Doctrine of the Trinity

[jocor]

There is subordination within the Trinity.Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son,and the Son is subordinate to the Father.Although this does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity.

How can there be subordination within the trinity if all three persons are "co-equal"?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Jocor said;

I'm not sure why you still believe God kept translations pure after I just showed you the difference between the KJV and the translations preceding it as far as John 1:3 is concerned. We have the KJV reading "Easter" instead of "Passover"

You say Passover, I say Easter, one possible conclusion from that is you're Jewish and I Christian and another is you are legalistic and I live under Grace. In real time, however, it's petty.

in Acts 12:4. What happened there? We have almost all English translations of the OT using "the LORD" in place of the true Name of our Creator. Yahweh could have kept them pure, but He chose not to. I believe He expects us to study and restore that which was corrupted, especially His Name.

Having served eight years on three continents I became familiar with several languages. i.e. Muslim, Islamic believers are not the only people to believe in Allah. Yes, the Islamic Barbarians believe in Allah but one must be very careful how the word is used, how it is defined by each user.

For the Islamic Allah is a wicked beast willing that men, women and children have their heads severed and placed on stakes as warning to others. This Allah says one hundred and sixty-four times for the Islamic Believer to convert or to slaughter the Jewish believer and the follower of the Book, Christians.

And yet, to the Christian Arab, Allah is the Triune God.

In short, you are, once more, nit picking and exercising extreme legalism.

Here is just one example where modern translations disagree with each other:

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. KJV
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that testify: NASB
1Jn 5:7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. ASV

Sad, sad, sad, these are translated at different times in the history of the world and, yep, they are all in English but the issue is, if you ever want to witness true Evolution, look at the languages. Unlike blood and breath critters, languages do evolve and over short periods of time, no less. You will never earn your living in court.

 

[Free]

You are stuck on the English. He didn't say "God". Did he speak Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic? Neither of us can be certain although I personally believe he spoke Hebrew. However, the corresponding word for "God" in all three languages was also used for men. IMO, if Yahweh Himself could call men "elohim" or "theos", then so can Thomas, especially after seeing his Master back from the dead.



I am also arguing against the English and to the Greek.

Now, I am not sure if you're not following the discussion or being purposefully deceptive. You have clearly stated:

'I also believe as Thomas did that Yeshua is my Lord and my elohai. As I see it, Thomas didn't speak English. Therefore, he didn't say "GOD". I believe he said "elohai" or some other construct of "Elohim". "Elohim" was used of men and angels as well as for the one true Elohim, Yahweh. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to call Yeshua "elohai" or, in English, "my mighty one" or "my strength".'

'What words came out of Thomas' mouth? Neither of us knows for a fact what word he said that we translate as "God". It is merely my opinion of what he said. "God" is also an opinion, but obviously wrong since he didn't speak English. I am not the one trying to build a doctrine on an English word. I am just trying to show that there are other possible interpretations.'

'The Father didn't speak English either. He gave us those words in Hebrew and the Hebrew says He said, "elohim", not "God".' (In reference to Heb 1:9)

So we all can clearly see that you have indeed been arguing to the Hebrew, the non-existent Hebrew of the NT, and not the Greek. "God" is the main English translation of the Greek theos, which is used many times throughout the NT, and is acceptable. The only reason you do so is to purposely change the meaning of what the texts are clearly saying.

Two questions:
1) Do you believe in the inspiration of all of Scripture?
2) What basis do you have for ignoring grammar?

#1 - Yes (originals, not translations)
#2 - I try not to ever ignore grammar. You think I am ignoring "and", but I am just understanding its use in that verse differently. Since it cannot tie back into verse 8, it must tie back to the end of verse 9. The "Lord" in verse 10 is a reference to the last "God" mentioned in verse 9 (Yeshua's God - Yahweh). In my opinion, the author of Hebrews begins addressing himself to Yeshua's God in celebration of His power and immutability. Such power can sustain the throne and sceptre of Yeshua forever.

As to #2, you are ignoring the grammar. The "and" which begins Heb 1:10 links that verse back to what was said in verse 8, "But of the Son he says". Not to mention that the entire chapter is about who the Son is and his superiority. So there are zero grounds for you to argue that verses 10-12 are the writer of Hebrews speaking of the Father, unless you ignore grammar, as you have done. You are once again purposely changing the meaning of the text because you find it disagreeable to your position.

As to #1, since the writer of Hebrews applies a passage which clearly speaks of the Father, to the Son, even saying that the Father said it, you must agree that that was inspired by God. This then contradicts what you have been saying. Not to mention that even though it was a man that wrote that passage in Psalms 102, it was inspired by God, so it is not incorrect to say that the Father has said those things of the Son, as the writer of Hebrews does.

Yeshua was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8). He was in the Father's plan of salvation in His mind. Yahweh foreknew him before the world was created (1Pe 1:20).
All believers were in that plan in His mind as well (Eph 1:4). I understand these verses to teach that Yeshua and all believers were foreknown by the Father before anything was created and came into existed (were manifested) at the appointed time.

This is a serious error in reasoning. You are presuming that foreknowledge means that the Son was not already in existence. The burden of proof is on you to show how this is the case.

As I understand the trinity doctrine, it states the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons. Yet, Isaiah 44:24 says Yahweh created "by myself". There was no other person helping Him. Isaiah 45:12 says "my hands" stretched out the heavens. There were no other hands helping Him. Other verses say Yahweh "spoke" and things were created. One person spoke. How do you harmonize these verses with three persons? Did three persons create using six hands and three mouths?

Again, you are reading an idea of the nature of God into the text. Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, but three persons within the one Being that is God. This is what Scripture shows and why the passages you give above do not cause any issue for Trinitarianism. The one God, Yahweh, is speaking. They say absolutely nothing about the nature of God, nothing about whether or not he is triune. Stop reading things into the text that are not there.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Jocor said;

He did not preach to anyone while he was dead those three days. The "spirits in prison" refers to those fallen angels mentioned in 2Pe 2:4 and Jude 1:6 who were alive during Yeshua's earthly ministry. He obviously preached to them through the power of the Holy Spirit while he was yet alive. Once a person dies he knows nothing (Eccl 9:5). I do not see a "God" part of Yeshua that did not die. If that was true, then the Son did not really die.

Uuuuuuu, uuuuuuuuu, uuuuuuuuuu, forgive me JLB but from my first read this passage has been one of my favorite passages and subjects;

Matt. 27:51 And behold, [Ex. 26:31-33; 2 Chr. 3:14] the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And [ver. 54] the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of [Dan. 7:18, 22] the saints [John 11:11-13; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 15:6, 18, 20; 1 Thess. 4:13-15; 2 Pet. 3:4] who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into [See ch. 4:5] the holy city and appeared to many. 54 For [ver. 54-56, see Mark 15:39-41; Luke 23:47, 49] When the centurion and those who were with him, [ver. 36] keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, [ver. 43] “Truly this was the Son of God!” (ESV with chain reference) [\quote]
Honest now, are you a baby Christian?

 

[jocor]

Jocor said;
You say Passover, I say Easter, one possible conclusion from that is you're Jewish and I Christian and another is you are legalistic and I live under Grace. In real time, however, it's petty.

You declared all translations are pure and in agreement. I gave you Acts 12:4 as an example of an "impure" translation. The Greek has "pascha" meaning "Passover". Passover is the day of Messiah's death. Easter is the erroneous day of his resurrection. "Easter" didn't even exist in Messiah's day. Petty? Not to a truth seeker.

In short, you are, once more, nit picking and exercising extreme legalism.


Sad, sad, sad, these are translated at different times in the history of the world and, yep, they are all in English but the issue is, if you ever want to witness true Evolution, look at the languages. Unlike blood and breath critters, languages do evolve and over short periods of time, no less. You will never earn your living in court.

If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

 

[Kathi]

How can there be subordination within the trinity if all three persons are "co-equal"?

5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son seeLuke 22:42,John 5:36,John 20:21, and1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit seeJohn 14:16,14:26,15:26,16:7, and especiallyJohn 16:13-14.

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html#ixzz3JH3AHhRf

 

[jocor]

Now, I am not sure if you're not following the discussion or being purposefully deceptive. You have clearly stated:

'I also believe as Thomas did that Yeshua is my Lord and my elohai. As I see it, Thomas didn't speak English. Therefore, he didn't say "GOD". I believe he said "elohai" or some other construct of "Elohim". "Elohim" was used of men and angels as well as for the one true Elohim, Yahweh. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to call Yeshua "elohai" or, in English, "my mighty one" or "my strength".'

'What words came out of Thomas' mouth? Neither of us knows for a fact what word he said that we translate as "God". It is merely my opinion of what he said. "God" is also an opinion, but obviously wrong since he didn't speak English. I am not the one trying to build a doctrine on an English word. I am just trying to show that there are other possible interpretations.'

'The Father didn't speak English either. He gave us those words in Hebrew and the Hebrew says He said, "elohim", not "God".' (In reference to Heb 1:9)

So we all can clearly see that you have indeed been arguing to the Hebrew, the non-existent Hebrew of the NT, and not the Greek. "God" is the main English translation of the Greek theos, which is used many times throughout the NT, and is acceptable. The only reason you do so is to purposely change the meaning of what the texts are clearly saying.

Heb 1:9 is a quote of a verse in Hebrew. It is the Hebrew that matters.
Just because we have Thomas' words in Greek does not mean he spoke Greek.

Assuming the Jewish Thomas spoke Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic, you need to prove he said "theos" because he thought Yeshua was his God, the God of Israel.

As to #2, you are ignoring the grammar. The "and" which begins Heb 1:10 links that verse back to what was said in verse 8, "But of the Son he says". Not to mention that the entire chapter is about who the Son is and his superiority. So there are zero grounds for you to argue that verses 10-12 are the writer of Hebrews speaking of the Father, unless you ignore grammar, as you have done. You are once again purposely changing the meaning of the text because you find it disagreeable to your position.

How can you possibly argue that it is linked to "But of the Son he says" if the "he" in "he says" refers to the Father, but the Father did NOT speak the words in verses 10-12??? Who is changing the meaning?

As to #1, since the writer of Hebrews applies a passage which clearly speaks of the Father, to the Son, even saying that the Father said it, you must agree that that was inspired by God. This then contradicts what you have been saying. Not to mention that even though it was a man that wrote that passage in Psalms 102, it was inspired by God, so it is not incorrect to say that the Father has said those things of the Son, as the writer of Hebrews does.

Well, if you believe those are the Father's words, I can't help you. You might as well believe in Santa Claus.

This is a serious error in reasoning. You are presuming that foreknowledge means that the Son was not already in existence. The burden of proof is on you to show how this is the case.

As I understand the word "foreknowledge", it means you have knowledge of something beforehand. 1Pe 1:20 says Yahweh foreknew His Son before the foundation of the world. If the Son always existed, then the Father always knew him. He cannot have known him beforehand unless he didn't exist yet. A being cannot exist before he comes to exist. Yeshua came into existence at his conception.

Again, you are reading an idea of the nature of God into the text. Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, but three persons within the one Being that is God. This is what Scripture shows and why the passages you give above do not cause any issue for Trinitarianism. The one God, Yahweh, is speaking. They say absolutely nothing about the nature of God, nothing about whether or not he is triune. Stop reading things into the text that are not there.

The text says "by myself". The simple understanding of 'by myself" is alone/one person. You want to read into the text three persons and then you accuse me of reading into the text!??

 

[jocor]

5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son seeLuke 22:42,John 5:36,John 20:21, and1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit seeJohn 14:16,14:26,15:26,16:7, and especiallyJohn 16:13-14.

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html#ixzz3JH3AHhRf

How about answering my question yourself since the link you provided couldn't answer it? Whenever a trinitarian cannot answer a question it is because we have finite minds that can't comprehend such a deep subject as the trinity. Either that or it is proclaimed a mystery. If the trinity is such an incomprehensible doctrine, why do people's salvation depend on accepting it?

 

[th1b.taylor]

You declared all translations are pure and in agreement. I gave you Acts 12:4 as an example of an "impure" translation. The Greek has "pascha" meaning "Passover". Passover is the day of Messiah's death. Easter is the erroneous day of his resurrection. "Easter" didn't even exist in Messiah's day. Petty? Not to a truth seeker.

You are driving hard for an all guns mounted and loaded shoot out young man and that is, absolutely not allowed on a Christian Forum and the best shot you have is to lay all pride down and converse as Christians do.

If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

Are you serious? I said;

He did not preach to anyone while he was dead those three days. The "spirits in prison" refers to those fallen angels mentioned in 2Pe 2:4 and Jude 1:6 who were alive during Yeshua's earthly ministry. He obviously preached to them through the power of the Holy Spirit while he was yet alive. Once a person dies he knows nothing (Eccl 9:5). I do not see a "God" part of Yeshua that did not die. If that was true, then the Son did not really die.

I did give some unsolicited advise about your career opportunities but I attacked not, I despise ad homonym attacks. But I will ask again in a different form, how long have you been saved?

 

[jocor]

You are driving hard for an all guns mounted and loaded shoot out young man and that is, absolutely not allowed on a Christian Forum and the best shot you have is to lay all pride down and converse as Christians do.

Are you serious? I said;
I did give some unsolicited advise about your career opportunities but I attacked not, I despise ad homonym attacks. But I will ask again in a different form, how long have you been saved?

30 years this coming January 1, 2015

 

[Gregg]

I did not say the Word was God the Father. the logos/word, as I understand it, is Yahweh's spoken words and thoughts. They were with Him in the beginning.

The Word is a personification of the Son of God.

So, you are telling me that the preexistent Son was existing as God the Father?? What happened to three separate persons?? Does this symbol of the trinity contradict your words?

My apologies. I meant to say: "in the form of God" can mean nothing less than He existed as God as did [bold added] God the Father. It also says that He has equality with God.

Yeshua said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Yeshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent."

Yeshua, in his prayer to his Father, referred to his Father as the only true God. He then referred to himself as the one sent by the only true God. To me, that means Yeshua was saying he was not the only true God.

That statement by Jesus does exclude Himself as God, or the true God. John does call both the Father and the Son the true God; "And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an understanding that we may know the true One, and we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the life everlasting" (1Jn 5:20 LITV). "true God" is nearest in the Greek word order to Jesus Christ, stating that Jesus is the true God. This does not exclude the Father from being the true God, but here states that Jesus is the true God. The Father and the Son and their Holy Spirit are together one God.

 

[th1b.taylor]

30 years this coming January 1, 2015

Then someone has led you down a very legalistic path and that is not the Holy Spirit. Sure, against every deluded person in this world, God will condemn those that have stuck their noses in the air at God's Grace and He will judge them with a Rod of Iron just as during the Millennial Rein He will rule the world but God has a great grace that has been lost on you.

Romans 1:1-5
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

This and a complete study on Grace can be found at http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/grace-bible-verses/

 

[jocor]

The Word is a personification of the Son of God.

That is one interpretation. I have shown another that was supported by all believers for many years until the KJV came along.

That statement by Jesus does exclude Himself as God, or the true God. John does call both the Father and the Son the true God; "And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an understanding that we may know the true One, and we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the life everlasting" (1Jn 5:20 LITV). "true God" is nearest in the Greek word order to Jesus Christ, stating that Jesus is the true God. This does not exclude the Father from being the true God, but here states that Jesus is the true God. The Father and the Son and their Holy Spirit are together one God.

IMO, to make Yeshua the true God based on this verse is to deny his words in John 17:3. It doesn't matter to me what you think John is saying here. What matters is what Yeshua said. He said his Father is the ONLY (sole, single) true God. In Greek grammar, the nearest antecedent is not alway the correct antecedent. In 1 John 5:20, the context is speaking about the Father being true. That makes "his" the antecedent, not "Jesus Christ".

 

[jocor]

Then someone has led you down a very legalistic path and that is not the Holy Spirit.

How am I being legalistic? By revealing incorrect translations?

Sure, against every deluded person in this world, God will condemn those that have stuck their noses in the air at God's Grace and He will judge them with a Rod of Iron just as during the Millennial Rein He will rule the world but God has a great grace that has been lost on you.
This and a complete study on Grace can be found at http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/grace-bible-verses/

How am I sticking my nose in the air at God's grace? Am I condemning trinitarians or are trinitarians condemning me? Who are the graceless ones? Trinitarians condemn everyone who rejects the trinity doctrine. To them, salvation is not by grace through faith, but by believing the trinity doctrine. Thanks for giving me that link, but you need to give it to them.

 

[Butch5]

The Trinity is a profound concept, although the term is not found in the Bible.

It's critical that our God is One God (Deut. 6:4), lest we become like the other religions of the world which are false; and yet He is made up of 3 distinct entities: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I think of our own make-up. Humans are made up of body, soul and spirit and are yet one (1 Thess. 5:23). We are made in the image of God.

I think of love. The Trinity allows for community and love within God Himself. This confirms 1 John 4:8 which states that "God is love." If God was a singular entity then how could He have love within Himself apart from creation? Because of the Trinity though, God was already the source of love before He ever created man. The Trinity allows for love to be intrinsic to God.

I think of the fact that God is comfortable referring to Himself as "Us." See Genesis 1:26, Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7, Isaiah 6:8. Why should we be uncomfortable referring to Him in a like manner?

I also think of the instances in which we see the Trinity at work in a single moment...

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High (Father) will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." - Luke 1:35

21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice (Father) came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” - Luke 3:21-22

We also see the make-up of the Trinity referred to by Jesus and the Apostles:

(Jesus said) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... - Matt 28:19

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. - 2 Cor 13:14

For through Him (Jesus) we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. - Eph 2:18


All of this points to 3 conclusions:
1. There is only one God.
2. God is three persons.
3. Each person is fully God.

The Trinity has personally touched my heart in the area of prayer. For a long time I pictured my prayer time as one-on-one time with "God." I have come to realize now, that as I pray I am enveloped into the divine presence of the family of the Trinity. I am accessing the love of the Father in Jesus by the Holy Spirit.

Hi Andrew,

You said, "yet He is made up of 3 distinct entities: Father, Son and Holy Spirit." He is first person singular, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is are three, that doesn't work logically. I think this is the reason some reject the idea of the Trinity. What is typically explained as the Trinity simply doesn't work. Let me ask you a question, what is "He" that consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

I think the Scriptures are pretty clear and they don't allow for this modern idea of the Trinity.

 

[Butch5]

How can there be subordination within the trinity if all three persons are "co-equal"?

Hi jocor,

They aren't coequal. That idea of the Trinity, that there are three coequal persons of the Trinity came into the Church around the 400's AD. around the time of Augustine.

 

[Kathi]

How about answering my question yourself since the link you provided couldn't answer it? Whenever a trinitarian cannot answer a question it is because we have finite minds that can't comprehend such a deep subject as the trinity. Either that or it is proclaimed a mystery. If the trinity is such an incomprehensible doctrine, why do people's salvation depend on accepting it?

Do you believe in the Trinity?

 

[Butch5]

How am I being legalistic? By revealing incorrect translations?



How am I sticking my nose in the air at God's grace? Am I condemning trinitarians or are trinitarians condemning me? Who are the graceless ones? Trinitarians condemn everyone who rejects the trinity doctrine. To them, salvation is not by grace through faith, but by believing the trinity doctrine. Thanks for giving me that link, but you need to give it to them.

Hi jocor,

It might be of interest to look into the original teaching of the Trinity. What is taught today as the Trinity is a logical contradiction, that being one person is three persons. The original understanding of the Trinity makes sense, is logical, and can account for all of the Scriptures that deal with the subject.

 

[Free]

Heb 1:9 is a quote of a verse in Hebrew. It is the Hebrew that matters.
Just because we have Thomas' words in Greek does not mean he spoke Greek.

Assuming the Jewish Thomas spoke Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic, you need to prove he said "theos" because he thought Yeshua was his God, the God of Israel.

Hebrews 1:9 was written in Greek. The NT, which includes what Thomas said, was written in Greek. I don't need to prove anything because what we have is all Greek. It is completely irrelevant as to what language Thomas actually spoke in and that Heb 1:9 is a quote from the Hebrew. If the NT is inspired, and it is, and the NT was originally written in Greek, and it was, then that means what every NT writer quotes from the OT and what Thomas said, theos, is what was inspired. How can you not see that?

You are simply dodging and evading the real issue and have given nothing but unsubstantiated opinion simply on the basis that you find the deity of Jesus and the Trinity disagreeable. You are twisting Scripture to fit your own erroneous theology and in the process are undermining the authority of Scripture.

As to #2, you are ignoring the grammar. The "and" which begins Heb 1:10 links that verse back to what was said in verse 8, "But of the Son he says". Not to mention that the entire chapter is about who the Son is and his superiority. So there are zero grounds for you to argue that verses 10-12 are the writer of Hebrews speaking of the Father, unless you ignore grammar, as you have done. You are once again purposely changing the meaning of the text because you find it disagreeable to your position.

How can you possibly argue that it is linked to "But of the Son he says" if the "he" in "he says" refers to the Father, but the Father did NOT speak the words in verses 10-12??? Who is changing the meaning?

I have changed nothing. You are ignoring the clear context and grammar. The plain reading of the text, which is how it should be read, links verses 10-12 to verse 8 and 9. The Father is continuing to speak of the Son. You just don't like what it plainly says.

As to #1, since the writer of Hebrews applies a passage which clearly speaks of the Father, to the Son, even saying that the Father said it, you must agree that that was inspired by God. This then contradicts what you have been saying. Not to mention that even though it was a man that wrote that passage in Psalms 102, it was inspired by God, so it is not incorrect to say that the Father has said those things of the Son, as the writer of Hebrews does.

Well, if you believe those are the Father's words, I can't help you. You might as well believe in Santa Claus.

Please quit dodging and actually address the argument.

As I understand the word "foreknowledge", it means you have knowledge of something beforehand. 1Pe 1:20 says Yahweh foreknew His Son before the foundation of the world. If the Son always existed, then the Father always knew him. He cannot have known him beforehand unless he didn't exist yet. A being cannot exist before he comes to exist. Yeshua came into existence at his conception.

Look at the context of 1 Peter 1:20:

1Pe 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
1Pe 1:20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
1Pe 1:21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (ESV)

It is speaking, again, of the plan of salvation for man. Regardless, there are plenty of passages in the NT which explicitly and implicitly state the eternal preexistence of Jesus. To ignore these and argue to a single verse, or even twenty others, is to take things out of context. This is the most prolific error made by anti-Trinitarians.

The text says "by myself". The simple understanding of 'by myself" is alone/one person. You want to read into the text three persons and then you accuse me of reading into the text!??

Please reread what I actually wrote, then respond.

 

[Free]

Hi jocor,

It might be of interest to look into the original teaching of the Trinity. What is taught today as the Trinity is a logical contradiction, that being one person is three persons.

Nice straw man. If you are going to debate the Trinity, at least present it properly--not one person is three persons or one God is three Gods--three persons in the one being that is God.