peter 1:1 is the same grammatical construction (i.e., article-noun-kai-noun): tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou, lit. “the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; see Gk.).

Hebrews 1:8: “But of the Son He [the Father] says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER. . . .†(ho thronos sou ho theos, lit.“the throne of thee the God. . . .â€). Go here for an exegetical look at Hebrews 1:8.

 

[theLords]

Jesus Christ: The Eternal Egw Eimi, egō eimi ("I AM")

John 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 13:19 (cf. Isa. 43:10; LXX); 18:5; 18:6; and 18:8.​

​

In the NT (primarily in John’s gospel), Jesus made seven (possibly eight, cf. Mark 6:50) “absolute†(i.e., no supplied predicate) egō eimi (“I AMâ€) declarations: John 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 13:19; 18:5; 18:6; and 18:8. When Jesus claimed to be the egō eimi, He was essentially claiming that He was Yahweh. Hence, the Jews wanted to stone Him for blasphemy (cf. John 8:58-59).

The Hebrew phrase ani hu, which was translated egō eimi in the Septuagint (i.e., the Gk. version of the OT, hereafter LXX), was an exclusive and recurring title for Yahweh (e.g., Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4). Thus, salvation is conditioned [“unlessâ€] on believing that the Person of Jesus Christ the Son (cf. John 8:16-18) is the eternal God.

*Why is it important to know and teach that Jesus IS God?: Besides that of John 4:24; 17:3 and 1 John 2:23, Jesus declares in John 8:24:

“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM He [egō eimi], you will die in your sins†(note: “He†is not in the Gk. for more details see: Jesus Christ- The Eternal, ego eimi, "I AM").

The full force of Jesus’ assertion is striking: ean gar mē pisteusēte hoti egō eimi apothaneisthe en tais hamartiais humōn (lit. “For if you should not believe that I AM [egō eimi] you will perish in your sinsâ€). He did not say, “If you do not believe that “I am He†or “I am the one I claimed to be†as most translations read (i.e., there is no supplied predicate). Jesus clearly asserts here that salvation rests on believing that He (as the Person of the Son; cf. vv. 16-18, 27) is the eternal God.

*See also: John 1:18; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 2:9 (theotētos); Heb. 1:3; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 5:13-14.[The Trinity: One God revealed in three distinct coequal and coeternal Persons].

The Holy Spirit is a Person and is called "God"​

The JWs teach that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah's "active force" and hence not a person. They liken the Holy Spirit to "electricity." However, the Holy Spirit cannot be anything other than a cognizant, self-aware person. The Holy Spirit has a personal relationship with the Father and Jesus, as well as all believers.

Holy Spirit is God: ​

Acts 5:3, 4: Ananias and Sapphira:
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received from the land?.. You have not lied to men but to God (emphasis added).
Lying to the Holy Spirit is equated with lying to God because He is God. You cannot lie to electricity or to a force. Only a person or self (egō) can be lied to. Also compare Acts 28:25-26 with Isaiah 6:ff. InIsaiah 6:1ff. Yahweh is said to be on the throne speaking through Isaiah (vv. 9-10), but Paul (in Acts 28:25-26) attributes the words of Yahweh to the Holy Spirit.

Holy Spirit Communicates​

NOTE: this is a great witnessing point for JWs (a force?)

· Acts 8:29
· Hebrews 3:7-11, 18; cf. Psalms 95:7-11


· Hebrews 10:15-17; cf. Jeremiah 31:33, 34.

Holy Spirit thinks Himself as “I†(egō): ​

Acts 13:2:
The Holy Spirit does not think of Himself as a merely “God’s activity,†rather the Holy Spirit identifies Himself as an “I,†that is, a Self-aware Ego:
While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, the three men are looking for you. But get up, go down stars and accompany them without misgivings, for I [egō] have sent them Myself†(Acts 10:19-20; emphasis added).

As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: "Of all persons set Bar'na-bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called [proskeklēmai] them. . . ." Accordingly these men, sent out by the holy spirit, went to down to Se-leu'cia, and from there they sailed away to Cy'prus (Acts 13:2, 4; NWT; emphasis added).

In this passage above (from their own Bible translation: NWT) we find that the Holy Spirit: Communicates. Can electricity do that?
Sometimes the JWs will argue that the "Holy Spirit" (hagion pneuma) is in the neuter gender. And this is true, but in Greek nouns do not necessarily indicate natural gender (e.g., "love" is feminine; "Infants," "children" and "girls" are neuter).

Personal Pronouns are applied to the Holy Spirit. ​

In John chapters 14 through 16 Jesus uses personal pronouns to refer the Holy Spirit:

“But when He [ekeinos],the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you†(John 16:13-14; emphasis added).

The Holy Spirit has Personal Attributes​

Will: 1 Corinthians 12:9-11.
Emotions: Ephesians 4:30.
Mind: 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Romans 8:27.
Intercedes (prays): Romans 8:26.
Can be lied to: Acts 5:3.
Can be blasphemed: Mark 3:29, 30.
Issues commands: Acts 13:4; Acts 16:6.

THE HOLY SPIRIT LOVES: ROMANS 15:30: ​

Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me (Rom. 15:30; emphasis added).

The Holy Spirit is Equal with the Father and the Son​

Mathew 28:19:
"Therefore go and make disciple of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…" (see also Acts 28:25-27; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18)

 

[theLords]

PREMISE THREE:
The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are DISTINCT.

Grammatical Considerations​

John 1:1: "and the Word was with God. . . . "
In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [pros]God, and the Word was God. (en archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos).
In the New Testament the word "with" ( pros), when referring to persons, indicates a relationship between distinct persons. Moreover, the Word was, pros ton theon, "with the God," which expresses the intimate, loving, relationship that the Word had with God the Father.


First and third person personal pronouns:

Throughout chapter 14, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father by using first person personal pronouns (“I,†“Me,†“Mineâ€) to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,†“Him,†“Hisâ€) to refer to His Father (e.g., John 14:7, 10, 16). This case of marked distinction is also evident when Jesus differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit:


“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon; see n. 42 below] Helper, that He may be with you forever†(John 14:16; also see 14:7, 10, 26; emphasis added).



Different prepositions:

Also spread though the NT, particularly in John chapters 14-16, Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different prepositions. This use of different prepositions “shows a relationship between them,†and clearly denotes essential distinction, e.g., “no one comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me†(John 14:6); “he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am going to [pros] the Father†(v. 12; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28). Paul too regularly uses different prepositions to clearly differentiate the Father from the Son. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul teaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit:
For through Him [di’ autou; the Son] we both have our access in [en] one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera] (Eph. 2:18).
The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are clearly differentiated in Matthew 28:19; and 2 Corinthians 13:14 as well.5

​

Subject--Object distinctions:

Simply, if Jesus and the Father were not distinct cognizant Persons, we would not expect to find a clear subject-object relationship between them:

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water . . . behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My [subject] beloved Son, [object] in whom I [subject] am well-pleased†(Matt. 3:16-17; emphasis added; see also, Matt. 17:5).

“I [subject] glorify You [object] on earth, having accomplished the work which You [object] have given Me [subject] to do†(John 17:4; see also Luke 23:34, 46).

The Father and the Son stand in an “Iâ€â€““You†relationship of each other; the Son refers to the Father as “You†and Himself as “I.†The Father likewise refers to Jesus as “You†and Himself as “I.†The Son personally relates to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the reverse is altogether true of the Father and the Holy Spirit relating to each other.

The Repetition of the Article:

In Matthew 28:19, the phrase: eis to onoma tou patros kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos, “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,†grammatically speaks for itself. Specifically, note the repetition of the article tou, “the†before each noun: tou patros, “the Father,†tou huiou, “the Son,†and tou hagiou pneumatos, “the Holy Spirit.†And each noun is connected by the connective conjunction kai, “and.†Thus, this type of construction (viz. Sharp #6) clearly denotes distinction between all three Persons named.
In Revelation 5:13 the Lamb and the Father are presented as two distinct objects of divine worship as they are clearly differentiated by the repetition of the article tō:
To Him [tō] who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb [kai tō arniō], be blessing and honor and glory and dominion for ever and ever (emphasis added).

Accordingly, Paul clearly presents the three Persons not as unipersonal, but as three distinct Persons:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ [tou kuriou Iēsou Christou], and [kai] the love of [the] God [tou theou], and [kai] the fellowship of the Holy Spirit [tou hagiou pneumatos] be with you all (2 Cor. 13:14).
There are many other passages where Sharp’s rule #6 applies, clearly denoting distinction between the three Persons in the Trinity (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 1 Thess. 3:1; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; 1 John 2:22-23). Further, turning to 1 John 1:3 again, not only does John show that believers have fellowship with BOTH the Father and the Son. But the Father and Son are clearly distinguished as two Persons by the repeated article tou, “the†and the repeated preposition meta, “withâ€

we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with [meta] us; and indeed our fellowship is with [meta] the Father [tou patros] and with [meta]His Son [tou huiou] Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3; emphasis added).
Additionally, there are numerous passages where different prepositions are used to differentiate the Persons of the Trinity (e.g., John 14:6, 12; 15:26; 16:28; Eph. 2:18).

John 17:5
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was†(emphasis added).

In Pauline salutations grammatically bespeaks the distinction of the Father and the Son. I Paul’s consciousness, the “grace†and “peace†flows equally from ( apo) both the Father and Son.

 

[theLords]

*NOTE: For more discussion on the ontological distinctions between the Persons of the Trinity see our section on Oneness theology.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, all three Persons SHARE the nature of the ONE BEING: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three Gods (i.e., tritheism) nor is Jesus his own Father (i.e., Modalism) they are DISTINCT ("the Word was WITH God" John 1:1).

RE-CAP​

PREMISE ONE: There exists ONE true GOD by nature.
PREMISE TWO: Scripture presents the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God.
PREMISE THREE: The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons or Selves, cognizant of each other. As well as existing in a loving fellowship with each other--even before time (cf. John 17:5).

CONCLUSION: The biblical data is clear: the three distinct Persons or Selves all share the nature of the ONE ETERNAL GOD.
By rejecting the God of the Bible, the JWs believe in a God that does not exist. Only the true God of Scripture exists. The Watchtower god cannot save anyone, it does not exist. They hold to a unitarian God (one Person) whereby rejecting the Triune God biblical revelation.
We need to pray that God will open their hearts and minds so they can understand who God is and the real Jesus Christ. Only He can provide salvation.
The doctrine of the Trinity did not originate at a fourth century council nor did it emerge from the Catholic Church. God reveals His nature (that He is a tri-personal Being) in the clear teaching of Scripture. We use the word "Trinity" to communicate the biblical data that is revealed in Scripture. If we allow the text to simply read for itself, then, we will not hold to prior theological commitments and unbiblical conclusions. We have God's Word, we our responsible for ascertaining the truth of the true God; there is no excuse:
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth (Isa. 40:28).

Jesus was clear:

"Unless you believe that I AM [egō eimi] you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).​

See my article: Objection to the Doctrine of the Trinity, wherein JWs desperately try to refute the doctrine. However as you will see along with Oneness Pentecostals, the JWs use the worst possible method of interpretation whereby torturing the text, coupled with philosophical assertions and logical fallacies. And like most all anti-Trinitarians they misrepresent and flat-out misquote church Fathers and Christian theologians.

​

​

Personal Loving Fellowship between the Persons of the Trinity​

“If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another [allos] who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true†(John 5:31-32; cf. 3:35; 10:17; 14:31).

Notes​

1, Frequently, the objection that is most forwarded, mainly from those who reject the Trinity, is pertaining to the word "Person." In defining the Trinity, the church Fathers would use "Persons" (not "people") in a less individualistic way, as we would use the term today. The churches in the West utilized persona (Latin) and the churches in the East- hupostasis (Greek). Reformation leader John Calvin put it this way: "By Person then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence...."

However, the usual analogy employed by the early church to illustrate the Trinity was the "psychological model- within the one body there exists an intellect, a heart and a will (e.g., St. Augustine). The word "Person" is used because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit possess personal attributes. Furthermore, personal pronouns are applied to them throughout Scripture. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are intellectual, emotional, self-aware subjects that have a loving, intimate, eternal relationship with (Gk. pros; as in John 1:1) each other.
2, Scripture is clear: there is only ONE TRUE GOD thus all other things called "God" are false Gods or by nature are not God (Gal. 4:8) as with angels (cf. Ps. 8:5 with Heb. 2:7). Jesus is called "a god" (in the NWT, John 1:1) and He is called "the God" in John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 (see the Watchtowers own Greek text: KIT). In light of this fact, the question to ask the JWs is: "Is Jesus a true God or a false God?" Either answer will be disastrous to their teachings.
3, A point that is often missed by the JWs is that Thomas addressed Jesus as, "the God" ( ho theos). Most JWs misguidedly say that only Jehovah is called "the God." But as seen above, along with John 20:28, "ho theos" is also applied to Jesus at Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:12 and Heb. 1:8 see the JWs own Greek text: Kingdom Interlinear Translation where they correctly translated these passages.
4, In Philippians 2:6 (NASB) the word translated "existed" (huparchōn) is a present tense participle that carries the meaning of continued existence. Jesus was always existing in the "form" (morphē) of God or as the NIV translates: "Who, being in very nature God." Jesus Christ is said to be the CREATOR of ALL THINGS and not just a part of creation as the JWs confidently assert (cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2, 10).
5, However the JWs do believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct they reject though, that they are of the same substance: GOD (see Heb. 1:3, where Jesus is said to be the "exact representation" of God's substance or nature: charaktēr tes hypostaseōs).

​

copyright:©2009

Doctrine of the Trinity

OR

http://www.christiandefense.org/jw_doctrin.htm

 

[jasoncran]

gives ya headache.

i was a jw and well i didnt strive to understand God by logic and limited thinking. you cant without his divine assistance grasp what is in the bible.

the jws neither encourage reading the bible themselves. they , the tract society, will tell you what the bible says.

you wont grasp the trinity via logic alone. God has to show it to you.i was a non-trinitarian., when i repented i throw out all the jw thinking that i was taught that wasnt plainly in the bible.

 

[Asyncritus]

What attack? I was not addressing you, nor was I "discussing" anything with you, was I? The point, which you proved, is that Asyncritusios is using THEOLOGIANS to get his ideas and understanding from. Something that he explicitly condemns others for doing.

So, anyway, back on topic:

Lordosis

I don't get my views from theologians - as I said many times with reasons, I can't be bothered with the breed.

In case it slipped your notice, MOSES wrote Exodus 3 and 4. He is the one who says that the Angel of the Burning Bush is God.

I don't know if you classify him as a theologian - but I don't.

Stephen says the same thing too. Is he a theologian? Wouldn't have said so:

Acts 7.30 ¶ And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.
31 And when Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold, there came a voice of the Lord,
32 I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. And Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
33 And the Lord said unto him, Loose the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

So no theologians admitted here. Teddy's done a good job collecting opinions, though. Have a look.

 

[Asyncritus]

gives ya headache.

you wont grasp the trinity via logic alone.

Too true, jason, too true.

A good dose of theologians will help you get it, though!

 

[theLords]

Lordosis

I don't get my views from theologians - as I said many times with reasons, I can't be bothered with the breed.

In case it slipped your notice, MOSES wrote Exodus 3 and 4. He is the one who says that the Angel of the Burning Bush is God.

I don't know if you classify him as a theologian - but I don't.

Stephen says the same thing too. Is he a theologian? Wouldn't have said so:

Acts 7.30 ¶ And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.
31 And when Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold, there came a voice of the Lord,
32 I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. And Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
33 And the Lord said unto him, Loose the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

So no theologians admitted here. Teddy's done a good job collecting opinions, though. Have a look.

You're relying an a theologian every time you use Strong's, Vine's, and every other Hebrew/Greek reference as well as when you're checking out parrallel translations on bible.cc

You condemn one group of Christians, for something you do yourself. You condemn Christians with years of dedicated research and study. You then try to correct them. Kind of like that kid in class, with 30 credits to his name, that tries to teach or correct the Professor with the Ph.D

"The Angel of the Lord" is a title for God/Christ. It does not state that "an angel" is God.

(PS, per the ToS, you need to site what Bible translation you are using if it's not the KJV)

 

[Asyncritus]

Just a comment about the first 2 premises.

​

Premise one: There is one true God.

This is perfectly correct, and there is any amount of scripture to back it up..

Premise two: There are three Persons that are called God/Yahweh and presented ontologically (by nature) as God/Yahweh.

This is perfectly incorrect.

As shown in my post, there are many who are called God/YHWH.

Just to remind you: The Angel of the Bush is one, and there are others.

Ex 23.20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.

21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Note that he has the authority to forgive sins or not.

22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

Note: when the Angel speaks, it is as if I myself am speaking.

Is the Angel part of the trinity too?

Haven't you noticed how many times the prophets speak as if they are YHWH Himself?

 

[theLords]

As shown in my post, there are many who are called God/YHWH.

So God, the Jealous God, gives His worship, glory, praise, and authority to others?

You're a non-trinitarian who keeps espousing polytheism. You're giving non-trinitarians a bad name, bro.

Just to remind you: The Angel of the Bush is one, and there are others.

Ex 23.20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.

21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Note that he has the authority to forgive sins or not.

The Angel of the Lord is a title for God just as Jehovah Rapha. Using your line of "logic", Jehovah Rapha is another God.

22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

Note: when the Angel speaks, it is as if I myself am speaking.

This same line of reasoning is used in the Koran. Muhammed used it to force people to obey him. In Islam, obeying Muhammed is equal to obeying God. That, by default, makes Muhammed equal to God, but of course we know him as a mere false prophet.

Problematic, isn't it? When man usurps the power of God.

Is the Angel part of the trinity too?

Haven't you noticed how many times the prophets speak as if they are YHWH Himself?

The Angel of the Lord is nothing but a mere title for God. You don't need to do back flips to arrive at that conclusion, but your conclusion comes with a heavy, heavy set of baggage to rummage through and explain.

The prophets speak for YHVH, through the Holy Spirit, so yes it is most certainly YHVH Himself speaking because His Spirit is speaking.

(Judges 3:10) And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushanrishathaim.

(Judges 6:34) But the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet; and Abiezer was gathered after him.

(Judges 14:6) And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand: but he told not his father or his mother what he had done.

(1 Samuel 10:6) And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.

(1 Samuel 16:13) Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

(Ezekiel 11:5) And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them.