What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

An Open Debate on the Trinity with JLB

wondering said:
Again,,,there is not ONE GOD IN 3 PERSONS....
There are 3 PERSONS IN ONE GOD.
We've gone through this already.
I explained the difference, which, actually, should require no explanation because the way you state it, there are 3 Gods and not just 1.

The scriptures speak of God Father, God Son, God The Holy Spirit.
I mentioned Matthew 28:19 JESUS said to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I mentioned the Baptism of Jesus when all 3 were present.
1 John 5:6-7 speaks of the Father, the Son and the Spirit
Acts 2:33 mentions God Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Himself
John 14:26 JESUS mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit

It's important to understand that the Trinity was not immediately understood right after the death of Christ...
but the writings of the Early Fathers picked up on this important theme and clarified it at the Council of Nicea when Arius was declaring Jesus to be only a human, and not God.

If Jesus, as THE SON and 2nd person of the Trinity was born...then Arius was right.
Jesus was born....
THE SON was begotten.

The bible was written in Greek...not in English.

Why do we often "go to the Greek" except when it doesn't suit us?


I've given both verses and links....
If Jesus was born...then He is not eternal and God is eternal...



The Bible tells us that Jesus is the “only begotten” Son of God: he is unique in his class; there is no other person who shares this exact same relationship with God the Father. Jesus is the begotten Son; we are adopted children.

Scripture uses the terms “Father” and “Son” to describe in human terms that eternal, mysterious relationship, and that is indeed right. But it is wrong to suppose that our human ability to understand what it is to be a father or a son would fully and completely describe the relationship between the first and the second persons of the Holy Trinity.

Begotten describes a relationship...not a birth.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if it's 3 in 1 or 1 in 3, both are wrong. Sure there are passages that mention, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but none of them say there is three persons in one God.

You mention that the doctrine was developed later. So, are we supposed to believe a doctrine that was developed years after the Scriptures were written, by men who weren't taught by the apostles, whose teaching on the subject runs counter to Scripture and what came before?

Firstly, you're assuming that there are three persons. Please show from Scripture where we have three persons. If you can't establish that then your entire argument falls apart.

I've already shown that the ECF's didn't hold this Trinity doctrine. If the people you're reading are claiming otherwise you might want to stop reading them. They didn't hold to it. We can see this easily in the Nicene Creed. The Creed says that Jesus is God out of God. They said that Jesus came out of God. If He came out of God then He didn't always exist as a separate Son. The Creed also say nothing at all about a 1 in 3 God. There's nothing there. It doesn't even call the Holy Spirit God.

Regarding beget, we can forget all about the English word. I gave you the Hebrew and the Greek words. The both mean to give birth, to be born.
 
wondering said:
You didn't answer my question.
I ask it because I can't understand your position.
The above sounds OK....
But sometimes you make it sound like The Son was created.

Where was the 2nd person of the Trinity while Jesus was on earth?
The 2nd person was in heaven...where he belongs. He did not abandon His post.
The Word was still with God and the Logos was with God.
Click to expand...
Do you understand His position?
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"


I state likewise. You can not accept my position.

I didn't read Jesus was separated from the Father.
I read, "the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him" - from the will of another at a point in history before the word began.

Jesus is the firstborn of all things created.

The Father created through Him.
all things were created through Him and for Him.

The deity in Jesus is not Jesus's but the Fathers. By that deity Jesus is all that the Father is. (God) and one with the Father.

The works Jesus performed show that the Father is in Him and they are one. Because apart from the Father Jesus could do nothing.
 
wondering said:
Again....
The Son
The 2nd Person of the Trinity
IS THE LOGOS.

Logos means the actual word of God...it's what God thinks and speaks.
Logos also means the mind of God.
you
Jesus is THE WORD, THE LOGOS, of God. The Son, The 2nd Person.
God's Word always existed....
God's "mind" always existed....
It was never created.

Jesus is the incarnate WORD OF GOD. (in Person form)
The Word always existed.

In the beginning was THE WORD
and The Word was WITH GOD
and the Word WAS GOD. John 1:1
and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us John 1:14

No man has seen God at any time,
the only begotten God, who is in the bossom of the Father...
He (Jesus) has explained Him (God). John 1:18
Click to expand...
This argument isn't logical. Jesus isn't God's mind. Why are you so adamant about a 5th century doctrine that is contrary to Scripture?
 
Butch5 said:
It doesn't matter if it's 3 in 1 or 1 in 3, both are wrong. Sure there are passages that mention, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but none of them say there is three persons in one God.
Click to expand...

Butch, the difference is huge. I can't say anything more.
1 in 3 means there are 3 Gods...I've stated this more than once. It's easily understandable.

As to the verses I've posed that mention Father, Son and Holy Spirit....
if it's not ONE GOD
then we're pantheists.

I'm not saying we must understand the Trinity,,but we must accept it to be called a Christian.

Butch5 said:
You mention that the doctrine was developed later. So, are we supposed to believe a doctrine that was developed years after the Scriptures were written, by men who weren't taught by the apostles, whose teaching on the subject runs counter to Scripture and what came before?
Click to expand...

Uffa.
I'm going to stop because I just can't continue with this.
The Trinity took time to develop.....but it was understood from the BEGINNING, after Jesus death, that He was God incarnate. The ECFs mention this. If I have time, I'll get some quotes from them.

Anyway, the BIBLE should be sufficient without quotes from other persons...but they WERE TAUGHT by the Apostles and they DID put together the N.T.

I thought you knew this.

None of their doctrine regarding the Trinity runs counter to scripture.
It is only CLARIFIED because heretics were teaching that Jesus was not God.

Butch5 said:
Firstly, you're assuming that there are three persons. Please show from Scripture where we have three persons. If you can't establish that then your entire argument falls apart.
Click to expand...

I've listed a lot of scripture...there's much more.
Will it make a difference?
John 14:16
2 Corinthians 1:22-23
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
Hebrews 9:14

and many more that mention the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in one verse...

Butch5 said:
I've already shown that the ECF's didn't hold this Trinity doctrine. If the people you're reading are claiming otherwise you might want to stop reading them.
Click to expand...

I don't read people.
I learned my theology from two different denominations that happily agreed on most doctrine.
Maybe YOU should attend a good bible study at a good teaching church?
And make sure everything matches with scripture.

Butch5 said:
They didn't hold to it. We can see this easily in the Nicene Creed. The Creed says that Jesus is God out of God. They said that Jesus came out of God. If He came out of God then He didn't always exist as a separate Son. The Creed also say nothing at all about a 1 in 3 God. There's nothing there. It doesn't even call the Holy Spirit God.
Click to expand...
The church split in 1,000AD regarding the Holy Spirit. I thought you knew church history.
It's the Filioque, you could look it up.

The Nicene Creed, as I've stated before, states:
BEGOTTEN NOT MADE.

Begotten does NOT mean made/born/created.
If not, it must mean something else ....... I've sent links too.

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and Son) is He also not God?



Here it is again:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


Butch5 said:
Regarding beget, we can forget all about the English word. I gave you the Hebrew and the Greek words. The both mean to give birth, to be born.
Click to expand...
OK
 
Butch5 said:
This argument isn't logical. Jesus isn't God's mind. Why are you so adamant about a 5th century doctrine that is contrary to Scripture?
Click to expand...
You brought up the 5th century --- not me.
Jesus isn't God's mind.
What does LOGOS mean?
Where does THE WORD OF GOD come from? (some other part of His "body"?)

The word begins in the mind....God
It becomes word....Jesus
It is spoken....Spirit (breath)
 
Mary conceived Jesus through pregnancy.
But conceived also means "form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind."
This makes it easy to understand that God had to come to earth as a human being to save the world.
Yes, it was and is God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
wondering said:
Butch, the difference is huge. I can't say anything more.
1 in 3 means there are 3 Gods...I've stated this more than once. It's easily understandable.

thi
if it's not ONE GOD
then we're pantheists.

I'm not saying we must understand the Trinity,,but we must accept it to be called a Christian.
Click to expand...
The difference may be huge, but it's irrelevant. Both ideas are wrong.

So, it's your position that one has to believe a doctrine that you admit the early Christians didn't know must be believed. If that's the case then there were many believers who couldn't be called Christians in the early church. CAn you show me where Scripture says one must believe this to be called a Christian? The were first called Christians at Antioch, long before there was any Trinity doctrine. That shoots down the idea that one must believe this doctrine to be called a Christian.
wondering said:
Uffa.
I'm going to stop because I just can't continue with this.
The Trinity took time to develop.....but it was understood from the BEGINNING, after Jesus death, that He was God incarnate. The ECFs mention this. If I have time, I'll get some quotes from them.

Anyway, the BIBLE should be sufficient without quotes from other persons...but they WERE TAUGHT by the Apostles and they DID put together the N.T.
I thought you knew this.

None of their doctrine regarding the Trinity runs counter to scripture.
It is only CLARIFIED because heretics were teaching that Jesus was not God.
Click to expand...
You're conflating two idea to try to make your point. That's fallacious. Yes, they acknowledged Jesus' deity. however, they didn't teach a 1 in 3 God. As I've pointed out several times now, the apostle Paul said, 'to us there is one God, the Father'. If Paul said, that to Christians the Father is the one God, why are you arguing that it is a 1 in 3 God? However, you understand Jesus' Deity, it can't run in opposition to the apostle. Your 1 in 3 concept is in opposition to the apostle.

Sure it runs counter to the Trinity idea. I've shown that from their own words.
wondering said:
I've listed a lot of scripture...there's much more.
Will it make a difference?
John 14:16
2 Corinthians 1:22-23
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
Hebrews 9:14

and many more that mention the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in one verse...
Click to expand...
Just because the Bible speaks of the, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, doesn't necessitate that they are three different persons. You assume that because you already believe that. Because you believe they are three person you automatically assume that when you see the names. Stop and ask yourself, "can I prove from Scripture that they are three different persons"?

They're not. There are two persons. The Father and the Son.
wondering said:
I don't read people.
I learned my theology from two different denominations that happily agreed on most doctrine.
Maybe YOU should attend a good bible study at a good teaching church?
And make sure everything matches with scripture.
Click to expand...
You don't read people? What were the links you were posting then? Just because people agree on something doesn't mean it's right. Look how many denominations believe that you can't lose salvation and how many believe you can.
wondering said:
The church split in 1,000AD regarding the Holy Spirit. I thought you knew church history.
It's the Filioque, you could look it up.

The Nicene Creed, as I've stated before, states:
BEGOTTEN NOT MADE.

Begotten does NOT mean made/born/created.
If not, it must mean something else ....... I've sent links too.

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and Son) is He also not God?



Here it is again:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.



OK
Click to expand...
What the church believed about the Holy Spirit in 1000 AD has no bearing at all on the Nicene Creed. Again, I gave you the Hebrew and the Greek words and both mean to give birth or be born. Whatever claims you want to make about beget feel free. The Hebrew and Greek words mean to be born
 
Butch5 said:
The difference may be huge, but it's irrelevant. Both ideas are wrong.

So, it's your position that one has to believe a doctrine that you admit the early Christians didn't know must be believed. If that's the case then there were many believers who couldn't be called Christians in the early church. CAn you show me where Scripture says one must believe this to be called a Christian? The were first called Christians at Antioch, long before there was any Trinity doctrine. That shoots down the idea that one must believe this doctrine to be called a Christian.

You're conflating two idea to try to make your point. That's fallacious. Yes, they acknowledged Jesus' deity. however, they didn't teach a 1 in 3 God. As I've pointed out several times now, the apostle Paul said, 'to us there is one God, the Father'. If Paul said, that to Christians the Father is the one God, why are you arguing that it is a 1 in 3 God? However, you understand Jesus' Deity, it can't run in opposition to the apostle. Your 1 in 3 concept is in opposition to the apostle.

Sure it runs counter to the Trinity idea. I've shown that from their own words.

Just because the Bible speaks of the, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, doesn't necessitate that they are three different persons. You assume that because you already believe that. Because you believe they are three person you automatically assume that when you see the names. Stop and ask yourself, "can I prove from Scripture that they are three different persons"?

They're not. There are two persons. The Father and the Son.

You don't read people? What were the links you were posting then? Just because people agree on something doesn't mean it's right. Look how many denominations believe that you can't lose salvation and how many believe you can.

What the church believed about the Holy Spirit in 1000 AD has no bearing at all on the Nicene Creed. Again, I gave you the Hebrew and the Greek words and both mean to give birth or be born. Whatever claims you want to make about beget feel free. The Hebrew and Greek words mean to be born
Click to expand...
Since none of us speak Hebrew or Greek, why should we believe you?
What credentials do you have?
Show us.
 
Butch5 said:
Here's an Online Hebrew interlinear Bible. It's the last word in verse 7. If you click on the word you'll get the definition.

Psalms 2 with Book Summary - Interlinear Study Bible - StudyLight.org

Read and study Psalms 2 in the original language with the Interlinear Study Bible on StudyLight.org
www.studylight.org www.studylight.org
Click to expand...
I don't think an interlinear study Bible is a good thing.
I will stick with my Bible (Thompson Chain Reference 1984).
Reasons against an interlinear Bible;
1. You are actually reading English and the Greek words that go with it, not the other way around.
Which word goes with which Greek word is difficult to tell.
2. Verbs get mixed up.
example; he runs, he is running
They both mean the same to us but not in the Greek
3. It becomes a crutch.
As we use it for our answers, our knowledge fades and the crutch increases.
What I know comes from God.
I'm gonna leave it that way.
 
Lexicons;
All a lexicon really does is it enables translation and reading - not interpretation.
A thesaurus is better for beginners.
Translate your answers using a thesaurus and I'll probably understand, if what you say is truth.
A thesaurus goes well beyond one word substitutes.
Discovering word substitutes is what standard lexicons do for you.
That isn't word study.
 
Rollo Tamasi said:
I don't think an interlinear study Bible is a good thing.
I will stick with my Bible (Thompson Chain Reference 1984).
Reasons against an interlinear Bible;
1. You are actually reading English and the Greek words that go with it, not the other way around.
Which word goes with which Greek word is difficult to tell.
2. Verbs get mixed up.
example; he runs, he is running
They both mean the same to us but not in the Greek
3. It becomes a crutch.
As we use it for our answers, our knowledge fades and the crutch increases.
What I know comes from God.
I'm gonna leave it that way.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You didn't accept what I said. You don't accept an interlinaer Bible. You don't read Hebrew or Greek. Why did you even bother to address my post?
 
Butch5 said:
Seriously? You didn't accept what I said. You don't accept an interlinaer Bible. You don't read Hebrew or Greek. Why did you even bother to address my post?
Click to expand...
I gave you reasons why your answers are not acceptable.
You think because you've been on this forum for 9 years that we are suppose to just accept what you say is true?
Who are you, anyway?
 
Rollo Tamasi said:
I gave you reasons why your answers are not acceptable.
You think because you've been on this forum for 9 years that we are suppose to just accept what you say is true?
Who are you, anyway?
Click to expand...
I never said anything about how long I've been here or that anyone was supposed to believe me. What you gave me were excuses to dismiss the evidence. It's not hard for anyone to look up the Greek and Hebrew words. Unless of course one doesn't want to because it challenges their beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top